Sitting of 9 December 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions

  NATO Capabilities
  Mr. Brian Jenkins: What progress has been made to improve defence capabilities among NATO countries. [83956]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): NATO's defence capabilities initiative, launched at the Washington summit in 1999, has made good progress in a number of areas. To continue this progress, a new initiative—the Prague capabilities commitment, or PCC—was launched at the Prague summit on 21 and 22 November, focusing on improvements in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence, information superiority, combat-effectiveness, and deployability and sustainability. Allies have made firm political commitments to improve their capabilities in each of those areas.
  Mr. Jenkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, particularly the part about the expansion of the capabilities of our NATO allies, but we have heard all of it before. We heard it at the end of the Washington summit. What is the vital difference between the
  2
  Washington proposals and the Prague proposals, and can my right hon. Friend assure us that the capabilities and capacities of our NATO allies will match our record?
  Hon. Members:Hear, hear.
  Mr. Hoon: I am pleased to see my hon. Friend receiving so much support.
  The Washington defence capabilities initiative was an important step in the transformation of NATO, but I agree that, with hindsight, it could be considered too broad a programme. In the run-up to Prague, therefore, the United Kingdom argued consistently that any successor initiative should have a narrow focus with clear objectives, backed by high-level ownership. The Prague capabilities commitment is a good package that will focus nations on providing the capabilities necessary for the alliance to perform the full range of its missions.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Given that Germany's Social Democratic Government have completely lost control of the economy, what message does the Secretary of State have for his counterpart in that Government about the defence cuts that they have just announced?
  Mr. Hoon: I have had some excellent conversations with my German counterpart. No doubt the Ministry of Defence was able to draw on its experience under Conservative control, when defence budgets were cut successively. Given the healthy economic circumstances enjoyed in the United Kingdom, I was able to make it clear to my German counterpart that extra resources were available for defence in the UK, and he looked forward to the day when that would be the case in Germany as well.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the conditions imposed by the

  3
  economic stability pact may make it more difficult for NATO countries that are also members of the European Union's single currency to increase their defence expenditure and thus improve their defence capability?
  Mr. Hoon: I am sure my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer that question at Treasury questions, but I think it would be much more sensible of me to avoid answering it.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: After an entertaining start, may I press the Secretary of State on the subject of one capability that all NATO countries need to improve—preparedness for a major terrorist attack at home? There is clear evidence of a threat, and leaked documents from the Government seem to admit that civil defence "effectively no longer exists". What has the Secretary of State achieved in his Department in regard to civil defence since 11 September last year?
  Mr. Hoon: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that civil defence is primarily the responsibility of the United Kingdom's civil authorities, certainly in respect of protection of its territory and jurisdiction on land. He and other Members will know of the significant changes proposed by the Ministry of Defence in the new chapter—the policy document supplement—to the existing strategic defence review. As for threats from the air and at sea, the Ministry of Defence remains responsible. We have ensured that our defences are commensurate with the nature of the threat that we face, particularly since the appalling events of 11 September.
  Mr. Jenkin: I presume that the Secretary of State is referring to the document that I have here, "The Role of the Reserves in Home Defence and Security", which was produced nine months after 11 September. Is he aware of the answers that his right hon. Friend the Minister of State has been giving about the civil contingency reaction forces? On 25 November, he stated
  "The training plans for the Civil Contingency Reaction Forces are still being developed … We expect that the 14 Civil Contingency Reaction Forces will be fully effective by the end of 2003"—[Official Report, 25 November 2002; Vol. 395, c. 3–4W.]
  Is the issue being treated with the urgency that it seriously deserves?
  Mr. Hoon: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that no civil contingency plans existed before the appalling events of 11 September. Clearly there were such plans. What we seek to do is upgrade and improve those preparations, specifically in the light of what took place on that date.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: What has been done in the past couple of months to deal with talcum—like sand penetrating into the sophisticated mechanical systems and instrumentation of Challenger 2 tanks?
  Mr. Hoon: As I said to the House a couple of weeks ago, a contract has been let for the desertification of the Challenger 2 tank and that work is proceeding at some speed.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: On the subject of capabilities, will The Secretary of State confirm that,
  4
  even after the various financial changes that he has mentioned, the percentage of GDP that this country will spend on defence next year will be significantly lower than it was when the Government took office, despite 11 September?
  Mr. Hoon: Thanks to questions asked by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who speaks for the Conservative party on the Front Bench, I examined carefully a number of statistics relating to the amount of expenditure. There were periods during the Conservatives' control of defence when the percentage was higher, but equally there were periods when it was lower.

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: What discussions his Department has had with BAE Systems about the maintenance of (a) aerostructure and (b) other manufacturing business in the UK. [83925]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): BAE Systems is the Ministry of Defence's single largest supplier. Both the MOD and the Department of Trade and Industry have frequent dialogue with the company concerning existing and future programmes as well as the company's strategic plans.
  Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he understand the concern of my constituents and others who work for BAE Systems in the north-west that its proposed sell-off of the aerostructures division will mean the loss of a pool of some 400 skilled workers, who are potentially key to the defence business in terms of flexibility and extra capacity? Does he recognise that a company that has benefited from some hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money for orders needs to have a clearer focus on what its future core structure of business will be and what its strategy is? Many of us believe that it is becoming rather woolly.
  Dr. Moonie: I am well aware of the change in the company's strategy. Its aerostructures business is successful and viable; it has a substantial order book. To divest the aerostructures business was a commercial decision for the company to make, and it has said that there are no current plans to fragment the business. Any discussions with interested parties will consider the business as a whole. I assure my hon. Friend that we will be keeping a very close eye on what is happening.
  Mr. Michael Jack: In the light of the current uncertainties in BAE, the biggest employer in my constituency, can the Minister confirm that, notwithstanding the sad loss of DA6, one of the pre-production prototypes of Eurofighter, the Government remain utterly, totally and completely committed to what is a vital source of manufacturing work, and that they will buy all 232 of those aircraft? What work is he doing to ensure that BAE benefits from further export orders for the Hawk aircraft?
  Dr. Moonie: On the latter point, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that, we are working hard, as we have

  5
  done continuously, to try to help the company to secure orders for Hawk abroad. We are also working with it on the development of a new variant of the aircraft, potentially for our own future training requirement. With regard to Typhoon, I repeat the assurances that have been repeatedly given in the House. The order currently stands at the number that the right hon. Gentleman has quoted and will remain so. The crash of the prototype was most unfortunate, but the aircraft remains on course to come into service when we expect it to.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: The Minister is rightly spelling out commitments to BAE Systems and to the north-west. Within that, can we ensure that the advanced jet trainer will come on stream and that that contract will be let to BAE Systems? Obviously, the aerostructures business is very important. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that he continues the dialogue to ensure that those jobs remain in the north-west and are not transferred?
  Dr. Moonie: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are continuing to discuss our future training requirements closely with British Aerospace. The contract will have to be competed for but we hope that the company will carry on doing sterling work for us. Again, we will be keeping a very close eye on what is going on in the business to ensure that our interests in the north-west are not adversely affected.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Minister tell the House whether he has had a discussion with British Aerospace, as a partner in the Airbus consortium, on the effect of the German Government's announcement that they are to reduce their intended order from 73 airframes to 60? Will that significantly increase the price to the Royal Air Force, which Her Majesty's Government have decided should order some 25 airframes?
  Dr. Moonie: We are continuing to discuss the implications of the German decision on the contract, but our current expectation is that there will be no major changes in the unit price for us.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: My hon. Friend mentioned the new arrangements for the Hawk, which his Department and BAE Systems are discussing. There will be 450 redundancies on the north and south banks of the Humber as a result of dithering in the swapping of information, either by his Department or by BAE Systems management. Can he tell the House when he hopes those discussions will conclude; whether he will maintain the Government's intention to purchase this aircraft, and in the numbers that he said; and what steps he and his Department will take to try to alleviate the Christmas misery of 450 families on Humberside?
  Dr. Moonie: I have to say to my hon. Friend that it is for BAE Systems to determine its staffing levels. The job losses that he describes result from its failure to secure a number of orders—not just from the MOD—in what is a highly competitive market. I know that the claim has been made that the MOD is taking too long to reach a decision on the Hawk 128. Choosing an advanced jet
  6
  training aircraft that will probably remain in service for at least 25 years is not a simple matter. The decision will be made at the earliest practicable moment, but it should not—and will not—be taken lightly. We need to be sure that the aircraft that we choose is the best available platform on which to train the pilots of a highly sophisticated new generation of combat aircraft that has yet to come into service.

  Nuclear Security
  Mr. David Rendel: What steps he has taken since 11 September 2001 to secure from air attack sites at which (a) research into and (b) maintenance of nuclear weapons takes place. [83957]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): In the interests of maintaining effective protection, it would be inappropriate to go into too much detail, although I can assure the House that a number of protective measures have been taken. For example, the number of aircraft on immediate stand-by for quick reaction alert—QRA—duties has been doubled from two to four. Also, measures have been taken to enhance our air defence radar detection capability and command-and-control processes, and to provide facilities for QRA aircraft at alternative air stations to increase operational flexibility.
  Mr. Rendel: I understand that after 11 September, the French decided to introduce anti-aircraft missiles around at least one of their sites, but have since decided to reverse that policy. Have the British Government considered any such policy, and if so why have they decided against it? Would they reconsider that policy if there were a specific threat to a specific site?
  Mr. Ingram: We considered the French's actions and their change of posture at the time, and decided that it was not appropriate for us for a number of reasons, but primarily because once such weapons are deployed, one has to consider when to remove them. We will keep this issue under review at all times, and if a specific threat arose, appropriate action would clearly be taken.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: The Minister has rightly emphasised the seriousness of this situation and the potential threat. Can he tell the House how many sites are concerned with research into nuclear matters, and in how many such sites nuclear weapons are in place? Secondly, is the Minister saying that the air defence system has been activated and is sufficient to deal with an immediate air attack on one or other of the many sites, or that it will be up and running within the next three to six months?
  Mr. Ingram: I missed the latter part of that question, but I should point out that a number of such sites exist, according to the different types of priority that could be allocated. However, that could change over time. Although a particular number might exist today, if a specific threat were posed to another site—if we received information that it had been designated for terrorist action—it would be added to that number. However, it is not a numbers game; it is question of the quality of our response at all times. We have put in place very good

  7
  protective measures in terms of the QRA response covering the wider country. Over time, more airfields will be made available—the three other airfields will be modified to be able to take those aircraft so that we can give a quicker response time and aircraft can be moved accordingly.
  These are very sensitive and difficult issues to balance because of the nature of the threat. It can be specific but it can also be general, and it can change. Therefore, we must at all times keep all these matters under constant review based on the best intelligence, always remembering that intelligence is never perfect.

  Missile Defence
  Hugh Bayley: When he last discussed strategic missile defence with his NATO counterparts. [83958]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): NATO Defence Ministers last discussed missile defence formally in June 2002. At the recent NATO summit in Prague on 21 November, NATO Heads of Government agreed to examine options for addressing the increasing missile threat to alliance territory, forces and population centres through an appropriate mix of political and defence efforts.
  As I promised the House on 17 October, I have today placed further analytical and discussion material in the Library of the House which I hope will contribute to the debate on the role that active missile defence might play within a comprehensive strategy for tackling the potential threat from ballistic missiles. The paper will also be distributed widely and will be available on the Ministry of Defence website.
  Hugh Bayley: Many of my constituents and other people in Yorkshire are concerned about the potential implications of missile defence. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, unlike the Conservatives, who seem willing to embrace missile defence almost without question, the Government will make sure that their discussion document is widely circulated so that they can proceed with a thorough and careful consideration of the arguments for and against in the light of views expressed by members of the public?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations and delighted to give him that assurance on behalf of the Government. As I told the House on 17 October, if there is a United States request for the use for missile defence purposes of Fylingdales or any other United Kingdom facility, we will consider it seriously. The Government would agree to such a request only if the security of the United Kingdom and the alliance would ultimately be enhanced.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: I welcome the document that the Secretary of State has produced today and thank him for the advance notice of it. However, I should like to press him on the principles to which he has just alluded. Can he assure the House that the UK will not participate in any missile defence scheme or allow facilities to be used on UK soil unless it enhances
  8
  the security of the United Kingdom and, moreover, enhances the security of all the alliance, not just specific members of it?
  Mr. Hoon: I have said this on a number of occasions, but it bears repetition, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me the opportunity of saying again that the Government would agree to such a request only if the security of the United Kingdom and the alliance would ultimately be enhanced. On the second part of his question, it is important to bear in mind what I said on 17 October. The United States is developing a test bed—the means whereby it can examine the appropriate kind of architecture that might ultimately be required. In those circumstances, it is not possible to give the hon. Gentleman precisely the assurance that he requires because the United States is not yet in a position to do that.
  Lawrie Quinn: My right hon. Friend will know from his geography lessons that my constituency is a quarter of a mile from RAF Fylingdales. I wrote to him welcoming his statement on 17 October and also invited him to participate at the earliest possible opportunity in a local public debate with people in Whitby and the Esk valley. In the light of the welcome publication of his document today, could he offer that facility to my constituents so that they can understand what is affecting this important issue? In that way, we can ensure that our part of the world, along with our colleagues in NATO, is included in the debate.
  Mr. Hoon: I have had the opportunity of visiting both RAF Fylingdales and my hon. Friend's constituency, and I look forward to the opportunity of doing so again.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: As missile defence is not a priority according to the MOD's previous White Paper, to the present and previous Chiefs of the Defence Staff and to the national intelligence estimates of the US Congress post-11 September, can my right hon. Friend reassure us that the document that has just been made available is not evidence that Government policy is being dictated less by intelligence and British interests than by the ideological obsessions of the Bush Administration, with Opposition Front-Bench Members seeking to be more servilely subservient?
  Mr. Hoon: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that Opposition Front-Bench Members are not influencing the nature of the Government's policy in this area. It is none the less important, on the occasions when my hon. Friend and I have the opportunity to debate these matters, that he consider the current evidence rather than some of the historical evidence.

  Future Aircraft Carrier
  Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the future aircraft carrier project. [83959]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The future aircraft carrier—carrier vessel future—project is progressing well. The second stage of assessment ended on

  9
  20 November. By the end of January 2003, we plan to announce which, of BAE Systems or Thales Naval Ltd., is our preferred contractor for the programme.
  Mr. Chapman: Although I of course congratulate the Government on the biggest shipbuilding programme since world war two, this project in particular has the potential for massive effects for decades to come. In selecting the prime contractor, will my hon. Friend tell me how he plans to weigh various factors, such as the effect on future warship exports, on the United Kingdom supply chain and UK subcontractors and on UK design capability and the extent of UK content and jobs?
  Dr. Moonie: I suppose the short answer would be "very carefully," but my hon. Friend will want a bit more than that.
  Whichever of the contractors is successful, it is clear that throughout its design and manufacture the programme will sustain and create about 10,000 jobs across the United Kingdom. There will be up to 1,000 white-collar engineering design and managerial jobs, about 2,000 to 3,000 blue-collar jobs and a significant number of jobs throughout the supply chain. At the end of the day, the decision will be made on the basis of the track record of the two companies concerned—on how successfully they have performed in the past and are performing during the initial stages of the contract.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful to the Minister for his earlier response, but can he give a firm assurance that the Government will be able to write into the contract of the successful contender the insistence that all the yards currently in the bids will be given parts of the work for the two carriers? Can he also assure the House that the three aircraft currently designated to fly off the ships will be in service when the ships are in the water?
  Dr. Moonie: We are actually quite a long way from the ships being in the water and I am always a wee bit sceptical when Ministers stand up and make confident predictions, but it would appear from the success on both projects to date that the planes will be ready when the ships are operational.
  With regard to the yards bidding, it is difficult at present to say with certainty that everybody will get a share of the work. Obviously a certain amount of competition will be involved in deciding which part goes where. Furthermore, it does not take a genius to work out that if there are only three major sections and four yards are bidding, somebody will lose out at the end of the day. I can say, however, that I believe that all yards in this country that are capable of building those large modules will have a very good chance of securing work on the carriers.
  Syd Rapson: Although it is MOD policy that the design and build of all Royal Navy warships will be carried out in the UK, can my hon.
  10
  Friend reassure the House by guaranteeing that the through-life support, which will last for 50 years, will also be carried out in the UK?
  Dr. Moonie: In short, yes.

  Typhoon
  Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: When the Typhoon will enter service. [83960]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): As was made clear in the written statement last week, we do not now expect Typhoon to enter service until the end of June next year. This schedule takes account of the disruption to test flying following the unfortunate loss of a development aircraft in Spain last month, but, until the causes and implications of the crash are fully understood, we cannot rule out further delay. I can assure the House that we will do everything possible to prevent any delay to the aircraft's operational employment date scheduled for the second half of the decade.
  Mr. Djanogly: I hear what the Minister has to say, but whereas the Eurofighter project will be delivered some four and a half years late, I read at the weekend that the German and Italian air forces are taking delivery of their planes in the next few weeks. Why is that the case? Is it another example of how the Government are undermining British forces' equipment?
  Mr. Ingram: The best advice that I could give the hon. Gentleman is that he should not believe everything that he reads in The Sunday Telegraph, because the article in question was wholly inaccurate. The position was made clear in last Thursday's written ministerial statement. None of the four nations involved in the Typhoon programme can take delivery of the aircraft before the type acceptance and associated commercial process is complete. All four nations are unanimous in the view that the aircraft must meet the agreed specification before acceptance of the weapon system can take place. So the hon. Gentleman should not believe what appears in the press the day before Defence questions because it is usually spin from someone and, in this case, it was wholly wrong.
  Harry Cohen: What is the Government's policy towards the sale of such aircraft to countries in the middle east? Does the aerospace industry need bribery, corruption and excessive secrecy to sell such aircraft? What about the reports of the £7 million slush fund—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too wide.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: The fact is that the Government announced only in February this year that this aircraft would enter service in June this year, yet we are now told, "For June 2002, read June 2003." It looks as though the Government are losing their grip on this programme. Although we understand that there are some technical difficulties with the aircraft, I suspect that the Minister has not been entirely correct in what he

  11
  has just told the House about the crash influencing the programme, because his written statement on Thursday said:
  "we have concluded with our international partners and with industry that the evidence required to permit contractual acceptance of the aircraft by the four partner nations will not be complete before the end of March 2003 … aircraft should then be ready for hand-over to Royal Air Force by the end of June 2003."
  He went on to say:
  "Further delay"—
  that is to say beyond 2003—
  "cannot be ruled out until the causes and implications of the crash are fully understood."—[Official Report, 5 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 84WS.]
  Does the Minister not owe it to the House to tell us whether June 2003 is now a realistic prospect? Bearing in mind that 5 Squadron, with its Tornados, is about to be disbanded, we will not be prepared for the possible attacks on this country, about which the Government know only too well.
  Mr. Ingram: Of course the hon. Gentleman indicated in his question his knowledge that technical matters are associated with the delay. They may well be minor, but, cumulatively, they still have to be resolved. We have a duty of care to those who will fly the aircraft and all four partner nations have to operate under the same strictures to ensure that what we have is fit for purpose. The unfortunate accident involving the loss of the development aircraft now has to be studied. With that in mind, based on the other reasons for slippage in some of the technical and design issues that have had to be resolved, we have said that by March the company has to give us indications, which then have to be verified, and we are working to June next year. That commitment is as firm as it can be given the complex nature of the platform.

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Nick Palmer: If he will make a statement on military support for the Government of Afghanistan. [83962]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The international security assistance force, mandated by the United Nations, provides support to the transitional Administration of President Karzai in Kabul and the immediate surroundings. The United Kingdom was the initial lead ISAF nation, and continues to be a major troop contributor. The Germans and Dutch have offered to assume the joint role of lead nation after Turkey's successful time in command. The United Kingdom anticipates remaining a significant contributor to ISAF, at about the current levels, through the current mandate.
  Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. During the intervention in Afghanistan, which I strongly supported, the Prime Minister stressed that we would not let Afghanistan down later. I am concerned to read reports that the writ of the Government in Afghanistan still does not reach much further than the area around Kabul, and that Mr. Karzai is forced to negotiate with warlords on
  12
  quite small matters. Does the Minister feel that we are doing enough to reinforce the Government of Afghanistan in asserting their rule over the country?
  Mr. Ingram: The UK has pledged some £200 million over the next five years to help rebuild a country that has been divided by conflict for a generation. We are only one of the contributor nations to that process. Clearly, in terms of expanding our areas of activity outside Kabul, those matters must be considered with other coalition partners to see what can reasonably be done and to give best effect. We are not unmindful of the issues that have been raised. As with everything relating to the initial deployment in that country, however, we must build that coalition of the willing. A change to any posture must be carefully balanced, and we must make sure that anything that is done has proper and full effect.
  Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for his earlier answer. There are 300 or so staff officers and specialists tied up in Afghanistan at the moment. May I congratulate the Minister on the deployment of 40 or so territorials? What further plans does he have to increase the territorial commitment to Afghanistan, thus easing our overstretched regulars, and, to paraphrase Sir Michael Boyce, helping not to get our hands stuck in the mangle any further?
  Mr. Ingram: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is asking for more activity in Afghanistan or less. I am not clear where he is coming from. I think that I said earlier that we have a firm commitment to help rebuild that country. Every rebuilding exercise, as I also explained, must be done in partnership with other nations to be fully effective. Our approach to those issues must be built over time with the right depth and breadth.
  On the question of the Territorial Army, I do not accept that its deployment is for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave. It is appropriate to use the TA in circumstances in which that can be done. That is a useful development, and I know that the TA will seize the opportunity and perform magnificently in that area and in that theatre, as it would anywhere else.
  Chris McCafferty: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the numerous appeals from the President of the transitional Administration and key Ministers in Afghanistan for an expansion of ISAF. Certainly, when I went to Afghanistan recently on an International Development Committee visit, numerous representations were made to members of the Committee on this issue, particularly in relation to an expansion to key cities outside Kabul. It was suggested to us that if defence remains purely in the Kabul area, there was a danger that the President would be seen merely as the mayor of Kabul, which was the description given. That would not be helpful in terms of support for the new Administration in Afghanistan. Will the Minister assure the House that that will be given careful consideration?
  Mr. Ingram: I can give that assurance, and I think that my earlier answer indicated that we are considering a number of ways of doing that. Ultimately, it is for the Government of Afghanistan to begin to address their

  13
  territorial issues. We can assist, but we cannot be the army of that nation for ever. That must come from the people of that country. We help in the training of the army there, too, so that it can take on an increasing role in relation to an ongoing problem that my hon. Friend was right to highlight.

  Iraq
  Mr. David Chaytor: What requests he has received from the United States Government for the use of British military facilities in respect of preparations for military action in Iraq. [83963]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As I told the House on 25 November, the United States approached a number of countries, including the United Kingdom, seeking support in the event that military action against Iraq proves necessary. Although no decision has been taken to commit UK forces to military action, we have responded to this approach and discussions with the US will continue so that an appropriate British contribution can be identified should it prove necessary. As the House would expect, we will continue to prepare our forces so that they will be able to participate in military action should that be required.
  Mr. Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is still an amount of uncertainty about both the objectives and the consequences of a war in Iraq? Is it solely about weapons of mass destruction? Is it about human rights? Is it about democracy in the middle east? Is it about regime change? Is it part of the war against terror and, if so, is it likely to increase or decrease the terrorist threat?
  Mr. Hoon: I do not agree with my hon. Friend about uncertainty. The Government have made it absolutely clear over a long period that we want to ensure that the will of the United Nations is enforced and that UN Security Council resolution 1441 is implemented. That is the Government's position, and it is a very clear one.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State has rightly acknowledged that, if there is military action against Iraq, British military facilities will be made available to our American allies. However, we have also heard in answer to questions by my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench that the civil contingencies reaction force will not be available until the end of 2003 to deal with a terrorist attack on this country, that the Typhoon aircraft will not be available until well into 2003 to deal with, among other things, a terrorist attack on this country and that there appear to be no anti-missile defences around nuclear power stations to deal with a terrorist attack on this country. Will appropriate measures be taken at least to protect British military facilities, which may soon be in a state of war, against a terrorist attack against this country?
  Mr. Hoon: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench.
  14
  I cannot help but observe that the Opposition Front-Bench team requires more by way of numbers than the Government team. The Opposition obviously required reinforcements from the rear.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that the capabilities of the United Kingdom's armed forces will be prepared and available to deal with any military contingency however it should arise. It is not appropriate for me to go into the precise detail of confidential exchanges between Governments, but l assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that appropriate protective measures will be in place should military action be decided on.
  Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that there is in this country enormous public opposition to the preparations for war against Iraq and to the use of British bases for it? The feeling is that a war against Iraq will result in a large number of civilian and military casualties in Iraq and in military casualties on all sides. It will do nothing to bring long-term peace to the region and do nothing to solve the Palestinian crisis but will ultimately work in the interests of American global and military power and American commercial power in the region. Does my right hon. Friend not think that it is time to stop and think a bit more about this?
  Mr. Hoon: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are very cautious and careful in their approach to these issues and that, notwithstanding what he says, my experience is that, after having travelled around the United Kingdom and participating in a number of meetings where the issue has arisen, there is absolute unanimity that it is necessary that the will of the United Nations should be enforced. That is the clarity of the Government's position as set out in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), and it continues to be the position. It is crucial that Saddam Hussein should be left in no doubt that the international community is absolutely determined that he should comply with UN Security Council resolution 1441. I have not heard anyone argue against that position.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Are there any circumstances in which further American military action would not be accompanied by British forces?
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to give such an open-ended commitment. I can say that the United States is the closest ally of the United Kingdom, and we work extremely closely with it on the planning and preparation of all military operations.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Do we have any special forces operating in Iraq at the moment? Is it true that some minesweepers are on their way to the Gulf? If so, for what purpose?
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is an experienced Member of the House and will know that no member of the Government ever comments on the deployment of special forces. I assure her that no military decisions whatsoever have been taken on military action against Iraq. That situation will be reported to the House should it change.

  Missile Defence
  Mr. Robert Syms: Which (a) current and (b) planned British military facilities and equipment could contribute to missile defence. [83964]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The United States Administration have yet to make specific decisions about the precise future architecture of a United States missile defence system. However, as I told the House on 17 October, the US missile defence programme is gathering momentum, and there are plans to develop and evaluate options for a basic missile defence system. In that context, the United States has indicated that one of the options it is considering would involve an upgrade of the early warning radar at Fylingdales. We will consider any such request seriously and will agree to it only if we are satisfied that the overall security of the United Kingdom and the alliance will ultimately be enhanced.
  Mr. Syms: Why are we being so timid? There is no doubt that the US will make such a request. The Government seem more concerned about opinion on their Back Benches than with doing the right thing for Britain.
  Mr. Hoon: Over many years I have found it fairly sensible to answer questions only once they have been asked.

  Service Leavers
  Shona McIsaac: What steps his Department is taking to support personnel when they leave the armed forces. [83965]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The key elements of support for service personnel when they leave the armed forces are provided under the career transition partnership, which provides resettlement support for service leavers through nine regional resettlement centres within the United Kingdom, one in Germany, plus an office in Kathmandu specifically for the Gurkhas, and a resettlement training centre at Aldershot. It includes the job finding services of the regular forces employment association and the officers association as sub-contractors.
  Shona McIsaac: Although it is some time since my father left the Royal Navy after 25 years service, I know that many people who leave the armed forces find it difficult to obtain housing. Indeed, there are press reports about some of them becoming rough sleepers. What assurances can my hon. Friend give that the projects he mentions take into account social issues as well as issues of employment?
  Dr. Moonie: I am well aware of the sterling service that my hon. Friend's father gave to the armed forces when he served in the Royal Navy. On rough sleepers, she may be aware that we have taken a great deal of interest in, and spent a great deal of time, effort and money on that problem over the past couple of years. We have certainly had a major effect. We have
  16
  developed living spaces and work closely with other Departments. Indeed, I was up in Richmond the week before last, opening a new facility that involves, I think. 13 bed spaces for people leaving our armed forces.
  We must remember that 25,000 people a year pass out of the armed forces. The vast majority go into full-time employment and have no problems resettling into the community, as we would expect from such excellent individuals. It is imperative to ensure that the transition is properly managed so that all those who leave have the same advantages.
  Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Pension provision is obviously a major factor in retirement for personnel from the armed forces. Is the Minister aware that part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment have no pension provision despite the fact that they are on constant active service as members of the home service battalions of that regiment? What plans does the Ministry of Defence have to make pension provision for them?
  Dr. Moonie: This, of course, also applies to the Territorial Army. A review of pensions policy is being carried out, which we expect to report in the near future. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall keep a close eye on these matters. However, it is not that easy to make provision for part-timers.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: While most service personnel benefit enormously in terms of fitness and confidence from their time in the armed forces, a significant number need extra and significant support. Is the Minister aware that the record in the UK does not compare favourably with the record in the United States, where it is said that if it puts its boys and girls in harm's way, it will do anything to ensure that they are safeguarded after their service? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that it is not good enough to leave the matter to charities? We would like to see a much more determined initiative from the Government.
  Dr. Moonie: The situation in the United Kingdom, with the national health service, is very different from that which pertains in the United States of America. I would refute any suggestion that the care given to people in this country is in any way inferior to that given in any other country.
  Having said that, we are always concerned to ensure that the services given to those leaving the armed forces are improved. I am working closely with colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure that that happens and that people get the treatment to which they are entitled.

  Arctic Convoy Medal
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: What his policy is on the award of a medal to those who served on Arctic convoys during the second world war. [83966]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Service on the Arctic

  17
  convoys during the second world war is covered by the Atlantic Star, which specifically included in its eligibility criteria service in Arctic waters.
  Mr. Dismore: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that there is a precedent for an award of a medal after such a long delay. The sailors of Nelson's navy had to wait up to 56 years for a decision over their medals. If the bureaucrats, after decades, could finally do their duty by the heroes of Trafalgar, why cannot the bureaucrats of today, after a similar delay, do their duty by the heroes of the Barents sea and the Arctic convoys.
  Dr. Moonie: No one disputes the heroism of those who took part in the Arctic convoys. At the end of the second world war, the qualifying criteria for the range of medals instituted to recognise second world war service were drawn up by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals, which is known usually as the HD Committee, which advises the sovereign on all matters relating to honours and awards. The Committee took great care with the qualifying criteria of all the campaign medals and stars before submitting them to the King for his approval. The King approved the proposals and ruled that no further medals should be instituted for second world war service. That ruling remains in force today and there are currently no plans to institute any new medals or to amend the qualifying criteria of any existing medals.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I thank the Minister for his and his officials' assistance, which he will recall arose because one of my constituents had not previously been awarded a decoration because of ill health failing a claim being made earlier. The Minister was very helpful and an award has now been made. I agree entirely with what he has said about the heroism of those who served on the Arctic convoys and the appreciation given to those who, like the constituent to whom I have referred, served in supporting the forces in Russia by the work that they did on the Arctic convoys, which has been very much recognised by Russian authorities in recent years.
  Dr. Moonie: Yes. I underscore again that the fact that there is not an individual medal for service on the Arctic convoys does not in any way lower the respect that we feel for those who served or gave their lives in the course of that action during the second world war.

  Reservists
  Mr. Paul Goodman: How many reservists are deployed on operations. [83967]
  Mr. Hugo Swire: How many reservists are deployed on operations. [83969]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): As at 1 November 2002, 605 reservists were called out and deployed on operations.
  Mr. Goodman: As the Army and the Navy now train and mobilise their reservists at the centre and the Royal Air Force does not, will the Minister tell us when he will
  18
  bring the RAF in with the other two services to co-ordinate their efforts fully and stop wasting taxpayers' money?
  Mr. Ingram: I do not have a specific date for that. However, I am not so sure that there is a waste of money. There is an individual service approach, and over time harmonisation on a tri-service basis is constantly developed. Sometimes it is easy and sometimes it is not. I am sorry, but I do not have a precise date.
  Mr. Swire: Many of the reservists who have been compulsorily mobilised recently are highly paid civilian specialists whose skills are much needed by the armed forces. Does the Minister accept that if he wants the help of such people he must compensate them properly? If so, will he tell the House why to date he has been reluctant to pay realistic sums from the reserve hardship award?
  Mr. Ingram: We always keep those matters under review.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the Minister tell the House how many reservists are employed as doctors and nurses in the national health service, and what the effect on NHS personnel would be if we went to war with Iraq?
  Mr. Ingram: I understand that about 420 doctors and 2,000 nurses are employed, but those are approximate figures. I shall get precise figures and write to the hon. Lady accordingly.

  Territorial Army
  Andrew Selous: What changes there have been in the strength of the Territorial Army in the last six months. [83970]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I think that we have missed out question 13, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: No, we have not. It has been unstarred.
  Dr. Moonie: My apologies, Mr. Speaker—some people can be too smart.
  As at 1 November 2002, the strength of the Territorial Army stood at 39,370, and on 1 May 2002 it was 39,125.
  Andrew Selous: Can the Minister tell the House what specific steps the Government are taking to recruit ex-regular personnel to the TA?
  Dr. Moonie: I cannot think of any specific steps, but a great many ex-regulars go into the TA and, by and large, provided that they were honourably discharged, are welcome because of the experience that they bring with them. However, I am happy to look at that, to see if more encouragement can be given. As part of the developing work under the new chapter, we are looking

  19
  at increasing the number of people in the Territorial Army in particular—it would be useful to encourage as many people as possible to join.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As far as I am aware, question 13, which I tabled, was not unstarred. Can you provide clarification?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard my statement on 19 November. When an hon. Member volunteers a question—I did not ask the hon. Gentleman to do anything, but his name was called—I automatically unstar his question on the Order Paper. The trick is therefore not to rise for an earlier question.

  Defence Fire Service
  Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement on the defence fire service. [83971]
  Angus Robertson: Whether the Government intend to continue with the privatisation of the defence fire service. [83972]
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The defence fire service continues to provide excellent support for the activities of the Ministry of Defence. Its responsibilities include the protection of defence assets, support for military operational capability, expert advice on fire-risk management and the provision of personnel for operations and exercises worldwide. Also at present it is providing vital support to those members of the armed forces engaged as emergency cover during the firefighters' dispute.
  "Fire Study 2000", a major review of the defence fire service, has recently been completed and is expected to propose a number of initiatives for modernising the defence fire service. The result of "Fire Study 2000" will be used to inform the public sector comparator for the airfield support services project, which is a separate but complementary work stream that is seeking the most cost-effective and viable solution for the provision of airfield support services.
  Mr. Grogan: Given that Mr. Ed Balls, no less, has said that there is a limit to the application of market
  20
  principles to the delivery of public services, and given that the defence fire service trade unions have agreed a radical modernisation package that will reduce in-house costs by 20 per cent., does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Government to abandon any privatisation proposals, which the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has said cross the line of acceptable private sector involvement in public service delivery?
  Mr. Ingram: I am not going to respond to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), but I shall reply to my hon. Friend, who has been raising this issue for a number of months. Indeed, he secured an Adjournment debate on the matter in November last year, when the precise way in which the proposals are developing was set out. He is right that "Fire Study 2000" is an important in-depth analysis of the way in which we can make best use of existing resources, and I hope that he accepts that the Government should always look at best value in the delivery of the service overall. It would be wrong for any Minister, given the opportunities that may exist, to minimise the best value approach. As I told my hon. Friend during his Adjournment debate, we have to treat every penny as if it were a pound.
  Angus Robertson: A few weeks ago a very senior RAF officer told me and a number of other Members of Parliament that he thought that there was a good chance that the airfield support services project might fail, although there could be an ASSP minus a privatised defence fire service. Does the Minister believe that the officer is misinformed or that the House is under-informed?
  Mr. Ingram: I do not know who the officer was, but after Question Time, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt write and tell me precisely who he was. I will then reflect on the status of that advice and whence the officer was drawing his information and advice. I have given a detailed explanation of the fact that we continue to look for value for money, and it would be appropriate to examine the range of services provided across airfield services to see whether better use can be made of the taxpayers' money. That is the function of Government, but the hon. Gentleman is extremely unlikely ever to experience it.

Speaker's Statement
3.31 pm
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State to make his statement, I want to make a brief statement myself.
In the report that the House approved on 29 October, the Modernisation Committee recommended that the full text of a ministerial statement should be made available to Members in the Chamber as soon as the Minister sits down, or at the same time as the statement is given to the Press Gallery, whichever is the earlier. This is the first occasion on which that recommendation is to be implemented. I would ask Members to co-operate with the Doorkeepers in distributing copies of the Minister's statement around the Chamber. May I make it clear that I am treating this as an experiment? If it seems to me that the disturbance that results from the new arrangement outweighs the benefit, I will review the matter.

Education and Skills (Spending Plans)
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Government's education and skills plans for the coming three-year period.
In July, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the outcome of the 2002 spending review. He stated that education spending will increase by an average of 6 per cent. a year in real terms over the three years beginning in April 2003. Following that announcement, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), published our agenda for change, which was called "Investment for Reform". This set out how we would match those extra resources with sustained reform to achieve our objectives of a world-class education and training system that meets the needs of individuals and the economy. I now want to tell the House more about these investment and reform plans.
With the exception of higher education, which will be the subject of an announcement next January, I am today announcing the details of our three-year settlement for the whole education and skills sector. I begin with the early years. The Government remain of the view that a strong early start is vital to continued educational success, so, as the Chancellor announced in July, we will be continuing our substantial investment in the early years, including our sure start programme, and funding a further expansion of 250,000 child care places.
Working together with my colleagues in other Government Departments, particularly in the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions, we will continue to expand our sure start programme and to mainstream the approaches in those areas that we believe have been successful. As the Chancellor announced in July, expenditure on early years and child care will rise from about £1 billion this year to some £1.5 billion in 2005–06. Next year £300 million will be transferred to enable local authorities to provide universal nursery provision for three-year-olds.
I turn now to schools, which will form the subject of most of my statement today. The reforms that I am announcing will provide a simpler, fairer system. Alongside this, we are seeking a continued drive to raise standards in every school in the country. Last week my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced the outcome of the review of local authority funding. As he announced, the national average increase in overall funding for schools and local education authorities is 6.5 per cent. Moreover, every local authority will next year receive an increase in funding per pupil of at least 3.2 per cent. The new system provides every local authority with a basic entitlement per pupil, plus more money for authorities with significant deprivation or recruitment and retention difficulties. Our three-year funding announcement means that we are giving local authorities certainty about their budgets in future years, so they can give schools indicative three-year budgets—and we expect them to do so. That will enable head teachers and governing bodies to plan and implement longer-term reforms.

23
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced last Thursday, the Government are committed to allowing local authorities more freedom over the use of resources. Ring-fenced grants will form a reducing proportion of local spending, so on top of the £4.3 billion increase by 2005–06 in local authority general education spending, which we have already announced, substantial funds will be moved from central DFES spending to local authority spending. That will be an extra £500 million in 2003–04 and a further £800 million in 2005–06. That means that, by 2005–06, more than 92 per cent. of all schools funding will be allocated through local authorities in accordance with local priorities. That compares with 87 per cent. in the current year of 2002–03.
Thus we will end the ring-fenced grants from my Department for the following programmes in 2003–04: nursery education for three-year-olds, funding for infant class sizes, the school improvement grant, school inclusion-pupil support, performance management and induction for newly qualified teachers. In 2004–05, in addition to the above, we will do the same with grants for special educational needs, study support, golden hello payments, advanced skills teachers, school support staff, drugs education and teacher sabbaticals. We will also focus grants for the national literacy and numeracy strategies and the key stage 3 national strategy. The substantial increases in local authority funding that I have set out will enable authorities to take over the delivery of those important programmes in ways that meet local needs. Of course, we will closely monitor the effects of those changes.
From 2005–06, we will also reform the system for rewarding those good, experienced teachers who pass the performance threshold. The money for teachers who pass the threshold will be devolved to the schools budget in that year. In the new year, we shall announce further measures to strengthen performance management in schools and cut associated bureaucracy. We shall also discuss with all stakeholders measures to ensure that the allocation of money meets the cost of the threshold payments made by schools.
We will however continue with ring-fenced funding to provide national drive in some key areas. Three key grants will contribute to that aim. First, the leadership incentive grant will be £175 million a year for each of the next three years. We will provide £125,000 to each of 1,400 secondary schools in the inner cities and in challenging circumstances beyond. That money is being provided because it is clear that a good head teacher and leadership team are the key to raising expectations and achievement in schools. The grant is intended to support them.
That money will be used in a variety of ways, including strengthening poorly performing departments, helping strong departments to help other schools and buying in specialist advice on leadership or working together with other schools to provide leadership training. In the weakest schools in particular, the money can be used to change the school's leadership. One purpose of the money is to encourage local schools to behave in a more collaborative fashion. It will be for local schools to decide
24
how best to use it to strengthen their leadership teams, but I will reserve powers to ensure that the weakest schools make effective use of it.
Secondly, the school standards grant, at £800 million in 2003–04 rising to £875 million by 2005–06, to be paid directly to schools, is intended to drive forward reform of the school work force. It will allow more and better trained teaching assistants to be employed to help the school team to work together more effectively. As we made clear in July, our substantial extra investment in the school standards grant must be matched by a commitment from unions and employers to a restructured teaching profession and a reformed school work force that is more flexible, diverse and focused on raising standards. We are making good progress towards agreement, but the extra resources will not be released until a satisfactory agreement is reached.
Thirdly, the standards fund—about £1.5 billion in each of the next three years—will enable schools to galvanise reform on standards, behaviour and choice. In 2003–04, that will allow us to support, for example, the following programmes: the key stage 3 strategy at £120 million, ethic minority achievement at £80 million, music services at £60 million, excellence in cities and excellence clusters at £290 million, and school support staff and training at £170 million.
As I announced a couple of weeks ago, we will provide sufficient funding for every school that fulfils the required standard to become a specialist school. The money will also provide support for primary literacy and numeracy. We are determined to build on the outstanding improvements that our primary schools have made since 1998. The national literacy and numeracy strategies have transformed standards but much remains to be done to achieve the ambitious targets that we set. We shall therefore continue to provide funding and support that is focused on schools which are under-performing by comparison with similar schools.
Schools will have the freedom to spend their standards fund budget on any purpose, provided that they deliver the improvements in standards, behaviour and choice that we seek. We have already given the details to local authorities and we want significant improvements in outcomes.
I am publishing today details of the capital funding that schools will receive to improve and modernise buildings. A typical secondary school will get £75,000 of devolved capital funding next year, increasing to £82,000 by 2005–06. That is part of a total investment in school buildings which, including private finance initiative credits, will increase from £3 billion in the current year to £3.8 billion in 2003–04, to £4.5 billion the following year, and to more than £5 billion by 2005–06. Although that represents a sevenfold increase in capital spending since 1996–97, too many school buildings have suffered decades of underinvestment. The extra amounts that I am announcing today include substantial extra resources to provide clean, modern and secure places for children to learn.
I have announced a real-terms increase in overall funding for schools of more than 7 per cent. from 2002–03 to 2003–04. That will be followed by annual real-terms increases of more than 4 per cent. and subsequently 5 per cent. That is a total of more than

25
17 per cent. in real terms over the three years of the spending review. It means an average real-terms increase in revenue funding per pupil of more than £1,000, from approximately £2,840 to £3,850 in the 10 years between 1996–97 and 2005–06.
I conclude with further education and skills. Its importance cannot be overstated. Developing our people's skills is critical to improving our productivity and hence to the country's economic and social future. We must transform the performance of the learning and skills sector and make it far more responsive to the needs of learners, employers and communities. We need to improve the quality of the sector and increase the achievement of those who study and learn in it.
The document that I published last month, "Success for All", sets out our work on the further education reform strategy and our challenge to the further education sector. We shall work closely with the Department of Trade and Industry to co-ordinate our Departments' work more effectively. We are investing to match our ambition. I have already announced, at the Association of Colleges conference on 19 November, £1.2 billion for reforms to further education. That forms part of the Learning and Skills Council's budget, which I announced last week. It will rise by £1.4 billion, reaching a total of £9.2 billion by 2005–06. That means an increase in total spending on skills from £8.6 billion in 2003–04 to more than £10 billion in 2005–06—a real-terms increase of almost 12 per cent. over the spending review period.
As the Chancellor made clear in his pre-Budget statement a fortnight ago, we face economic uncertainty and it is therefore more important than ever to continue to invest and reform to increase the skills of our people and improve our productivity as a nation. The substantial investment in education and skills funding that I announced today is a necessary but not sufficient condition for raising standards in our schools and colleges, thereby tackling the attainment gap and creating a world-class education and training system at all stages. That will be achieved only if, as well as investing, we reform our schools and colleges so that they genuinely fulfil every child's aspirations. That is the ultimate test of our success at the end of the spending review period. I am confident that, with the help of the millions of people throughout the country who are committed to our educational success, we will pass the test.
Mr. Damian Green: I am, as ever, grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. He knows that most of it was a series of re-announcements, including welcome news on early years and further education. I shall concentrate on the small amount of new material that he produced. It is clear that he wants to appear in a seasonally appropriate role as an early Father Christmas for schools. Sadly, the wrapping is more enticing than the contents of the package. Behind the rhetoric, the right hon. Gentleman is making artificially inflated claims for all areas of this country, and, in some areas, schools and pupils will rightly feel betrayed by the way in which he is fixing the distribution.
It is perhaps appropriate that the Secretary of State is making this statement on the day on which the Department has been forced to admit that it is missing
26
more than half the targets that it has set itself on school standards. Even when the Government are in control of the figures, they fail to meet them. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will understand, therefore, why today's announcement will be greeted with an appropriate degree of scepticism.
I want to ask the Secretary of State about some of the issues that affect every part of the country. The first concerns the extra costs that his Government have imposed on schools, but which did not feature in his statement. Will he confirm that, next April, schools will have to find another £79 million simply to meet the employers' element of the national insurance increase that the Chancellor announced in his last Budget? Will the Secretary of State also give the House some idea of the scale of the extra money that will be needed to make up the value of pension funds for teachers and other local education authority staff—pension funds whose value the Chancellor has done so much to erode?
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that there is an element of double counting in the increases that he is claiming? Specifically, has money been taken out of the standards fund—where it was already available for schools—transferred to the LEA budget line, and then claimed as an increase in the money available to schools through the LEA? Schools may well feel that this is an act not of generosity but of accountancy. While the Secretary of State is contemplating the standards fund, will he also confirm that, after the Government's most strenuous efforts at deregulation and cutting red tape, the number of funding streams within the standards fund has been cut from 71 all the way to 65? Today, he says:
"Schools will have the freedom to spend their Standards Fund budget on any purpose—providing they deliver the improvements in standards, behaviour, choice we need … we are looking for significant improvements in outcomes."
It takes some cheek for the Department to talk about improvement in outcomes on the day when it has admitted that it is missing most of its own targets. Will The Secretary of State explain what will happen to schools that miss their targets? Nothing happens to Ministers who miss theirs. Will he claw back the standards fund money from such schools?
Why has the Secretary of State not responded more to the real desire both in schools and LEAs for more local control of spending? He made much of this in his statement, but, frankly, he protested too much. Does he agree that, in 1997, the central ring-fenced grants were just 4.5 per cent. of the schools budget? His predecessors increased that figure to 13 per cent., and he has done nothing like enough to bring it down. Centralised control is blighting our schools, and when he preaches about reform, he should start close to home, in his own Department. While he is doing so, perhaps he could answer a question that his colleague the Minister for Local Government and the Regions failed to answer on Thursday. Why has £250 million disappeared from the schools budget between the Chancellor's spending review and this statement?
On reforming the system of performance-related pay, the Secretary of State said that, from 2005–06, the money for teachers who pass the threshold would be devolved to the schools budget. Will he give schools an assurance that that money will be available to them

27
between now and 2005–06, particularly for the upper pay spine, which is causing severe problems in many schools?
Every school in the country has reason to feel that the Secretary of State is trying to sell them a false prospectus, but some schools and pupils will find that they have been singled out for unfair treatment at the hands of the Government. Last Thursday, it became clear that the Government were declaring war on the shire counties, and those areas come out of today's statement particularly badly. There are a number of examples of this, but I will stick to one that is close to home for me: the treatment of Kent. On the Government's own figures, the increase per pupil is 3.2 per cent., but the effects of the teacher's pay settlement, the pensions problem, and the national insurance increase mean that schools will be facing a cost increase of 7 per cent. just to stand still. So pupils in Kent, including poor pupils, deprived pupils, and pupils from ethnic minorities, will lose out. So much for New Labour's ridiculous claim to be have become a one-nation party.
What we see today is a classic new Labour con trick—shouting about what they are giving with one hand, while staying silent about what they are taking away with the other. It is a con trick the Government have tried many times, but they will find that the House and the British people have seen it all too often before. The Government will be judged by what happens in our schools, and after five years, it is a test that they continue to fail.
Mr. Clarke: Talking of con tricks, the hon. Gentleman is trying to con the country with his suggestions about my announcement today of a real-terms increase in schools spending of more than 17 per cent.—7 per cent. next year, then 4 per cent., then 5 per cent. It is extraordinary that he should do so given that we all know that he is not prepared to commit himself to a single penny of those increases—indeed, interviews given by his party leader and others in this period imply further reductions in education spending rather than the increases that we have announced.
As for the shire counties, I, too, represent a shire county seat—Norwich, in the shire county of Norfolk. The response of Norfolk's Conservative leaders to the settlement was to say that it was a good deal better than they had expected after the propaganda put out earlier by Conservative Front Benchers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman notes and appreciates, as I do as a representative of Norwich, the various aspects of our agreement that encourage local authorities to focus resources on real educational need in their area.
The hon. Gentleman raised some specific points. Yes, the pensions amount is fully covered in the way that I indicated. As for the amounts from the standards fund, we are reducing the number of elements in that fund. I set out reductions in that area continuing during 2003–04, 2004–05 and 2005–06. That is being done because we accept the argument from head teachers that we need a less complicated system of school funding and the removal of some of the separate streams. We are carrying that through, but I make no apology for the process that we have followed, which is to put in money
28
to galvanise the system—for example, the primary literacy and numeracy strategy has made a significant material difference to education standards compared with the position that we inherited. That is also true of the question of greater local control—I stated the figures on that and will not repeat them; and on performance-related pay, I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he sought.
In short, I think that this is a profound and solid statement, which shows the continuing commitment, not only of the Government over the next three-year spending review period, but of every school in the country. Schools will have a three-year programme that they can develop to raise standards. Never before have they had a three-year commitment in advance. That is a tremendous achievement and I am proud of it, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman can only sneer, rather than join in trying to raise standards in our schools.
Mr. Phil Willis: We will not begin our response to the statement in so churlish a fashion. We welcome any additional spending on our schools, and it is rather sad that the Conservative spokesman cannot simply welcome those additional resources.
We welcome the capital resources, but how much—what percentage—of the grant announced today is PFI capital? We welcome, too, the 250,000 child care places, but will the Secretary of State confirm that they will be quality places and not summer play schemes, as was the case previously? We welcome the £1.2 billion increase in the FE budget, but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that money will not meet the 14-to-16 element of the new 14-to-19 proposals, but will be entirely for use within the traditional FE sector?
We welcome the three-year budget certainty, but that certainty rings rather hollow in the absence of advance knowledge of results from the School Teachers Review Body or the manual pay round. Will the Secretary of State make sure that the results of those pay rounds are announced before the traditional December settlement, not afterwards? We welcome the move away from ring-fenced grants to core budgets. We regard that as an admission that previous Secretaries of State have got it badly wrong by trying to dictate from the centre how everything is spent.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, when the fog has lifted from today's statement, we will see a £400 million deficit on the figures announced in the comprehensive spending review in July, rising to £530 million next year? How much will be cut from the CSR amount in 2005–06?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that 9 per cent. of the 7 per cent. increase for schools will be met from council tax—[HON. MEMBERS: "Churlish!"]—and that council tax payers will therefore finance a significant part of the settlement? Will he confirm that schools will have to meet the costs of the £600 million transfer of pensions liability from the Treasury? Will he confirm that local authorities will have to meet the entire cost of special educational needs statements for 2004–05—[HON. MEMBERS: "Churlish!"]—and that the quantifiable resources agreed in the new code of practice simply mean the transfer of the budget to those authorities?

29
Where does the statement mention resources to meet the 100 per cent. pledge on specialist schools, which we welcome and the Secretary of State has guaranteed? Will he agree to drop the £50,000 entry fee for the specialist programme?
Finally, will the Secretary of State tell us why he has refused to accept the activity-led formula, which was agreed by all bodies from Ofsted to the teacher organisations, rather than returning to the historical base for the allocation of resources to primary and secondary schools?
Notwithstanding those few deficiencies, we welcome the statement. [Laughter.]
Mr. Clarke: It may seem uncharacteristic, but I welcome the welcome given by the hon. Gentleman. I do not think he was churlish; I think he asked fair questions, and in that general spirit I will do my best to answer them.
I cannot give details of the PFI proportion, but the overwhelming majority of schools' capital will continue to come directly from the usual sources. I will write to the hon. Gentleman giving him the exact proportion for each year. The 250,000 child-care places are "real places", in the hon. Gentleman's words; they are not manufactured in any way. There will be a genuine increase in the number of places in pre-school education. The £1.2 billion is extra money allocated through the learning and skills councils, which, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, will fund both sixth forms and further education colleges over the period. I hope that co-ordination will be possible. So the extra money will be provided for post-16 education, as indicated. As I have said, 14-to-16 education will be funded through the schools budget for key stage 4.
The hon. Gentleman is right: neither I nor anyone else can predict the outcomes of the review body's decisions. I can only say that, like other Ministers, we are trying to secure long-term agreements over two or three years, which we hope will help schools to plan effectively.
I cannot confirm the existence of the alleged £400 million deficit. As for council tax—I make a political point here—elected local authorities must decide what tax rates to set, and must make balanced judgments on services and on the taxes that they levy. Everyone will want to know what the various authorities decide, but I hope that they will make a proper commitment to funding services. It is not true that, as the hon. Gentleman implied, all the increases will be financed by extra council tax. They will be financed by mainline spending.
We are currently allocating £540 million to pensions directly. We are not asking others to provide the money.
The hon. Gentleman made a serious point about special educational needs. We decided, as a matter of principle and in the spirit of giving more money to local authorities, to allocate the 2004–05 SEN resources by means of the local authority grant settlement. That is because we believe that our mainstream approach is right. As the hon. Gentleman said, however, some people will have worries. Some authorities will take their responsibilities more seriously than others. We will monitor local authority decisions very closely, and report to the House in due course.
30
It is certainly our belief that dealing with special educational needs should be part of the mainstream function of any local education authority, and that it should take it up properly and carry it through. That is why we have made the funding change but issues could arise, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
The funding for specialist schools is within the £1.5 billion for the standards fund that I have just announced but we have not put a figure on it because it is a demand-led programme, for the reasons that I indicated earlier. On the £50,000 entry fee, as the hon. Gentleman calls it, as I said in the House the other day, we are setting up a special fund to allow the £50,000 to be reduced in cases where a school demonstrates that it tried to build the relevant partnerships but simply did not have the cash. We will publish guidelines on that shortly.
The activity-led formula is an old chestnut and I am sure that we will keep going over it in the next few years in an entertaining fashion.
Jim Knight: I very much welcome the great increasesߞthe further increases—in education funding announced by the Secretary of State, but I am concerned about their distribution, particularly given the announcement last week. Sure start is welcomed in my constituency, where there is a detailed measure of rural deprivation—Dorset is 34th out of 34 shire counties—but that rigour is not applied in the new formula that was announced. I ask the Secretary of State to agree to meet a delegation from Dorset to discuss the effects of the settlement on our schools, which appear to be destined to continue to battle against an unfair funding formula.
Mr. Clarke: I am delighted that my hon. Friend, who I think I am right in saying—he will correct me if am wrong—is the first ever Labour Member of Parliament for Dorset, is arguing much more powerfully for his county than some of his Conservative colleagues in other parts of the county. The spirit of the Tolpuddle martyrs lives on and I commend him for that. I will be delighted to meet a delegation to discuss those questions. In all seriousness, we put in a floor on funding per student precisely for the reasons that he raises, and indeed for the reasons that I would raise as a Member of Parliament for another shire county, Norfolk. Whatever the issues of equity, it is important that there should be basic guaranteed minimum funding, and that was guaranteed last Thursday. I am happy to meet a delegation to discuss those issues in more detail.
Mr. Nick Gibb: The Secretary of State's spending plans are of course welcome, but can he give an assurance that additional spending will be accompanied by major changes in the teaching methods and ethos of many of our state schools, which in aggregate are resulting in the United Kingdom education system coming 20th out of 40 in international league tables; a quarter of 11-year-olds not being able to read properly; a quarter of 15—year-olds saying that their lessons are blighted by noise and disorder; and half of 15-yearolds saying that they are bored by their lessons?
Mr. Clarke: I would not entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says because, if we look at some of the

31
international studies, British education does well, but I agree that change is necessary in a number of the areas that he has identified; that is precisely what I have been saying today. We need to move forward in order to generalise some of the changes that we have been developing—for example, advanced skills teachers. Therefore, we need change, but not in response to the pessimistic position that the hon. Gentleman is inaccurately describing.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Have not ring-fenced grants been used well by the Department for Education and Skills to iron out some of the injustices that inevitably arise from the Local Government Finance Act 1987? Perhaps we should hold on to them until we get the new legislation to see how fair it is, and so that that avenue can be used to improve matters in counties such as Derbyshire, where grants are still deficient.
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that those ring-fenced grants have been used well in a number of cases, for example, the primary literacy and numeracy strategy, and I could cite others. The impulse that the standards fund gave helped schools not only in his constituency but more widely to make profound changes. However, I also believe—it is policy right across Government—that we should try to devolve more decisions to local government.
My hon. Friend will know from his own county council and from others that local authorities have not been able to engage with our programme as fully as they would like. That is why we have tried to make changes gradually over the period of the spending review. We have retained some central grants funds, for the reason that my hon. Friend rightly cited, and we have tried to ensure that others are mainstreamed by being passed to the local government settlements, so that the policies and achievements to which he rightly refers can be made part of general practice. I would be happy to discuss with him further any of the specific matters about which he is concerned, but I do not think that there is a contradiction in saying that we have done well in many respects, but that now we should try to generalise that good practice across the whole system.
Mr. John Randall: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the excellence in the cities scheme will be extended to the London borough of Hillingdon to help us sort out our crisis in teacher recruitment and retention?
Mr. Clarke: I cannot confirm that, but I can confirm that Hillingdon, like other London boroughs, has the admirable and tremendous services of the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), and of Mr. Tim Brighouse, in trying to transform the entire approach of education throughout London through the London challenge approach. I acknowledge the implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks—that improvements in education in Hillingdon are needed—but the performance in Hillingdon is not as poor as in some other areas of London, in which we have prioritised the issues taken
32
forward. However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be happy to discuss with him precisely what measures he thinks would help to improve the situation in Hillingdon.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in three primary schools in my constituency, 95 per cent. of the intake of children at reception level do not speak a word of English—in fact, some of them have never even heard English? I therefore welcome the expansion of the sure start programme, to which he refers. That will doubtless help a great deal; it is very popular—in fact, I think that it is wonderful. Combined with universal nursery provision for three-year-olds, that will certainly help to decrease the number of children entering school without any English. I should also mention that parents bear some responsibility in terms of using English in the home, so that we can avoid the trauma of little children going to school without a word of English.
Mr. Clarke: I agree profoundly with my hon. Friend on the issue of sure start schemes, which have been tremendously successful. I have one in my constituency, and like that in my hon. Friend's, it has made a real difference. The challenge that we have to accept is not only to increase the number of sure start programmes, but to generalise the practice and experience of sure start, so that it spreads throughout pre-school education in her constituency and in mine. That is what we are trying to do.
I also take my hon. Friend's point about the importance of relations with parents. That is at the core of the sure start approach, and needs to be at the core of all our pre-school education. On language, all that I can say is that I heard what she has to say, and she makes an important point. Children of that age are obviously growing up in a society in which English will be the dominant language, and they should focus on speaking English well. That is an important part of the job—a job that exists both in school and in the home.
Derek Conway: Can the Secretary of State explain to the House whether he has reviewed the £50,000 barrier for specialist school status? It is an entrance hurdle that is proving a problem in many London boroughs, including my own of Bexley. On further education, which he touched on in his statement, can he assure us about the future of adult education colleges, many of which feel the squeeze? The issue concerns not just those who want to increase their skills for their working life, but the contribution to the community of those who have retired. Such people are increasingly feeling the squeeze because of the funding process for further education colleges such as Bexley college.
Mr. Clarke: For the third time, I am happy to confirm that we have looked again at the £50,000 figure, and in conjunction with the technology colleges trust we have set up a £3 million fund to help schools that want to be specialist schools. We have built the various partnership arrangements with a cash grant to reduce the £50,000 that they might have to pay, if they can demonstrate that they simply cannot raise the money by that means. We

33
have heard the comments of many Members from both sides of the House, and of many schools, and have tried to respond constructively.
On adult education, the increase in resources for the Learning and Skills Council is extremely large. We believe that adult education is tremendously important, particularly issues of adult literacy and numeracy. Some 7 million people in this country still do not have basic level 2 skills. That is a blight on our system. A large amount of money is going into further and adult education because of the fundamental truth that we need to work much harder to ensure that people at all ages and levels, and of all skills, have the talents to meet the needs of the modern economy. That is where the resources will be targeted. That still leaves a place for adult education colleges of type described, which do tremendous work—I have taught in one myself—but the overall mission must be to raise the level of education and skills across the country, and in all areas.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Dennis Skinner.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I was having a very serious discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), Mr. Speaker.
I am not in the mood to be churlish because I went to see a consultant about 10 days ago and I got good news. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] However, the important thing is that Derbyshire authorities, including the authority in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), had a tremendous result of 12.5 per cent. in the local government settlement last Thursday. We hit the ceiling at 12.5 per cent. and Derbyshire county council got 8 per cent. There is no doubt that irrespective of any comments, the activity in education in the past three to four years has been tremendous, and we want to keep it going, especially in the coalfield areas that need rejuvenation. Keep up the good work—send the money to Bolsover.
Mr. Clarke: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks, and I am sure that the whole House will be pleased at his good news. He is right in what he said. We will keep the money coming, particularly to Bolsover.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is it true that there will still be 65 separate avenues through which schools can claim money, even after the changes that the Secretary of State has made? Is he aware of the anxiety caused to many head teachers about the number of forms that they have to fill in? What is he doing to rationalise those forms and the system of grants?
Mr. Clarke: There are a couple of points to address. First, the vast bulk of money—about 99 per cent. of it—goes through six of those funding streams. It is true, as I announced in my statement, that we took six funding streams out this year, thus reducing the number from 71 to 65. I announced that we would take out another seven next year and further funding streams the year after. So we are steadily reducing the number of funding streams to reduce the complexity about which the hon. Gentleman and others have complained. He should not
34
forget, however, that the overwhelming majority of resources are met through just six funding streams, and that is as it should be.
Mr. Chris Pond: My right hon. Friend will be aware that before last Thursday's announcement, every head teacher in Kent was briefed by Kent county council that they should be looking at 8 per cent. cuts in budget. Clearly, the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) was at one of those briefings. However, we now know that, overall, Kent will see a 6.6 per cent. increase in its education funding, which I welcome. In the context of increased devolution of education budgets, can my right hon. Friend reassure us that he will ensure that local education authorities get the funding through to the schools that need it? Will he also congratulate Kent county council on giving the news this weekend that Lawn primary school has made such improvements that the council is to keep it open?
Mr. Clarke: I am happy to congratulate Kent on its decision on Lawn primary school. I addressed Kent head teachers with the Conservative leader of Kent county council a couple of weeks ago and we discussed many of these points in a friendly and fraternal way. I am glad that some of the scaremongering that people engaged in before the local government settlement was announced last Thursday has been proved to be demonstrably false. The fact is that we have provided an increase for every school in Britain. Conservative Members should praise us for that rather than carping at us.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State will recall that after five years of our pressing for it, the reform of the area cost adjustment has delivered a welcome substantial increase in the formula spending share for Cambridgeshire. However, the increase in the education formula spending share cannot be matched by grant because of the operation of the ceiling—only 70 per cent. of the notional increase is actually matched by grant. The Secretary of State referred to three-year indicative budgets. How is my local education authority to go about that process with the ceiling in place? Can it be lifted, for example, so that matters could be discharged in two years rather than three, or could we have indicative figures for the ceiling on grant changes in the two subsequent years?
Mr. Clarke: The reason that we have floors and ceilings—so-called—is that we want to ensure that none of the people who would lose most in any rejigging of the system lose as much as they might. However, that means that some of the people who might have gained most do not gain as much as they might. If we were to remove the ceilings for Cambridgeshire, we might have to remove the floors from some other counties, for example—
Mr. Damian Green: What about Kent?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman brings Kent into the equation and that is indeed an example. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) would like to discuss between themselves whether they want to

35
remove the ceiling for Cambridgeshire and the floor for Kent, or keep the floors and ceilings in place. I shall be interested to hear their conclusion.
Mr. Peter Pike: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that his officials discuss with Lancashire county council at an early date the reorganisation of secondary schools in Burnley to recognise the fact that, for several years, we have had an admissions problem and that, this year, some parents set up a do-it-yourself school? Difficult decisions have to be taken. The resources are there, so will my right hon. Friend ensure that his officials discuss the matter with Lancashire?
Mr. Clarke: I am happy to guarantee that my officials will look at the situation in Burnley and if my hon. Friend would like to bring a delegation to meet the Minister for School Standards or myself to discuss the matter, we should be delighted to do so. It is important to acknowledge the fact that the existing resources—especially on the capital front—allow the resolution of some difficult long-standing issues such as those described by my hon. Friend. I hope that we can help to do that.
Mr. David Curry: How all this impacts on local authorities depends on the relationship between the old system, with its large amount of grant, and the new formula. The purpose of a formula is to be redistributive, otherwise it would not exist. In Middlesbrough, for example, they appear to have gained on both the roundabout and the swings, yet a little further south in North Yorkshire there are serious concerns over medium-term funding, especially in relation to the diminishing standards fund and in particular the nursery grants for three-year-olds, which diminish after 18 months. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that essential funding is maintained over that medium term, even in the less visible guise of the formula?
While we are on the subject of direct grants, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer renounce his annual habit of dishing out money to head teachers in the course of his Budget as a special headline-grabbing formula? After all, that is a direct grant.
Mr. Clarke: If the Chancellor decides to give a little bit of money to head teachers throughout the country in his Budget next year, I certainly shall not try to prevent it. In fact, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has given me an idea that I may pursue.
36
On the right hon. Gentleman's more serious point about nursery grants, I shall look into the comparisons that he gave. The mysteries of the local government grant funding system and the formulae that operate are designed to update the data based on the current situation in each part of the country. That is how the figures emerged. It might be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman dropped me a note about the detail of the particular points he raised. I should be happy to consider them.
Fiona Mactaggart: May I start by congratulating the Secretary of State on the great news about universal nursery education for three-year-olds- I did not expect to see that so quickly. It will make more difference to success in education than many of the other things that he has announced.
May I press my right hon. Friend on the leadership incentive grant? Will he ensure that he uses those resources extremely carefully in areas such as mine where there are separate grammar and secondary-modern schools. Langleywood school has got out of special measures by good leadership and is currently working with Langley grammar school, with some teachers holding appointments at both schools. If we can use initiatives such as that to create partnership, I am sure that children in Slough who do not pass the 11-plus will get a better deal from their secondary education.
Mr. Clarke: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The example that she has given from Slough illustrates precisely the type of collaboration that we are trying to encourage. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards is carefully considering how we can use the grant in a way that ensures that schools both receive the money and work collaboratively to deal with particular leadership problems. The kind of scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) mentioned is helpful in that regard.
We want to avoid the money merely being put into budgets where there is no real leadership outcome. We are convinced that when schools work together—especially at post-16, but also in the 14–16 age range—we can make a major difference in their performance. We hope to use the money to encourage that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have notice of a point of order from Dr. Harris.

Points of Order
4.19 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: Thank you for calling this point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have previously commented on the importance of Ministers making policy announcements to the House to enable Opposition Members and Back Benchers to carry out our role of scrutiny. You will be aware that last Friday a policy announcement was made about civil partnerships and the recognition of same-sex couples in The Independent and on the "Today" programme by the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women, to whom I have given notice of this point of order. There was no sign of any Government announcement on that matter the day before, given that Friday was not a sitting day and, indeed, the answer to a parliamentary question tabled on 27 November gave no indication that an announcement was due. There have been allegations that that announcement was made to dominate the news agenda—[Interruption]—to conceal or displace other items in the news that day, but there was a great deal of interest in this important matter. I should be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, if you could let me know whether you had any indication that the Government planned to make an announcement, whether any statement at the Dispatch Box or written statement is due, or whether the relevant Minister is willing to come to the House to apologise for the fact that, yet again, announcements have been made outside the House.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I reiterate what I have said many times before: the House should be the first to know of changes in Government policy. As for the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, my understanding is that last Friday's announcement concerned an intention to consult on the proposals that he has described. It did not therefore constitute a policy announcement as such.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noted that, when Madam Deputy Speaker was in the Chair on Thursday at the conclusion of the statement on local government finance, I raised a concern, which many Opposition
38
Members share, about the attitude of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions when responding to the concerns that were expressed. About an hour after the Minister finished answering questions, I received a message from the director of finance of my local authority to say that the Minister's announcement that my borough council would receive a 3.2 per cent. increase in local government spending was, in fact, based on fiddling the figures by adjusting the current year's spending and that the true figure was only 1.08 per cent. Can you give us guidance on how we may press in the House for Members to receive a proper, accurate statistical analysis, supported by the opinion of professional local government officers, rather than by fiddled figures announced by Ministers?
Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Gentleman raises is a matter for debate. He knows that he can apply for an Adjournment debate or table parliamentary questions. There are many ways to extract the figures that he requires.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, during business questions last Thursday, I asked the Leader of the House why we were not yet aware of the motion that the Government will table on Thursday for what he described as a substantive debate. He said:
"It is right that we should have a full day's debate on those topics"—
agriculture, the environment and foot and mouth disease
"and a full motion will be tabled in good time."—[Official Report, 5 December 2002; Vol. 395, c. 1050.]
So it was perfectly obvious that the Leader of the House seemed to know last Thursday what would be the terms of the motion that the House will debate this Thursday, yet, as I speak, there is no indication of what that will be. Can you do something about that, Mr. Speaker? If the Leader of the House knows the terms of the motion, presumably, Ministers also know them. Why cannot they share that with the House so that we can have a properly prepared, structured debate on Thursday?
Mr. Speaker: May I advise the right hon. Gentleman that this is perhaps something that he could take up through the usual channels?

Orders of the Day

  Extradition Bill
  [Relevant document: The First Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, on the Extradition Bill (House of Commons Paper No. 138).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.24 pm
  The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am pleased to introduce this important Bill. The House will understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is indisposed, but I am sure that he will be back with us shortly.
  This important Bill will bring what are essentially 19th-century extradition arrangements into the very different world of the 21st century. The main legislation that it will replace is the Extradition Act 1989, which, of course, was a consolidation measure that included large chunks of the Extradition Act 1870. The 1870 legislation effectively still governs our bilateral extradition arrangements.
  Our extradition arrangements are in urgent need of reform. On average, it takes 18 months to extradite someone from the UK and, in many cases, much longer. The system allows the fugitive to raise the same—arguably, often spurious—points time and again, and to mount numerous legal challenges. Even when—as has happened many times—an individual appeals all the way to the House of Lords following the committal hearing, he can, once the Secretary of State has considered the case, appeal all the way again on exactly the same grounds.
  To give a real—life—but anonymous—example, Mr. B was wanted by the French authorities for trafficking in cannabis. It was alleged that he assisted his father in overseeing the importation of approximately £1.3 million worth of cannabis resin into the UK. He was arrested in the UK in November 1995. He appealed against his extradition, through habeas corpus and judicial review, no fewer than five times, raising many of the same issues each time, and then attempted to delay his extradition on health grounds just before his actual surrender. He was finally extradited to France in September 2001, nearly six years after his arrest, and was sentenced in November 2001 to four years imprisonment and a €45,000 fine. The costs of detention alone in this case exceeded £120,000, to say nothing of court and legal costs.
  The present extradition system has manifest failings. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), speaking in the debate on the Loyal Address less than three weeks ago, said:
  "It is clear that the extradition procedure needs to be tightened, streamlined and speeded-up…we need to limit the number of appeals and to tighten up the whole procedure…Currently, I think one can make about six appeals in the average extradition case."—[Official Report, 20 November 2002; Vol. 394, c. 682.]
  Although he went on to make several detailed criticisms of the Bill, the House as a whole will share the sentiments that he expressed in those remarks.
  40
  We live in a day and age in which crime is becoming increasingly international, and we simply cannot go on as we are. We need a quick and efficient extradition system in which proper protection for the rights of those who are the subject of extradition requests is built in. Before describing the provisions of the Bill, perhaps I can explain to the House a little of its history.
  In March 2000, the then Home Secretary, who is now the Foreign Secretary, announced that a review of extradition law would take place. It was completed a year later, and a consultation paper was published in March 2001. We are very grateful for the responses that were received, which can be found in the Library and on the Home Office website. We published a draft Bill in June this year and again received many helpful comments. I particularly welcome the interest that the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have shown, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who chair those Committees. We have also heeded what those Committees said, and a number of additional safeguards in relation to politically motivated requests and fugitives' state of health have been built in to the Bill as a consequence.
  Mr. David Cameron: As The Minister is aware, many important extraditions have not gone ahead because of the courts' interpretation of article 3 of the European convention on human rights. Is he aware of the Soering judgment, in which someone accused of murder could not be extradited to the United States under article 3? What will the Bill do to try to streamline such cases and make the extraditions go ahead?
  Mr. Denham: It is important to say that the Bill does not seek to overturn the European convention on human rights. Indeed, the convention provides a test for extradition that is built into the Bill, so it would be wrong to suggest that we are attempting to use the Bill as a way round some of the issues arising from the convention. In drafting the Bill, we have sought to make it clear that the extradition proposals do not suspend or change the convention's provisions. Such a human rights principle should be reflected in the Bill.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Although I was grateful to hear my right hon. Friend's kind words of a moment ago, the recommendations in the Home Affairs Committee's report go considerably further than the ones that he has so far adopted. I was a little disappointed, therefore, by the off-hand press release issued on Thursday in response to our report. It seemed to suggest that we should not take too detailed an interest in this subject. I am sure that that was not the intention, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that he proposes to look carefully at the rest of our recommendations and that we might, in future, look forward to seeing some of them implemented too?
  Mr. Denham: Naturally, I am very disappointed that my hon. Friend is disappointed at the tone of the press release. I hope that nothing that we said gave the impression that it was not the business of the Home Affairs Committee to look closely at this Bill. In my earlier remarks, I was referring, in particular, to the

  41
  changes that we were able to make between the draft Bill and the Bill's current version in response to representations and suggestions made by, among others, the Home Affairs Committee. In the past few days, we have received the more recent comments of the Committee on the Bill before us. I am sure that those comments will be discussed in this debate and examined carefully in Committee. We will, of course, consider every suggestion and recommendation on its merits and, if we are convinced of them, we will seek in the appropriate way to amend the legislation. I have not in any way closed the door on the principle of considering some of the recommendations from the Home Affairs Committee.
  Mr. David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman has received suggestions from a wide circle of people who have taken an interest in the Bill. How many consultees' suggestions were incorporated in changes to the draft Bill before it reached this stage?
  Mr. Denham: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the arithmetical answer that he seeks; indeed, some suggestions came from more than one organisation. In particular, the provisions for politically motivated requests and for the health of suspects were made in response to proposals from several different organisations. Further changes were made to the drafting in respect of the release of prisoners if an extradition were withdrawn purely because the consultations revealed that ambiguous drafting had led to the wording being interpreted in entirely the opposite way to that which the Government intended. There were a series of recommendations of that sort. The consultation responses that we have permission to publish are in the House of Commons Library, and I am sure that they will be of use to hon. Members when the Bill is in Committee.
  I shall describe in more detail the provisions in the Bill. Parts 1 and 2 create two parallel regimes for handling incoming extradition requests. Part 1 is the more streamlined regime. It will apply initially to requests from other European Union member states and enable us to give effect to the European arrest warrant—the EAW. The Government believe strongly in the principle of mutual recognition. It has been suggested in some quarters that the EAW is the first step towards the creation of a European judicial superstate—quite the reverse. It is precisely, if we want to avoid pressure for a Europe with harmonised laws and a single judicial system that we must be prepared to recognise the judicial decisions taken in other European countries.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has just told the House that the Bill is designed to extend, in the first instance, the power to other European countries. We are, of course, dealing with the power of designation, so to what other countries do the Government, at this time, intend to designate by Order in Council?
  Mr. Denham: We do not at this stage have particular countries to which that could be extended.
  Major issues of concern surround the European arrest warrant. It will help if I address them now because, on closer examination, they will turn out to be
  42
  unjustified. The framework decision on the European arrest warrant was given parliamentary scrutiny. The Government maintained a scrutiny reserve until both Houses had cleared the instrument, which happened after the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), had appeared before Committees in both Houses and there had been a debate in another place. By introducing the Bill, we are giving Parliament another opportunity to consider the measures.
  There have been fears about foreign police officers coming to Britain to arrest people. They are groundless. Only British law enforcement personnel, such as the police and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, will be permitted to execute a European arrest warrant in this country.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: But the offences are not listed in the Bill and the means of changing or expanding them is by ministerial order. Do the Government not think that that is a highly unsatisfactory process?
  Mr. Denham: That is a slightly different issue. I was talking about powers of arrest. The Bill reflects the framework decision on the list of generic offences and makes specific reference to that in, I think, clause 63. The list of generic offences is clear. At the moment, an amendment to the list could be made only by unanimous agreement in the Council of Ministers. It is our judgment that it is better to have drafted the Bill as we have, referring to that decision, rather than to be required automatically to have new primary legislation should such a change be made. I am sure that that will be explored in Committee. The Bill is drafted in such a way as to avoid the need to introduce primary legislation. I am not aware of any proposals in the justice and home affairs division of the EU to change the list of generic offences.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: The Minister said that only a British constable would execute the warrant. Does that mean that he accepts that we need to amend clause 3, which allows the Secretary of State to designate absolutely anyone as an appropriate officer?
  Mr. Denham: I said that it was the Government's intention that only British law enforcement personnel would be permitted to execute a European arrest warrant in this country. That means the police, but it could also include Customs and Excise. There are plenty of legal precedents for using the term "appropriate person", including in legislation adopted by the Conservatives when they were in government to deal with powers of stop, search and entry that gave an even wider range of discretion to the Home Secretary. Given the point of principle that I have outlined, I have no doubt that the precise wording can be considered in Committee.
  Mr. Letwin: It would be helpful if I could take it that the Minister is willing to redefine the clause so that it clearly applies to British law enforcement officers.
  Mr. Denham: I am saying that there is plenty of precedent in almost identical circumstances in which

  43
  Governments, including Conservative Governments, have restricted a power to British law enforcement personnel even though they have used the term "appropriate person", or something similar, in legislation. That should give the House sufficient confidence in this Government's intention to use the Bill in the same way. I have no doubt that the matter will be considered in Committee. However, it is important for the House to understand clearly the Government's intentions.
  Tony Cunningham: A few months ago, I spoke to a police officer who worked on serious crimes, by which I mean drugs, people smuggling and so on. He said that not one of the top 100 criminals—those people who are involved in the most serious crimes—lived in the UK. Is not that a good reason why we need the Bill?
  Mr. Denham: Crime is becoming increasingly organised internationally. It is important that the system of extradition does not prevent the effective but just use of extradition to ensure that serious criminals can be dealt with. It is the recognition throughout the European Union that the systems that we have in place make law enforcement and the exercise of justice more difficult that lies behind the agreed moves throughout the EU to change extradition arrangements. I think that my hon. Friend is right.
  Mike Gapes: My right hon. Friend referred to the European Union. Will he confirm that if the EU is enlarged during the next few years, the proposed legislation will mean that we can take much more effective action to deal with the criminality that exists throughout the European continent? It will then be far more effective in tracking down the origins of the people smugglers and the drug smugglers who use central and eastern Europe as a conduit to this country.
  Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend makes a good point, to which I shall turn shortly.
  An important part of the accession agreement is that states must be able to fulfil their full obligations under the framework decision and the European arrest warrant. The ability to have common approaches throughout the EU after enlargement will, I think, be of significant assistance to us in fighting international and organised crime.
  I shall continue to go through the issues that have been raised as potential objections to the Bill. It has been said, for example, that people will be sent off to stand trial in another country without due process in this country. I can reassure the House. Anyone who is the subject of a European arrest warrant will be entitled to an extradition hearing before a British judge. They will then have the right of appeal to the High Court and, if significant points of law are raised, to the House of Lords.
  Mr. John Burnett: Will the issuing country—the country that requires the extradition—have to make a prima facie case in this country?
  Mr. Denham: No. In the context of part 1, the issuing country does not have to do that today, and has not had
  44
  to for many years. Under the European agreement on extradition, a much wider group of countries than the EU—essentially, the Council of Europe countries—agreed more than 10 years ago that prima facie evidence did not need to be provided. It is an unfortunate myth that the Bill is introducing a profoundly new principle into our extradition arrangements with our European colleagues.
  There is an issue about prima facie evidence that comes up in part 2, which I shall address briefly. However, as for EU countries, I think that there is no new issue of principle in the proposed legislation.
  Mr. Boris Johnson: Mutual recognition.
  Mr. Denham: The provision of prima facie evidence is not required at present and it will not be required in future. On this issue, the Bill does not introduce a new principle.
  It has been suggested that a newspaper editor could be extradited for publishing an anti-German editorial. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that these stories are wildly inaccurate. No one will be extradited for conduct in this country that is not illegal in this country. I shall say more about dual criminality in a moment.
  Derek Conway: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. John Maples: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Denham: No. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me. Perhaps I could make some progress and then take more interventions.
  There have been complaints that we are removing the requirement for evidence in the case against fugitives to be produced. As I have said, all the Council of Europe countries have not had to provide prima facie evidence with their extradition requests since the United Kingdom signed up to the European convention on extradition in 1991. I assume that the Opposition found that an acceptable principle then—I assume that they still do today. It has been suggested that we would be obliged to extradite in cases where the presumption of innocence is not applied. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pointed out to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) in the debate on the Gracious Speech, the presumption is a guaranteed right under the European convention on human rights, to which all European Union states have signed up. In the case of convictions in absentia, the Bill it makes it clear that we will extradite only if the fugitive is guaranteed a retrial. A retrial is differentiated from a simple appeal by the fact that the process starts again from scratch with a presumption of innocence.
  Having spent rather longer than I intended on what the European arrest warrant is not about, I shall say what it is about, and describe its benefits. It will speed up extradition with EU partners. In future, cases within the EU should take about three months, as opposed to nine to 12 months at present. The current timetable for bringing serious criminals to justice does a great disservice to the victims of crime. It works both ways—

  45
  Britain's extradition procedures are notoriously slow, but our EU partners are not always above blame, as demonstrated by the case of Mr. L. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in this country for beating a man unconscious and leaving him to die. The victim died from his wounds four days later. Mr. L escaped from prison and absconded to France, and an extradition request was made to France, where he was duly arrested. One would have thought that that was a very clear case, yet it took more than a year before he was returned to Britain—one can only imagine the additional distress and pain that the episode must have caused the victim's family.
  Some of our European partners refuse to extradite their own nationals, even if they have committed the most heinous crimes in Britain. The European arrest warrant will mean that those countries will no longer be able to prohibit extradition of their own nationals, denying us the right to try those who have committed serious crimes here.
  Some of our European partners have traditionally been unwilling to extradite people who have committed purely fiscal offences. The UK has never held the view that fiscal offences are minor crimes, but others take the contrary view. UK criminals have not been slow to exploit that loophole, with the result that people accused of major tax evasion and VAT fraud have been able to escape justice. The European arrest warrant means that serious criminals accused of fiscal offences will no longer be able to hide within the EU.
  Some of our European partners are unwilling to extradite for crimes where they have a statute of limitations, even though we do not. The case of Mr. Y, a British national, illustrates the problem. He was accused of the serious sexual abuse of two children in Britain—a crime that by its nature only comes to light many years after the event. His extradition from Denmark was sought, but refused because Denmark's statute of limitations had expired. However, Mr. Y could legitimately have been put on trial in this country. In future, people in his position will be extradited.
  The European arrest warrant will have all those clear benefits for the United Kingdom and our criminal justice system, but there will also be strong safeguards for fugitives—an extradition hearing before a district judge, the right of appeal to the High Court and, if important points of law are raised, to the House of Lords. Extradition can be barred because of double jeopardy, and will not be possible if the fugitive's mental or physical condition makes it unjust to extradite him; if there is reason to believe the prosecution is politically motivated; if the fugitive's trial is likely to be prejudiced by extraneous factors; or if the fugitive's rights under the European convention on human rights would be breached. All the states that we are talking about are mature democracies and ECHR signatories, so it is highly unlikely that some of those bars will ever arise.
  Mr. Hogg: I have almost lost my voice, so I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can hear me. On the ECHR point, will it involve the district judge assessing the quality of the trial that the defendant will receive in the country to which he is to be extradited?
  Mr. Denham: The Bill is based on mutual recognition of each EU country's judicial and criminal justice
  46
  systems. The presumption on which the original framework decision and the legislation are based is that decisions in one another's countries are respected and trusted. None the less, we need to be sure that ECHR rights are not breached. Personally, I think that unlikely in the case of the states under discussion, but it would be open to people to argue, as it always is in legal processes, that that would be an issue. It is important that the House understands that mutual recognition is a point of principle on which the Bill is based.
  Derek Conway: The Minister brings to the House his usual temperate delivery, for which we are grateful. However, there is a concern. If 32 categories of offence are exempted from the dual criminality requirement, what does the Minister say about Lord Scott's observation that the definition of a xenophobia offence in the schedule
  "would almost certainly cover the distribution of Biggles and probably the Old Testament"?
  On the murders, rapes and child offences, nobody in the Chamber would do other than share the Minister's views, but it is the other aspects of European law, which are not customary in the United Kingdom, that cause concern.
  Mr. Denham: Perhaps it would be helpful if I turned straight to the issue of dual criminality, which is clearly an important issue in this debate.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Denham: I should attempt to answer the intervention from the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) before I take others.
  First, no one will be extradited for conduct that takes place lawfully in this country. Secondly, it will be possible for people to be extradited for conduct that is not illegal in UK law, but where that conduct has taken place in the requesting state and breaches its law. The principle is simple: British people who go abroad should be expected to obey the law of the country that they are visiting, in the same way as we expect visitors to this country to obey our laws.
  If a German citizen came to this country and acted illegally in the UK, we would expect them to be arrested and put on trial, irrespective of whether their conduct was contrary to German law. In the same way, a Briton who visits Germany should not expect to escape justice for breaking German law simply because Britain does not have an exactly equivalent crime. If a British citizen goes to Sweden and breaks the law there, he can expect to be arrested and put on trial, irrespective of whether the conduct is contrary to UK law. I am sure that no right hon. or hon. Member objects to that proposition—
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I do.
  Mr. Denham: It will be useful to flush that out in the debate. I believe that a British citizen who goes to Sweden and breaks the law there should expect to be dealt with by the Swedish criminal justice system. Opposition Members seem to believe that if that person flees before arrest and manages to cross a border, they

  47
  should be safe from prosecution. In a world where travel is so simple and widely available, that is an indefensible position.
  Mr. Swayne: Is the Minister suggesting that, had the tourists in Greece earlier in the year left Greece and got back to the UK, and had an extradition warrant subsequently been issued for their arrest, it would have been quite proper for us to ship them back for conduct—observing aeroplanes—that is a crime there, but not here?
  Mr. Denham: If a country has a crime of espionage and wishes to charge people with that, that must be its right.
  Mr. Swayne: Is that a yes?
  Mr. Denham: Just as we in this country would expect our espionage laws to be followed. There is a fundamental point of principle here, which Opposition Members need to recognise. It is difficult to argue that British citizens should be able to travel to other EU countries and break their laws, without arguing that the same rights should be extended to visitors from the EU who come to this country. That is not what our fellow citizens in this country expect. We expect that anybody in the UK who breaks our laws can be brought before British justice and that the extradition system should enable those people, if necessary, to be brought back to face British justice.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Are not specific offences such as sex with children under 16 and some forms of drug trafficking or drug abuse legal in certain European countries but illegal here? Are those who oppose the measure suggesting that we should let people who commit such offences off simply because they flee the country before prosecution?
  Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It would be useful to find out in this debate whether Opposition Members believe that people who break the law in this country should be able to escape justice simply by leaving these shores for another European Union country. That is at the heart of the issue.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Denham: I should like to make a little progress—
  Mr. Shepherd: Will the Minister give way on that very point?
  Mr. Denham: After I have made some progress, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Not all EU countries have an offence of incitement to racial hatred and most other EU countries do not have an offence of fraudulent trading—but we do. Not all EU countries have laws equivalent to ours on the evasion of
  48
  excise duties. As long as Opposition Members maintain that there must be absolute dual criminality in the EU, it follows that they are suggesting that people can commit the serious offences that I mentioned with complete impunity as long as they can cross the frontier before our police apprehend them.
  Mr. Shepherd: Does the Minister not appreciate that the matter is more complex? Essential to our concept of liberty is freedom of expression and free speech. We regard that as an especially important ingredient, but other countries take a view on some elements of free speech. For instance, xenophobia may be a thought crime here, but it is not a legal crime, even though it can be an offence elsewhere. The Bill is now trespassing on areas that affect the freedom of the citizen in this country, as well as that of the German or French person who expresses in words something that is contrary to their law and then seeks residence here. We would have to extradite such a person for something that we hold to be important—the right to freedom of expression.
  Mr. Denham: The problem with the hon. Gentleman's argument and the logic of his position is the suggestion that somebody should be able to travel to this country from Portugal—I have nothing against the Portuguese people or any reason to believe that they might wish to do this—which does not have laws on incitement to racial hatred, and incite racial hatred here, perhaps with a serious impact on community cohesion. If they were to escape arrest, they could then return to Portugal without our being able to take action. It is our view that that is unacceptable.
  Indeed, the principle that underlies the framework decision in the EU is that member states collectively and unanimously believe that the creation of loopholes that enable criminals to avoid the consequences of their conduct throughout the EU is wholly undesirable both for individual member states and for the development of the EU itself.
  Annabelle Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: It is useful to have this discussion to flush out some of the issues, but I should like to make some progress. I shall, however, give way to the hon. Lady.
  Annabelle Ewing: The Minister said that, in the round, the Bill, and therefore the European arrest warrant, reflected the principle of mutual recognition, which is a key legislative principle in the EU. However, does he accept that, as we have seen in swathes of legislation implementing the EC single market, the principle of mutual recognition is based on the premise of a minimum harmonisation of standards? That has not happened in criminal law as it was outwith the scope of the EC treaty. It is only with regard to third pillar measures that any moves have been made in criminal law. Is it wise to proceed with such measures when we lack proper understanding about whether we have a common and acceptable framework with regard to procedural safeguards in criminal law, for example, and also whether the presumption of innocence is applicable in the terms in which we understand it, certainly in Scots law, throughout the European Union?
  Mr. Denham: That is clearly a matter on which hon. Members need to reach a judgment as the Bill

  49
  progresses. The Government believe that the answer to both the hon. Lady's questions is yes. We have sufficient confidence in the criminal justice systems of the mainly mature democracies of the 15 countries of the European Union. I shall deal with the point about the accession states shortly. The European convention on human rights is incorporated into the law of each of those countries. The protection of the presumption of innocence is therefore built into the approach that we are considering.
  Mr. Letwin: The Minister has been extremely patient, but I want to take him up on his last point, which he made earlier in passing. Does he accept that there is a difference between the right to a fair trial, which the convention guarantees, and the presumption of innocence, which is a peculiarity of specific judicial systems, including ours?
  Mr. Denham: I believe that the protection that we seek for the presumption of innocence is in the charter, but doubtless we shall debate the matter at greater length.
  Harry Cohen rose—
  Mr. Cameron rose—
  Mr. Denham: I need to make progress, but I hope to take further interventions before I finish.
  Subject to the Bill's successful passage, we shall be in a position to begin operating the European arrest warrant by the deadline in the framework decision of 1 January 2004. However, it will be possible to use it earlier on a reciprocal basis with countries that enact their enabling legislation before the deadline.
  I want to consider part 2, which deals with extradition to the rest of the world. Its provisions are similar to the current system, with a continuing role for the Home Secretary, but it also incorporates some of the advantages of part 1. Instead of the multiple and overlapping hearings and appeals that currently occur, there will be a single extradition hearing, which will be followed by the Home Secretary's consideration of the case. After that, there will be a single appeal hearing, under which all the decisions can be reviewed. The case can subsequently go to the House of Lords if significant points of law have arisen. We have also incorporated significant safeguards from part 1.
  No one will be extradited if their mental or physical condition would make that unjust or oppressive. No one will be extradited if a request has been made for the purpose of persecuting the fugitive on the grounds of race, religion or political opinions, or if those factors mean that he is liable to be prejudiced at his trial. No one will be extradited if double jeopardy comes into play, or if the person is below the age of criminal responsibility in this country.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I believe that clause 78 in part 2 deals with double jeopardy. The Government are about to change the law on it in this country. Will the Extradition Bill match the Criminal Justice Bill, or will the Government produce two conflicting measures on double jeopardy?
  Mr. Denham: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point, which I was about to tackle. He is
  50
  right that we will need to match the relevant provisions of both Bills so that they make coherent sense. Although the Extradition Bill simply provides that no one will be extradited if double jeopardy comes into play, as the measure progresses through Parliament, we will try to provide for the possibility of extraditing somebody from a country that took the approach that we hope to effect in the Criminal Justice Bill.
  In other words, if another country had a judicial process that was akin to the ability that we propose for the Court of Appeal to set aside an existing judgment and thus enable a case to be retried, extradition could be allowed from this country. Our ability to extradite someone who, in a classic case, had been identified through DNA evidence, from another country would depend on its domestic law. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point, because this is not what the legislation says, as it stands, and nor is it quite what the Criminal Justice Bill says. It will be important that both pieces of legislation are worked together as we go through them. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for ensuring that we did not go past this point in the debate without my having the opportunity to say that.
  Mr. Garnier: I am always grateful for flattery, from whichever quarter it comes, but the House is entitled to know which is the lead Bill. Is it the Extradition Bill or the Criminal Justice Bill? Both cannot be discussed at once on the Floor of the House, and both may yet get Royal Assent on the same day. It is important for the public, as well as for practitioners and for potential victims—if I can use that expression—of either Bill, to understand precisely how the Government are going to order their priorities. That is wholly unclear at the moment.
  Mr. Denham: We will need to keep discussions open on the way in which this is to be dealt with, through the usual channels. To some degree, that will depend on the rate of progress of Bills through this place. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point, and I do not dismiss it out of hand. I hope that he will accept my assurance that we recognise the validity and importance of the issue that he has raised, and the need to be as clear as we can with those outside—as well as with right hon. and hon. Members and Members of another place—about how we intend to mesh the two Bills carefully together.
  I want to say a little more about part 2. I should make the point that a district judge will be explicitly required to consider whether extradition would he compatible with a fugitive's rights under the European convention on human rights. I am sure that there will be further discussion on this, but article 6.2 of the convention states that:
  "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
  That relates to a point that was raised a few moments ago.
  In addition, most countries in part 2 will, as now, continue to have to provide prima facie evidence to accompany their extradition requests. However, as I have already explained, under current arrangements the non-EU members of the Council of Europe do not have

  51
  to provide prima facie evidence, and that will remain the case. The Government believe that there is a case, as we said in the March 2001 consultation paper, for removing the prima facie requirement from certain key Commonwealth and bilateral partners. We have not sought prima facie evidence from European countries for more than a decade, so why should countries such as Australia and Canada continue to be subject to that requirement? For countries of that kind, questions of guilt or innocence should be matters for the court of trial in the requesting country. The Bill therefore allows for orders to be made removing the prima facie requirement from certain part 2 countries. The Bill also enables a strict timetable for part 2 cases to be put in place. Notwithstanding the significant safeguards for fugitives that will exist, we believe that it should generally take no more than six months for one of these cases to be completed, which will represent a significant speeding up of the process.
  Part 3 deals with outgoing extradition requests. Our existing legislation is largely silent on this issue, and we have relied mainly on the use of the royal prerogative. The Bill sets out who will be able to apply for European arrest warrants in this country, how, and for what offences. Part 4 sets out the powers available to the police in extradition cases. It had always been assumed that the powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 applied in extradition cases, but a legal ruling in a particular case cast doubt on that. We are therefore taking the opportunity to bring a measure of certainty to the matter. Let me stress that the powers that the Bill creates are closely modelled on those in PACE. Finally, Part 5 covers miscellaneous and general matters. The Bill runs to some 208 clauses. Its length reflects the consultation earlier this year, as well as the decisions to include provisions on outgoing requests and police powers, and to make the law as accessible and clear as possible.
  The case for reform of our extradition laws is clear. There is no other area of law in which people can raise the same, often spurious, points, time and again, simply as a means of delaying proceedings. The Bill will modernise our extradition procedures, while retaining the important and necessary safeguards for those who are the subject of an extradition request.
  Organised and international crime is, as my hon. Friends have said, a sad feature of life in the 21st century. We need an extradition system that enables us to meet that challenge. The Bill will provide that and I commend—
  Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so close to the conclusion of his remarks. Will he confirm that those Irish citizens who have committed acts of terrorism, which is a conduct listed in the relevant provisions, and who have gone on the run to the Republic of Ireland, will now be extradited?
  Mr. Denham: The hon. Lady intervened during the last sentence of what I admit was a rather low-key peroration, but a peroration none the less. There is certainly nothing in the Bill to put any obstacles in the way of extradition. As I said earlier when detailing the history of the Bill, it long predates the many new
  52
  terrorism measures introduced after 11 September. However, the hon. Lady is quite right to say that terrorist offences are covered by it.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.11 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I begin by sending—on behalf of the whole House, I am sure—our best wishes to the Home Secretary for his speedy recovery.
  The bulk—by volume, as opposed to importance—of the Bill is not highly contentious. Parts 2, 3 and 5 will no doubt repay attention in Committee but do not involve vast matters of principle. Part 4 contains some worrying elements—for example, clause 160(3)(b), which, if I understand it correctly, allows the police to search premises if they have "reason to believe" that a warrant will in due course be issued in some other country. That does not fill me with enthusiasm. We will have to look closely at part 4 and the powers contained therein, but by and large I do not think that it contains matters that need detain us long—they did not detain the Minister during his opening remarks.
  Part 1 is a wholly different matter. There are four problems with this part, which deals with the European arrest warrant. The first problem is that the part does not say what the Minister says it means. The second problem is that what the Minister says part 1 means is not acceptable. The third problem is that we do not need part 1 in any event, because part 2 would do the trick perfectly well. The fourth problem is that the only reason for having part 1 is a reason that we do not accept. Other than that, there are no objections to part 1. [Laughter.]
  Let me explore the first of those four objections—that the part does not say what the Minister says it means—and give some examples. In clause 2(3)(a), the definition of the scope of the warrant is given. We are told that the arrest warrant must contain a statement that
  "the person in respect of whom the warrant is issued is accused in the category 1 territory of the commission of an offence specified in the warrant".
  The Minister told us that that is meant to mean that the offence itself must be committed in the territory in which the warrant has been issued. I believe that that is what the Minister means it to mean, but the English language has a stubborn habit of carrying its own meanings, and the words printed do not mean what the Minister says. The words printed mean that the person in respect of whom the warrant is issued has to have been accused in that territory of the commission of an offence; the offence may actually, within the meaning of subsection (3)(a), have been committed in this country or some other country.
  Let me give a second example. The Minister told us that there was no intention whatever of allowing anyone other than an English law enforcement officer, however defined—I accept that it might be an officer of Customs and Excise rather than the police—to execute the warrant. Clause 3(3), however, defines an "appropriate person" who may be allowed by the Secretary of State to make an arrest by means of the warrant dealt with in subsection (2) as
  "a person of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section."

  53
  In other words, the Bill does not mean what the Minister wants it to mean. It means that the Minister can decide that absolutely anybody is an appropriate person, including a policeman from a different jurisdiction.
  Ian Lucas: The right hon. Gentleman has stressed the importance of using terms exactly. When he referred to English officers, did he mean British officers?
  Mr. Letwin: For the purposes of English law and in England, they would be English officers. Presumably for the purposes of Scottish law and in Scotland they would be Scottish officers. My unionism is still strong enough for me not to worry too much about that distinction, although I am immensely concerned about the prospect of an officer from another EU country coming to the United Kingdom because he has been designated by the Secretary of State. I take the Minister's statement at face value, and if he says that the intention is to specify only law enforcement officers in our jurisdiction, that is what the Bill should say.
  Mr. Hogg: I am sure that that is the answer we shall be given in the Minister's winding-up speech, but somewhere down the track there may well be an agreement between EU interior Ministers that each will enable the other to authorise, by some designation procedure, the officers of the other to execute the law in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Letwin: I agree. I must not have made myself clear. I do not mean that it would be acceptable for the Minister to keep saying, on the record, that he intends the clause to be used only in regard to English officers; I mean that part 1 would only be remotely satisfactory if it specifically precluded the least possibility of anyone other than an English law enforcement officer carrying out such procedures in England. That is why I say that the Bill must mean what the Minister says he wants it to mean, and not something else. I do not want to live in an Alice in Wonderland world of legislation.
  Annabelle Ewing: May I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas)? I speak as a Scots lawyer and the representative of a constituency controlled by the Scottish National party.
  The right hon. Gentleman will know that Scotland has a separate criminal legal system—fortunately—with separate rules and regulations governing our police force. It would help if he was specific when referring to the territorial make-up and the various component parts of the United Kingdom in that context.
  Mr. Letwin: In the presence of the hon. Lady, I would be terrified to make the slightest statement except in relation to English law and its enforcement in England. I am sure she will tell us what she thinks about Scotland, and we can discuss it further in Committee. I would rest content if it were the case, which it is not, that part 1 was satisfactory from an English point of view.
  Tony Cunningham: Does the right hon. Gentleman have a problem with the drafting, or does he oppose part 1 in principle?
  Mr. Letwin: Both.
  54
  My second objection is this. We now come to the first of the issues of principle. Part 1 would not be acceptable even if it meant what the Minister says he means it to mean. The "list of offences", for instance, is not a list of offences, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) pointed out with his usual perspicacity. It is, in fact, a mechanism whereby a set of representatives of executive powers—of Governments—in the European Union will decide what, from time to time, they wish to be the list of offences. The Minister told the House that it was far better to ensure that it was done by the unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers rather than by some other mechanism, but what does he mean by the unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers? He means that the Governments of the member states would get together and change the framework directive, and thereby change the list of offences.
  Again, the Bill may not mean what it is meant to mean. Perhaps it is meant to mean just the current list; if so, let us include the current list, to which I shall shortly object in any event, and not a mechanism that seems to the ordinary reader to permit the list to be enlarged further. In fact, I believe it to be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to allow the list to be enlarged. I think that Parliament will be consciously sidelined as we proceed, with a larger and larger list of offences specified.
  The list is already deeply obnoxious. It contains the arguable offence of xenophobia, which is an offence in some countries but not in ours, in a most bizarre and ambiguous form. Clause 13 specifically provides one of the few bars to extradition under part 1. For example, extradition would be barred if a person found that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of
  "his race, religion, nationality or political opinions".
  I do not know what an English judge would do when faced with one clause that tells him that he cannot extradite someone if the extradition relates to the person's political opinions, when another clause tells him by the roundabout route of the framework directive that the person can be extradited if the charge is xenophobia. I do not know how an English judge could be expected to adjudicate on that appropriately. It is not clear from part 1 whether the English judge will or will not—there are two contrary suggestions within the drafting—be able to look at whether the charge of xenophobia is ipso facto a charge that relates to the political opinions of the person in question.
  I do not suppose the Minister has the slightest idea what the answer to that question is. The framework decision has been adopted lock, stock and barrel, and a group of people has got together to put back, through the bars in clause 11, a few constraints designed to ameliorate a set of draconian measures.
  Mike Gapes: May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's comments that he would be perfectly happy if neo-Nazi groups in one European Union state were able to use computers, the internet and publishing material to undermine laws on incitement to racial

  55
  hatred or xenophobia such as exist in this country and in Germany without any possibility of action being taken against them?
  Mr. Letwin: I am not sure that I have ever heard quite such a confused intervention. The difference between the offence of xenophobia, which we do not have, and the offence of incitement to racial hatred, which we do have, is the very difference that we are discussing. Of course, if the test of dual criminality continued to apply as it should—it does not under the Bill—one could continue to extradite those who were engaged in incitement to racial hatred, which is a criminal offence in this country, but not those who were accused of xenophobia, which is not an offence in this country.
  Mr. Denham: The right hon. Gentleman has given his views on xenophobia. What is his view about a British citizen who commits a tax evasion offence in this country but is able to escape with impunity to another European Union country? Is he happy that there should be no extradition powers because no dual criminality exists?
  Mr. Letwin: Given that we are talking about an extradition procedure that, in total, currently covers about 50 people a year, some 25 or 30 of whom come from the European Union, the idea that one would prejudice the fundamental liberties built into the fabric of our laws for the sake of the possible extradition to this country of perhaps one person every two or three years is not proportional. I should say now—I will deal with the matter in more detail in a moment—that we accept that, in the sole case of terrorism, the dangers to this country are so great that something similar to what is in part 1 might be thinkable. However, that is an altogether different level of threat.
  Mr. Burnett: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister is perhaps not being as—
  Mr. Hogg: Candid?
  Mr. Burnett: No, not candid. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister is not being as resourceful as he could be? Tax evasion is also fraud, and presumably fraud is actionable in both states.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman has the great advantage of knowing something about English law, and of being a canny lawyer. I have no doubt that the British state could—and indeed does—arm itself with canny lawyers who could make such an argument. That illustrates very well why we ought not to seek to avoid the need for ingenuity, and why we ought not to adopt instead draconian measures that have real effects on civil liberties in this country, when the gains are so slight.
  I turn briefly to the issue of the fair trial, which is of immense importance and also reflects on the Criminal Justice Bill. There has been a misunderstanding between Opposition Members and those on the Treasury Bench about the meaning of a fair trial, and of the term "presumption of innocence"; the Minister's remarks brought that out interestingly and powerfully. He
  56
  pointed out that one of the bars to extradition under part 1 is any failure to comply with human rights, and in that he was absolutely right. There is no doubt that clause 21 unambiguously applies the European convention on human rights, and even if it did not I do not suppose that it would make the slightest difference under the Human Rights Act 1998. In any event, it is unambiguously present in the Bill.
  Paragraph 2 of article 6 of the convention, which is properly headed "Right to a fair trial", states:
  "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."
  That is the paragraph on which the Minister was hanging his hat. In many of the jurisdictions to which part 1 applies—in all of them, I believe—the ECHR is either incorporated into, or de facto a part of, law through the monistic theory. One way or another, the meaning of article 6 is therefore already being applied in those countries, many of which have inquisitorial systems of justice. In such a system, the examining magistrate begins with the assumption, let us say, that the person whom he or she is investigating deserves to be investigated, and seeks to find out whether there was a reason why the person should not have been investigated. I would call that an assumption of guilt, to be disproved by the investigation. Call it what one may, the process is utterly different from the dialectical process in an English court of law, whereby the accused is presumed by the jury to be innocent, and the duty of the prosecution is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the presumption of innocence was false. Those are different systems of justice.
  Gareth Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Letwin: In a moment. Arguments can be made for either system, but they are different. We know that paragraph 2 of article 6 is applied in countries with inquisitorial systems, and that they are held by Strasbourg to be in conformity with that clause, so the Minister cannot claim that, in the sense in which we in this country mean it, the presumption of innocence and the need to prove beyond reasonable doubt is maintained through the ECHR: it is not, as a plain matter of fact.
  Mr. Denham: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could help the House on two points. First, does he recognise that the Bill explicitly says that extradition can be only for the purpose of trial, not for investigation? Secondly, given that, under previous Conservative Governments and under this Government, we extradited many people to countries whose inquisitorial systems he does not like, does he believe that all those extraditions were in breach of human rights?
  Mr. Letwin: No, because those cases—as would be the case if part 2 applied, as it should—are open to challenge. The whole point of part 1 is to undercut the

  57
  opportunity for challenge. That is the sole purported advantage of the European arrest warrant in part 1. It is a very grave difference.
  Gareth Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the adversarial system is not only different but somehow inherently superior? Many people would question that assumption.
  Mr. Letwin: I suppose that I shall be accused of being old-fashioned and perhaps even xenophobic, but as a matter of fact I do think that it is superior. Whether it is superior or not, it is clear that part 1 will make it very much easier for people to be removed to places where the adversarial system does not apply and the presumption of innocence in that sense is not applied.
  I said at the beginning of my speech that apart from not meaning what the Minister wants it to mean and containing things that are intrinsically offensive, the third problem with part 1 is that we do not need it because part 2 works perfectly well. I want to use the example of the United States of America, but let me point out that no observation in retort to what I say based on the death penalty operating in the United States will be of the slightest interest, because in both parts the Human Rights Act applies. Rightly or wrongly, therefore, no one would be extradited to the United States under part 1 or part 2 to face the death penalty.
  Apart from the death penalty, I do not see the slightest reason to suppose that judicial operations in the United States are less meritorious than those in the European Union. As a matter of fact, its system of justice is more, rather than less, aligned to ours than those of most of our continental partners. Its record in administering justice is, like that of all civilised countries, imperfect, but it has a recognisable system of justice that, by and large, delivers justice. There is no doubt that it is a major extradition partner. On page 8 of its very useful analysis, the Home Affairs Committee reveals that the United States of America accounted for 23 of the 139 extraditions that occurred in the three years between 1999 and 2001. It is therefore the second largest partner in extradition. Germany is the only country to which a larger number of people were extradited in those years.
  Part 2 of the Bill, not part 1, will apply to the United States. I cannot for the life of me understand why we are taking measures of this kind to assist extradition to other EU countries if we do not regard it as necessary to do that in relation to the United States and if we regard part 2 as a sufficient and, to the Government's credit, considerable improvement in the current arrangements for extradition. Why do the Government not have as much confidence in part 2 as I do?
  I said that there was a fourth point and there is—it is the answer to my semi-rhetorical question. There is a reason why the Government do not have confidence in part 2 and why they are using part 1, notwithstanding the severe reservations of the Home Affairs Committee. The reason is that part 1 is being used as an aspect of the development of a new relationship between the EU and its member states in relation to justice and home affairs. I may part company with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends here, but I think that a rational argument
  58
  could he made in favour of that transformation. I do not happen to share that view; I do not believe that it would be an advance for mankind, but I admit that there could be such a rational argument.
  There can be no excuse, however, for the effort to enact part 1 without admitting the reason for doing so. An open acknowledgement that, in respect of our EU counterparts, part 1 is to be preferred to part 2, because at the time and in the context of 11 September the Home Secretary and his fellow Justice Ministers were led by those with a different agenda to adopt a system specifically designed to enlarge the area of EU competence at the expense of the member states, would be an argument worth entertaining. However, the idea that Members of the House should settle down and accept part 1, with its gross deficiencies of drafting allied to its gross deficiencies of principle and its lack of proportionality, in the presence of a perfectly suitable alternative in part 2, merely because the Government want—but do not want to admit that they want—to a bet an evolution of the EU with which, I suspect, most of the people of this country are not in accord, beggars belief.
  Mr. Hogg: May I reinforce my right hon. Friend's point? Is it not extraordinary that the part 1 procedure would apply to Greece yet the part 2 procedure would apply to Australia? Surely most people in this country would think that if the Government had such absolute confidence as to use the part 1 procedure, they would use it in respect of the courts of Australia and not in respect of the courts of Greece.
  Mr. Letwin: Yes, I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. Incidentally, the House should be aware that he and I have not always been on the same side in every argument about the evolution of the EU.
  The measure offers a set of steps that are unacknowledged but dangerous. They are unacknowledged because the Government do not want to enter the debate that would be caused if they acknowledged what they were up to. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in this place and my noble Friends and others in another place will prevent part 1, as drafted, from coming into effect.
  Mr. Garnier: A moment ago, I pointed out to the Minister that he faced a problem with the match between this Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill. The Criminal Justice Bill attacks the jury system in a most pro-European way and the Government persist in attacking the lay magistracy. Continental Europe has neither the jury system nor a lay magistracy. There is thus a double marriage between the two measures. My right hon. Friend is rightly and carefully pointing that out.
  Mr. Letwin: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Furthermore, the Government have presented the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill as a tiny amendment that would for the first time allow foreign policemen—whom the Minister tells us he means not to authorise, but who will be authorised under the Extradition Bill—to enter the country to pursue a villain across our borders.

  59
  In short, we find ourselves surrounded by a set of minor incursions that are centripetal in their intent. There is a move towards the homogenisation of systems of justice in the EU—[Interruption.] The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety suggests that I do not believe what I am saying. I do not think that I have ever in my life said anything that I believe more strongly. If he is sufficiently naive as not to believe it—if he is a fellow traveller rather than a willing enthusiast—he will be sorely disillusioned as the measure progresses.
  I shall not detain the House further. We cannot and will not put up with part 1 and we hope to see it erased—except in relation to the extreme case of terrorism.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I shall speak mainly to the Select Committee's report, to which several Members have already referred.
  I thank Ministers for publishing the draft version of the Bill long enough in advance for interested parties to comment on it and for my Committee to examine it. As the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, my right hon. Friend has pointed out, one or two changes have been made as a result of representations received. I am pleased to note that and I hope that there will be more in due course.
  At the outset may I say that I entirely accept that there is a need to overhaul our procedures, given some of the lengthy fiascos that have surrounded extradition cases in the past? However, in the Select Committee's view the Bill goes too far in dispensing with the protections that are rightly available to protect our citizens from injustice at the hands of foreign legal systems. To some extent, of course, it is a fait accompli because Ministers have already signed up to the framework document, committing the Government to introducing far-reaching reforms, but the Government appear to be going further and faster than the framework document requires, and we do not believe that that is justified.
  As we have heard, the Bill will create two categories of country. For category 1 countries, there will be fast-track procedure, dispensing with just about all the existing safeguards, including dual criminality and the discretion of the Home Secretary. Instead, a judge has merely to satisfy himself that the warrant is in order and that the alleged offence comes within the 32 categories listed in article 2.2 of the framework document. For category 2 countries, the procedure will be more rigorous, but still a great deal simpler and with fewer safeguards than at present.
  Category 1 will initially consist of all existing EU members which have signed up to the framework document. Category 2 is likely consist of all non-EU members of the Council of Europe, including countries such as Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Georgia and Russia, whose legal systems, as they would be the first to admit, leave a certain amount to be desired. Indeed, I was visited the other day by a man in President Putin's office who told me that the Russian judicial system results in a conviction rate of 99.6 per cent. One possibility—in fairness to him, he did not seek to argue this—is that he presides over a nearly perfect system, but
  60
  we need to contemplate another possibility. In addition, we are told that some Commonwealth countries will be included, as well as other countries with which we have bilateral treaties.
  Clauses 1 and 68 will allow the Government to designate by Order in Council which countries fall into which category. Clause 205 provides that such orders will be subject only to a negative resolution, so parliamentary scrutiny will be minimal. That brings me to the Select Committee's first concern. In effect, Ministers could add any country to category 1 or 2 without having to explain their reasons to Parliament. Although they say that they have no plans to do so, it does not need a great deal of foresight to foresee the day when they will wish to add the United States to the list of category 1 countries, to which people can be extradited with the minimum of formality. I wish to say plainly that that would not be acceptable.
  I part company with the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on the judicial system in the United States. In my view and, I think, that of the Select Committee, there is a world of difference between the judicial systems of western Europe and those in the United States, where there is a huge variation in the quality of justice available, depending on whether people are in the east, west, north or south. I do not agree that the death penalty is irrelevant to this debate. To take but one example, I can think of nowhere else in the developed world where politicians compete for office on the basis of the number of death warrants they have signed.
  In the unanimous view of the Select Committee, clause 1 should be amended to specify that only countries that are signatories to the European framework document should be included in category 1. In any event, the Select Committee was of the view that no country that maintains the death penalty should be allowed into category 1. Clause 68 should be amended to specify that only countries with which the United Kingdom has bilateral treaty arrangements may be included in category 2. At the very least, clause 205 should be amended to provide that Orders in Council designating new members of either category must be approved by an affirmative resolution of each House.
  Turning to category 1, almost all existing safeguards will be dispensed with for countries in that category. Instead, as I said, it will merely be necessary for a judge to satisfy himself that the alleged offence is among the 32 listed in article 2.2 of the framework document, and that it carries a maximum sentence of 12 months or more.
  Mr. David Heath: The House owes a great deal of gratitude to the hon. Gentleman's Committee for its work on this matter. Is he satisfied that the 32 categories are sufficiently accurately described and defined outside or in the Bill? It seems to me that some are extremely vague: for instance, the category of sabotage, which could mean a lot or very little, depending on which country was involved.
  Mr. Mullin: That is precisely the point to which I was coming, although I recognise some of the problems to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks.
  It is true, as we have seen, that not all the 32 offences are recognised under British law. Apart from xenophobia, which has been mentioned, those offences

  61
  include computer-related crime, environmental crime, swindling and sabotage. Under the Bill, it will therefore be obligatory for suspects to be extradited for alleged offences that British law does not recognise, and British courts will have no power to intervene. The judge who examines the warrant will be a mere cipher, which is not satisfactory.
  One solution might have been to amend the list of offences for which extradition is automatic, but that is impossible as Ministers have already signed up to the EU framework document, which is now immutable. The next best solution, which is the one that my Committee commends to the House, is for the Bill to be amended to allow a district judge to examine the warrant and state whether, in his opinion, dual criminality applies. In cases in which an alleged offence is not an offence in the UK, the Home Secretary should be given the discretion as to whether to extradite. That would circumvent the problem of the offences that are not recognised in this country but are on the list of 32.
  Simon Hughes: Did the hon. Gentleman's Committee reflect on the very unsatisfactory procedure in this area, whereby Members of Parliament can be asked for their views on such proposals, but their views count for nothing? Ministers can take decisions at a European level that are binding on the United Kingdom, without the assent of the UK Parliament, or of either House, having been secured beforehand.
  Mr. Mullin: Indeed, we were not entirely happy with that. There has been a degree of parliamentary assent to this matter, but not the degree that most of us would like.
  Gareth Thomas: On the point about giving the Home Secretary discretion when the district judge has signified that there is a dual criminality issue, did my hon. Friend's Committee seek specialist or legal advice as to whether that was possible, and whether it would be consistent with the EU framework to which the Government have subscribed?
  Mr. Mullin: We did have specialist advice, but of course there are specialists and specialists. No doubt the Home Secretary had a few specialists at his disposal, and perhaps he will tell us if there is a reason why that discretion cannot be given. I am not aware, however, of any such reason. As I said, that would surmount one problem.
  With regard to the seriousness of the offences to which fast-track extradition may apply, the EU framework document applies only to those offences for which a maximum sentence of three years is available. Ministers have gone much further than the EU requires. They have lowered the threshold to 12 months, which will greatly increase the number of offences for which extradition applies, not all of which, as we have seen, are recognised in this country.
  Mr. Denham: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, at the moment under extradition law the threshold in this country is 12 months, so the debate is about whether it
  62
  should be raised from 12 months to three years to fit in with the framework decision or whether it should be left at its current level?
  Mr. Mullin: At the moment there are certain safeguards which it is now proposed we do away with. It is still a live issue, and we recommended that the three-year limit specified in the framework document should be retained, although that is a matter for debate. We may be able to improve the safeguards and thereby resolve that issue.
  I wish to make one general point in passing. I realise that it is argued that no law-abiding citizen has anything to fear from the judicial systems of our EU partners and that the quality of justice elsewhere in the EU is at least as good as that available here. Generally speaking, I am sure that that is true, although I would point out that a suspect in, say, Italy could find himself on remand for several years before he has his day in court. What is more, I notice that under our existing system the courts have often refused extradition to EU countries, and so, occasionally, has the Home Secretary. What has suddenly changed that has enabled us to throw all caution and existing safeguards to the winds as regards extradition to category 1 countries?
  There are other problems with category 1 extraditions. As it stands, the Bill allows the list of 32 offences to be incorporated into UK domestic law without any opportunity for Parliament to disagree with, let alone debate, the proposed changes. The Select Committee believes that that is unacceptable. Furthermore, despite Ministerial assurances to the contrary, it appears that clause 2(5) will deny our judges the opportunity to refuse an application on the ground that it does not come from a properly constituted judicial authority of a category 1 state.
  The Bill is also silent as to what information should appear on a warrant. In addition, the Government have signalled their intention to abandon the so-called speciality rule, which has not yet been referred to in the debate and which makes clear the principle that a suspect can be tried only for the charge for which he is being extradited unless the extraditing authority consents to its being varied or added to. In the Select Committee's view, all those points need to be addressed, and we have made recommendations for doing so.
  With regard to category 2 states, non-European countries are currently required to show that there is a prima facie case to answer before the UK will agree to extradition. Clause 83(6) will enable the Government to exempt any category 2 country from that requirement. We think that the recommendation is too broad and that it should be limited either to non-EU member states that are signatories to the convention on extradition or to any other state with which we have a bilateral agreement that imposes obligations similar to those set out in the convention.
  On extradition to countries that have the death penalty, we recommend that, in line with existing practice, the Secretary of State, rather than a district judge, should be required to assess the adequacy of a written assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out. We urge Ministers to explain how such written assurances will be assessed.
  Finally, we recommend that the powers of arrest contained in the Bill be tightened. It should specify the appropriate persons entitled to make arrests, although I

  63
  heard what the Minister said about the precedents on that point. If we mean—in addition to the police—Customs and Excise officers, let us say so. Arresting officers should be required to show the warrant to an arrested person, and judges should also be required to inform an arrested person of the contents of the warrant and to ensure that a person has access to proper legal advice before they can consent to extradition. As I said in an intervention, I was a little disappointed with the tone of the press release that was issued in response to our report by the Home Office, under the name of the Under-Secretary my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth). In it, he said:
  "Doing nothing is not an option".
  Well, we agree about that. No one—certainly not the Home Affairs Committee—has suggested that we do nothing. He added:
  "It's time to stop talking … and take action".
  We agree about that, too. Nothing in our report should stand in the way of streamlining our outdated procedures. It is, however, our view that the Bill would benefit from further revision.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. John Burnett: Liberal Democrat Members wish the Home Secretary a speedy recovery. I should also declare that I am a lawyer, but I do not practise.
  I record my gratitude to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and to the Home Affairs Committee, which he chairs, for its report on the Bill, which makes compelling reading and is extremely useful. It is a tribute to his Committee that it managed to compile it in such a relatively short time.
  Most hon. Members acknowledge that certain crimes, particularly terrorism and serious international crimes, have to be dealt with as speedily as possible. Furthermore, we all understand that, as the Minister said, extradition works both ways. Not only are we called upon to extradite individuals, but there are occasions when we seek extradition to our jurisdiction.
  The changes that the Bill proposes will make extradition, particularly between category 1 territories, swifter and less bureaucratic. My problem with the Bill is that it does so by jettisoning some established protections for individuals and watering down many other safeguards. I shall come to that point.
  The Home Affairs Committee set out a raft of detailed objections to the Bill, and I wish to dwell on some of the principled objections. I apologise to the House if I repeat some of the points that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South made. There will be scope in Committee to endeavour to improve what is an ill-thought-out measure.
  Currently, the law provides some crucial protections. First and foremost, there is a requirement for dual criminality, and that point has already been explained several times in the debate. The offence for which extradition is requested should not be of a political character. Existing law tells us that extradition is not allowed if its purpose is to secure the prosecution of a fugitive on account of his or her race, faith, nationality
  64
  or political opinions or if he or she might be denied a fair trial for those reasons. The fugitive will not be extradited if he or she has been previously acquitted or convicted of the same offence for which his or her extradition is sought. That is the current state of play. Most important, we will not extradite for an offence that carries the death penalty in the requesting state, although undertakings that the death sentence will not be carried out can be given.
  Furthermore, after a fair appeal process, there is the rule of speciality that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South mentioned. It provides that the fugitive cannot be charged with any conduct for which he was not extradited. This is, for obvious reasons, an extremely important rule that prevents extraditions for trivial or other offences that are subsequently dropped and for which a prosecution in the extraditing country of a more questionable offence is substituted.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): We will want to discuss in Committee how the rule of speciality applies. There is clearly the issue—it is not hidden—of the dropping of dual criminality for those offences on the list. The hon. Gentleman claims that other safeguards will be removed, but surely he recognises that the proposals in the Bill do not change anything to do with extradition to countries with the death penalty or with the bar relating to politically motivated prosecutions.
  Mr. Burnett: I am grateful for that intervention. I am not suggesting what the Bill will do but merely giving an exposition of what I believe the current law to be. I was interested by what the Minister has just said and by what the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety said earlier about his mind not being closed to amendments. I was glad to hear that.
  Other principles are worthy of mention, and they include legal representation, abuse of triviality, consular access, availability of interpreters, habeas corpus and no undue delay. Some of them are unfortunately absent even in countries that are signatories to the European convention on human rights. As the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) pointed out, we should expect minimum standards. We do not want to put the cart before the horse. It is a shame that the Government have signed up to the framework decision before securing those minimum standards in the European Union itself. The first is that a suspect or defendant must be able to understand and contribute to the legal process. If he or she cannot, there can be no effective participation. Such impediments, whether linguistic, physical or mental, must be overcome. That means having adequate interpreters, legal representation and consular access.
  Unfortunately, some member states do not have legal aid—I understand that Greece is one—and cannot provide proper legal support. We need effective participation in the legal process, and it will be denied if the apparatus, such as access to interpreters, is not in place. Furthermore, rights that we believe are fundamental, such as the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the right to bail if appropriate and the right against self-incrimination, should be expected from all jurisdictions to which a person is extradited. Not only have the Government precipitately signed the

  65
  framework decision, but the Bill takes the provisions further, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South stated.
  Our main objection to the framework decision is the fact that the principle of dual criminality is surrendered if the offence falls within one of the 32 offences listed in article 2.2 of the framework decision, or if the offence carries a maximum penalty of at least three years' imprisonment in the issuing state. To say that some of those offences are nebulous is an understatement. Some of them are certainly not capable of definition and many are capable of distortion, as the Home Affairs Committee points out. Swindling and xenophobia are difficult to define under the current law in EU member states, including this country. There is no way of knowing how those offences may be defined in future. Offences such as participation in criminal organisations, corruption and fraud are extremely broad, as the Select Committee states in paragraph 26 of its report.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the distinction that he is trying to draw implicitly challenges the principle of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do"? The offences for which one might be extradited would, with rare exceptions, be those that are committed on the soil of the country where the law applied. Unless the hon. Gentleman wishes to change that, he must accept that it is possible to be arrested on the spot. We are debating only whether a person could be arrested if he flees the country before the authorities catch up with him.
  Mr. Burnett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but we had a short debate on that earlier. As I said when I intervened on the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), it is clear that, with some resourcefulness, one can invariably match up the crimes and there is no problem with dual criminality.
  If we are asked to execute a European arrest warrant, our courts will not be able to refuse to do that on the ground that we disagree with the legal classification of the offence. We will be bound by the classification made by the issuing authority.
  Tony Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman oppose the European arrest warrant in principle, or is it the detail or the drafting that causes him problems?
  Mr. Burnett: I do not oppose it in principle, but there have to be minimum safeguards and conditions. That is what I am trying to advocate.
  Regrettably, we are committed to those provisions, and they sweep away the crucial safeguard of dual criminality. That long-standing and powerful principle is a protection against abuse. The Home Affairs Committee helpfully recommends in paragraph 31 that, in each case, a district judge should look at the terms of the offence specified in the European arrest warrant and state whether dual criminality applies. If the offence is not a crime in the United Kingdom, the decision should be referred to the Home Secretary. I am anxious to know what practical steps are needed to achieve that important amendment.
  Clause 12 is not sufficiently tight in relation to double jeopardy, which occurs from time to time throughout Europe. Lorry drivers are particularly vulnerable as
  66
  they can be charged on the same facts in more than one country, but with different offences. Like most hon. Members, we are concerned about the Executive's wide discretion to designate states as category 1 or 2 territories. The Bill provides that that can be done by an Order in Council. It does not provide for guidance covering the choice of territories and the Order in Council is subject only to annulment by negative resolution of the House. Again, as the Home Affairs Committee points out, it enables any country to be designated a category 1 or 2 territory. There is nothing to prevent an Order in Council from designating a country that has not signed up to the framework decision as a category 1 territory, so a highly unsuitable country may be promoted for a pragmatic reason. I hope that the Government will table amendments in Committee along the lines suggested in paragraphs 41 and 43 of the Select Committee's report.
  I believe that a prima facie case should be made. I am aware that changes to that were made some time ago between EU countries, as the Minister explained, but it should be preserved for category 2 territories. Furthermore, the rule of speciality should be preserved in all respects for all extraditions. That means securing that a requesting state proceeds against an individual only on the facts and for the offence for which he or she is sought for extradition. I agree that for that reason clause 53 should be deleted in its entirety.
  Finally, there is no justification for extending category 1 status to any country that maintains the death penalty. That is because the clause 15 bar is not absolute. As the Home Office admitted, it will be possible to designate non-EU countries as category 1 countries and it is conceivable that such a country would retain the death penalty on its statute book. That is reason enough to justify the proposition that part 1 should not be extended to include any countries that still use the death penalty as a form of punishment.
  We have reservations about many other matters, although they are more appropriate for deliberation in Committee. My colleagues and I thought long and hard about our attitude to Second Reading. As I said, there are practical reasons why the extradition system should be less bureaucratic and swifter, but on no issue and in no circumstances can we justify reducing the proper judicial safeguards and other safeguards to which all citizens are entitled. There is a case for reforming extradition law, but not for abandoning the safeguards to which I referred.
  The Bill has fundamental flaws that must be remedied in Committee. I am glad that the Minister has not closed the door on amendments. I was also pleased to hear the Under-Secretary's comments. However, unless there is root-and-branch change, we shall vote against the Bill in future proceedings in this House and the other place.
  6.8 pm
  Ross Cranston: The Bill is long overdue, but I have several concerns on which I hope to be reassured in the winding-up speech and during the Bill's progress through the two Houses.
  The Government's approach has been to expose the Bill to criticism. A draft Bill was prepared on which the Joint Committee on Human Rights produced a report and the Home Affairs Committee, chaired by my hon.

  67
  Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), commented. That is all to the benefit of the House. Too often, Bills are presented to us and we do not have the time to consider them properly. In this case, the approach has been correct. There may be disagreements about what we should do about the Bill but at least we know the issues because they have been exposed.
  There is no doubt that the law of extradition is out of date. To some extent, it dates back to 1870, when the law divided the world into the empire and the rest. Although there have been changes since then, the case for updating the law is strong.
  There are practical difficulties with the administration of extradition law at present—my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned its cost. The procedures are often dragged out and too much time is taken. In addition, with cross-border crime, we need a law that more readily addresses the issues. My hon. Friends have raised international drug dealing and trafficking in children.
  Concerns have been raised about part 1. There are advantages in its drafting because considerable safeguards have been inserted. The bars to extradition are flagged up in clause 11 and developed in later clauses. The provisions mean that we shall not automatically extradite to category 1 countries. There are bars on double jeopardy. In response to an intervention, my right hon. Friend said that the provisions would have to take into account the Criminal Justice Bill. That is not a major problem, but he gave a welcome reassurance.
  Clause 13 refers to extraneous circumstances. We shall not extradite people where they might be pursued for political or religious opinions. That is a good thing. There is, of course, the question of definition. In the Shayler case, the French court refused to extradite Shayler to this country on the ground that it was a political offence, so there can be disagreement about what extraneous circumstances might entail. However, there is a valuable barrier that will operate in our domestic law.
  The barrier imposed in respect of the death penalty has already been mentioned. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and Liberty have raised issues about the assurance that we shall have to receive, and to what extent it will be carried out in practice. We already have considerable experience of that issue in extraditions to the United States. As the Bill is considered, it will be helpful to hear how in practice the provision will operate with countries other than the United States.
  The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) mentioned speciality, which is a valuable barrier that will operate on extradition. There are other barriers. into which I need not go, that relate, for example, to persons who have been convicted in their absence and are being pursued by the requesting state.
  There are two concerns that I should raise. The first involves the list of offences. It goes without saying that I would have preferred the list to be in the Bill. In a way, we are being asked to approve a Bill when we do not know, without referring to another document, what we are voting for. However, I understand the difficulties. It
  68
  would be necessary to produce a composite definition involving offences in all the jurisdictions in the European Union in relation to the list. There is great merit in the Home Affairs Committee's recommendation in paragraph 55 of its report: if the list is to be extended in any way, Ministers should explain to the House when countries are being added to category 1.
  Derek Conway: The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a telling point. I am sure that he heard the Minister of State say that the list could be extended by the Council of Ministers. I was not sure from the right hon. Gentleman's contribution whether that meant that the matter would return to the House for scrutiny or whether there could be an Executive power in conjunction with the other members of the Council of Ministers.
  Ross Cranston: The difficulty is that, for members of the European Union, in many ways, decisions are made by the Executives of the different countries. The Parliaments of the different jurisdictions will have to rubber-stamp, as it were, the proposals that are made. That is the nature of membership of the EU. That arises in many federations. Executives of federations agree on a policy, and the Parliaments, states, provinces or whatever are asked to give approval. In many instances, legislators are presented with a fait accompli. The Select Committee is recommending that, in that case, the Government should explain the matter to the House so that at least we can be reassured on what has been decided.
  The protections of the European convention on human rights that are built into the Bill are extremely important. Xenophobia is a listed offence. Article 8—freedom of speech—might well be brought to bear in extradition in relation to that offence. I am concerned that the list is not in the Bill, but I accept that there are practical reasons for that. At the same time, there is great merit in what the Select Committee said about a fall-back position.
  The Select Committee also recommended that a district judge might certify that there is not dual criminality and that then the Home Secretary—
  Mr. Cameron: I do not want to be oily but the hon. and learned Gentleman has considerable legal expertise. We thought long and hard on the Select Committee before submitting the suggestion to which he referred. Will he tell us whether, from his experience, it would amend the European arrest warrant to make it something that we had not signed up to, or whether it would be an acceptable way of making the procedure work and provide an extra safeguard?
  Ian Lucas: Do not give free advice.
  Ross Cranston: Perhaps my hon. Friend is right.
  At this stage, I can only say that I see some merit in the suggestion. I want the Government to consider the point seriously in Committee. It seems to have a certain value.
  Mr. Shepherd: The hon. and learned Gentleman took comfort in the fact that there was a back-stop in the

  69
  European Court of Human Rights, but states already have xenophobia as an offence as part of their legal codes. That has presumably been acceptable to the Court, which would therefore be no protection in a collision between the freedom of expression that we respect and the criminal code of other countries.
  Ross Cranston: Yes, there is no doubt about that. I shall shortly consider the operation of legal systems in other countries that have often got the green light in decisions by the European Court of Human Rights even though one may doubt whether they are human rights-compliant. Clause 21, however, says that judges have to address the human rights point. In theory, they could decide—I do not suggest that this is a strong possibility—that, even though the warrant relates to xenophobia, that runs contrary to article 8 in the European convention on the freedom of speech and that extradition should not take place. As I said, the list of offences gives rise to concerns. During consideration of the Bill, the Government may well introduce changes to assure us that the bars on extradition will operate robustly.
  I have already foreshadowed the fact that even though countries may be members of the European Union or, in a wider context, the Council of Europe, we are not always reassured by the operation of their criminal justice systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South mentioned people being on remand for substantial periods, and I certainly have knowledge of that. It would be invidious to mention particular countries, but the system in some EU countries or, more widely, European convention or Council of Europe countries, does not always reassure us about the extent to which human rights are taken into account in practice.
  I am reassured by the robust approach of our courts in, for example, the recent Ramda decision, when the High Court said that the fact that France was a signatory to the European convention on human rights was not a complete answer. The courts have also said that they are not prepared, in asylum cases, for example, to accept what Germany does. France and Germany, one may think, have systems comparable to ours but our courts, taking a closer look, have said that they are not prepared to accept at face value the extent to which human rights operate there.
  Clause 21 will therefore be extremely important in the operation of the system. We must work on the assumption that each EU member and, possibly, each signatory to the European convention has a criminal justice system in which human rights are recognised and which complies with article 6 and the fair trial provision. Clause 21 opens up the possibility that the subject of the warrant can say, "In these circumstances, the operation of the system will not be human rights-compliant," which will be of considerable reassurance to hon. Members.
  In conclusion, the Bill is overdue, the system is in need of considerable reform—it is weighed down by an accretion of law going back more than a century—and the problem of cross-border crime needs to be addressed. None the less, we cannot give the Bill unequivocal approval because some matters still require the Government's urgent attention—the list of category 1 offences and the fact that some category 1 countries,
  70
  although they may generally operate in compliance with the European convention, may not in practice meet that standard.
  6.25 pm
  Derek Conway: As a simple and humble man—I know that my colleagues share that view—I hesitate to intrude on what, on such an occasion, can be a lawyer fest. When introducing the Bill to the House, the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety used tempered words, which were very convincing indeed. However, before the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) gets too excited, the response of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) was utterly devastating. I do not think that he is a lawyer, but I would hate to appear against him as the defence—his performance was extremely impressive, and many of his points will be difficult for the Under-Secretary to answer in his winding-up speech.
  On many occasions, I have listened in the Chamber to Ministers' tempered words and the honeyed assurances of lawyers. In fact, they came from a Conservative Government. When the House was considering the Single European Act such was the effectiveness of those reasonable words that they even secured the enthusiasm of Baroness Thatcher and Lord Tebbit. I see one or two faces in the Chamber this afternoon who, like me, were less persuaded. Sadly, however, my right hon. and hon. Friends fell for those honeyed words, only to regret it later. When legislation is introduced which, whatever people say, extends the power of European states, the House should tread with great care.
  The report produced by the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) makes for interesting reading. The House should take its advice and exercise great caution. The Bill has been described as an attack on civil liberties, and I have not yet heard a convincing rebuttal of that charge. Our Front Bench spokesmen are right to oppose the Bill—I shall join them tonight—and the introduction of a European arrest warrant. It is not right to extradite Britons for offences that are not crimes in the United Kingdom—that is not acceptable to our constituents. The thought of foreign police being able to initiate the arrest of a British citizen in the UK for something that is not a crime here will go down very badly with the British public. The Minister graciously gave way to me, but did not deal with my point about the 32 serious offences that may cause UK citizens to be handed over to a foreign power, even though they will not have committed a crime here.
  Dr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the reverse is acceptable? Does he believe that if someone comes here and commits a crime under our law, but can argue that it is not a crime in his country, we should not extradite him?
  Derek Conway: I am not sure that I do—it depends on the crime. People have a right to expect protection from the Government of the country where they are citizens. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman reads The Daily Telegraph—I know that it is not the most popular

  71
  newspaper among Government Members—but Lord Scott, a Law Lord, commented in it that the definition of a xenophobia offence in the schedule to the Bill
  "would almost certainly cover the distribution of Biggles and probably the Old Testament".
  I am too young to understand the reference to Biggles, but some of my hon. Friends may have read about him—perhaps it would cause offence in continental Europe. However, people who take such books abroad with them as holiday reading should not risk being arrested when they return to Britain.
  The definition of political opinions is more serious and much more worrying. The process of extradition may well be imperfect, but it could cause us to risk sending British citizens abroad for trial. I do not believe that there is a Member on either side of the House who would challenge the proposition that appalling crimes should be dealt with. No reasonable person believes that a national or geographical border should hamper ultimate justice, but provision already exists in English law to protect that process.
  I believe the Bill to be another brick—a very heavy brick—in the growing temple of the European state. It goes agin what Britons have held and continue to hold dear, which is not only sovereignty, but the protection of our citizens in our country. I hope that the measure fails to obtain a Second Reading tonight.
  6.30 pm
  Ian Lucas: I speak as a lawyer—a former lawyer, I should stress—and I aspire to the humbleness to which the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) referred. When one approaches the issue as a former lawyer, it is important to be aware of one's current responsibilities to represent one's constituents. While there is always the temptation to become enmeshed in legal argument when dealing with such legislation, there is also always a requirement to look at the big picture concerning the enforcement of the law in respect of serious criminal offences which are borne from abroad into our country and also to consider the attitude of our constituents to such offences and the way in which the law operates against them.
  I welcome the Bill in general terms, and I welcome one aspect of it that has not yet been mentioned. In general terms, I do not like politicians being intimately involved in the judicial process. That concept has had its day. The Home Secretary has on a number of occasions encountered difficulties in the courts in recent times, on subjects such as mandatory life sentences. As a former lawyer and now a politician, I believe that it is better for criminal justice cases to be dealt with, as much as possible, in the criminal courts. I have confidence in the existing judicial process, and I believe that the Bill contains substantial safeguards that would enable our judiciary to exercise discretion in favour of any individual whose human rights it considered were being substantially interfered with by the Act, as it would then be.
  Ross Cranston: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point about politicians not being involved in judicial decisions. Of course, when the Home Secretary exercises
  72
  that jurisdiction, he acts in a quasi-judicial way, but that still means that he can be subject to criticism. I agree with my hon. Friend. The point has not been mentioned and it is valuable.
  Ian Lucas: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. The intricacies and traps that exist in a quasi-judicial process were fully exhibited in the Pinochet case, which caused all sorts of judicial and ministerial problems at the time. Such a situation should be avoided as far as possible in the future.
  I am conscious that we are discussing heartfelt individual rights, and it is important that those rights are always taken very seriously by all hon. Members. I know that there are Members, particularly Opposition Members, who have taken that view for many years, both in government and in opposition. I respect that viewpoint, but I believe that the legislation will provide the necessary safeguards, although in certain respects it can be improved.
  We must accept that the extradition system is outmoded. It is largely the child of the 19th century—we have heard reference to legislation from 1870. It is based on the concept that the British criminal justice system is inherently superior to any other criminal justice system that has ever existed or still exists. When I was preparing for the debate, I had in mind the type of attitude exhibited by Lord Palmerston in the Don Pacifico case, and that impression was reinforced by some of the interventions and references from the Opposition today. I am glad that I looked out the statement in which Lord Palmerston, in a five-hour address to the House back in 1850, said:
  "as the Roman, in days of old, held himself free from indignity, when he could say Civis romanus sum: so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong."
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I sensed that that would be the reaction from Opposition Members, but I think that we have moved on from that attitude. I find it surprising that the Opposition consider the criminal justice system in this country to be perfect. There have been substantial miscarriages of justice in recent years, which must cast doubt upon the strength of our system. There are good arguments to support the contention that certain aspects of systems in various parts of Europe are better than ours. We can respect other criminal justice systems in Europe, and build a sensible extradition system on the basis of mutual respect and mutual recognition.
  Simon Hughes: I accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition entirely, but does he accept that the evidence shows that we cannot generalise? Some of the other EU countries are unexceptionable and have all the safeguards that we would wish, but those who practise regularly in courts in those countries and in the UK note that certain countries, of which Belgium and France are two, do not have the same level of safeguards. There are regular problems. We must therefore be clear about the generality and note where the standards do not rise to the level that we would expect as minimum legal requirements for our citizens.
  Ian Lucas: In any system of justice, one must be watchful and always safeguard the rights of the

  73
  individuals whose liberty is in question in the courts. I do not believe that the British criminal justice system is inherently superior to any other system in Europe. In a modern world we need to devise an extradition system that is responsive to the needs of our country and of our constituents.
  I am conscious that in the debate today, we have heard little about international crime, which is an issue of profound concern to many of my constituents in Wrexham, in north Wales. Those people are worried about international trafficking in class A drugs. Given that we have an extradition system that is still based largely on concepts from the late 19th century, when it was rare indeed for my constituents to travel to England—mine is a border constituency, 5 miles from the border—we ought to be considering ways of improving the system to ensure that it is responsive to international organised trafficking and crime at a level that is unprecedented in our history.
  At times like this, as a former lawyer, I try to become a politician. Although I have concerns that have been bred into me through my training, I must also listen to the concerns that I hear from my constituents—the anxiety about serious crime and the threat to their children from the blight of drugs in their community. As always in these matters, one must exercise a degree of balance. It is difficult to do so, particularly when one is dealing with the individual liberties of anyone who appears before the courts.
  I am sure that in Committee, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), whom I know well, will listen carefully to all the matters put to him, and will respond to them in due course with well reasoned and well considered arguments.
  I welcome the fact that the procedure is a judicial procedure and that it will be swift. The Minister referred to the time and expense that the current procedure involves for the criminal justice system. In the context of the Criminal Justice Bill, that money could be better spent on assisting drug addicts, better sentencing or improving our court structure than on antiquated, protracted and technical extradition procedures. Although I have some concerns, I welcome the general thrust of the Bill in that regard.
  I commend the way in which the Bill has been considered to date and greatly welcome the publication of draft legislation, which allows points to be made and will lead to a general improvement in legislation. I understand that the Bill has been considered by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, a European Standing Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Select Committee on Home Affairs. We are still at a stage at which not everyone is happy, even on the Labour Benches, with every aspect of the provisions, but I am sure that that process has improved them. The scrutiny will continue, as I am sure will the improvement.
  Simon Hughes: There was a lot of scrutiny and the publication of the draft Bill was welcome, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand the concern felt by many of us that we still have a procedure of accountability that serves us poorly. The Under-
  74
  Secretary knows that Ministers end up presenting proposals to Committees several months after they have been debated and when there may have been significant changes, and that there is nothing that we can do about it.
  Ian Lucas: I am sure that the Government are aware of that problem, which needs to be addressed. None the less, I think that they believe in increased scrutiny. For example, I do not believe that any Government who contemplated reducing scrutiny would introduce draft legislation. We all agree that that is an exceptionally good innovation and that it will lead to better legislation in due course.
  I mentioned that I had some concerns about the Bill. My major concerns are twofold. First, the list of individual offences that has been mentioned is not set out in the Bill. I would like to be satisfied that, if the list were to be extended, there would be due opportunity to consider the matter and ensure proper scrutiny.
  Secondly, I am unhappy about the provisions relating to the death penalty—an issue about which I feel very strongly on a moral basis and, speaking as somebody who has been intimately involved with the courts professionally, as a result of the failures of the judicial process. Indeed, many such cases have been a matter of public record. I cannot feel comfortable with the clause 91 provisions on the death penalty and the written assurance that is to be given to the Secretary of State. There are compelling arguments for the view of the Home Affairs Committee that no country that has the death penalty should be admitted to category 1. I would be very uneasy in any circumstances about the extradition of any individual to a country that maintained the death penalty.
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no intention on the Government's part and no desire in the USA—the main country that we are talking about in terms of extradition—to propose consideration for entry into category 1. However, we have extradited people in fairly substantial numbers to the United States, many of them potentially in respect of capital offences, without any problem, having received the assurances that are set out. There is no intention of watering down assurances about capital punishment in respect of either category 1 or category 2 or allowing extradition so that people can be executed.
  Ian Lucas: I am pleased and reassured by the Minister's assurance. I know well and greatly admire the stance that the Government have taken on the death penalty internationally. My concern is that the written assurances would relate not only to the United States, but to another country that has not been specified at this stage. I wonder whether we can rely on written assurances from other Governments on the same basis as that on which we rely on those of the United States.
  Annabelle Ewing: I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about clause 91 and, indeed, clause 15, which deals with the same issue. I find very worrying the language saying that we must rely on a judgment made by the Secretary of State. Even in the United States, the

  75
  death penalty process can take a decade or even longer. At what point will the assurance become less assuring, given that the process takes so long?
  Ian Lucas: I shall leave the Under-Secretary to respond in due course.
  Harry Cohen: The Government rightly ask for assurances from the United States, but other Governments or even individual Ministers who are more supportive of the death penalty may decide not to ask for such assurances. Is my hon. Friend taking that into account?
  Ian Lucas: I take my hon. Friend's point, but the Bill relates to this country, so although our ambit is wide, I think that his approach is rather Palmerstonian. Perhaps we should restrict our discussions to the United Kingdom.
  I should like to take up one further point in relation to the speech of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who often makes great play in the House of terminological exactitude and the importance of being very specific. Indeed, that was part of his criticism of the Government's position, but in that context, it would be appropriate in future for him to make it clear whether, in talking about the United Kingdom, he is talking about England and Wales, Scotland or the United Kingdom as a whole. As an Englishman who is proud to represent a Welsh constituency, I know that a large number of my constituents would not take kindly to the attitude that he took in his speech. Indeed, it may go some way towards explaining why the Opposition have no representative of Wales in the House.
  6.48 pm
  Mr. John Maples: I thought for a moment that the Government had found a supporter in the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), but I am afraid that his speech was less unequivocal than it had seemed it would be. So far, the Government have failed to find unequivocal support among their Back Benchers.
  I firmly believe—the Minister referred to me in this respect—that we must reform our extradition legislation. I believe equally firmly that the Bill is the wrong reform. I have no problem with part 2, although I shall mention one or two minor concerns, but I have very serious problems with part 1, which was effectively demolished by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Indeed, one is tempted to leave it at that, say "It's over to you" and ask the Minister to explain why those are not killer objections.
  I came to this issue after 11 September when I discovered that some suspects who were wanted in the United States and France for terrorist offences had been in this country fighting extradition for a very long time. I raised the issue, referring to all the suspects, when the Prime Minister made his statement immediately after 11 September. There were four of them, but I was horrified to find on checking the matter at the end of last week that they are all still here. Three people are wanted
  76
  for the African embassy bombings in August 1998 and are still here four years later. It took the courts a long time to deal with their cases, but the House of Lords dismissed all their appeals on 17 December last year. Nearly a year has passed, yet the Home Secretary has failed to decide whether to deport them. He can hardly blame the state of current legislation when he cannot make decisions in a year.
  The case of Rachid Ramda has already been mentioned. He was arrested in November 1995 at the request of the French authorities for the Metro bombings in the summer of that year in which many people were killed. He managed to drag out the time before the case reached the House of Lords until May 1999—nearly four years after he was arrested. He dropped his appeal, and it was up to the Home Secretary to decide whether to remove him. It took the Home Secretary 29 months—nearly two and a half years—to make a decision. It has been reviewed by the divisional court and is back in the Home Secretary's hands. Rachid Ramda has therefore been here for seven years.
  I raised the matter with the Prime Minister and said that it was a scandal. He replied that it was the law's fault. That is partly true. I agree that the law provides for far too many appeals and stages of the process. Part 2 goes a long way towards tackling that. However, the problem is also due to the courts being incredibly dilatory. I do not know how judges can look at themselves in the mirror when terrorist offences occur around the world and they know the obstacles that they unnecessarily place in the way of justice. People are entitled to a fair hearing but not to drag out proceedings for seven years. The Home Secretary should not blame the law or the courts when he has been dilatory in exercising his functions.
  The courts can deal with such matters quickly. For example, the Pinochet case was heard three times in 15 months in the House of Lords. It is possible to do things quickly if there is enough political pressure to do so.
  I agree that we need new legislation. We need to reduce the number of appeals and have a faster procedure for countries whose judicial systems we trust and respect. However, part 1 removes almost all the protections that have been constructed over many years. They include dual criminality and the Home Secretary's final discretion. Provisions for prima facie evidence have already gone. Those matters have been at the heart of our extradition law for a long time. That does not mean that they are bad. It has taken a long time to build up those freedoms in this country. I do not know Labour Members' view of history before May 1997, but we have a history of constructing individual freedoms against the power of Governments. We should not discard them lightly, as the Bill does.
  I want to consider part 1, to which I have the greatest objections. The list of offences is vague. A law graduate who worked for the parliamentary draftsman and produced the list as proposed legislation would not survive the probation period. It is so vague that it defines nothing that would pass muster in our law. For example, what does participation in a criminal organisation mean? What is computer-related crime? The categories are too vague and too wide and are unacceptable.

  77
  It is our job to protect our subjects' liberties unless a process of law deprives them of it; the Extradition Bill provides for such a process. Unless the offences and the process are clear, we do not honour our obligation. It is wrong simply to refer to the framework decision to justify such vague offences. Most of them exist in our law, and we could define them adequately. We could define racial hatred, although xenophobia does not exist. Some computer-related crimes are offences in our law. We should define them and let our citizens know when they are in danger. We should have clear law, not a vague list of offences that is imported from a framework directive.
  Dr. Palmer: The choice is between listing categories of offence and individual offences. The hon. Gentleman implies that we should list every offence that might apply so that people know exactly where they stand. Does he not agree that the problem is that although we have a definition of racial hatred, it may be slightly different from, for example, that in Portugal? Does he suggest that we assemble a list of all possible crimes in every European Union country to which we might be prepared to apply the Bill?
  Mr. Maples: The Bill removes the defence of dual criminality. If it continued to exist, I would not have a problem because the person whose extradition was sought could use the defence that the action was not criminal in both jurisdictions. However, that defence will no longer be available, so I believe that we should define the crimes more closely and carefully.
  Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful, for example, on racism and xenophobia, if the draft framework decision, which we recently considered in the European Scrutiny Committee, at least made it clear that
  "an offence was not committed unless the behaviour is threatening, abusive or insulting and is carried out with the intention of stirring up racial hatred, or is likely to do so"?
  Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Of course, the problem would not exist if the defence of dual criminality remained. However, I am amazed that Ministers allowed the directive to appear in that form, with incredibly vague wording. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If Ministers are determined to maintain a category of offence for which dual criminality is not available as a defence, it is incumbent on them to tighten the drafting.
  European Union directives and regulations and the European Acts are worded vaguely. That is acceptable in many European jurisdictions, but it is not acceptable to us. We define matters tightly in law, and we should not make the Bill an exception, especially as the liberty of British subjects is at stake.
  I should be happy with part 1 if dual criminality remained a defence. It is an absolutely fundamental protection in our extradition law, but the Bill removes it. It also removes the Home Secretary's final discretion about whether to extradite someone. At least a British subject has someone—the Home Secretary—who is accountable to a democratically elected Parliament for his final decision. As I said earlier, we have already dropped the requirement for prima facie evidence.
  78
  Where will we extradite people? I do not have problems with France, although the divisional court in the Ramda case does. I do not have problems with most European jurisdictions, but that does not apply to them all. Has any hon. Member not had a constituent languishing in a Spanish jail for months awaiting charge and trial? Let us consider the recent case of the plane spotters in Greece. The point was made that if they had returned from their holiday, the photographs had subsequently appeared and they had been charged under the Greek terrorism Act, they would have been on the plane to Greece, with no defence. The hon. Member for Wrexham would have found it difficult to explain to his constituents, whose will he believes he is doing, if someone's son, daughter, father, mother, husband or wife was on the plane without a sniff of a defence that they had committed no offence in British law and no facts had been established.
  Ian Lucas: Were not the Greek plane spotters acquitted?
  Mr. Maples: After an extremely long time and a ridiculous, farcical procedure. I pray the case in aid as an example of a jurisdiction the equality of whose justice with ours I do not accept. I am prepared to accept that of France, Germany, Sweden or the United States. However, that does not apply to all the countries, and I have cited two examples.
  The Bill will apply not only to existing but to new members of the European Union. Twelve years ago, some were communist countries and they have no tradition of impartial and independent judges. Their tradition is heavily politically motivated. Turkey may become a member of the European Union. There are so many awful stories about the administration of Turkish justice to foreign citizens that we would have serious difficulties if the Bill applied to Turkey.
  The European convention on human rights is not adequate protection. We should include a requirement for minimum standards in the Bill. The Government clearly recognise the problem because two clauses deal with extraneous considerations. One appeared in a previous draft and the other did not. Their inclusion suggests that the Government accept the possibility of a category 1 jurisdiction seeking to pursue someone on the grounds of race, religion, nationality or political opinion. The incorporation of a human rights provision in clause 21 adds protection. The Government therefore appear to accept that that is necessary and that the jurisdictions are not perfect.
  The other offences that the Bill covers at least require dual criminality to be proved. That makes them reasonably acceptable. I do not have great problems with category 2 because prima facie evidence is required in most cases, but it can be waived if the Government identify specific countries for which it is not required. Again, however, the Home Secretary's ultimate protection is very limited.
  Under clause 193, the Home Secretary's discretion to disallow someone's extradition is severely curtailed. He would have to do it either in pursuance of statutory authority or in circumstances in which he had exempted the person from the possibility of prosecution. It would also have to be done in the interests of national security.

  79
  I would suggest that that does not go wide enough. We need to go further, and at least include the provision that someone should not be extradited if a serious miscarriage of justice were likely to occur, or if the national interest required it. The Home Secretary is the right person to make such decisions.
  I want to identify a couple of other weaknesses in the Bill. In many continental jurisdictions an investigating magistrate is entitled to arrest people in the course of his investigation, to examine them as witnesses and to collect evidence. Under the Bill, if such a magistrate had signed an arrest warrant he would be able to arrest someone, who might not then be charged for a long time, if at all.
  I am also concerned that, under subsections (4) to (6) of clause 63, there is a possibility of a British Minister's extradition being sought by a category 1 country for something that that country might define as a war crime. I shall return to this matter in Committee or on Report, or perhaps the Minister will be able to deal with it when he replies to this debate. In the Pinochet case, a Spanish magistrate issued a warrant for Pinochet's arrest for something that had not happened in Spain or the United Kingdom. In the very special circumstances of that case, he was not extradited. Although few of us had a lot of personal sympathy with General Pinochet, we should not allow that to colour the fact that there could be a very dangerous hole in the law.
  Let us take a relevant example that might touch a nerve with the Government. Our bombing of Kosovo was almost certainly illegal under international law. It is impossible to find a serious international lawyer who thinks that it was not. It may have been the right thing to do, but it was certainly illegal. Greece was very sympathetic to the Serbs in that conflict. I would like to be assured that the Bill could not be used in similar circumstances to those of the Pinochet case by, for example, a Greek magistrate bringing a prosecution against a British Minister for their action in connection with the Kosovo conflict, or to prosecute a Minister in the then Conservative Government over their action in the Falklands, as it could be argued that one or two things done there were outside the remit of international law. Ministers are responsible to the House for their actions, and I would like an assurance that that could not happen.
  We have seen the consequence of this with the plane spotters, and the provisions could have all sorts of other hypothetical consequences. A British citizen could be investigated on the say-so of an investigating magistrate for a vaguely defined offence that was not an offence in the United Kingdom, with no prima facie case having been established, and no democratic accountability. That person could languish in a foreign jail for a long time without being charged, let alone tried. That is unacceptable, which is why I shall vote against part 1. I do not understand how anyone could vote for it.
  I would like to suggest some possible amendments. First, the rule covering dual criminality should be retained in all cases. There should be no distinction between offences in the framework decision and offences outside it.
  Dr. Palmer: I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman the same question as I asked the hon. Member for Old
  80
  Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway). Does he believe that, if someone commits an offence in Britain that is not an offence in his home country, that should be a sufficient defence?
  Mr. Maples: Yes, I do, because I want that protection for our citizens. It is our job to protect the liberty of our citizens, and if the price to pay for that is that someone who commits an offence here goes back to Germany, Spain, Greece or wherever and cannot be extradited for that reason, I absolutely accept that. It is unlikely to occur in what we would consider to be very serious cases, such as crimes of violence, armed robbery, murder, or terrorism. It is likely to involve only trivial cases involving dealing in some of the less important kinds of drugs, for example, or photographing military aircraft in Greece. I do not think that the security of our country or the integrity of its criminal justice system will fall because of this issue.
  Gareth Thomas: I am intrigued that the hon. Gentleman has referred to possible amendments. To what extent does he envisage that there should be an exact correspondence between these offences in different jurisdictions? Does he also feel that his overriding view in favour of streamlining the present system is consistent with his views on the dual criminality issue?
  Mr. Maples: Yes, I do, because I have said that I would be perfectly happy if part 1 required dual criminality for both sets of offences—those in the framework document and those outside it. It is required for those outside it. If it were required for those within it, there would not be a problem. As to whether my amendments are consistent with the obligations to the European Union that we have undertaken, the answer is that I do not know. Clearly some exemptions are consistent, because the Government have already put them into the Bill, including those relating to extraneous considerations, human rights and one or two other things. Those are clearly acceptable. If my proposals are not consistent with those obligations, I hope that it will be the will of the House that the Government should go back and renegotiate, because what they have negotiated is absolutely unacceptable.
  I shall continue through my list of possible amendments. If we cannot reintroduce dual criminality for everything, it would be right to adopt the amendment suggested by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which proposed that a judge should certify that the case would not pass the dual criminality test, and that the Home Secretary should then take the final decision on it. I also agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and his Committee that we should not lower the standard in this regard from three years to 12 months. I do not know why we have chosen to introduce a lower standard. The framework decision requires a maximum sentence of at least three years, and I cannot think why we have reduced it to 12 months.
  The Home Secretary should have wider discretion under clause 193 than he has, and it should relate to questions of national interest, rather than national security. Category 1 offences should be confined not only to European Union countries but to those of whose judicial systems we in the House have specifically

  81
  approved. There should be minimum standards, and, under the Bill, a minimum guarantee that, if someone is extradited to another country, they should be charged within a certain time—a few weeks—and tried within a few months. If that does not happen, they should be returned.
  The Bill is just another example of the long list of freedoms with which the Government have become very careless. These freedoms are long held and hard won, and they are very valuable to the citizens of this country. Our history over the last 500 years has involved the acquisition by individuals of freedoms that used to be held in the power of the state. The Government are reversing that process in the interest of getting a few more convictions. Jury trial is being seriously circumscribed, and the presumption of innocence dramatically reduced in some cases. The burden of proof is being shifted in some cases, the admissibility of previous convictions is now being considered, and the double jeopardy rule is to change. All those provisions are being compromised. They are fundamental principles of our criminal law and of our rights and freedoms as British citizens, and the Government are getting very careless with them.
  In some ways, the Extradition Bill represents the worst of all the proposed changes. At least in the other cases a British court and judge would try a person—often with a jury—in their own country and in a language that they understood. If a person is extradited, none of those things will apply. They will probably not understand the language, the law will not be familiar, and it will operate in a system that they do not understand and in which they may not have much confidence. In some ways, therefore, these freedoms are the worst ones to erode.
  It seems that just about every Labour Member who has spoken—and who has thought about this—shares some, if not all, of my reservations. I hope, therefore, that there can be cross-party consensus and that we can collectively make the Government think again about this Bill. I want to know how Government supporters who do not vote against the Bill will explain—as I know I could not—to a constituent why their mother, father, son, daughter, husband or wife has been extradited under this procedure, as one of those plane spotters might have been, and is languishing in a foreign jail awaiting trial, as constituents of mine have done in Spanish jails.
  7.08 pm
  Dr. Nick Palmer: I would like to apologise to the Front-Bench speakers for the fact that, owing to Committee work, I was unable to attend the early part of the debate. I apologise to the House more generally if I inadvertently duplicate any points that have already been made.
  As a starting point, we need to stress that the current position is not satisfactory. We are not living in an ideal world in which extradition works perfectly, in which wrongdoers are invariably returned to the country in which they committed an offence, or in which we can sit back and feel that we must not disturb this idyll because any change would be a change for the worse.
  Now, when we attempt to extradite someone who has committed or is alleged to have committed a crime in another country, it normally takes us about 18 months
  82
  and costs the taxpayer £125,000. It is reasonable to ask whether that process is necessary for the exercise of fairness and justice. None of us wants justice to be accelerated to the extent that people are sent back under some sort of summary decision and then treated cruelly and unjustly in another country, but most people who have had anything to do with extradition accept that the current process is abnormally cumbersome.
  Conversely, when we attempt to extradite people in other countries who we believe have committed crimes in Britain, the process usually takes at least a year, and quite often we fail to get the necessary extradition order, especially when financial crime is involved. That, too, strikes most people as unfair—that a person who lives in Britain and commits a crime will, we hope, be brought to court and so to justice, but if, before the crime is detected, the person escapes to the Côte d'Azur or some other location within the European Union, he will have a sporting chance of not being returned for a long time, and perhaps not at all. Most people would agree that that does not seem a sensible way in which to proceed.
  Some argue for what one might describe as the lowest common denominator of European offences. They say that they would be willing to apply a more rapid extradition process, but only where dual criminality applies, which is to say that the offence allegedly committed in another country is also an offence in Britain. The effect, if all those bilateral decisions were applied, would be that the only international extradition network that functioned efficiently would be in respect of crimes that were crimes throughout the EU.
  Some go yet further and argue for the application of what one might describe as the British common denominator. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), who is no longer in his place, argued that we should protect British citizens who return to Britain from overseas from having foreign laws applied to them, but we should be able to apply British law to people who come to Britain, after they have returned to their own country and even if their own law exempts them. I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but if I have represented his argument correctly, I have to say that such a one-sided position is not sustainable in any serious EU discussion.
  I respect the different position held by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). He courageously accepts that sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and that if we say that we will not allow a British person to be extradited for a crime that is not a crime under the British code, we will accept the reverse. He suggested that that would apply only in relatively trivial cases, but I would like to give a couple of concrete examples of the type of case that we are discussing, because I feel that our debate has been conducted in a vacuum, whereby we discuss everything in principle.
  My understanding is that, in Spain, the age of consent is 12. Sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old in Spain is legal, whereas in Britain it is an act of serious sexual abuse. If someone from Spain visited Britain and had sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old and it was detected the day after he returned to Spain, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would feel that it should not be a sufficient defence for that man to say that, in Spain, what he did

  83
  would have been legal. Even if the hon. Gentleman does not wish to intervene on that point, he might like to reflect on it.
  Conversely, in Germany, for historical reasons with which we are all familiar, it is illegal to claim that the holocaust—the slaughter of millions of Jews and other people—never took place. It is illegal to do so because it is seen as giving aid and comfort to neo-Nazi groups who might want to revive past horrors. In Britain, because it has never been such a major issue, it is not illegal so to do. Anyone can go out on the street, grab people by the sleeve, and try to persuade them that the holocaust never happened. People would think it disgusting, but it would be legal. A couple of years ago, a well-known Englishman went to Germany, where he supported an extreme right-wing group which, among other things, claimed that the holocaust either did not happen or was grossly exaggerated. He then returned to Britain. Under German law, he had committed an offence. Under British law, he had not.
  If we deny the European arrest warrant, we are saying that neither the Spanish paedophile under British law, nor the extreme right-wing English historian under German law, should be prosecuted. Are we saying that? No, we are not. We are saying that we should not prosecute them if they happen to have crossed the border. We accept, and have always accepted, that if people commit an offence in a country that they are visiting, that country has a right to prosecute them. The only question at issue is whether the country still has the right to prosecute if the person who commits the offence crosses the border before the offence is noticed. That is the apparently holy principle to which hon. Members refer when they say that we have had 500 years of liberty and so on: the issue is not whether one can be prosecuted for an offence in another country, but whether we allow people to escape by crossing a border.
  Various suggestions have been made on how we might make exceptions to a dual criminality rule. The Home Affairs Committee suggested that a district judge should examine such cases, and if he or she determined that the crime in question was not covered by the British criminal code, the case should be referred to the Home Secretary. We all like to make life difficult for the Home Secretary—it is almost a national sport—but what is the Home Secretary supposed to do? Under the European Council's decision, he is compelled to decide that extradition is possible if the case comes under one of the listed categories, so in fact we are building in one of the notorious delays which, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon rightly said, are an unpleasant characteristic of the current system. We have someone who is accused of a crime that in another country is considered a serious matter, and everybody knows that he has to be sent back sooner or later, but we build in a clause that states that first his case must go to the Home Secretary, the Home Secretary has to think about it, and then say yes. That is not an advance. It imposes not an additional freedom, but additional delay.
  There is a tendency among defenders of liberty, whom I respect, to use delay as a defence of liberty. That is undesirable in principle. The idea that justice should be
  84
  speedy is not wrong in itself, but we should impose delays only where that improves the quality of justice, rather than as a token extra step.
  I am sorry if the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon feels that I am getting at him, but I want to respond to what he said in his interesting speech. Another point—others made it by implication, without being as clear as he was—is that if we are to have exemptions from dual criminality, they should be specific. We should have a list of well defined offences so that we all know where we stand. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I have misrepresented him, but I think that that is his position.
  I am not sure how many serious criminal offences—"serious" as defined in the Bill—exist in the British code, and in the French, German and other codes— but there are a great many. There are, for instance, a number of possible crimes under the heading "Sexual abuse of children". I think most reasonable people would agree that we should not introduce a lot of legal hurdles in such cases, but should allow extradition even if the definition is not precisely the same in our country. In those circumstances, we would have to replace the broad category with a list of all the offences that we were prepared to accept. We would have to get the Home Office to inspect the Portuguese criminal code, offence by offence, saying, "Yes, we will accept that one," or "No, we will not accept that one."
  It would be the exception rather than the rule if the definition of the offences were identical in every EU country. If we are saying that not just categories but individual offences must be identified, we are giving our law-makers a momentous, mammoth, gargantuan task.
  Annabelle Ewing: Some offences on the list simply do not exist in Scotland—sabotage, for example. Some definitional guidelines would give sheriffs an idea of what criminal conduct was being discussed.
  Dr. Palmer: It would be a good idea for the hon. Lady to look up the definition before visiting a country where sabotage is a criminal offence, if she was thinking of doing something that could reasonably be construed as sabotage. I remember when those applying for a visa before going to America had to sign a form saying that they were not planning to engage in terrorist activities. Currently, if the hon. Lady commits an act in Italy that constitutes sabotage according to the Italian code, she can be arrested and sent to prison for years. We are merely discussing whether, if she got out of Italy before she was caught—I hope she will forgive me for referring to her directly—that would allow her an exemption.
  The hon. Lady implies that we will all be able to travel freely until the Bill becomes law, and that we need not know what constitutes sabotage in foreign jurisdictions because it will not apply to us. That is not true. It will apply to us; indeed, it applies to us now. The only question is whether we can extradite people for it if they come back to this country.
  I think Members may agree, if they think further, that it is not practicable to descend to the level of the individual offence. They might be on slightly firmer ground if they suggested that the categories of offence should be recognised more in Britain.
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend will surely realise that while the offences in the framework document are

  85
  generic offences, and such crimes are covered for the very reasons he has been giving—problems would be involved in doing anything else—when a Scottish judicial authority frames a warrant it will frame it in Scottish law. The offence will be very clear in Scottish law. It will meet the requirement in the framework document and the minimum sentencing requirement. When a warrant is received from a Danish or French judicial authority, the offence will again be spelled out clearly in Danish or French law. There will be no dubiety about the fact that an offence has been committed in one of those jurisdictions.
  Dr. Palmer: That is a good point. We should not give the impression that people will be extradited on the basis of a vague warrant that says, "We think he carried out some sabotage"; the warrant will be very specific.
  Annabelle Ewing: The sheriff will not know what it means.
  Dr. Palmer: At the risk of repeating myself, let me say that the hon. Lady will need to know what it means; otherwise she will be at risk when she travels today, regardless of the Bill.
  Annabelle Ewing: Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough. It is of no concern to me whether an individual like me is aware of the criminal code in each EU state. The key point I was trying to make is that the court in Scotland would have to have an idea of what criminal conduct was being discussed. The Minister's response did not deal with that. Sabotage, for example, does not exist in Scots criminal law. With no guidelines on what is encompassed in that category, the sheriff—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady must be more concise in an intervention.
  Dr. Palmer: I take the hon. Lady's point, but I think she is trying to smuggle in the idea that the Scottish, or the English, courts would have a second bite at the cherry and make an assessment of whether the crime had actually taken place. I think we must accept, when we are talking about extradition, that people are not tried at both ends. They are tried in the courts at the other end, under the law as defined at the other end.
  What we are discussing is whether there are certain categories of offence that are so serious that they warrant going beyond the principle of the lowest common denominator—whether, even if we accept that the law differs slightly from country to country, it is reasonable for the country against which such offences have been committed to ask for the extradition of the suspect. As most Members have accepted, this is very much a dual facility: either we get it for ourselves, or no one gets it. If we are fanatical and say that we will not extradite anyone unless they have clearly committed a crime that is also a crime in Britain, we are accepting that the Spanish paedophile and everyone else who commits a crime in Britain that is not a crime at home can escape scot free. I question whether our constituents wish us to do that.
  Several Members cited the plane spotters in Greece, asking how, if a constituent was one of them, we could justify the Greeks' entitlement to try them for the alleged
  86
  offence. I think we would be on uneasy territory if we started discussing each individual case, but few Members would claim not to be able to find an example of a British court case with peculiar features, causing most to wonder why it had been brought. They say that hard cases make bad law. As most people would accept, we should not base the entire principle of mutual extradition within the European Union on the specific case of an unreasonable prosecution of a plane-spotter in Greece. If we do, we will be saying that if any country in the European Union sometimes brings a prosecution that we think unreasonable, as happens every month, if not every week, in Britain, we will not accept the principle of mutual extradition.
  What is more, it is less purist than that. People say that they accept the principle of mutual extradition but that they want it to take a long time: they want it to cost £125,000, to take 18 months, to clog up our courts, to go to higher courts, to the Court of Appeal, to the House of Lords and to the Home Secretary. It is so important to them that we preserve the distinction and protect the rights of the Spanish paedophile and the English right-wing historian that they are willing to accept that as the price.
  I doubt whether the average constituent who is not involved in a specific case would agree with that. Constituents who are involved in a specific case will always feel strongly that it is an outrage and should not happen. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) is pointing at his watch. I do not know whether he has an urgent engagement but I have not noticed a great flood of Conservative Members seeking to speak. When they flood in, I shall take care to give them adequate time.
  I raise some specific issues. I raised this one in European Standing Committee B: the impact of the internet on the entire process. Clause 63(2) on page 30 refers to the alleged crime occurring in a category I territory. If the offence is committed in Germany, as we have discussed, dual criminality may not be a necessary condition.
  Let us say that I set up a website written in the German language, marketed for readers in Germany and run through an internet server in Britain, and that I never set foot in Germany. Will I be liable under clause 63(2) because the offence has been committed in a category 1 territory, namely Germany? The question is: is it my location, or the location of the supposed victim, the person who is forced to read, let us say, neo-Nazi propaganda, which would be illegal in Germany?
  What would happen if I went to Germany and urged people to look at the website—if I did not when in Germany promote neo-Nazi views but encouraged people there to read my website? What if I gave interviews to the German media and said, "I have a website full of interesting things about Germany, and I urge you to read it," and then travelled back to Britain? Would I have committed an offence under German law? Would I have committed an offence on German territory? If I did not travel to Germany but placed an advertisement in the German media, would any offence have occurred in a category 1 territory?
  The Minister may feel that I am making a fine point, but it is the sort of thing that will come up more and more as the internet becomes our main source of

  87
  information. The entire category of crimes that consists of making inflammatory statements that are illegal in a number of countries will become the subject of intense legislative debate, and it would be helpful if the Minister at some stage during the proceedings on the Bill were to address that issue.
  I do not wish to prevent all the Conservative Members who wish to speak from getting in, so I will bring my remarks gradually to a close. As has been pointed out, the opposition to this entire Bill is based on the underlying assumption that other courts cannot be trusted as much as ours. I do not say all other courts; I say some other courts.
  We must make a decision. We must decide whether we are prepared to have a common legal framework for serious crimes to the extent that we will trust each other to prosecute them. If we are not prepared to have that common trust, we will be saying that people can be war criminals, or sex offenders, that they can commit a wide range of serious offences, and that if they slip through the net of the current system, we will accept it because we do not trust the Greeks—look at the plane spotters. It is not reasonable.
  Angus Robertson: The Birmingham Six.
  Dr. Palmer: The hon. Gentleman points to the Birmingham Six as an example. Every country has examples of miscarriages of justices. That is not a reason not to prosecute. It is a reason to prosecute carefully. Either we accept that the other countries are worthy of respect in this case, or we do not.
  Those hon. Members who say that we should not respect the other countries' courts are often the hon. Members who do not respect other aspects of the other countries in the European Union, who say that they cannot be trusted to follow the rules of the European Union, and who say that they wonder whether we should be members of the European Union at all, given that the others are so unreliable.
  Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that many hon. Members may agree with the sentiments that he has expressed but will not be prepared to vote for a Bill that does not have what we consider adequate safeguards?
  Dr. Palmer: I accept that. I am not claiming that anyone who disagrees is a Europhobe. I am saying that there is a tendency here: that some hon. Members are opposed to the Bill because they instinctively mistrust a number of foreign jurisdictions; and that that reflects a wider mistrust of foreign communities in general. That is an area where the Government have made a difference compared with previous Governments. When we say that we are willing to engage with Europe, we mean that we are willing to discuss with our European partners what a reasonable joint basis is and to proceed on the basis of mutual trust. Sometimes it may go wrong. Sometimes—often, I believe—it will produce more justice than we have at the moment. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Boris Johnson: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer). I congratulate him on speaking for more than half an hour. I oppose the European extradition warrant because it is a bad law founded on a good principle that has been wildly misapplied by our masters in the European Union who have agreed the warrant. That is the principle, to which the Minister alluded, of mutual recognition.
  Fans and amateurs of the European Union, such as me and the hon. Member for Broxtowe, who spoke at such great length, know that the principle of mutual recognition has brought many benefits to the people of the European Community. The principle arose from a famous case—the Cassis de Dijon case—and I hope that hon. Members who are waiting to speak will forgive me for briefly reminding those who have forgotten about it.
  In Dijon, a vendor of Cassis de Dijon, a substance used to transform Kir into Kir Royale, had difficulties selling his product to Germany, and he went all the way to the European Court of Justice, which is the supreme judicial body on our continent for the European Union. It decided that what was good for Dijon should be good for Germany, and that there should be a principle of mutual recognition of standards.
  From that, of course, flowed all the benefits of the single market. For example, Labour Members could, if they so chose—I hope that, in due course, they will—take up alternative careers as dentists in Belgium or taxi drivers in Greece. That is the triumph of the single market, which was of course promulgated and pushed forward by great Europeans such as Lord Cockfield and Mrs. Thatcher.
  It must be said that that principle cannot be universally and successfully applied. Hon. Members who have travelled to the continent will know that, in spite of 30 years of EU membership and working away solidly at the principle of mutual recognition, it is not yet possible to plug in one's toaster in France—should one bring it from Britain—and nor is it possible to use a British video recorder. Another example of the failure of the principle of mutual recognition can be found in road safety. It would be unwise if the European Union were to apply the principle to driving on the left-hand side of the road. It would lead to many fatal accidents if Ministers were to turn up in France and try to drive on the right. The principle of mutual recognition cannot be excessively applied because it does not cohere with what happens in the real world.
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman touches on a real point, which I should have thought was an advertisement for the principle of mutual recognition. He is right that we cannot have a European system of law that applies to the rule of the road, because some drive on the right and others on the left. However, surely we can have mutual recognition so that, when somebody is accused of dangerous driving and potentially killing someone in France, that penalty can be taken into consideration in Britain so that they are not liable to do the same thing here. Surely the hon.

  89
  Gentleman accepts that such mutual recognition protects our citizens, as well as those of the rest of the European Union.
  Mr. Johnson: The Minister is groping towards the essence of the problem, which is that mutual recognition can only go so far. It does not work in the sphere of road traffic, because trying to drive on the left-hand side of the road in France would prove catastrophic, and it does not work in the criminal justice system. It is eccentric, dangerous and profoundly undemocratic to apply that principle to this very delicate area of law. There is simply no reason to do it. The only possible outcome of abolishing the principle of dual criminality is the creation of a single legal regime that does not have the sanction and authority of this House. It is particularly worrying—
  Dr. Palmer: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it should be a defence for a Frenchman who drives on the right in Britain to say that in France, it would be legal to do so?
  Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman's point is so frivolous as to not be worth answering. It is perfectly obvious that mutual recognition is not applicable in the sphere of driving or in the criminal justice system. As he himself said, very different approaches to the law exist. It is particularly worrying that British citizens could face immediate and unchallengeable extradition for offences that may carry as little as 12 months' imprisonment in the extraditing country.
  The problem is not just that the list of 32 offences is inchoate and vague but that this House has had no say in the drawing up of the laws that fall under those categories. As has been said repeatedly, it is therefore possible for a British citizen to be extradited for conduct that has not been criminalised in this country. Worst of all, it is particularly intolerable that this House will have no control over any future legislation that may fall under any of these vague categories, and which may be drawn up by any member state in any contracting country.
  I shall not delay the House with examples of cases where our law does not criminalise activities illegal in other countries. The point about the plane spotters has already been well made. I thought it generous of the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety to concede in advance that, under this EU extradition warrant, those people would have been sent back to Greece immediately, had they been in Britain. That rather kicked the legs out from under his position, and it infused the contributions of most Labour Back Benchers, with the exception of the hon. Member for Broxtowe. The point about xenophobia has also already been well made.
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Johnson: I give way with pleasure to the Minister. Perhaps he is going to retract what the previous Minister said.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I am not going to retract what my right hon. Friend said. First, the Greek plane spotters
  90
  case was not an extradition case, but had it been so, potentially it would be extraditable now. The charge was espionage, and no ability exists to question on a prima facie basis whether or not such an extradition would be carried out. The European arrest warrant would not materially change that situation. Those people could be extradited now, under law passed by the hon. Gentleman's own Government some 10 years ago.
  Mr. Johnson: I understand the position, and I am grateful to the Minister for trying to save his right hon. Friend from the very difficult position in which he put the Government. However, I think that he will find that, under the current dispensation, it remains at least within the power of the Home Secretary to vary such a decision by not extraditing on the spur of the moment—as this EU extradition warrant envisages—a bunch of poor tourists who fall foul of the Greek authorities.
  I shall not labour the point, but I want to make one other that occurred to me during the debate. It relates to a particular category of difficulty that many Members will have noticed in their postbags: the different approaches in EU countries to the law of custody of children. I can well imagine that Germany, for instance, might take a very different view of what constitutes illegal restraint—as it is described in the 32 new categories—from that taken by our courts. British mothers of children with a German father who brought those children to England might well fall foul of the German courts, and could be extradited to Germany for something that is not a crime in this country. I mention that as merely one example of the dangers inherent in the abolition of the principle of dual criminality, and of the establishment of mutual recognition of criminal law.
  What is the benefit of the proposed change? The Government have proposed only one serious benefit: once in a blue moon, it might be possible to snare a tax avoider who absconded to Luxembourg. More or less, that was the only good argument that I heard. That is a pitiful and petty objective. If that is all that we hope to achieve by giving away the legal certainty of people in this country, that is a shameful thing. It is wrong to do away with the principle that the criminal laws by which people in this country can be held to account should at least be consistent with the laws passed by the Parliament of this country. If Ministers want a law against xenophobia, they are perfectly entitled to draw one up and bring it to Parliament to see whether we will pass it but that cannot happen without the approval of Parliament.
  I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Broxtowe about paedophilia, although I thought that he elided his example. Consenting sexual relations in Spain became, in his mind, paedophilia. If the Spanish want to change the law on consenting sexual relations and to raise the age of consent, that is a matter for them and not for this House.
  Dr. Palmer: In contrast to my previous intervention, I want to make a serious point. It seems to me that it is a matter of serious concern in Britain if visitors from another country believe that they can safely have sexual relations with children aged 12 because it is legal in their

  91
  country. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would believe that to be of interest not only to the Spanish Parliament.
  Mr. Johnson: If the hon. Gentleman accurately represents the position in Spain—I have no independent knowledge of it and should be grateful for elucidation afterwards—he has a fair point. In that respect, what takes place in Spain is clearly a matter of interest to us. However, to do away with the legal certainty of people in this country that they will be governed exclusively by the laws of this country, passed in this House, for the sake of the elusive prize of capturing one so-called paedophile or someone who has sexual relations with a person aged 12 and over is, I think, very wrong.
  It is plain what needs to be done. We need to insist on the principle of dual criminality or to do as the Home Affairs Committee has suggested and Members on both sides of the House have proposed: we should leave it to the power of the district judge. If he decides that dual criminality does not apply in a particular case, he will give the case to the Home Secretary to decide whether the extradition may go ahead. That at least would provide the procedure with the fig leaf of democratic accountability—anything else would undermine confidence in justice and in our democratic system.
  7.52 pm
  Gareth Thomas: This has been an interesting debate. Opposition and Labour Members have ventilated some important principles and issues. However, although Conservative Front Benchers have a principled objection to part 1, one cannot help feeling that much of the heat generated by the Opposition is informed by plain anti-Europeanism or Euroscepticism. Having said that, I welcome the Bill but have reservations about its practicalities. I was impressed by the report of the Home Affairs Committee and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).
  I agree with the Government that reform of the law of extradition is necessary and overdue. Current procedures are too slow and expensive, and ineffective in dealing with the growing phenomenon of organised crime that knows no international boundaries. The current system does a disservice to many victims. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety that, when it takes six or seven years to conclude extradition proceedings and the process can be punctuated by no fewer than seven different forms of appeal, something is clearly wrong. That surely is an illustration of the axiom that justice delayed is justice denied.
  There is something of a tension as far as the objectives behind the legislation are concerned. One can accept that there is increasing co-operation between the member states of the European Union. We know that the Government have subscribed to the aim of establishing an area of freedom, security and justice. That is an extension of the single market, and that requires mutual recognition, as the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) said so eloquently and humorously. However, it is not always possible to
  92
  achieve mutual recognition. Business in this country—particularly the professions—finds it frustrating that our European friends do not recognise our professional qualifications and often do not give the reciprocity necessary to establish a single market. However, there is a need for judicial co-operation if that single market is to be established in terms of recognising civil judgments and civil legal procedures.
  In criminal justice, if we are to create a European Union in which there is freedom of movement, security and justice for all our citizens, we need to trust our European Union partners. I speak as someone who is by no means a Euro-enthusiast when I say that I recognise that there needs to be greater judicial co-operation and an extension of trust by this country when dealing with extradition requests from other EU member states.
  If a Government are concerned, as this Government are, to expedite the long-winded and cumbersome extradition procedures, it is necessary for us not blithely to abandon caution but to extend a fair degree of trust to those mature democracies that we feel have a system of justice that can more or less be trusted. That is why I think that the Bill's structure, in so far as it draws a distinction between category 1 and 2 countries, is justified. We know that the so-called fast-track procedure involving the European arrest warrant will apply to category 1 countries.
  The removal of protections that hitherto existed, however, is quite a draconian step. If countries can avail themselves of the fast-track procedure, there needs to be a reasonable degree of parliamentary scrutiny of which countries should be included in category 1. Although I welcome the Bill as a whole, I agree that the Home Affairs Committee recommendation on that point is particularly compelling. The Committee concluded that it was wrong for the Government to be able to add non-EU countries to category I, thus enabling them to benefit from fast-track procedures, without there being appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Minister confirm whether the measure will leave it open for the Government, as a discretionary matter and without adequate scrutiny from the House, to add other countries to category 1?
  It is important to stress that if trust between countries is to be the basis for extending a fast-track approach to category 1 offences, Parliament should have the right to test the Government's view that it is right to extend that privilege to other countries. Trust is a byword, however; if we are to have good and practical relations with our European neighbours, there must be an expedited procedure.
  I have some support for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South about dual criminality. Hon. Members will recall that he argued for the necessity of some political process to ensure that a district judge could express a view that dual criminality did not exist—in other words, that the offence that was the subject of the warrant might exist in the country where the warrant was issued but did not exist in the UK.
  As I understood my hon. Friend's argument, he envisaged a situation in which a district judge could make a declaration that dual criminality did not exist. In those circumstances, the Home Secretary—accountable

  93
  to Parliament as he is—could make a separate decision on whether extradition was appropriate. In that sense, parliamentary scrutiny would be brought to bear on the case and that would give an important safeguard.
  However, there is a false element in that argument. I tend to the view that if we are serious about trusting countries admitted to category 1 status, we have to accept that they are a job lot—to put it crudely. Having accepted the principle that there should be fast-track procedures for mature democracies, which have robust judicial systems that provide safeguards for individuals and which adhere to the European convention on human rights, we cannot gainsay that and embark on a minute assessment of their criminal law systems.
  One has thus to accept the logic of the Government's position—although hon. Members may be right to express some reservations about how it would work in practice. There is room for abuse. The provisions could be a blank cheque. What may be appropriate at present may not be in years to come. We cannot guarantee that laws passed by our EU partners will meet our expectations as regards conformity with human rights standards in the future.
  The provisions may give rise to some tension. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's broad response to my points. If one is to take the route proposed in the measure, one cannot complicate matters by creating a situation that brings about the very mischief of delay and expense that the Bill is intended to address.
  Hon. Members who suggest that there are dangers in doing away with dual criminality may be overstating the case. As I understand it, English common law never required that there should be an exact correspondence between offences in the country to which extradition was required and those that could he heard before courts in England and Wales. English common law applies to Wales and some Labour Members who represent Welsh constituencies hope that primary legislative powers for Wales will remain in this place.
  Extradition treaties between sovereign countries have been in existence since the time of the nation states of Greece and Sparta, as I am reminded by the learned author Michael Forde in his recent publication on extradition law. He makes the point that extradition is an extension of diplomacy because if nations are to have good relations with each another, they need to show respect for and trust of their respective judicial systems.
  Michael Forde states:
  "Undoubtedly there was some form of extradition in ancient Greece and also between the Italian city states. During the 18th century France had extradition arrangements with Spain, with Portugal and with Wurtemburg."
  He notes that the "Jay" treaty of 1794, which marked the end of hostilities between the United States and Great Britain, made provision for extradition between Holland, the United States and Great Britain.
  We have moved away from the use of extradition treaties to a more logical approach. To return to what I regard as the overstatement of Opposition Members' case on dual criminality, I refer to clause 10, which deals with the initial stage of the extradition hearing. It contains an important safeguard on which the Minister might care to comment. The clause states:
  "This section applies if a person in respect of whom a Part 1 warrant"—
  94
  in other words, a fast-track procedure—
  "is issued appears or is brought before the appropriate judge for the extradition hearing … The judge must decide whether the offence specified in the Part 1 warrant is an extradition offence."
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the clause imports an element of judicial discretion in interpreting the European arrest warrant. One accepts that the 32 categories of offence in the EU framework are generic and vague in certain respects, but there is a safeguard none the less. The judge is required to assess whether the warrant includes something that is an extradition offence.
  There are some good points in the measure, but one can understand the reservations. We are taking our neighbours on trust and we are doing away with a legal and political tradition, but life moves on. Organised crime moves on. Society moves on. People are more mobile and we have to produce legislation that is consistent with our era. I believe that the Bill meets that requirement.
  I shall refer to another point made by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, and there is something very compelling in it. It relates to what I and perhaps other hon. Members would regard as the Government's gold plating of that part of the EU framework decision that deals with dual criminality. To refresh hon. Members' memories, the European arrest warrant refers to 32 offences that do not require criminality in the country that seeks extradition to correspond with that in the country to which the warrant refers.
  Page 11 if the Home Affairs Committee report states:
  "As discussed in paragraph 16 above, article 2.2 of the framework decision provides that surrender of a suspect under a European Arrest Warrant will not be subject to the dual criminality requirement where the offence for which extradition is sought falls into the list of 32 offences",
  to which copious reference has been made,
  "and"—
  this is an additional requirement—
  "carries a maximum penalty of at least three years' imprisonment in the issuing state."
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth: May I point out to my hon. Friend that this is not a case of gold plating? Although the requirement for dual criminality has been removed from offences on the generic list, a directly comparable offence will be found in the two jurisdictions in the overwhelming majority of such cases. By ending the requirement for dual criminality, we will prevent endless legal argument about whether there is an exact replica of the alleged criminality in another state. So to move from one year to three years would represent a considerable weakening of our current, long-standing extradition arrangements with our European partners.
  Gareth Thomas: I understand what the Minister says, perhaps as well as his point about the inherent delay in the present system, where a nit-picking analysis of what is and what is not a criminal offence in one country or another can take place. However, with the greatest respect, my hon. Friend has not dealt with the fact that the Government have subscribed to the framework document, which refers to a three-year imprisonment

  95
  threshold for the European arrest warrant to bite. Why do the Government therefore feel it necessary to go over and beyond that protection? The Home Affairs Committee was correct to say that that decision seemed somewhat extraordinary.
  Mr. Ainsworth: The simple reason is that our current extradition law refers to 12 months, not three years, so we cannot possibly be gold plating the framework decision. That decision is drafted to encompass only far more serious crimes than our current, long-standing extradition arrangements carry.
  Gareth Thomas: With the greatest respect, our current extradition law does not operate in the context of an all-embracing fast-track system, which will apply to category 1 offences. To create that sort of category is a drastic, but necessary step, although it should be counterbalanced by certain protections.
  Mr. Burnett: Will the hon. Gentleman lead us on to the further protections that we may lose? Will he say a few words about speciality?
  Gareth Thomas: I may get on to that subject, but I repeat that the Government should look again at lowering the threshold from three years to 12 months. I accept the Minister's comment that, as a matter of common sense, we have conventionally operated a 12-month limit because we think that offences that carry a sentence of no less than 12 months are probably sufficiently serious to justify the extradition process. However, we shall operate in different territory if the Bill becomes law and, with respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and others make a strong point when they say that, if we are to go down the route of the European framework, we should at least apply the protections that are in it and adhere to the three-year threshold.
  Mr. Cameron rose—
  Gareth Thomas: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Cameron: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had finished.
  Gareth Thomas: I was about to deal with the question of scrutiny as regards the categories of country that can take advantage of the fast-track procedure. Again, I ask the Minister to refer specifically to that issue because it leads on from my reservations. Yes, the new systems are required, but there must countervailing checks and balances. There is a case for Parliament having an opportunity to debate whether countries should be added to that list.
  I shall conclude because other hon. Members may be anxious to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Bill—it is a recognition of changing times and realities—but it is capable of being improved, and I earnestly ask the Government to consider the points that I have made with a view to providing some countervailing checks and balances.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: One of the great advantages of being called relatively low down the batting order is that many of the important points have already been made and one therefore has the luxury of being brief. I am sure that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) excuses himself from not having made use of that luxury on the grounds that he was not present for the opening speeches, but I am afraid that that excuse is not available to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas). How he managed to work the Spartans into this debate is a matter of great ingenuity. To be fair to him, his points were well made, although he took rather long in getting round to them.
  My constituency is not inundated, as are some hon. Members' constituencies, by the problem of asylum seekers and refugees. In that respect, my constituency is well favoured, but asylum seekers have come to my surgeries—I can think of a couple of cases in the past year—in an attempt to enlist my support for their case. I openly admit that I have sat there with a certain amount of preconceived prejudice, and I have judged the implausibility of the case that is put before me. It is right and proper, therefore, that my prejudice should have nothing to do with the case, which will be properly determined by a tribunal that will examine the prima facie case.
  What strikes me as extraordinary is that, while we are labouring under the huge number of asylum seekers and the system that attempts to be fair to them and give them a fair hearing, the Government are introducing a measure that will remove the proper procedures and throw people out of this kingdom to be dealt with by courts elsewhere. That is absolutely grotesque.
  Mike Gapes: I fail to see the connection between asylum seekers and people being extradited for crimes. Is the hon. Gentleman implying that asylum seekers are somehow responsible for crimes?
  Mr. Swayne: No, I was merely juxtaposing that with what I regard as the ridiculous nature of this measure. Clearly, I made a mistake in giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Labour Members—and one Opposition Member—have displayed squeamishness throughout this debate, which was clearly unjustified. In expressing their support for this measure, they have said that it must not be applied wherever capital punishment might be the consequence of extradition. They are not being just to the arguments. When the Minister replied to my question about the case of the tourists who were plane spotting in Greece, he said that we cannot have citizens of our country travelling the world, breaking laws, and coming back here expecting to get away with impunity. Sauce for the goose, however, is sauce for the gander. If people are prepared to go to other parts of the world and break the law, surely they should have some mind of the penalty for those crimes. In trying to draw a distinction in respect of countries where capital punishment exists, hon. Members undermine the whole argument for the general principle that they have espoused.
  The Minister went further in his reply and said that we cannot have people from this country going across Europe and breaking the law. He exhibited precisely the

  97

  same prejudice to which I admitted when listening to what I considered to be the implausible arguments of an asylum seeker explaining his case. One cannot make the presumption that people have gone abroad and broken the law—a proper procedure exists for courts in this country to decide whether the law has been broken. This measure attempts to do away with that, or to go further in doing away with it than we have already gone.
  I now come to the heart of this abominable Bill.
  Mr. Ainsworth: If a British driver were found guilty of dangerous driving in France, would that not be a matter of concern for people in this country? The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that it is not a matter of concern, that we should concern ourselves only with dangerous driving that occurs in this country, and that whatever occurs abroad is nothing to do with us.
  Mr. Swayne: The hon. Gentleman mistakes me, and it is my fault. I was speaking of the reply of the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety to my intervention. As the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, however, I accept entirely that if there is a case to answer for a crime that is also a crime in this country, it is proper that extradition should take place. What I reject utterly is the proposal that we should extradite for crimes that do not exist in this country—clearly, the crime of dangerous driving does exist in this country, and I would have absolutely no objection to such an extradition when a prima facie case was made.
  I return to the rotten heart of this Bill. The reality is that we are elected to this legislature to determine the laws of this country—what constitutes criminal behaviour, and for what offences our constituents should be sent to prison or extradited. The Bill takes that decision from this legislature and hands it to the Council of Ministers, who will decide for what crimes people will be extradited from this country.
  Angus Robertson: I would like to raise a point that has not reared its head in the debate so far. In relation to decisions being made in the Council of Ministers, has the hon. Gentleman considered the fact that the Scottish Minister for Justice, a Liberal Democrat, has managed to miss 15 of the last 19 Council of Ministers meetings? What kind of guarantee is that in terms of the guarantees of Scots law?
  Mr. Swayne: I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing would surprise me about the indolence and incompetence of such a Minister, particularly one from that party.
  Matters that are properly for this House to decide are being taken from it and given to somebody else. No self-respecting legislature or free Parliament should vote for such a measure.
  8.26 pm
  Harry Cohen: I am generally supportive of this Bill, but it needs careful and close scrutiny, which I hope will happen in Committee. I hope that the Government will have an open mind to some of the changes that are proposed, and will he prepared to accept some of them.
  When Bills that have connections with other countries come before the House, the security services often get involved, and they seem to have too much influence in comparison to the civil liberties lobby. I know that what they have to say must be taken seriously, but a balance needs to be struck between what the security services think are in their interests—or what Foreign Office civil servants think are in their interests—and the civil liberties lobby. We cannot ride roughshod over civil liberties.
  On that subject, I agree with the principle outlined by the Minister that we would want crimes committed in this country by foreigners to be dealt with by our courts, so it is reasonable for crimes committed by Britons in foreign countries to be dealt with by those countries' courts. A glaring loophole exists at the moment, however, in relation to diplomatic immunity cases—the Foreign Office civil servants are still protecting their own. Foreign diplomats are not subject to the law if they commit crimes in this country, and some very serious crimes have been committed by foreign diplomats in this country and by British diplomats abroad. They have claimed diplomatic immunity, which is an anachronism. They should not be allowed that, and, if necessary, extradition should be applied to them. Given the principle that Ministers have outlined, I ask them to consider that aspect anew, and to persuade other countries, too, to rethink their approach in that respect.
  I support the Bill's underlying principle of greater international judicial co-operation. A few years ago, when I was on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly's economic committee, I led a delegation of parliamentarians from Europe and the United States to Interpol. There must be greater police and judicial cooperation to tackle organised crime. Police chiefs at Interpol told us that organised criminals deliberately used the boundaries between countries, the different rules and laws and even the nuances in the laws to get away with crime and to evade justice. Therefore, the principle of a European arrest warrant is okay. The shadow Home Secretary's criticism of it was unjustified.
  The shadow Home Secretary tried to compare the position here with that in the United States. We are not a state of the United States; we are a member of the European Union. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to seek better arrangements with the European Union.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: Even if the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the extremely detailed arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), will he not consider the similar arguments advanced in the incredibly hostile report produced by the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee, which is led by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). If the hon. Gentleman will not listen to my right hon. Friend, surely he should listen to a Labour-dominated Committee that has considered the Bill in great detail. The hon. Gentleman

  99
  also said that we should not ride roughshod over civil liberties, but does he not accept that Liberty, which is the main champion of civil liberties, shares all our criticisms of the proposals?
  Harry Cohen: I will mention Liberty and other aspects of the Bill. I pay tribute to the Home Affairs Committee and its report. It raised very important issues. My speech will contain criticisms of the Bill and that is why I began by saying that I want it to be closely scrutinised in Committee and that I hope the Government will have an open mind about changes to it. However, I have been outlining the fundamental principles behind the Bill and my view that they are worthy and worthwhile.
  My former pair, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), made an impressive speech, and I agree with certain aspects of it. He made a good point about the problems of facing a trial in a court where a different language is used. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that point. Perhaps more support should be offered to someone in those circumstances in a foreign court.
  However, the hon. Gentleman made a couple of points that left me flabbergasted. In particular, he seemed to suggest that criminals could almost pick and choose the country to hide in. If every country adopted the approach that he and those on the Opposition Front Bench have taken, the criminal could go to the country that afforded him the best protection for the crime that he had committed. That runs contrary to the aim of having a general European arrest warrant that closes the loopholes that the Interpol chiefs mentioned in their comments to my delegation.
  Gareth Thomas: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to holiday in Spain recently? I am unaware of the current position there. As he will recall, an area known as the "costa del crime" was of considerable concern to this country. Like me, would he be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that phenomenon?
  Harry Cohen: Indeed, I would. The "costa del crime" did not do this country any favours abroad. I support better arrangements with Spain and other countries so that there is a fair extradition process.
  One of the themes in the Queen's Speech was that there should be justice for the victims of serious crimes and their families. It is right that that principle should apply to victims abroad and not necessarily just to Britons. We should prevent people from evading and delaying justice by using their UK citizenship as a cover for that purpose. People do not have the right to commit crime abroad and then come back to hide in this country.
  I do not support the approach that was described as a form of judicial imperialism. The law must apply both to those countries that extradite criminals to us and to this country when we extradite criminals abroad. The process must be fair and equal.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman's comment on judicial imperialism has formulated a thought in my mind. Will the Bill apply to British overseas territories or Crown territories, or is similar legislation expected?
  Harry Cohen: I am not an expert on that and leave it to the Minister to respond. I think the Bill should apply
  100
  to British overseas territories. I am not unsympathetic to the idea that people should stand trial in the country in which they committed the crime, although the language consideration is relevant.
  Delays of six years have been mentioned before a decision is reached. That is too long and needs to be reduced.
  Two aspects of the Conservatives' approach worry me. The first relates to the death penalty. In an article on 8 October, the leader of the Conservative party described Labour's plans not to extradite people to countries where they may face the death penalty as "ridiculous and mad", but it is not ridiculous and mad at all. The right to life is a basic human right; it is not for the state to take it away. People may be innocent or political opponents of a state. The death sentence is invariably disproportionate to the crime committed. People with mental health difficulties might be executed, as we have seen in the United States. In the period between commission of the offence and the death sentence being carried out, someone may become a changed person. We need to encourage the United States, Russia, China, Iran and others to abolish the death penalty. It is important that we never extradite anyone to a country that might pass the death sentence. The Conservatives are playing fast and loose by not making their position clear.
  My second concern about the Conservatives' approach relates to xenophobia. Some hon. Members said that UK law does not cover xenophobia, and the Conservatives have used that as a reason to oppose extradition. Let us consider the appalling genocide in Rwanda. It was well known that that was incited in many ways, including in the country's media. The mass slaughter that followed was incited for xenophobic reasons. A person who incited such violence could come to this country without the Government's knowledge and be allowed to stay. Indeed, that has happened. Provided that all the rules come into play, including the policy of no death sentence, it would be proper for the Government to extradite someone who incited such murder—it was a holocaust, really—in order that they may face justice. It would not be unreasonable in those circumstances for xenophobia to be taken into account or at least considered when an extradition request is made.
  I have some concerns and criticisms. I want an assurance that mental and physical health will be taken into account before extradition is granted. If it is not, that itself could be an oppressive punishment, or could add to such a punishment.
  Liberty makes three good points. One is that British citizens could be extradited for offences that are not crimes in the United Kingdom. The test should be that where there is no offence in this country when set against what is being requested for extradition by another country, extradition should not take place. However, where there is a similar offence—what I would describe as nuances in different laws—that should be reason enough for the extradition process to be allowed. I do not know exactly how that would be worked out, but I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to adopt that approach in such cases.
  Secondly, Liberty goes on to say that the process should apply only to serious offences to guard against thousands of individuals being sent abroad for minor or

  101
  trivial offences. I agree. The threshold for the extradition procedure is too low. Twelve months has been mentioned, and the Minister referred to three years, but even three years is too low. We do not want the procedure to apply to many thousands of people, either way. It should apply only to the most serious crimes.
  Thirdly, Liberty says that the list of offences that can give rise to extradition is too vague and too wide, and includes unacceptably ambiguous offences such as computer-related crime. That is a good point. The list should be much more specific. Computers are still relatively new, as are the applications for using them. Those who use computers may engage in some form of criminality, and may even know that they are doing so, but that should not mean that the extradition process will automatically kick in. The Government should be much more specific.
  There have been some cases of people hacking into the Pentagon computer. I do not know how serious the breaches were, but the United States obviously regarded them as serious. If they could have started world war three, they were certainly serious, but they may not have been so serious as to warrant people being extradited to the United States, perhaps to suffer a harsh punishment. Such matters could have been dealt with easily in the United Kingdom, and that should be considered.
  There are three other points to be made. — [Interruption.] I am making genuine points; I am not waffling. If I am upsetting Opposition Members, I shall make them quickly. I thought that they would like my points because I am making criticisms. First, the United States has denied civil liberties at Guantanamo bay. Military law applies there and defendants are not allowed an independent defence. The United States is detaining people without trial and is ignoring the Geneva convention. The shadow Home Secretary praised the US and said that we should have an agreement with it. However, I bet that he would not support sending someone back to a country just to face military action—that is what we would be doing by extraditing people to Guantanomo bay. We should not do so—the United States is out of line with international standards on civil liberties. It is not right that people should be extradited to a country if it imposes military law on them and does not comply with the Geneva convention.
  Secondly, the Government have produced a Green Paper on mercenaries and legislation will be introduced in future—they may even be legitimised. Mercenaries carry out killings and it would be unreasonable to grant an exception in extradition law so that they can do so without facing extradition or any justice at all. They may start or be involved in a war or civil war against the UK's proclaimed policy, and should not be allowed special concessions. We will see how the legislation turns out after the consultation, but it must be linked to existing extradition measures.
  Finally, the Secretary of State's involvement in political cases is excessive. He should intervene less and the judiciary should be involved more—we should examine those cases under a proper judicial process. It is wrong for political considerations to drive extradition. I note that the exception for political offences, which provides a defence of political motivation, is to be abolished. However, that defence is still needed. People
  102
  may commit a criminal act. For example, some of those who fought against apartheid in South Africa committed criminal offences, and some of the people resisting the Zimbabwean regime now may be committing criminal offences. However, they probably had, or have, a political motive and reasons that we would otherwise support for doing so. The defence is still needed, although I accept that there must be a balance between consideration of the criminal act and someone's political motivation. I do not favour getting rid of the political offence exception altogether.
  I hope that the Government will consider those points carefully in Committee and at later stages in the Bill's consideration. I hope that they will take some of my criticisms on board and amend the Bill accordingly.
  8.48 pm
  Patrick Mercer: I am pleased to be called to speak, and am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen), who made his points clearly, if lengthily.
  I was rather disappointed by the comments of the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas), who said that Conservative Members spoke purely and simply from a visceral dislike of anything European. That is a grave disservice to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), both of whose speeches were extremely cleverly formulated and, I like to think, were free of the tedious prejudice which, I admit, was often expressed by my party in the past.
  Gareth Thomas: I was trying to make the point that some basic principles have come across clearly. Labour Members could not help but think that underpinning those principles was a fair amount of Euroscepticism which may reflect arguments going on in the Conservative party. That is all that I said.
  Patrick Mercer: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I commend those two speeches in particular as being completely free of that negative influence.
  I shall be as brief as I can in speaking about the background to the Bill. I wholly understand that something needs to be done about extradition. I largely support every part of the Bill, except part 1. If I contradict myself, I hope that the Minister will bear with me. Although I understand that the conditions that prevail after 11 September make the simplification of extradition necessary, I believe that tinkering with the current extradition rules is dangerous and liable to infringe freedom, and may aid and abet terrorists. I shall try to explain.
  I do not know how familiar the House is with the French press. For several years, well before 11 September, the term "Londonistan" had been used frequently. What does it mean? The French particularly view London as the centre for international terrorism, with British laws allowing terrorists to prosper and act freely, and with the British police being singularly ineffective against them. I wholly rebut that. None the less, that opinion is gathering steam abroad.
  Obviously, it was America that was attacked on 11 September, but Germany and France particularly have suffered at the hands of terrorists. There is certainly a

  103
  head of steam building up in European nations that have been attacked, albeit in a fairly minor way, which may, once further terrorist attacks occur—and they will—end up endangering the due process of justice. I shall explain in a little more detail.
  The impact of terrorism has been keenly felt by America. That country was not used to terrorism in any shape or form before 11 September, at least not on home territory. The reaction of America to 11 September was measured, partly owing to the influence exerted by this country, because of our experience of terrorism and our laws which have dealt effectively with terrorism in the past. None the less, I ask right hon. and hon. Members to reflect on the fact that US allegations against a UK resident accused of involvement in a serious terrorist crime turned out to concern a minor misdemeanour once it was scrutinised. I suggest that terrorist violence turns the mind and can cant the judgment.
  May I point out what has happened in Australia recently? It is probably fair to say that Australia was not expecting to be attacked as it was in Bali. To quote one or two comments from the Australian press, Australia is now ready for a much more hairy-chested foreign policy. That means that the judgment of countries such as Australia is likely to be skewed, and countries in Europe are likely to be subject to the same pressures.
  If we take away the existing restrictions and protection, we probably end up doing the terrorists' job for them. Having fought terrorism for the best part of 25 years, I can say that it was always an article of faith that security forces acted with complete moral and legal rectitude in everything that they did. Britain has experience of terrorism and the maturity in its laws to deal with it. I am concerned that any alterations to the extradition laws may endanger that.
  Furthermore, we have heard in recent weeks arguments from Labour Members about the risk of scaring the pants off the population by warning people about likely terrorist attacks. They have argued, cogently in some respects, that that does the terrorists' job for them. Any changes to our extradition laws will partially assist the terrorist in achieving his aims of bringing about a change in the law and a wholly different climate in which law-abiding nations work, and of dissolving the moral superiority with which so-called civilised nations deal with the problem.
  I could deal in detail with one or two of the points that have been made, but frankly, they have been made with much greater clarity than I could ever make them. I also realise that time is short, so I shall conclude my remarks. I believe that part 2 will do the job, but part 1 infringes everything that this country's courts and law have stood for over the years. While I fully take the point made by hon. Members on both sides of the House and agree that times and circumstances are changing, I suggest to the Minister that now is the time for this country, which understands the problems of violence, terrorism and subornation of the legal process, to stand firm in what it believes, to continue to provide protection to people, and to stand, alone if necessary, but 100 per cent. behind the defence of the individual. Only by being 100 per cent. above corruption and completely correct can we hope to prove to our enemies that our cause is correct.
  8.57 pm
  Mike Gapes: The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) made a point that was partly correct when he spoke about London and international terrorist organisations. The circumstances that he described may have existed in the past, but since we introduced the Terrorism Act 2000 and the post-11 September legislation, the situation has changed considerably.
  Patrick Mercer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mike Gapes: I am short of time and I should like to build my argument.
  I believe that the Bill is not only about terrorism, but about a range of issues of which terrorism is one. As the Minister said in introducing the Bill, current legislation is more than a century out of date. The measures introduced 12 or 13 years ago were consolidation measures. The reality is that current legislation dates from the Victorian and imperial age. Let us think back to that time. There were very few states in the world, a large swathe of which was coloured red.
  Mr. Cameron: Pink.
  Mike Gapes: Indeed. The reality of the situation today is that we have about 200 nation states, the United Nations, the International Labour Organisation and the World Trade Organisation, and a huge number of international covenants and treaties dealing with genocide, crimes against humanity, laws of war and many of the issues that are currently considered when we discuss the workings of the International Criminal Court. In those circumstances, it is absurd for extradition legislation to be based on a pre-modern age—the Victorian age and the age of empire. For those reasons, significant modernisation is well overdue.
  There are also other reasons; for example, the current system does not work and allows the wealthy criminals and the criminal lawyers to benefit from their expenditure to avoid justice. I use the phrase "criminal lawyers" advisedly. Some people in the legal profession do well out of representing international criminals, drug dealers and people who are engaged in crimes in one country, live in another and have offshore assets in some bank account that is hard to get at.
  We live in an age when people use the internet to commit crimes. They perpetrate sophisticated fraud on gullible and/or innocent people. Yet the international policing organisations are often unable to track them down. We have heard the debates about paedophilia, and we know that racist, Nazi groups use the internet. We also know that Nazi groups who operate in Germany are based in Denmark because they can easily get across to Schleswig-Holstein and smuggle in literature. Current Danish law does not allow them to be picked up or prosecuted because Denmark has an absolutist, free-speech approach, which some Conservative Members favour.
  It is fortunate that this country has laws against incitement to racial hatred. We have the Public Order Act 1986, and other legislation, which is not enforced strictly enough against organisations that peddle race hate, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. I should like us,

  105
  like some other European countries, to have a law relating to holocaust denial. Britain should be alleged to be a sanctuary for neither terrorists nor racists and extremists.
  Let me give a specific example. For many years, the people who carried out the bombing in Bologna in the 1980s lived in Brighton, and nothing was done about it. They were linked with far-right groups such as the League of St. George, and involved in fascist training camps, yet they lived in Brighton without anything being done about it. That is outrageous. I hope that a common European arrest warrant and provisions for a Government to ask for extradition would lead to a solution to such a problem.
  We have experienced problems over the years that relate to Northern Ireland; for example, we had problems with the Irish Republic. I believe that they have been resolved since the Belfast agreement. Nevertheless, the Irish courts often refused to extradite. We experienced similar problems with the United States. For example, IRA fundraisers, people who were wanted for crimes, and even people who had escaped from prison could live in the USA because the courts would not extradite them to this country.
  The Bill may not be a perfect solution, but it highlights a genuine problem that must be tackled. The way in which Conservative Members and Liberal Democrat Members in the House of Lords deal with the Bill when it emerges from this House will be interesting. The past two or three years have shown that the Conservative-Liberal alliance in the House of Lords can defeat the Labour Government, with their democratic majority, whenever it chooses. Labour has only 26 per cent. of the peers in the upper House. The Liberals and the Conservatives have ganged up on several Home Office measures in recent years. That presents more of a challenge to the Liberals than the Conservatives, because I expect the latter to use their normal approach in the House of Lords. However, the Liberals have to reconcile their pro-European stance with their libertarianism. Perhaps they will have a problem in deciding which side to choose maybe they will sit on the fence.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that many of his own party's supporters in the upper House have been voting with the Conservatives and the Liberals to take out the more outrageous parts of his Government's legislation?
  Mike Gapes: No; what I recognise is that many people in the legal profession who have made their living as QCs over many years have a view of the realities of the world different from that of my constituents and those who suffer from the effects of drug dealers, paedophiles and all the others who engage in international criminal activity. It is time for the voice of the ordinary people who suffer from the effects of international criminality to be heard.
  Let us take another example. In east London—and other parts of the city—at this moment, international gangs of criminals are operating prostitution and drug rackets. We need effective measures to deal with them. Such people often flee this country to escape justice. As we enlarge the European Union and get better
  106
  international co-operation, we must ensure that the new member states—as well as the applicant states and those that aspire to become part of the European Union, perhaps in 10 or 15 years—will get their house in order, and use our support and the support of others to do so. For example, British drug enforcement officers and police officers are working in countries such as Romania and Bulgaria today. Similarly, we are doing good work in Kosovo.
  We must work together with our European Union partners, and that will involve our having the ability to extradite criminals from those countries. I was in Pristina last year, where I saw hundreds of motor vehicles with German, Austrian and Italian registration plates. They had been stolen and driven across into Kosovo. Those activities do not happen by accident; they are carried out by organised gangs. We then hear stories of people in our constituencies inadvertently buying vehicles that have been stolen in some other European country and re-badged. We must get to grips with these problems, and the way to do that is through international co-operation. We talk about international law, and about the United Nations, but this is really all about getting rid of our petty, narrow-minded belief that, because we are British, we somehow have the best legal system in the world, despite the fact that it has not delivered justice to many people for many years. Instead, it has delivered fat fees to lawyers and given many of the victims of crime a sense of growing frustration.
  If we are to have effective law, we must ensure that our systems work quickly and get the right results. We do not want the wealthy—whether it is the van Hoogstratens, the Kenneth Noyes or the Jeffrey Archers of this world—to be able to escape justice because they have a large amount of money. Those three people have all been subjected to justice, and one of them was brought back from another country to be tried. We need a structure that will give the people on the street the confidence that the criminal justice system is doing its best for them. That will mean greater international cooperation in extraditing those who are living on the "costa del crime", and those who are exploiting the poor and weak in our own communities and taking their assets out of this country to some other part of the world. For that reason, I welcome the Bill and I hope that it gets through both Houses very soon.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. David Cameron: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), who speaks with great passion. If I were a lawyer, I would not want to meet him on a dark night. My brother is a lawyer, so I will tell him to avoid Ilford when the hon. Gentleman is around.
  I serve on the Select Committee on Home Affairs and I am pleased to contribute to the debate. I think that we produced a good report in a very short time, although I would have liked it to go a little further. I will vote against the Bill because I disapprove of part 1, specifically the changes to dual criminality. It has for many years in this country been a safeguard that one cannot be extradited for something that is not an offence in this country, and that safeguard should not be lost. I did not sulk, but tried to help the Committee to suggest

  107
  some safeguards, particularly our ingenious safeguard of involving the district judge and the Home Secretary in checking on the dual criminality element.
  The Government are going in entirely the wrong direction in respect of extradition and deportation. It has become close to impossible to deport or extradite those who might actually be a danger to this country—my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) made that point. That is why we have the stern detention powers in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001—vast powers to detain people without charge and without trial. One reason we have those powers is that it has been so difficult to extradite or deport those who pose a threat to the life of the nation.
  The reason for that is not the European convention on human rights itself, but the way in which it has been interpreted. Two cases are essential to understanding why that has happened. The first is the Soering case, which I raised with the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety. The judgment in that case was that an alleged murderer could not be extradited to Virginia because of the conditions on death row. In one step, the Soering case internationalised the European convention on human rights so that it applied not only to the countries that had signed it, but to America and other countries that had not signed it.
  The second case, which might be regarded as more serious, is the Chahal case, in which it was found that the Home Secretary was no longer able to balance the risk to national security of keeping someone here against the risk to the individual of being maltreated if he were to be deported or extradited. The judgment in that case stated:
  "The prohibition provided by Article 3 is equally absolute in the expulsion cases … in these circumstances the activities of the individual in question however undesirable or dangerous cannot be a material consideration."—
  I repeat, "however undesirable or dangerous". Imagine that, by some chance, Osama bin Laden arrived on the shores of this country. If the Americans tried to extradite him and refused to waive the right to impose the death penalty, the Chahal case, as I understand it, would make it impossible for us to extradite him from this country to the United States of America.
  We have a crisis in extradition and deportation, but what are the Government doing about it? They are not sorting out the problem of the jurisprudence under article 3 by re-acceding to the European convention on human rights and admitting some exceptions, as the French have done. Instead, through the Bill they are adopting the European arrest warrant, which means that UK citizens can be extradited for alleged offences that are not crimes in this country. It is extraordinary that, on the one hand, it has become harder to extradite people who have done something that is an offence in this country and could present a grave risk to the life of the nation, but, on the other hand, it will become easier to extradite someone who has done something that is not a crime in this country. That is why I say that the Government are going in the wrong direction.
  I find the European arrest warrant highly objectionable because of the problem of dual criminality. Hon. Members have spoken about that, but
  108
  let us be clear about what it means. One of our constituents goes to Spain on holiday, commits an alleged offence, and returns home. All that is necessary for him or her to return is that the warrant is correctly filled out—in its report the Select Committee set out what a warrant looks like—and that a district judge in the UK sees the warrant and judges that the offence falls into one of the 32 categories. At no time is it asked whether the offence is a crime in this country.
  When one examines the matter, as the Home Affairs Committee did, one finds that the position is far worse than that. Nowhere in the Bill are the 32 categories of offences mentioned or written down, as the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) pointed out. The Committee asked the Home Office why the 32 categories were not listed in the Bill. Our report states:
  "The Home Office responded that this was because article 2.2 allows for the list to be amended".
  Whole new classes of offence could be added to the European arrest warrant without proper parliamentary scrutiny.
  That is bad enough, but it gets worse: individual EU countries can decide which offences fall within the 32 categories. It is a case of—I quote from the report—
  "as they are defined by the law of the issuing member state".
  Again, we asked the Home Office—this sounds a bit like "That's Life", and "We went back to the gas board …". The Home Office said that it
  "does not have detailed definitions of offences in the criminal justice systems of other EU member states".
  We simply do not know what we are letting our citizens—our constituents—in for.
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), whom I am pleased to see back in his place, made one good point in his long speech. It is difficult to list all the offences, and to ask all the other EU countries to list them all. The Select Committee recognised that, and it is a good reason for doing away with the dual criminality provisions altogether.
  The situation gets even worse: countries can add to the offences in the 32 categories. The Select Committee made an important point in paragraph 26, which states:
  "Not only does it appear to be largely unknown how the categories of offence will be defined by the current law of EU member states, there is no way of knowing how those offences may be defined by the future law of member states."
  They can add to the offences—
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth: So can we.
  Mr. Cameron: Yes, but we do not know what we are letting our constituents in for.
  And it gets still worse. Countries joining the EU can automatically be designated category 1 countries. I have huge respect for countries in eastern Europe that have broken free of the communist yoke and I welcome them into the EU—I think that their joining is extremely important—but we must recognise that, if we pass the Bill, we will be taking other EU judicial systems on trust. That does not involve only the countries that are currently EU members, with their current laws, but all the countries that will join in future, with their future laws. It means taking an enormous step.

  109
  Perhaps the biggest objection of all for those of us who care about the House and the way in which Parliament works is that we cannot amend the list of offences. We must either take the Bill whole, or reject it whole. We cannot take out the most general offences, such as xenophobia and computer-related crime; we must take the lot, or none at all. That is why I think it would be best to vote the Bill down. The Select Committee came up with an ingenious suggestion that I hope the Home Secretary will consider. It stated:
  "in each case the district judge should look at the terms of the offence specified in the European Arrest Warrant and make a statement as to whether dual criminality applies. In cases where the alleged offence is not a crime in the UK, a separate decision about whether to extradite should then be made by the Home Secretary, who is responsible to Parliament."
  I know how few our numbers are on these Benches, and I know that we will probably be defeated in the Lobbies, but I hope that the Minister will consider that.
  What objection could there be? There are two possibilities. One is that this is, as I believe it to be, a modest additional safeguard that does not change the terms of the warrant but merely gives a new, additional responsibility to the district judge and the Home Secretary—a backstop power. The hon. Member for Broxtowe said that it was far more than that: he said, effectively, that it would run counter to the whole European arrest warrant, and could leave the Home Secretary in an invidious position because it would cause a conflict between him and the Council of Ministers in relation to their decision on that warrant. If someone came before him who had committed an offence that was not a crime in this country, according to the district judge, the Home Secretary would have to say, "I am sorry. You may spend time rotting in a Greek or Spanish jail. Weeks may pass before you are even charged with an offence that is not a crime in this country. But there is nothing I can do about it." If that is so, it demonstrates the inflexibility of the law that the Government have signed up to on our behalf—and if it is that inflexible, we should not adopt it.
  One of the things that we are supposed to do here is to defend the rights of people in this country: the people who send us here, our constituents, citizens of this country. We are meant to stand up against an over-mighty Executive, whether the over-mighty Executive are making decisions from Westminster or from Brussels, as is the case with this measure, particularly when our Government do not have the wherewithal to stop it. Therefore, the best we can do is to vote down the Bill tonight.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who has made a powerful contribution to the debate, as he always does on home affairs matters.
  It is worth reflecting on the fact that this has been a slightly unusual debate. Conservative Members have made a large number of relatively short, powerful and well-observed speeches that have looked at the Bill itself, at its details and at the report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, whereas a small number of Labour Members have made extremely lengthy speeches in which they ventilated many of their prejudices but hardly talked about the Bill and occasionally mentioned
  110
  the reservations of the Labour-dominated Select Committee. Basically, they were so embarrassed by the Bill that they wanted to talk about other things that were only tangential to extradition.
  It is worth looking in a little detail at how the Bill came to be in its current form. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has talked about the fact that one needs to have exceptional provisions to deal with the exceptional danger of terrorism. That is something on which we on the Conservative Benches and the Government agree: one should have rare exceptions to deal with an exceptional threat.
  That was the genesis of the framework directive. In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, an urgent meeting of EU Justice and Home Affairs Ministers took place. It discussed the proposal that an arrest warrant would need to be issued in a member state and executed in another member state, and the person arrested would be transported to the originating member state without the protections of ordinary extradition procedure in terrorist cases alone.
  I am indebted to the distinguished jurist and constitutional lawyer Leo Price, QC, for his description of what happened next. Until just before the Laeken summit in December 2001, Italy was not willing to agree to any such European arrest warrant proposal unless the relevant offences were restricted to seven offences plainly of terrorist character. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset set out, we would still be happy for the sole exception of terrorism to be included, but other people, in drafting what was proposed in Europe, decided to see the measure as a vehicle for introducing something else that, until then, the present British Government had always opposed. They wanted to introduce part of the corpus juris that successive British Governments, including the current one, had previously rejected as unacceptably contrary to our common law traditions. Suddenly, we had the list of 32 offences, which were not part of the war against terrorism at all.
  The arrest warrant, in its much wider form, with the implementation of part of the corpus juris, was formally adopted at a meeting of the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council on 13 June this year. It adopted the arrest warrant proposal despite the fact that it was under what is called scrutiny reserve at Westminster. Scrutiny reserve applicable to proposals for EU legislation requires that our Ministers do not agree in Council to proposals for EU legislation that are still under scrutiny by this sovereign Parliament. The scrutiny arrangements do not always work well but Leo Price has concluded that that adoption was in contempt of our parliamentary arrangements for scrutiny reserve.
  Then, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and I expressed in some of the European Committees our concerns about who was going to be regarded under the new arrangements as a competent judicial authority. In that regard the case of the Greek plane-spotters in Kalamata, which many Members have mentioned in interventions and in speeches, is particularly relevant.

  111
  We remain of the view that, if one cannot say who is a competent judicial authority, the proposal is extremely dangerous. In many other countries covered by category 1 of the proposed legislation, those who take the role of an investigative magistrate in another jurisdiction—a juge d'instruction, or something of that ilk—will be regarded automatically as a competent judicial authority, and no British court will have the right then to intervene to protest about the way in which such an arrest warrant has been issued. The whole burden of all that we Conservatives have said this evening is that we ought to preserve the protection for British subjects whereby a British court—and, potentially, the Secretary of State—has a reserve power to scrutinise what is going on before somebody is simply arrested and taken away to face a foreign court that perhaps has a wholly inappropriate system of justice, in which there is no presumption of innocence.
  I know that the Minister always speaks very softly when introducing proposals, however controversial they are, but we did not find today's soft words of much reassurance. We want provisions such as those that we have discussed to he included in the Bill as safeguards, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and many others have said. The Minister's soft words were obviously reassuring to some Labour Members; indeed, so soft were they that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) was fast asleep for several minutes of his speech, before a message from the Whip woke her up. On a serious note, there needs to be sufficient maturity of criminal justice in all the countries to which part 1, in particular, relates.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the distinguished Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, set out its very powerful reservations about this legislation. Conservative Members share many of those reservations. He referred to the vagueness of some of the crimes—such as sabotage and environmental crime—set out in the framework directive consisting of 32 crimes. He rightly said that a British judge's becoming a mere cipher was not acceptable. We agree with his Committee's suggestion that the proposal should be amended to allow a district judge to scrutinise anything put forward in such an arrest warrant.
  The hon. Gentleman said that, instead of a reduction to 12 months, we ought to go back to the proposal for a three-year limitation. He also reminded the House that, in practice, courts have often refused extradition under current law—even to EU countries—and so have successive Home Secretaries of different parties. As the hon. Gentleman rightly asked, what has changed to lead us to throw all caution to the wind? In our view, nothing has changed to allow us to discard those safeguards.
  The hon. Gentleman further pointed out that the proposed EU arrest warrant requires inadequate information, and yet again we agree. We need a much more detailed warrant, and even for category 2 countries—the hon. Gentleman talked about clause 83—the Government's freedom to exempt is far too wide. He suggested a restriction in respect of signatories to the convention on extradition, or of bilateral extradition treaty countries. That is a matter to which
  112
  we shall undoubtedly return in Committee. The hon. Gentleman also rightly said that proper legal advice should be given to anyone before they consent to extradition from this country. Again, we regard that as an enormously helpful safeguard.
  The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), who spoke for his party, said that in his view, the Bill is unacceptable in its current form, and that he wants to improve it. He pointed out that many signatory countries to the framework directive do not in fact have the legal safeguards that we enjoy. In Greece, for example, there is no legal aid. It is also important to protect the presumption of innocence, which does not exist in many other countries. However, the hon. Gentleman's main objection was that the dual criminality rule was abolished for category 1 countries. We entirely agree about that. He talked, as did the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, about vague and nebulous offences, and ended by saying firmly that he wanted the Bill completely changed because it was unacceptable in its current form. We will be watching with interest what he and his colleagues do in the Division Lobby tonight.
  The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) said that the law needed updating. He wanted the Government to address his points, which were in some ways similar to those made by the Home Affairs Committee. However, he said that he is not always reassured when he sees the rest of the European Union's judicial systems in operation, something that I thought very significant coming from a former Solicitor-General in this Government. The thought crossed my mind that perhaps when the hon. and learned Gentleman was in office he advised against the introduction of this sort of measure, which is why he now finds himself on the Back Benches. Perhaps we will never know, but he rightly reminded us that British courts have always taken a very robust view about these matters. He stressed, again quite rightly, that clause 21 on the human rights safeguards will prove very important. In summary, he felt that he could not give the Bill an unequivocal welcome.
  In a powerful contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway), warned against the extension of the European state. He used the parallel of what had happened in the past over the Single European Act. He quite rightly said that the Bill is an attack on civil liberties and that there has been no effective rebuttal of what the Law Lord, Lord Scott, had written about xenophobia and that something as simple as distributing a Biggles book or the Old Testament could be regarded in some countries as xenophobia.
  The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), in what I thought was a slightly schizophrenic speech, first said that he welcomed the Bill in general terms but that he did not like politicians being involved in the judicial process in general terms. He pointed out that the Home Secretary has had problems on such issues as mandatory life sentences. He said that he was speaking as a former lawyer; he felt that there had been problems with the Pinochet case and that the legislation could be improved. However, he went on to say—and this is where I thought he contradicted himself—that the extradition system, purely as a creature of the 19th century, should not preserve the reliance on the

  113
  judiciary that Lord Palmerston had used in the Don Pacifico case in 1850. If the hon. Gentleman believes that politicians are interfering too much and that we ought to rely on the judiciary, it is not really logical to say that we have to move away from the protections of the judiciary by which our citizens have been protected since the 19th century. The hon. Gentleman's attitude was that it does not matter about protecting British citizens who will be extradited—he was more concerned about people being extradited to this country. The Bill deals with both eventualities, and we must preserve the protection for our citizens.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon pointed out that the Bill had been comprehensively demolished in the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. My hon. Friend said that the Government are careless with the freedoms of our citizens. He talked about the cases of people who should have been deported being delayed, not because of delays in the judicial system but because the Home Secretary had not decided on cases in which appeals were rejected by the House of Lords as far back as December 2001. He said that it was not good enough for the Government to say that the judicial system is slow; he pointed out that the Pinochet case had been heard three times up to the House of Lords in 15 months. If a case has sufficient political priority, it gets heard.
  My hon. Friend drew attention to the year zero kind of thinking on the Government Benches which says that just because something is hallowed by tradition, it is automatically wrong. He said that we must not disregard the protections that have been built up over the generations for British citizens. He talked about the dangers of the Bill being used for allegations of war crimes, as in the Pinochet case. He wondered whether Ministers might be worried if some other judicial authority one day decided that they were guilty of war crimes in relation to the bombing of Kosovo.
  My hon. Friend also rightly pointed out that many of the offences in the list of 32 could and should be fully defined in the Bill. In response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) about definitions, my hon. Friend said that we need the dual criminality safeguard that has always existed. In the past, our divisional courts have had a problem accepting even French or Spanish jurisdiction. The safeguard should be preserved.
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) maundered on for about a half an hour saying nothing very much. However, he engaged in an interesting exchange with the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing), who speaks for the Scottish National party. It seemed that she and the hon. Gentleman were in greater agreement with one another than he was with the Minister.
  Dr. Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.
  Mr. Hawkins: No, I am pressed for time so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me I shall not give way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) talked about the history of mutual recognition and the Cassis de Dijon case. He rightly pointed out that our sovereign Parliament had no say in drawing up the list of offences and will have no say in any future changes to the list. As he said, Parliament should object to that.
  114
  The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) said that a sifting process was necessary and that hon. Members were right to express reservations about how that would work in practice. He expressed concern about the lack of counterbalance in the measure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) exposed the lack of logic in the Minister's case on the death penalty. My hon. Friend expressed concern that the Council of Ministers had the power to change the categories of offence when Parliament had no scrutiny of that process.
  The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) said that the concerns of the civil liberties lobby could not he ridden over roughshod. He expressed anxiety that various matters were not dealt with in the Bill; for example, diplomatic immunity and the death penalty in Rwanda. He shared some of the reservations expressed about the Bill by the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
  The hon. Gentleman did not refer to any of the differences between category 1 and category 2 extradition, but he believed that the provisions were needed to deal with the costa del crime problem. May I point out to him that category 2 extradition, with which we are happy, would deal with that? He really should study in greater detail the comments of the Select Committee on category 1 extradition. That is the real problem. The hon. Gentleman also referred to Guantanamo bay, mercenaries and political cases although I do not think that they had much to do with the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said that, like my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, he supports the provisions on category 2 extradition, but not those on category 1. He rightly pointed out that to tinker with the current rules is extremely dangerous. He talked about the belief of some writers in the French press that terrorists operate in London with impunity. Before the Government start threatening the safety and security of my constituents and those of other hon. Members, many people would probably want them to deal with the difficulties in deporting some of the mullahs who preach treason.
  The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) ventilated his lawyer-bashing tendencies and said that previous legislation had not worked successfully. He and his colleagues are always the first to say that everyone must have the right to representation, but it seems from his speech that people have that right only if he and his colleagues agree with them.
  Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hawkins: No, I am coming to the conclusion of my speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Witney in the final contribution to the debate, said that he was proud to be a member of the Select Committee that produced the report. He drew attention to the fact that it is almost entirely impossible to deport the type of people we need to deport in order to protect our security. He referred to the recent cases of Soering and Chahal. He showed the contradiction in Government policy as regards the problems with the Human Rights Act 1998, to which we have already referred, in terms of delay, cost and

  115
  injustice. Like so many speakers, my hon. Friend supported the safeguards that would be provided by district judges and the scrutiny of the Home Secretary.
  There are many things to which we shall return in Committee. We need to press hard so that the Government make the changes that will be forced on them by another place. The Bill is dangerous; it goes much too far and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, part 2 would have achieved all that the Government wanted. Part 1 should be anathema to all British citizens.
  9.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): Although spiced with prejudice and Eurosceptism, the debate has been thoughtful and serious, as it should be on such a serious issue. Although the Conservative party has decided not table an amendment or to vote against the Bill, one thing is clear: our present extradition arrangements are unsatisfactory, and I have not heard a single Opposition Member say that that they can be allowed to continue. It is simply not right that it can take more than five years to extradite a person accused of a serious crime, especially when the requesting state is another EU country. Of course there must be proper protections for those who are subject to an extradition request, but that should not extend to their being allowed to launch appeal after appeal, all on the same point, for the sole purpose of frustrating the process.
  Mr. Maples rose—
  Mr. Ainsworth: I will try to give way to the hon. Gentleman in a while.
  The Bill will ensure that no one can be extradited where the request is politically motivated, where the double jeopardy rule applies or where the fugitive's medical condition—an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen)—would make it unjust. On conviction in absentia cases, we will extradite only where the fugitive can be sure of a retrial. We will not extradite unless we are certain that the death penalty will not be carried out. Finally and very importantly, extradition cannot take place where it would be incompatible with the fugitive's human rights.
  Many detailed points have been made during the debate, and I shall try to respond to at least some of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) raised the issue of the internet and asked whether someone who put neo-Nazi propaganda on a German website would be liable for extradition under a European arrest warrant. In those circumstances, the court would probably take the view that the conduct had occurred outside the requesting state and apply the dual criminality test. Since holocaust denial is not an offence in the United Kingdom, the dual criminality requirement would not be met and extradition could not take place.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who is not now in his place, asked whether the Bill would extend to British overseas territories. The relevant provisions, with modifications as appropriate,
  116
  can be extended to British overseas territories by virtue of clauses 174 and 175, but that will apply only to category 2 procedures, not to the European arrest warrant.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead asked about the language in which a European arrest warrant may be sought. Article 11.2 of the framework decision provides that the person who is arrested for the purpose of extradition under a European arrest warrant will have a right to be assisted by legal counsel and any interpreter needed in accordance with the national law of the executing member state.
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead raised the issue of diplomatic immunity—one on one side of the argument and one on the other. Nothing in the Bill will affect state or diplomatic immunity. That may reassure the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and it may be a matter of concern to my hon. Friend, who may want to raise the issue further with us, but it goes far wider than the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) raised a number of concerns, as did the Home Affairs Committee in its report. Those concerns are shared by many of my hon. Friends, who have broadly supported the Bill, but have none the less sought reassurances in some areas. They include my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas), as well as other hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  In relation to speciality, extending the list—whether in relation to other offences or to other states—and effective oversight and scrutiny arrangements in the House, I hope that we will show in Committee to the satisfaction of hon. Members that we have covered those issues. Alternatively, as I understand the point made about not trusting honeyed words, we will genuinely listen to hon. Members' concerns, and, where they remain, we will seek to make changes to the Bill in relation to the framework document.
  The Bill contains clear safeguards on the death penalty, on whether people will be extradited to face execution, on whether people could be extradited in contravention of their human rights, and on whether people could be extradited for reasons of their political opinions. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) shakes his head. I know from his opening speech that he has read the Bill, so I refer him to clause 13 on extraneous considerations, under which extradition will not be allowed of people being prosecuted or punished for crimes that are accounted for by their race, religion, nationality or political opinions. Extradition is specifically barred when those cases apply, and it is specifically barred in category 1 and category 2 when a death sentence might be carried out. It is specifically barred, too, under clause 21, when a person's human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights would not be fully protected.
  Mr. Maples: If the hon. Gentleman has such confidence in the fairness of the judicial systems of all our European partners, why is clause 13 necessary?
  Mr. Ainsworth: Let us identify what changes are in the Bill, and what changes are not in the Bill. Clearly, there are two changes. One is the speeding-up of the process, which is greater in relation to European partners with whom we have very porous borders that allow law-abiding citizens and criminals to travel freely between our jurisdictions. The other is the abolition of dual criminality in relation to the list offences. Those are the only fundamental changes that are being made. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety clearly demonstrated at the start of the debate, the prima facie requirement for evidence was removed a long time ago.
  Mr. Burnett: I, among others, referred to paragraph 31 of the Select Committee's report and to the suggestion that, if there is dual criminality, the matter should be referred to the Home Secretary for his decision. What I—and, I believe, other Members—asked was what practical steps were necessary to achieve that end.
  Mr. Ainsworth: We will have the opportunity to talk about that in great detail in Committee, and I hope that we do so. In my opinion, the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised would undermine the position of mutual recognition. He suggested in pursuance of that, and was supported in it by the right hon. Member for West Dorset, that we could get round some of our current problems with a little ingenuity. All that we needed to do was to frame our request in a different way and, all of a sudden, the walls of Jericho would come tumbling down and we would not face some of the serious problems that exist with regard to the current extradition law. However, that is simply not the case. Some countries in the EU will not extradite for fiscal offences. One can frame the extradition warrant however one likes, but they will not do that. Under the current arrangements, they will not extradite their own nationals, and it does not matter what heinous crime they may have committed in this country. Some countries will not extradite their own nationals, and no amount of ingenuity can get us round that.
  Some countries have statutes of limitation. When my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety opened the debate, he pointed out some of the injustices that have occurred because of those statutes of limitation. Some crimes are not reported until many years after they are committed, but it is wholly wrong that people should escape justice simply because there is a statute of limitation in the country to which they have fled and because we cannot require them to return to this country.
  Mr. Cameron rose—
  Mr. Letwin rose—
  Mr. Ainsworth: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for West Dorset in a moment.
  We will discuss in Committee the issues that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) raised, and I hope that I can satisfy him on them.
  118
  However, I was a bit concerned about the tone of his reception for the Bill. It was totally at odds with the Liberal Democrats' submission to the consultation. They then said that
  "the removal of judicial review and habeas corpus … are, we believe, adequately compensated for by the duty on the courts to consider the ECHR implications of extradition, provided there can be no derogation from ECHR rights. The proposed appeals system would allow for a fair review of the case on both points of law and fact."
  I seriously hope that we have not seen a dramatic shift to a Eurosceptic position by the Liberal Democrats. Such news would go far wider than the Bill.
  Mr. Letwin: I entirely welcome the Liberal Democrats' damascene conversion on this matter. The Minister is being thoroughly reasonable, so will he clarify one point? Were his earlier remarks intended to suggest that the bar on political opinions being a cause of extradition under part 1 would override the inclusion of xenophobia in the list of 32 offences?
  Mr. Ainsworth: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, clause 13 contains a bar on extradition. It does not say that there may be a bar, because it is clear that there will be a bar on extradition on the ground of
  "race, religion, nationality or political opinions".
  That point is quite definite. It is in our law and applies to our citizens. It is wholly wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the bar is anything other than a bar. A British judge will sit in a court and consider the case. If he considers that it involves issues concerning a person's political opinion, he will not issue an arrest warrant. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman has great difficulty with that.
  The right hon. Gentleman raised some of the issues that many of my hon. Friends raised, including speciality, scrutiny and the politically motivated crime that we have just discussed. However, the overwhelming point that he made was his view that the problem with part 1 resulted from the fact that the Government were involved in a great, secret conspiracy to which they were not prepared to admit. He suggested that it had come about as a result of 11 September. However, let me make it clear to him that the treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and the subsequent temporary special council agreed that mutual recognition of judicial decisions would become the cornerstone of judicial co-operation. That included fast-tack extradition arrangements. The British Government are leading on the issue of mutual recognition as an alternative to a European corpus juris. There is no secret about that and our approach came about long before 11 September.
  Opposition Members demanded that no one should be extradited for conduct that would not be criminal in Britain. I think we are entitled to ask them a couple of questions that flow from that. First, a Frenchman who commits a crime in Britain that is not illegal in France can expect to be put on trial if he is arrested here. Why should he be entitled to escape justice simply because he has crossed the frontier? Secondly, why should someone be able to commit an offence, such as incitement to racial hatred or fraudulent trading, in this country with impunity simply because he can get to an EU country that does not have a corresponding offence?

  119
  The Opposition have either avoided the questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State or they have effectively said that that situation is okay.
  Mr. Maples rose—
  Mr. Ainsworth: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once and I am not doing it again.
  Those Opposition Members who were prepared to answer the question seemed to say that the problem did not matter. I wonder whether the victims of crime feel the same way.
  EU countries are mature democracies. All of them have signed up to the European convention on human rights. In an age when people, including criminals, can move freely about the EU, we should be prepared to operate on a principle of mutual recognition. We should not prevent extradition simply because of the lack of an exact equivalent offence. We need to recognise the other benefits that the introduction of the European arrest warrant will bring. It will end the ability of other European countries to refuse to extradite their nationals; it will end the refusal by other European countries to extradite for fiscal offences; and it will end a situation in which extradition cannot happen because another European country's statute of limitations has expired on a particular crime. We are well into the 21st century. There can be no excuse for continuing to use procedures that have largely been unchanged since the 19th century and that work against the interests of the victims of crime and the interests of justice.
  The Bill will modernise and simplify our extradition arrangements. It retains proper safeguards for fugitives. We will discuss the issues raised by my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and take them seriously. We are prepared to respond flexibly if they can show that there is a problem, but I think that the Bill contains many of the answers. I hope that I will be able to convince them of that.
  We cannot ignore the menace of serious international crime. We need the tools to combat it. The Bill will be an important part of that armoury. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 325, Noes 146.

  Division No. 21]

  [10:00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Battle, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Beard, Nigel

  Allen, Graham

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Benn, Hilary

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Bennett, Andrew

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Berry, Roger

  Austin, John

  Betts, Clive

  Bailey, Adrian

  Blackman, Liz

  Baird, Vera

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Banks, Tony

  Blizzard, Bob

  Barnes, Harry

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  120

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Bryant, Chris

  Gerrard, Neil

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Burden, Richard

  Gilroy, Linda

  Burgon, Colin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Goggins, Paul

  Cairns, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grogan, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hain, rh Peter

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Challen, Colin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hancock, Mike

  Chaytor, David

  Hanson, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hodge, Margaret

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Colman, Tony

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Connarty, Michael

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Corston, Jean

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cummings, John

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Hutton, rh John

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Dalyell, Tam

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  David, Wayne

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jamieson, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Denham, rh John

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Doran, Frank

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Edwards, Huw

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kidney, David

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Etherington, Bill

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  Lammy, David

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Follett, Barbara

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Lepper, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foulkes, rh George

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  121

  Linton, Martin

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Love, Andrew

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  McCabe, Stephen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  McCafferty, Chris

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonnell, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  MacDougall, John

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McFall, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ruddock, Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McKechin, Ann

  Salter, Martin

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McNamara, Kevin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacShane, Denis

  Sawford, Phil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mallaber, Judy

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Mendelson, rh Peter

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  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, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Soley, Clive

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Southworth, Helen

  Miller, Andrew

  Speller, rh John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Moffatt, Laura

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mole, Chris

  Stevenson, George

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Moran, Margaret

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mountford, Kali

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mudie, George

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Mullin, Chris

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Olner, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Organ, Diana

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Owen, Albert

  Trickett, Jon

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Truswell, Paul

  Perham, Linda

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Picking, Anne

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Plaskitt, James

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prescott, rh John

  Ward, Claire

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Purchase, Ken

  Watts, David

  Purnell, James

  White, Brian

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Rammell, Bill

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Wills, Michael

  122

  Winnick, David

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wright Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Mr. Jim Murphy

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Heald, Oliver

  Amess, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Hermon, Lady

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Bacon, Richard

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Baldry, Tony

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Barker, Gregory

  Howard, rh Michael

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Jack, rh Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Boswell, Tim

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Brady, Graham

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brazier, Julian

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Burns, Simon

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Burt, Alistair

  Lidington, David

  Butterfill, John

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Cameron, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cash, William

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Chope, Christopher

  MacKay, rh Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Maclean, rh David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Collins, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Conway, Derek

  Maples, John

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Mates, Michael

  Curry, rh David

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Mercer, Patrick

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Norman, Archie

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Page, Richard

  Duncan Smith, rh lain

  Paice, James

  Evans, Nigel

  Paterson, Owen

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Randall, John

  Redwood, rh John

  Flight, Howard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Forth, rh Eric

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Francois, Mark

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Ruffley, David

  Garnier, hon. Edward

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Selous, Andrew

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Simmonds, Mark

  Goodman, Paul

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Grayling, Chris

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Greenway, John

  Spring, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Gummer, rh John

  Steen, Anthony

  Hague, rh William

  Streeter, Gary

  Hammond, Philip

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Syms, Robert

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  123

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Willetts, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Wilshire, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Walter, Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, rh Sir George

  Watkinson, Angela

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Weir, Michael

  Mr. Desmond Swayne and

  Whittingdale, John

  Hugh Robertson

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.

  EXTRADITION 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 Extradition Bill—

  EXTRADITION 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 21st January 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.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
    The House divided: Ayes 321, Noes 149.

    Division No. 22]

    [10:14 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Berry, Roger

    Ainger, Nick

    Betts, Clive

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Blackman, Liz

    Allen, Graham

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Austin, John

    Brennan, Kevin

    Bailey, Adrian

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Baird, Vera

    Bryant, Chris

    Banks, Tony

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Barnes, Harry

    Burden, Richard

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Burgon, Colin

    Battle, John

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cairns, David

    Beard, Nigel

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Benn, Hilary

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Caplin, Ivor

    124

    Casale, Roger

    Hain, rh Peter

    Caton, Martin

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Challen, Colin

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hanson, David

    Chaytor, David

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Clapham, Michael

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Clark, hon. Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Healey, John

    Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Heppell, John

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Clelland, David

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Colman, Tony

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Connarty, Michael

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Corston, Jean

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Cranston, hon. Ross

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Crausby, David

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cummings, John

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Hutton, rh John

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    Darling, rh Alistair

    David, Wayne

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Denham, rh John

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Kemp, Fraser

    Doran, Frank

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kidney, David

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Edwards, Huw

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Etherington, Bill

    Lammy, David

    Farrelly, Paul

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Flint, Caroline

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Lepper, David

    Follett, Barbara

    Leslie, Christopher

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Linton, Martin

    Foulkes, rh George

    Love, Andrew

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gardiner, Barry

    McCabe, Stephen

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    McCafferty, Chris

    Gerrard, Neil

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Gilroy, Linda

    McDonnell, John

    Godsiff, Roger

    MacDougall, John

    Goggins, Paul

    McFall, John

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McKechin, Ann

    Grogan, John

    McKenna, Rosemary

    125

    McNulty, Tony

    Savidge, Malcolm

    MacShane, Denis

    Sawford, Phil

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McWalter, Tony

    Sheerman, Barry

    McWilliam, John

    Sheridan, Jim

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Mallaber, Judy

    Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    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, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Martlew, Eric

    Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Merron, Gillian

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Michael, rh Alun

    Soley, Clive

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Southworth, Helen

    Miliband, David

    Spellar, rh John

    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

    Moran, Margaret

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Morley, Elliot

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Mountford, Kali

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Mudie, George

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Mullin, Chris

    Stringer, Graham

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Olner, Bill

    Tipping, Paddy

    O'Neill, Martin

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Organ, Diana

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Trickett, Jon

    Owen, Albert

    Truswell, Paul

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Picking, Anne

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Plakskitt, James

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Pope Greg (Hyndburn)

    Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Prescott, rh John

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Ward, Claire

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Purchase, Ken

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Purnell, James

    Watts, David

    Quin, rh Joyce

    White, Brian

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Rammell, Bill

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Wills, Michael

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Winnick, David

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Woolas, Phil

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Worthington, Tony

    Rooney, Terry

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Ruane, Chris

    Wyatt, Derek

    Ruddock, Joan

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Salter, Martin

    Jim Fitzpatrick and

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Dan Norris

    126

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Amess, David

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Bacon, Richard

    Leigh, Edward

    Baldry, Tony

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Barker, Gregory

    Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Lidington, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Blunt, Crispin

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Boswell, Tim

    MacKay, rh Andrew

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Maclean, rh David

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Malins, Humfrey

    Brady, Graham

    Maples, John

    Brazier, Julian

    Mates, Michael

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Burns, Simon

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Burt, Alistair

    Mercer, Patrick

    Butterfill, John

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Cameron, David

    Norman, Archie

    Cash, William

    Chope, Christopher

    O'Brien, Stepnen (Eddisbury)

    Clappison, James

    Öpik, Lembit

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Collins, Tim

    Ottaway, Richard

    Conway, Derek

    Paice, James

    Curry, rh David

    Paterson, Owen

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Randall, John

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Redwood, rh John

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Duncan Smith, rh lain

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Evans, Nigel

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Fabricant, Michael

    Ruffley, David

    Fallon, Michael

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Selous, Andrew

    Shepherd, Richard

    Flight, Howard

    Simmonds, Mark

    Flook, Adrian

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Forth, rh Eric

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Soames, Nicholas

    Francois, Mark

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Garnier, hon. Edward

    Spring, Richard

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Steen, Anthony

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Streeter Gary

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Grayling, Chris

    Swayne, Desmond

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Greenway, John

    Syms, Robert

    Grieve, Dominic

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Gummer, rh John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Hague, rh William

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Hammond Philip

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Hancock, Mike

    Tredinnick, David

    Hawkins, Nick

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Heald, Oliver

    Viggers, Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Walter, Robert

    Hendry, Charles

    Waterson, Nigel

    Hermon, Lady

    Watkinson, Angela

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Weir, Michael

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Whittingdale, John

    Howard, rh Michael

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Jack, rh Michael

    Wiggin, Bill

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Willetts, David

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    127

    Wilshire, David

    Young, rh Sir George

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hugh Robertson and

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Mr. Mark Hoban

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  EXTRADITION 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 Extradition Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a)any expenditure incurred by the Lord Chancellor under the Act;

  (b)amounts ordered to be paid in respect of expenses incurred in connection with extradition proceedings;

  (c)any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

  Question agreed to.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    MAJOR ACCIDENT HAZARDS INVOLVING DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
    That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 15275/01, draft Directive, and No. 12530/02, amended draft Directive, amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances; considers that the proposed amendments would achieve the objectives of the Directive; takes account of studies carried out by the Commission on carcinogens and substances dangerous to the environment and recent major incidents involving dangerous substances; and welcomes the strengthening of protection standards for human health and the environment.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    Question agreed to.

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

    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    That the draft Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
    That the draft Flexible Working (Procedural Requirements) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    Question agreed to.

  Ordered,
  That the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Bill be proceeded with as a tax law rewrite Bill.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Thalidomide Trust
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
10.29 pm
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: The Thalidomide Trust, which is based in my constituency, was established in 1973 to administer ongoing compensation offered initially by the Distillers company to the victims of thalidomide. The trust is responsible for supporting all the British survivors of the thalidomide tragedy, currently numbering some 450 individuals.
Many of the beneficiaries, most of whom are aged between 39 and 42, are now raising families and engaging in a variety of careers and activities. To give some idea of the severity of the disabilities faced by the survivors, about 10 have no hands, arms or legs; a further 100 have either no arms or no legs, or so-called flipper arms or legs; and the majority of the remainder have short limbs, particularly arms, and hands with no thumbs.
It is important to point out that as the victims age, their needs are changing. Many are experiencing deterioration of their health and medical condition, which is both making life today more difficult and causing them to worry about the future. For example, some are finding that, because the lack of some limbs has caused them to overuse others, arthritis and similar complaints are gravely compounding the disabilities that they have worked long and hard to overcome.
It is worth pointing out that thalidomide victims do not fit the typical description of a disabled person—someone who has all their limbs, but requires the use of a wheelchair. Thalidomide victims have unique needs—for example, they might be unable to reach buttons at ticket barriers, or to work locks and catches, or to carry loads owing to their having deformed shoulder joints. Those problems will not diminish with the passing of time; in fact they will certainly become worse. They were a factor in the generous decision made in 2000 by Diageo—a successor company to Distillers—to pay a further £32.5 million to the trust at present day values.
The trust was set up as a charity because it was believed that its objects, being charitable, would result in all distributions made to beneficiaries being tax exempt, but that proved not to be the case. However, the then Government agreed that there had been a genuine misunderstanding about the tax treatment of the payments made to beneficiaries by the trust. On that basis, in 1974, the Government paid a sum of £5 million to the trust to offset the tax payable on distributions. Further payments totalling £12.8 million were made to the trust in 1975, 1979 and 1996 by Distillers and its successor company, Guinness.
It is important to note that each time a request was made by the trust to the Government, such a request was made on the basis of offsetting the effect of tax on the distributions of the trust, and the same formula for calculating the offset was used in each case. Another important point is that previous Governments' payments to the trust do not set any sort of precedent for other charities, which might give the Government reason not to wish to give the traditional relief to the Thalidomide Trust again. That is because a class action
130
compensation settlement being made today would normally be established as a structured settlement, with payments in all normal circumstances being tax exempt.
Even taking previous Governments' tax payments into account, it could not be said that the trust has not paid any tax—indeed, although Governments have paid £12.8 million to the trust since 1974, they have received taxes of more than £15.5 million from the trust, and are likely to take another £20 million in tax receipts between 2002 and 2022, thus providing a Treasury profit over the years of about £23 million. In practice, about £12 million of that tax has been recovered by beneficiaries claiming tax allowances, but that still leaves the Government approximately £11 million in profit.
The tax position of thalidomide beneficiaries is that victims without other sources of income are able to reclaim the difference between the tax that the trust deducts from distributions to them and their personal allowance of the basic rate of tax. That means that beneficiaries can achieve tax reclaims typically a year after they have received the payments, although, unfortunately, it is believed by the trust that many of the beneficiaries do not take advantage of that, either because of their lack of understanding of the system, or because of the need to employ accountants to prepare their tax returns for them.
To return to the current position, if the formula that was applied to previous extensions to the original Distillers covenant were to be used, the Government should now be paying the trust £6.1 million. The Government have implied that the trust has a significant pot of money, and that that in itself is a reason for it to pay tax. Although the covenanted sums may indeed sound significant, they are relatively modest compared with many modern-day court settlements, and in any event are less following recent stock market falls. The money needs to last for a long time, and current annual payments to victims range from between £5,000 and £25,000 a year, the average annual payment being only £11,000. Unfortunately, however, on 30 July this year the Chancellor turned down the trust's request to be treated in the way that every past Government had allowed. As a result, no Treasury payment is now being offered in respect of the recent Diageo covenant. The decision has now been confirmed in a letter that I received from the Chancellor this morning.
Many people, including the trustees and certainly the victims themselves—some of whom are here today—many of their supporters across the country and, indeed, over 80 Members of Parliament who signed early-day motion 107 have been extremely perturbed and disappointed by the Government's decision.
The Government's reasons for the rejection are set out in a letter from the Chancellor dated 30 July this year. The first general point is the Chancellor's statement that
"the Government greatly values the work of the Trust in supporting the victims of the Thalidomide tragedy".
How well that claim sits with the fact that this is the first Government to refuse tax relief is a judgment that I will leave others to make. I think it worth noting, however, that my predecessor, the right hon. John Major, first wrote to the Chancellor requesting the granting of relief on 14 February 2001. He sent a further letter on 30 April 2001, asking for a reply.

131
Following my own election in June 2001, I asked for an update by way of a written question on 18 July 2001, and then wrote to the Chancellor asking for replies to Mr. Major's letter on 32 January 2002, and again on 15 April 2002. Finally I asked for a reply by way of a further written question on 10 June 2002, to which I received a one-word reply from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, namely "Shortly". Given that this was hardly a new issue, having been a settled course of action since 1974, I feel that the Government's 17-month delay in responding sits uneasily with their claim to value the trust's work. None the less, I shall address the Chancellor's key contention as set out in his letter. He wrote
"The Trust put forward the same case in 1995 and, although the Government of the day did make a payment in 1996 with £7 million, this was on the explicit understanding (made clear in the Department of Health press release at the time) that this was a 'final' and 'once and for all' payment, made in recognition of the unique and tragic circumstances surrounding the Thalidomide disaster and not to be offset for taxation."
I have previously explained to Members that, although the circumstances are certainly unique and tragic, they are almost certainly ongoing. Indeed, the trust may need to last for another 40 years or more until there are no survivors left. Furthermore, each Government payment to the trust has been stated to be full and final in respect of the taxation arising from each further covenant, and the situation here is exactly the same.
I have now received a copy of the original letter from the Prime Minister's private secretary, dated 8 November 1974. It states
"The Inland Revenue made it clear all along that they could give no assurance that all payments from the Trust would be tax free, although clearly there has been some genuine misunderstanding on this point. In view of this, the Government decided to make a once-and-for-all capital payment of £5 million to the Trust, which will increase the income available to the Trust in a way, which should at least offset the effects of taxation. It will, of course, be for the Trustees to deal with this additional assistance to individual children in accordance with the terms of the Trust. In this way, the Government hopes to ensure that the Thalidomide children are not prejudiced and at the same time avoid any possible doubt as to the tax consideration applying to any settlement if any comparable tragic case should arise in the future."
The point, therefore, is that every previous Government payment has been treated as a once-and-for-all settlement in relation to this matter. For the Government to say that because the Chancellor in 1995 also stated that the then new covenant should be final means that a payment should not be made simply does not fit with the facts. I also note that in 1974 the then Government saw their method of repaying tax as a way of differentiating their treatment of thalidomide from that of other charities, so as not to set a precedent.
Mr. Michael Howard: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his comprehensive demolition of the principal reason advanced by the Chancellor in justification of his decision. Does my hon. Friend share with me some sympathy for the Paymaster General, who has been placed in an impossible position this evening by the refusal of the Chancellor to accept my invitation to come to the House personally this
132
evening to defend his mean-minded decision; and will my hon. Friend accept my assurance that the next Conservative Government will make in full the payment to the trust that should have been made by the Chancellor this year in accordance with the precedents that my hon. Friend has explained?
Mr. Djanogly: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that tremendous intervention. I am sure that many victims across the country will be very grateful for his words and I thank him on their behalf.
The UK has the second largest population of thalidomide victims world wide. The country with the largest such population is Germany, with 2,851 registered survivors. After the UK comes Japan, which has 317 survivors. It is important to realise that, of those three nations, the UK Government are alone in never having agreed directly to compensate thalidomide victims. Indeed, looking at it in that way, not only have the UK Government not had to pay a penny to thalidomide victims, but they have been receiving tax revenues from the payments made by drugs companies for the welfare of victims. I ask the Minister: how fair is that?
All payments made to thalidomiders in Germany are tax free. For a more local comparison, I refer the Minister to section 192 of the Irish Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, which states that any handicap that can be linked with the taking by the individual's mother during her pregnancy of preparations containing thalidomide is to be exempt from income tax and not to be reckoned in computing total income. Accordingly, not only does the current Government's position run totally contrary to the spirit and practice of Government policy since 1974 in terms of dealing with the effects of this terrible tragedy, but their position runs contrary to the practice of every other country I have been able to find, which all basically follow the principle that Government should not make a profit from the victims of thalidomide.
I urge the Government to think again on this matter. Please look at how the victims are still struggling by reason of no fault of their own; look at what every Government since 1974 have done for the victims; look at the tax income that the UK has received from the victims, despite Government payments to the trust; look at the fact that the British Government have never directly given a penny towards the welfare of these victims; look at the fact that every other country not only does not tax its own victims, but gives them taxpayers' money; and then please look again at the Chancellor's mean-spirited and factually incorrect response to this sensible and fair request. The eyes of the country are on the Government. Please do the right thing for the victims of this terrible ongoing tragedy.
10.44 pm
The Paymaster General (Dawn Prima rolo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) on securing tonight's Adjournment debate. As Members can probably tell, I have a very bad cold, so I hope that my voice will hold up during my reply.
I intend to explain to the House the decision of the previous Government in 1996 according to the documentation, the basis on which that decision was

133
taken, why we believe that it was correct, and why it should stand. Although a vital piece of the jigsaw was missing from the hon. Gentleman's contribution, it was otherwise excellent, and the whole House will want strongly to add its voice to the points that he made—[Interruption.] I caution Conservative Members against commenting until they know what their Government's policy, which is the one in place now, was.
The position is quite clear, and the hon. Gentleman explained it in great detail. First, he noted the incredibly important work that the trust does, and its valuable role in supporting the victims of the tragedy—remarkable people who are now approaching middle age. The trust has played a valuable role in enabling them to lead fulfilling lives. As the hon. Gentleman also pointed out, over the years, successive Governments have made significant contributions to the trust. In 1974, the then Labour Government contributed some £5 million in recognition that, in terms of the original settlement, confusion over the tax position may have changed the decision on how much money was paid into the trust. They made a subsequent contribution in 1978, in recognition of the new beneficiaries within the trust's remit, and in fairness to the original payment. That payment was in respect of the setting up of the trust, and of the actual amount that would have been settled. From 1974, the tax position was clear, and I shall explain to the House what it is now.
In 1996, the then Conservative Government made a further payment, but the hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that it was made on the same basis as that made in 1974. In fact, it was less than it might have been, had it been made on the same basis as the 1974 payment. The hon. Gentleman and the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), said that the Government have abandoned an important tax concession, which they have not, that there is a long-standing convention that the tax should be disregarded, which there is not, and that not reinstating the tax concession to the trust was reprehensible. Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems conveniently to have forgotten the arrangement made by his Government, and the terms of the settlement to the trust in 1996.
I shall explain the details to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The then Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out in a letter the basis on which the £7 million payment was to be made to the trust. The letter states very clearly that the payment was not being made for the offset of tax treatment; however, it went further. It said that any payment would
"not represent any offset for tax, and that future support for the Trust will be a matter solely between the Trustees and Guinness",
now Diageo. The letter continues:
"I would be very concerned if the Trustees and Guinness assumed that the taxpayer would automatically pay a proportion of the cost"
for the trust. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon pointed out, following discussions between the then Chief Secretary and the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Charnwood
134
(Mr. Dorrell), the press release from the Department of Health said that a once and for all payment would be made to the trust.
Mr. Howard Flight: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Dawn Primarolo: No, I will not give way.
In 1974, the tax position was contentious and the Government responded, but by 1996, the position was clear. There is no confusion. Let me remind the House exactly what tax is due. As the trust is a charity, it claims a repayment of the tax paid on its investment income. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who wrote this?"] We could ask who wrote the disgraceful contributions that seek political advancement from a sensitive and tragic case. [Interruption.] When Ministers in the previous Conservative Government looked at the evidence—
Mr. Howard: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Dawn Primarolo: No.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dawn Primarolo: No, I will not give way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Paymaster General is replying to an Adjournment debate brought by a single hon. Gentleman. She is entitled to give a reply to him.
Dawn Primarolo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The allegations are made in the press release. Conservative Members seek to advance them on the Floor of the House this evening with no reference to the facts of the case. As the trust is a charity, it claims a repayment of the tax paid on its investment income. Some payments made by the trust are taxed. The fact is well recognised. However, there is sometimes a misunderstanding—I put it generously—about the exact process. How the trust distributes its finances on income support and capital grants means that there is a difference in the tax treatment. Capital grants are not subject to taxation, and that accounts for 57 per cent. of the total distributions. Income distributions are, under certain circumstances, which accounts for 43 per cent. of the distributions.
We can give an example of what would happen on income distributions. Non-taxpayers can reclaim the full amount of tax as a tax credit. Starting rate taxpayers—the 10 per cent. taxpayers—can reclaim £24 of the £34. Basic rate taxpayers can reclaim a proportion—£12—of that money, and higher rate taxpayers cannot. The central argument advanced by the Thalidomide Trust is that although its members, some 450, may well be entitled to the tax credit, they are not claiming it. This is about the money that the individuals get. The Government have said quite clearly that they are prepared to work with the trust to ensure that those who are entitled to the tax credit get it back. That is precisely what is in the fact sheet produced by the Thalidomide Trust.

135
This is an important debate about how we take forward the principles of taxation and support for the victims of thalidomide and how we treat others who, in tragic circumstances, find themselves in the same position. The circumstances are not unique.
The Opposition refuse to accept the good, sound decisions that they took when they were in government—
Mr. Flight: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Dawn Primarolo: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman; this is an Adjournment debate.
The Opposition invent the facts of the case, missing out the inconvenient ones, and then try—unforgivably—to make political capital out of—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is a disgrace."] If anything is a disgrace, it is the press release issued today in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) who clearly does not know the facts of the case.
Mr. Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you be good enough to confirm, first, that there is no convention of the House that prevents an hon. Member from giving way when replying to an Adjournment debate; and, secondly, that it is the convention of the House to give way when accusations of the kind that the right hon. Lady has just made in respect of another hon. Member are so made?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) gave way to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). That was his privilege. It is the same for the Paymaster General. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that in an Adjournment debate there is an allocated time for the hon. Member who initiates the debate and for the Minister to reply. The Paymaster General has time to consider—[Interruption.] Order. I
136
am trying to point out to hon. Members that an Adjournment debate held at the end of the day is not similar to a normal debate.
Dawn Primarolo: Opposition Members do not like rebuttal on the Floor of the House; they prefer to make their accusations in press releases that cannot be answered.
The Government take the view that we should constantly and actively seek to support the Thalidomide Trust, including working closely with it to ensure that those who are entitled to a tax refund receive it. We are prepared—
Mr. Djanogly: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
John McDonnell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Dawn Primarolo: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Huntingdon in a moment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is his Adjournment debate.
We stand ready to work with the trust. The Government are also clear that funding for the national health service and for social services, as well as the remarkable increase in that spending, ensures that we can support all those people, as well those in the Thalidomide Trust in challenging—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
This Adjournment debate should be a rational discussion of how best to support individuals and use the resources available. If Conservative Members look back at what they did in government, they will see that that was the case.
Mr. Djanogly: If it is the intention of the Government to hold a rational debate, will the right hon. Lady confirm that it will not take her two years to respond to the next letter?
Dawn Primarolo: In all modesty, I think that I have done remarkably well in trying to conduct a reasonable debate in the face of outrageous accusations and constant barracking—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at one minute to Eleven o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Employment Legislation
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners if he will make a statement on the number of church employees who are covered by employment legislation. [85197]

  Mr. Bell
  The National Church Institutions employ 487 people. No records are held centrally about the numbers of people employed by dioceses and parishes.

  Licensing Provisions
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment the Commissioners have made of the cost of the new licensing provisions to churches and chapels; and if he will make a statement. [84507]

  Mr. Bell
  Final figures for complying with the proposed provisions of the current Licensing Bill, which has had a second reading in Another Place, will depend upon the level of fees set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, as well as on the extent to which church buildings apply for licenses to cover the proposed provision of "regulated entertainment". The figures provided in the Regulatory Impact Assessment would, however, suggest that under the Bill's proposals churches or other places of worship seeking to provide entertainment five times a year would pay £100 each year. If more events than this were required, a full licence would be needed and annual inspections would be necessary, each of which would attract a fee.

  There are 16,250 church buildings belonging to the Church of England alone: many other denominations and faiths will also be covered by the proposals as they stand.

DEFENCE

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of the developing role of DARA in Wales. [83974]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Aviation Repair Agency is creating centres of excellence as the focus for its business development. In Wales, there are two centres of excellence, St Athan in South Wales which carries out fixed wing aircraft maintenance, and Sealand in North Wales that now does all the Agency's electronic business. The two sites represent nearly 70 per cent. of the DARA's business.

  Challenger II
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decision has been reached in respect of the number of Challenger II tanks to be converted for desert operations. [83975]

  Mr. Hoon
  A number of Challenger 2 tanks are being modified to improve their performance in desert conditions in line with continuing contingency planning. I do not intend to compromise operational security by revealing the exact number of tanks involved.

  Gulf (Military Units)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of Defence if he will make a statement on recent activities of the Royal Navy in the Gulf. [83976]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy maintains a permanent presence in the Gulf. For over 10 years it has made a valuable contribution to the Multinational Interception Force deployed in the Gulf to enforce Iraqi compliance with UN sanctions. The Royal Navy deployed in the Gulf also plays its part in the international campaign against terrorism. Beyond these ongoing commitments, a Mine Countermeasure Group deployed to the Gulf during November. This is a long-planned, routine deployment, to conduct bilateral exercises with a number of Gulf States, building on the successful bilateral training conducted in the region in the wake of last year's Saif Sareea II in Oman.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what British military units are deployed in the Gulf region. [83968]

  Mr. Hoon
  Units from the UK armed forces are regularly deployed in the Gulf region.

  For example, the RAF continues to patrol the no-fly zones over Iraq in support of UN SCR 688 which demanded that Saddam Hussein cease repression of his own people. The Royal Navy maintains a permanent presence in the Gulf to enforce sanctions on Iraq and as part of our contribution to the campaign against international terrorism. Two RAF Nimrod aircraft are also deployed to the Gulf region for the same purpose.

  In addition to those continuing commitments, we have deployed 400 personnel to take part in a long planned United States-led biennial command post exercise in Qatar. A Mine Countermeasure Group is also currently undertaking a routine deployment to the Gulf in order to conduct bilateral exercises with a number of Gulf States.

  A wide range of personnel are deployed throughout the region, from all three services, in support of defence diplomacy.

  Al-Qaeda
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what potential security threat remnants of al-Qaeda pose to the security of(a) Afghanistan and (b) other countries. [83977]
  3W
  Mr. Ingram
  The al-Qaeda network in Afghanistan has been severely weakened by coalition military action. Isolated remnants of al-Qaeda and Taleban forces continue to pose a limited threat to the security of Afghanistan, and coalition operations to defeat them continue.

  More widely, al-Qaeda has a global reach. Despite important arrests in the past month, many of the organisation's leaders are still at large, and pose a significant threat to international security. That is why we, together with our coalition partners, shall continue to hunt down the al-Qaeda leadership until they are brought to account for their crimes.

  Armed Forces Personnel (Non-combatant Deaths)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to reduce the number of non-combatant deaths of armed forces personnel. [83978]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the last five years there have been 770 deaths in the Services: 246 from natural causes, 255 from road traffic accidents, 93 from suicide or with an open coroner's verdict and 176 from other causes. The Services recognise and stress the importance of welfare support, health education and good safety practices, especially since the nature of work in the Armed Forces inevitably involves an element of risk. Procedures are reviewed regularly.

  NATO Enlargement
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the enlargement of NATO following the Prague summit. [83979]

  Mr. Hoon
  At the Prague summit NATO issued invitations to begin accession talks to Bulgaria. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. This enlargement is a major step forward for European security. I know the invitees have made great efforts over the past three years to prepare themselves under the Membership Action Plan, and they must continue to do so during the accession process. I am pleased that the United Kingdom will continue its significant contribution to helping with those preparations.

  Arctic Convoy Medal
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he is making towards awarding medals to those who served on the Arctic convoys in the second world war. [83980]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Atlantic Star recognised service on the convoys to Russia during the Second World War. Service in Arctic waters is specifically mentioned in the Command Paper which laid down the qualifying criteria for the medal.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the factors which will determine the choice of consortiums to build the next UK aircraft carriers. [83981]
  4W
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report progress on the new aircraft carrier programme. [83988]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the right hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon Friend the Member for Wirral South (Mr. Chapman),Official Report, 9 December 2002, columns 8–9.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on security operations in Afghanistan. [83982]

  Mr. Ingram
  Coalition operations against the remnants of al-Qaeda continue. The United Kingdom provides Airborne Early Warning and Air-to-Air Refuelling aircraft for coalition air operations, as well as support to the coalition headquarters.

  We currently contribute some 300 British troops to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul. ISAF has helped the Afghan authorities to restore and maintain stability within Kabul and there is a continuing need for its presence to support President Karzai's transitional Administration.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on naval support for the defence of the Falkland Islands. [83983]

  Mr. Ingram
  We intend to maintain a modern and capable force in the Falkland Islands, consisting of air and land as well as naval elements. The Atlantic Patrol Task (South) is generally deployed to the South Atlantic on a year-round basis, subject to operational availability; it is currently not deployed as the crew of HMS Lancaster are engaged in fire-fighting duties. The Governor of the Falkland Islands was informed in advance of this unavoidable temporary gap in cover. APT(S) is only one element of the United Kingdom's maritime presence in the region. HMS Leeds Castle, the permanent Falkland Islands patrol vessel, is currently in Falkland Islands waters, and the ice patrol ship HMS Endurance is currently deployed to the South Atlantic region, which includes time spent in Falkland Islands waters. RFA Grey Rover, the South Atlantic tanker, is on passage to the Falkland Islands following her participation in EXPO NAVALE, Valpariso.

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to help those made redundant by QinetiQ restructuring to acquire new jobs. [83984]

  Dr. Moonie
  QinetiQ has been a commercial organisation since its creation in July 2001, at which point its employees ceased to be civil servants. Redundancies which result from restmcturing within the company are based purely on its business requirements and the Ministry of Defence does not have direct involvement in QinetiQ5 s decisions concerning its staff. I understand that QinetiQ has a range of
  5W
  measures in place to provide assistance to staff with the training and skill development needed to help them find alternative employment.

  Army Overstretch
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to reduce overstretch in the Army. [83985]

  Dr. Moonie
  We do not believe that the Army is overstretched. However, they are currently very busy in light of firelighters' industrial action. The Ministry of Defence keeps all operational commitments under review and reduces the numbers deployed where possible.

  NATO Rapid Response Force
  Mr. David Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the proposed NATO rapid response force; and if he will make a statement. [83986]

  Mr. Hoon
  The proposed NATO Response Force (NRF) was discussed by Defence Ministers at their informal meeting in Warsaw in late September and again at the NATO Summit in Prague last month. I have also discussed the NRF in bilateral meetings with NATO counterparts. The discussions focused on the need for a technologically advanced, flexible, deployable, interoperable and sustainable force, ready to move quickly to wherever needed. The NRF should also be a catalyst for improving the Alliance's military capabilities. At Prague, Heads of State and Government agreed to the creation of the NRF and work is now underway to take the concept forward within the Alliance. We expect that a report on the NRF will be submitted to Defence Ministers in June 2003 and that the NRF to have an initial operating capability no later than October 2004.

  Missile Defence
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for a missile defence system for the UK; and if he will make a statement. [83987]

  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department has made in analysing the implications for the UK of missile defence; and if he will make a statement. [83990]

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Government's policy is on ballistic missile defence. [83991]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government understands the role that missile defences could play as part of a comprehensive strategy to respond to the potential threat from ballistic missiles. We are currently examining whether the range of responses we have now would be enhanced by participation in active missile defence. I have today placed further analytical and discussion material in the Library of the House which I hope will contribute to the debate on the issues involved.
  6W
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Memoranda of Understanding have been signed in relation to the use by the USA of British facilities for missile defence activities. [85376]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

  Risk Reduction (New Equipment)
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to reduce the risk to users when acquiring new equipment. [83993]

  Dr. Moonie
  In accordance with United Kingdom Health and Safety legislation, it is Ministry of Defence policy that the risks associated with any equipment shall be as low as reasonably practicable.

  Responsibility for the acquisition of new equipment is vested in the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA). Safety Management is an integral part of the DPA's Acquisition Management System, beginning at the requirement definition stage and being carried forward through service to disposal.

  The basic principle that underpins the equipment safety process is the management of through-life hazards: their identification, evaluation, elimination, mitigation and control.

  Equal Opportunities
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to promote equality between men and women in the armed forces. [83994]

  Dr. Moonie
  The armed forces are committed to promoting equality of opportunity between Service men and women consistent with the need to maintain combat effectiveness. They are currently reviewing career progression to identify any barriers to the advancement of women, and exploring steps to address work-life balance with the aim of improving their recruitment and retention.

  Academic Conferences
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has taken since 1990 to enable Army officers to participate in academic conferences and to share experiences gained by officers in other countries to address bullying in the armed forces. [86049]

  Dr. Moonie
  Although no specific measures have been taken since 1990 to enable Army officers to discuss bullying with their counterparts in other countries, welfare issues are often discussed in a number of fora which may include, on occasion, members of the armed forces from other countries.

  Altcar Training Camp
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals for the modernisation of the facilities at Altcar training camp have been received; and
  7W
  what recommendations are being implemented, with particular reference to the upgrading of targetry and associated range control features. [85448]

  Dr. Moonie
  As a result of proposals from the North West England and the Isle of Man Reserve Forces and Cadets Association to upgrade the existing manually operated Rifle Ranges at Altcar training camp, lanes 1 to 15 of the existing 38 lane gallery range have now been converted to provide 12 electric targets with new firing point mounds. A small building to accommodate the control console has been positioned at the rear of the range. Work was completed in October 2002 and the range was formally brought into use on 30 November 2002. There are currently no plans to upgrade the remaining 23 lanes.

  Army Foundation College
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the opening of a new campus at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate. [85655]

  Dr. Moonie
  The new Army Foundation College buildings at Harrogate were formally opened on 18 October by HRH Prince Andrew CVO ADC. These new facilities have been delivered through a Private Finance Initiative by Defence Training Services Limited working with the Ministry of Defence in a 30-year contract. The college was originally opened in September 1998 and occupied the existing buildings of the old Army Apprentices College for the Royal Signals, which closed in 1996. The college remained open throughout the building period and now provides training and education facilities for 1,344 young people each year, in the most modern facilities available.

  Army Welfare Service
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) civilian and (b) military members of staff of the Army Welfare Service are based in (i) Scotland and (ii) the rest of the UK; and how many are female in each case. [86128]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested, as at 5 December 2002, is shown in the table.

  Deepcut

  Catterick1

  Medical Centre

  0800–1630 Mon-Fri other times via the Medical Reception Centre Pirbright or Frimley Park Hospital A&E Dept.

  0800–1630 weekdays Medical non Commissioned Officer on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Garrison Medical Centre and the North Yorkshire emergency doctors can be called on outside normal working hours

  Padre

  Normal working hours, with answerphone. On call 24 hrs by mobile phone.

  Padres at ITC Catterick teach elements of the training course. They are also available for welfare interviews and visits. The Padres office is open to all trainees at any time during the working day. Contact at other times via mobile phone or alternative telephone numbers.

  Unit Welfare Office

  0830–1700 Mon-Fri other times on call via mobile phone

  0800–1630 Mon-Fri

  Army Welfare Service

  0830–1630 Mon-Fri, Duty call out via Duty Officer, plus Confidential Support Line 1030–2230

  Contact is maintained through the Unit Welfare Office.

  8W

  Scotland

  Rest of UK

  Military

  Male

  1

  18

  Female

  2

  26

  Civilian

  Male

  0

  0

  Female

  1

  3

  Total

  4

  47

  A further six military staff (four male and two female) and four civilian female staff are currently under training.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) civilian and (b) military female members of staff of the Army Welfare Service have made complaints concerning bullying by superiors in each of the last five years. [86130]

  Dr. Moonie
  There have been two recorded complaints of bullying/harassment by female members of the Army Welfare Service in the last five years. Both incidents were dealt with internally in accordance with established procedures.

  Balkans (Troop Reductions)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on troop reductions in the Balkans. [85652]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 13 June 2002,Official Report, columns 1343–44, to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer).

  Barracks Opening Hours
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the regular hours of opening for consultation are at(a) Deepcut and (b) Catterick of (i) the regimental medical office, (ii) the Padre, (iii) the unit welfare officer, (iv) the local army welfare worker and (v) the Women's Royal Voluntary Service welfare office. [86074]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is as follows:
  9W

  Deepcut

  Catterick1

  WRVS

  1000–1400 and 1800–2200 seven days a week

  1000–1400 and 1800–2200 Mon-Fri, 1700–2200 Weekends

  1 Catterick refers to the Infantry Training Centre Catterick, unless otherwise noted. Catterick Garrison maintains parallel services which are also available to the ITC as required.

  Barry Buddon Overspill Site
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects Catterick's overspill site at Barry Buddon to receive its first draft of trainees. [85649]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Army Training and Recruiting Agency has scheduled the commencement of an Infantry training course to commence at Barry Buddon on 20 January 2003. There are no plans for a further intake of trainees at that location.

  Bullying
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints have been made of bullying within the Army Welfare Service in each of the last five years, broken down by area office. [86131]

  Dr. Moonie
  There have been three recorded complaints of alleged bullying/harassment within the Army Welfare Service in the last five years. Due to the small numbers involved, I am not prepared to disclose the locations of these incidents in the event that this leads to the identification of those concerned. I am therefore withholding that information under Exemption 12 (Privacy of an Individual) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. All the incidents were dealt with internally in accordance with established procedures.

  Casualty Exercises
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what mass casualty exercises have been undertaken by the Defence Medical Services in the past two years; and how many personnel were involved in each exercise. [80977]

  Dr. Moonie
  Members of the Defence Medical Services (DMS) participate in military training and exercises, and operational deployments, which can have a mass casualty exercise element to rehearse the procedures to be followed by a military medical facility facing large numbers of casualties. These exercises are based on casualty numbers ranging from 25 to over 100. DMS personnel serving at hospital facilities also participate in mass casualty exercises organised by, or involving the hospital concerned. No central records are maintained of the number of mass casualty exercises in which DMS personnel participate, nor of the numbers who do so.

  Chemical Weapons Sites
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what systematic research his Department has undertaken since 1972 regarding the health of(a) those who worked in chemical weapons production plants during the First and Second World Wars, (b) their families and (c) those living in the surrounding area; [85447]
  10W
  (2) what tests have been carried out since 1972 on the effluent discharge arising from chemical weapons sites affecting immediate water sources; and what reports were produced as a result; [85445]

  (3) what reports have been produced giving details of the chemical weapons storage sites in the UK; [85444]

  (4) what the (a) nature and (b) quantity is of chemical weapons stored in chemical weapons storage sites in the UK; and what standards define the structure of the storage site for different chemical weapons; [85443]

  (5) what organisations have been commissioned to carry out research work on (a) the impact of chemical weapons manufacturing sites on the local environment and (b) the health of those living within the catchment area; [85442]

  (6) what chemical weapons sites in the UK have produced chemical weapons since 1972; over what periods, which site facilities are being maintained; what tests are being carried out; and if he will make a statement on the results; [85441]

  (7) what products were manufactured at the Rhydymwyn and Mold chemical weapons processing plants in the last three years. [85440]

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

  Children (Armed Conflict)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Government will ratify the Optional Protocol on the UN Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflict. [85956]

  Mr. Ingram
  Officials in both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have almost finalised the work required to enable the Government to ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. We will begin the ratification process very shortly by laying an Explanatory Memorandum before Parliament.

  Decommissioned Submarines
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will(a) assess and (b) certify the seaworthiness of decommissioned submarines prior to offering them for sale. [83961]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is our policy that decommissioned nuclear submarines are not offered for sale. The four conventional Upholder Class submarines were taken out of active service with the Royal Navy in 1994, but were not decommissioned. The submarines were subsequently placed under a Custody, Care and
  11W
  Maintenance contract, which is now managed by BAE Systems, until agreement was reached with Canada in July 1998 for the lease with option to buy the four boats.

  In January 1999 a contract was signed between the DPA and now BAE Systems for the reactivation (refurbishment) of the submarines to a standard and to a level of safety acceptable to the Royal Navy. This included MOD safety certification with a safe to dive certificate for a period of not less than three and a half years for each boat.

  Deepcut Army Barracks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which years since 1990 a civilian firefighter has been(a) employed at and (b) resident in Deepcut Army Barracks; and what financial arrangements cover (i) salary and (ii) accommodation. [85321]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been Defence Fire Service civilian officers at Deepcut Army Barracks for each year during the period in question, with three officers being stationed there at present. During that time 15 individual officers have occupied accommodation in the officers mess, one of whom is currently in residence. No precise records have been kept of their periods of tenure but generally they range between a few months and three years depending on the terms of their posting and their individual accommodation requirements. All those serving at Deepcut are paid according to the national salary pay scales with accommodation charges being levied at agreed departmental rates.

  European Security and Defence Policy
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in(a) France and (b) Germany about the implications for NATO's naval capabilities of the creation of (i) an EU rapid reaction capability and (ii) a Franco-German defence union. [86479]

  Mr. Hoon
  MP: None.

  Fire Services
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training the Armed Forces have received for dealing with a fire at(a) a chemical and (b) a nuclear facility. [85458]

  Mr. Ingram
  As regards the Defence Estate all Ministry of Defence firefighting units are fully trained to deal with fires involving chemicals and, where there is a nuclear facility, personnel are provided with special instructions and training on the actions to be taken should an incident occur.

  In relation to the current firelighters dispute, chemical incident and decontamination procedures were part of the 5-week Enhanced Trained Non- specialist (ETNS) training course undertaken by all members of Breathing Apparatus Rescue Teams (BARTs) and Rescue Equipment Support Teams (RESTs) deployed during the fire fighters dispute. This provided both theoretical training and a series of practical exercises including chemical incident scenarios. The subject has also been
  12W
  included in the Continuation Training Programme issued to all Joint Operational Control Centres and carried out at Temporary Service Fire Stations.

  ETNS personnel have not been trained in nuclear incident procedures. Military fire fighting teams would be reliant upon the response of specialist teams from the nuclear agencies in the event of such an incident.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what access the armed forces has to equipment necessary to deal with a fire at(a) a chemical and (b) a nuclear facility. [85459]

  Mr. Ingram
  All Ministry of Defence firefighting units are fully equipped to deal with fires on the defence estate involving chemicals and special equipment is provided to those sites where there is a nuclear facility.

  In relation to the current firefighters dispute, Rescue Equipment Support Teams are equipped with Chemical Protection Suits and decontamination showers. Military firefighting teams that have been deployed are not equipped to deal with nuclear incidents and would be reliant upon the response of specialist teams from the nuclear agencies in the event of such an incident.

  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if naval personnel acting as firefighters during the dispute will lose their long service at sea bonus. [85412]

  Mr. Ingram
  Longer Service at Sea Bonus (LSSB) is paid, after the qualifying period, to Naval personnel if their permanent place of duty is an LSSB qualifying unit (broadly speaking, most ships, submarines and Naval Air Squadrons). These personnel will continue to receive LSSB if detached temporarily for firefighting duties during the current dispute.

  Personnel not entitled to LSSB can qualify for Longer Separated Service Allowance to compensate for extended periods away from their permanent place of duty.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the effect of the firefighters' dispute on(a) naval training and (b) naval deployment. [84366]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Armed Forces will continue to perform their duty to the public by providing emergency fire cover for as long as required. But as I stated in the House on 4 November 2002,Official Report, column 16:
  "there must be knock-on effect for the training regime, and the longer the strike runs the greater the effect will be. We must constantly review the situation; over time it will create problems for effective delivery and for other missions in which we may be called on to participate."
  Specifically for the Royal Navy, the firefighters' dispute has caused some reductions in operational programmes, notably the removal of frigates from NATO's Standing Force Atlantic and from the South Atlantic, but other Royal Navy vessels and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary remain deployed in the Caribbean, the Gulf, the Far East, the Mediterranean and the North and South Atlantic.
  13W
  The throughput of vessels through operational sea training has been reduced as personnel have been withdrawn from ships. This means that there will be increased demand for training in 2003 as ships return to the operational cycle.

  For the individual service person, the effects of the firefighters' dispute on training and deployment are interlinked. Some training is being disrupted with consequential effects on drafting, career progression and promotion. The Royal Navy is making appropriately trained personnel to the fleet. The effect on individuals will be minimised by giving them priority on future courses; and there are existing safeguards for those whose career progression may be adversely affected.

  Helicopter Aircrew (Training)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on the PFI contract for the Medium Support Helicopter Aircrew Training Facility; whether the contract is on schedule; and if he will make a statement. [85867]

  Mr. Ingram
  Delivery of the training service provided by the Medium Support Helicopter Aircrew Training Facility at RAF Benson commenced on schedule on 30 March 2000. Expenditure to date on the service, which is being delivered under a PFI contract with CAE Aircrew Training Services, is some £51 million.

  Joint Services Comand and Staff College
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on the PFI contract for the Joint Services Command and Staff College; whether the contract is on schedule; and if he will make a statement. [85865]

  Mr. Ingram
  A total of £68.917 million has been spent to date on the PFI Contract for the Joint Services Command and Staff College. The contract with Defence Management (Watchfield) Ltd. was signed in June 1998 and the college opened for operation on schedule on 7 August 2000.

  Manning Control Reviews
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 27 November 2002,Official Report, column 332W, on manning control reviews, how many personnel in the Army were recommended for Manning Control Review in each of the last five years; broken down by regiment. [85378]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested, concerning the number of Army personnel who were recommended for Manning Control Review in each of the last five years, is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Medical Officers (Deployment)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the dates of service were of each medical officer employed at(a) Deepcut and (b) Catterick Barracks since 1990, indicating in each case the (i) rank and (ii) the reasons given for leaving the post. [86078]
  14W
  Mr. Ingram
  Medical officers employed at Deepcut were/are all civilians. Details are:

  Rank

  Dates of employment

  Reasons for leaving

  Civilian medical practitioner

  1990 to March 2000

  Suspended

  Locum CMP (32 in total)

  March 2000 to date

  In all cases end of contract, except one who was asked to leave.

  Medical Officers at the Infantry Training Centre (ITC), Catterick were/are as follows:

  Rank

  Dates of employment

  Reasons for leaving

  Major

  April 1995 to July 1995

  Retired from the Army

  Captain

  July 1995 to December 1995

  Posted to another unit

  Colonel

  February 1996 to September 2001

  Posted to another unit

  Lt. Colonel

  December 2001 to date

  Still in post

  ITC, Catterick was only set up in April 1995, prior to that date Catterick Garrison would have provided medical services to all personnel. Catterick Garrison also maintains a medical centre for the benefits of garrison personnel, which the ITC can call upon as needed.

  Meteor Missile
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by how much, and by what percentage, the unit costs of each Meteor missile ordered for the RAF will change as a result of Germany's decision to cut its Meteor missile order. [86378]

  Mr. Ingram
  There will be no change to the unit cost of the Meteor missiles to be ordered for the RAF as a result of Germany's intention to reduce the number of missiles it plans to order. This is because the United Kingdom already has an agreed maximum price for its planned offtake of missiles.

  Minehunters
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on deployment of Royal Navy minehunters for an exercise with the Royal Saudi Navy. [85456]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy deploys a Mine Countermeasure (MCM) Group annually, either to the Mediterranean or the Gulf, to maintain operational capability, support major exercises and practice out of area deployments.

  The MCM Group is currently undertaking a routine deployment to the Gulf in order to conduct bilateral exercises with Saudi Arabian forces, as well as those of other Gulf States and coalition partners in the region. The aim is to build on the successful bilateral training conducted in the region in the wake of Exercise Saif Sareea held in Oman towards the end of last year, after which several invitations from Gulf States were received to conduct similar exercises in 2002. It is also planned to undertake a programme of port visits in the region to support Defence Diplomacy initiatives before the vessels are scheduled to return to the United Kingdom in spring 2003.

  Missile Defence System
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects preparations to begin for British involvement in the US-led missile defence system. [85665]

  Mr. Hoon
  The United Kingdom already has close access to US research and development work on missile defence, taking part in collaborative research and information exchange on ballistic missile defence technologies. UK industry is also playing an active role. UK expertise in such areas will enable us to consider and make informed assessments about technical advances in missile defences. This will contribute significantly to our ability to judge the potential benefits to the UK of possible participation in further US development of missile defences. In order to inform debate on the role that active missile defence might play within a comprehensive strategy for tackling the potential threat from ballistic missiles, I am publishing today a public discussion document on missile defence.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role he expects Fylingdales and Menwith Hill to play in the US-led missile defence system; and what improvements have been made to the facilities at these sites to enable them to fulfil this role. [85666]

  Mr. Hoon
  No decisions have been taken about the possible future role of any United Kingdom bases in a missile defence system. The radar at RAF Fylingdales could, if upgraded, provide a useful asset to such a system depending on the architecture chosen. No improvements have been made relating to any potential future role, although there is a continuing programme of maintenance and life extension at RAF Fylingdales to ensure that it can continue to fulfil its current functions.

  A decision was taken in 1997 to base the European relay ground station for the Space Based Infra-Red System (SBIRS) project at RAF Menwith Hill. SBIRS is a satellite system designed to give early warning of the launch of ballistic missiles anywhere in the world. It updates the existing but ageing defence support programme (DSP) satellites and is needed irrespective of any decision on missile defence.

  NATO Costs
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the United Kingdom paid in the last financial year to NATO as its share of NATO's overall costs, broken down into budget headings; and if he will make a statement. [86392]

  Mr. Hoon
  Direct contributions to NATO's Security Investment Programme (NSEP) and Military Budget (MB) are paid from the United Kingdom Defence Budget. Currently, the UK's share of the NSIP is 10.2 per cent. and of the MB is 16.0 per cent. From January 2003, this will be amended to 12.5 per cent. for both, with no overall increase in cost to UK.

  In the Financial Year 2001–2002, the UK paid £62.5 million to the NSIP and £53.1 million to the MB.

  Direct contributions to NATO's civil budget are the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The UK's share of this is 17.25 per cent. In
  16W
  the Financial Year 2001–2002 the UK paid some £13.9 million (lower than the anticipated contribution of £16.5 million due to the timing of payments).

  Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what nuclear, biological and chemical capability the Army, Navy and RAF possess; and whether the personnel are drawn from regular or reserve forces. [85374]

  Mr. Ingram
  The regular United Kingdom armed Forces maintain a balanced nuclear, biological and chemical force protection capability founded upon five components: detection and identification; warning and reporting; physical protection; hazard management; medical countermeasures and support. These rest on a range of specialised and other equipment, procedures and countermeasures, including those operated by the Joint NEC Regiment, are described in more detail in the Department's July 1999 public paper "Defending Against the Threat from Biological and Chemical Weapons". They also apply to nuclear and radiological defence.

  In addition the Royal Yeomanry, a Territorial Army unit, supports the Joint NBC Regiment.

  Offshore Medical Facilities (Gulf)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what offshore medical facilities would be available in the event of operations in the Gulf. [84364]

  Dr. Moonie
  All Royal Navy ships and submarines have primary care medical facilities. In addition, we could draw on the emergency surgical facilities in our aircraft carriers, HMS OCEAN and two Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) vessels. If required, hospital care could be provided by the primary casualty receiving facility in RFA ARGUS.

  Operation Amber Fox
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 2 December 2002, ref 82556, what factors will determine the length of the period for which Operation Amber Fox will continue under a NATO mandate. [86053]

  Mr. Ingram
  Operation Amber Fox concludes on 15 December 2002 and will be succeeded by the NATO-led Operation ALLIED HARMONY on 16 December 2002: Operation ALLIED HARMONY is scheduled to operate until 16 June 2003.

  The factors which determine the length of the NATO operation remain those normally applied: namely, the assessment of military requirements and the views of the Macedonian authorities. A NATO review of Operation ALLIED HARMONY is planned for February 2003.

  We remain keen to see an ESDP operation in Macedonia once permanent EU-NATO arrangements are in place.

  Operation Sandcastle
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 November Ref. 81327, if he will publish the conclusions of the report. [84722]
  17W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: Conclusion
  "Investigations by the SIB RMP major enquiry team tasked by the Secretary of State for Defence to collect and collate evidence of war crimes committed against or witnessed by British citizens in the Gulf from 2 August 1990 to the cessation of hostilities have revealed considerable and compelling evidence of systematic and continuous grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention committed by the Iraqi authorities, members of the Iraqi armed forces and their collaborators against the personal and property rights of British subjects".

  Parachute Training
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes there will be in the level of actual parachute training as a result of the virtual reality simulator. [85653]

  Dr. Moonie
  The level of parachute training undertaken from aircraft has not changed as a result of the introduction into service of the parachute Virtual Reality Simulator in 1999. The Virtual Reality Simulator enhances the training and safety of static line square parachute courses, but does not reduce the number of descents or flying hours required to complete the static line square parachute course.

  PFI
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the PFI projects approved by his Department since 1st April together with(a) the capital value and (b) the through-project costs estimated in each case. [85499]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has signed three PFI deals since 1 April 2002. These are as follows with details in rounded resource cost terms:

  Incidences of Separated Service for operations and training1

  Personnel on Separated Service spending

  Average trained strength

  < 28 days

  28–89 days

  90–139 days

  140–279 days

  280+ days

  Total personnel spending time on Separated Service

  Percentage of average trained strength who were on Separated Service

  Total days spent on Separated Service

  1997–98

  53,357

  15,123

  10,834

  4,410

  2,113

  329

  32,809

  61

  1,744,985

  1998–99

  52,107

  14,097

  11,959

  5,701

  2,489

  517

  34,763

  67

  2,085,535

  1999–2000

  51,358

  14,321

  11,691

  6,431

  2,706

  456

  35,605

  69

  2,185,558

  2000–01

  50,328

  14,505

  11,243

  6,036

  2,117

  374

  34,275

  68

  1,974,563

  2001–02

  49,266

  13,455

  11,322

  6,514

  2,432

  87

  33,810

  69

  1,999,168

  2002–032

  48,781

  14,866

  9,776

  2,710

  188

  0

  27,540

  56

  1,005,075

  1 An incidence of Separated Service is recorded when an individual is absent from their parent unit on duty for three nights or more and a permanent order has not been issued. The table shows separated service for operational and training commitments excluding resettlement and expedition training.

  2 Information up to 30 September 2002 only.

  Information from April 2000 excludes weekends where personnel are able to return home while on detached duty.

  The Royal Navy Separated Service Reporting System was introduced in October 2001, initially with data held only at unit level. Information was first collected centrally in July 2002 and results from this will become available once the data have been quality assured and analysed. This is expected to be in the first half of 2003.
  18W

  (a)Materials Handling Equipment (MHE) Service "Follow-on", which has a capital value of £40 million and estimated through project costs of £50 million.

  (b)Field Electrical Power Supplies (FEPS), which has a capital value of £70 million and estimated through project costs of £200 million.

  (c)Strategic Sea Lift (Roll-on Roll-off Ferries), which has a capital value of £175 million and estimated through project costs of £950 million.

  RAF (Grievances)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff officers are employed by the Royal Air Force in dealing with redress of grievances; and how many cases are outstanding. [85529]

  Dr. Moonie
  Staff officers throughout the chain of command are involved in processing redresses of complaint among a wide range of other personnel-related duties. Only three staff officers, at HQ Personnel and Training Command, are dedicated to redress work. The number of redresses not yet resolved at Command and Air Force Board level is 359, of which 247 relate to the introduction of Pay 2000.

  Separated Service
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much separated service was recorded by the(a) RAF Separated Service Recording System in each year since 1997 and (b) Navy Separated Service Recording System in each year since 2001. [85377]

  Dr. Moonie
  The following table shows how much Separated Service was recorded by the RAF Separated Service Recording System in each financial year since April 1997.

  Skill Force Scheme
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the pilot Skill Force scheme; and if he will make a statement. [83989]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Skill Force scheme is now in its third year in secondary schools at its two original locations. A further nine locations are in their second year of piloting and this autumn we are putting Skill Force teams into a
  19W
  further 13 locations. This latest expansion is being taken forward jointly between the Ministry of Defence and Department of Education and Skills (DfES) as part of DfES's Behaviour Improvement Programme which, in turn, is part of the Government's Street Crime Initiative.

  Independent evaluation of the impact of this exciting scheme is an integral part of the approach we have taken to the piloting of Skill Force. This focuses on testing the scheme's achievement against the key objectives: reducing truancy; reducing exclusions; improving educational and vocational attainment: improving behaviour; and reducing the number of young people who are not in employment, education or training on completion of their mandatory schooling.

  The latest evaluation by the British Market Research Bureau reviews the original schemes in Newcastle Upon Tyne and West Norfolk and shows positive results. Attendance rates exceeded 90 per cent. among children who were otherwise expected to display sharply declining attendance through years 10 and 11; for many it would have been expected that declining attendance would have led eventually to exclusion. Exclusion levels have also reduced dramatically; only 13 participants were excluded, compared to 46 who were identified at being at risk of permanent exclusion. One Norfolk Head Teacher said:
  "There are youngsters that would have been excluded by now from school if it hadn't been for Skill Force. Some of them have got very challenging behaviours but there has been a noticeable improvement, there's also been a noticeable improvement in their attendance as well".
  Skill Force has been credited as the major factor in raising GCSE A*-C grades from 26 per cent. to 36 per cent. in one of the Newcastle Upon Tyne schools.

  In addition, over half of the parents interviewed have reported more positive behaviour and attitudes which they attribute directly to Skill Force.

  The report also indicated areas where further development of the Schemes could be undertaken and would be beneficial.

  A full copy of the British Market Research Bureau research has already been placed in the Library of the House.

  Strategic Sealift Programme
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was paid by his Department after it assumed responsibility for contract payments in the RoRo strategic sealift programme. [85383]

  Dr. Moonie
  In March 2001 the Ministry of Defence assumed responsibility for the contracts for the two RoRo vessels to be built at Harland and Wolff and made its first payments in respect of the contracts. The payments amounted to some £3.7 million in respect of the first ship and £3.8 million for the second. As both ships are now nearing completion the total sums paid are approaching the contract prices originally agreed between the shipbuilder and the service provider. Total payments are commercially sensitive and I am withholding this information in accordance with 20W
  Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to effective management and operations of the public services.

  Tactical Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tactical nuclear devices his Department holds. [86218]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence holds no tactical nuclear devices.

  Tomahawk Missiles
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which submarines are expected to be equipped with Tactical Tomahawk Block IV missiles; and if he will make a statement. [85375]

  Mr. Ingram
  No decisions have yet been taken on the purchase of Tactical Tomahawk (Block IV) missiles. However, it is planned that all ASTUTE and TRAFALGAR Class submarines will be capable of firing torpedo tube launched Tactical Tomahawk missiles.

  UN (Culture of Impunity)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the request from the United Nations that each member state should adopt exclusionary measures to protect its armed forces against the development of a culture of impunity; and what his policy is if criminal convictions result in individual service personnel being excluded from membership of HM armed forces. [85968]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is no culture of impunity in the United Kingdom armed forces, whose members are subject to the ordinary law of the land. Criminal convictions are judged according to their seriousness: minor offences would not necessarily exclude a person from membership of the armed forces; more serious offences, including those leading to a sentence of imprisonment, may be expected to result in dismissal.

  Virtual Air Traffic Control Tower
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the costs were of the upgrades to the virtual air traffic control tower; and by how much this project went over budget. [85453]

  Dr. Moonie
  The total cost of the upgrades to the virtual air traffic control tower at the Centralised Air Traffic Control School, RAF Shawbury was £1.15 million inclusive of VAT. The project was completed in November 2001 within the approved budget.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight will receive a reply
  21W
  from the Legal Services Commission to his letter of 31 July and his subsequent letters of 26 September, 11 October and 30 October. [85720]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The correspondence from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight has now been dealt with by the Legal Services Commission's (LSC) Reading Office and a response sent on 6 December. The commission regrets the delay in reply.

  Staff turnover has affected recent customer service performance at the LSC's reading office. The LSC is conducting a major review with a view to resolving these difficulties.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department under what circumstances it is possible for a person earning £90,000 per year to obtain legal aid. [82570]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Such a decision would be very rare. Under the Access to Justice Act 1999, public funding (formerly called legal aid) is provided under the Community Legal Service (CLS) and the Criminal Defence Service (CDS). CLS funding, which covers civil proceedings, is only available for cases within the scope of the scheme subject to a statutory means test and funding assessment. Under the present system a person with an income of £90,000 per year would rarely qualify for civil public funding. It could be possible in cases involving public family law, such as care and supervision orders, child assessment orders, emergency child protection orders; and Mental Health Review Tribunals.

  Any individual charged with an offence and appearing before the courts can receive publicly funded representation without reference to their means where it is in the interests of justice for help to be granted. When the CDS was introduced in April 2001, the means test for criminal legal aid was abolished. It was replaced with a power for judges in the Crown Court to order a convicted defendant to pay some, or all, of the costs incurred in defending him, by way of a Recovery of Defence Costs Order.

  Thus a person with a high income might receive public assistance, but can be required to repay that support. Typically a court will exercise that power if the defendant is found guilty. A defendant found not guilty will almost certainly not have to repay legal aid costs. But this represents no effective change on the position before April 2001. It has always been, and remains, the case that a defendant found not guilty, who pays for his own defence, will almost certainly have the costs of his defence repaid by Government to the extent that such costs accord with legal aid rates.

  Sexual Assaults
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to issue guidance on the inferences to be drawn from the timing of complaints by victims of sexual assaults. [84610]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.
  22W
  We have no plans to issue any guidance on this issue. This is a matter of evidence that needs to be decided on the facts of each individual case.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will name the 10 Iraqi women to whom he referred in his oral answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, on 4 December; and what reports the Government have received on the circumstances of their leaving Iraq. [86430]

  The Prime Minister
  On 2 December I met a group of Iraqi women who had suffered human rights violations by Saddam Hussein's regime. All the women had had direct experience of Saddam Hussein's brutality.

  Some of the women present gave a press briefing on 21 November which highlighted the brutality of the Iraqi regime and drew attention to the plight of Iraqi women who have witnessed killings and other atrocities under Saddam's dictatorship. They also gave details on the circumstances under which they left Iraq. These were Safia Al Souhail, Fatima Bahr Al Ulum, Ala Talabani, Berivan Doski and Melina Bakoos. Because of the risk of reprisals against their families and friends in Iraq, it would be wrong to name those women who have not made their names public.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Access Rights
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress is being made towards giving a right of access to open countryside and common land in the lower north-west area; and if this will be implemented by summer 2004. [85346]

  Alun Michael
  The provisional map of access land for the lower north-west was issued on 18 November. There is now a three-month period when anyone with a legal interest in the land may lodge an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate against the inclusion of their land as access land on the provisional map. We expect a conclusive map to be issued at the end of 2003, but this depends on the number of appeals. On current plans, I intend to open the new statutory right of access in the lower north-west and upper north-west together during the autumn of 2004. This will be followed by the north-east and the south-west in the first six months of 2005, with all access land opened by the end of 2005.

  Correspondence
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letters of 2 December 2001 from the hon. Member for Workington which were passed to her for reply on 8 March. [85486]
  23W
  Alun Michael
  Unfortunately the Department has no record of receiving this correspondence. However, I have asked Correspondence Section to contact my hon. Friend as a matter of urgency to obtain copies of his letters so that we may deal with them speedily.

  Farmed Salmon
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information her Department has collated about the level of toxins found in farmed salmon; what assessment she has made of the risk to human health; and if she will make a statement. [84187]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that the Government have been monitoring and releasing information on chemicals in food, including farmed salmon, for over 10 years. Information on fish, including farmed salmon, has been published in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's Food Surveillance Paper No. 31, and Food Surveillance Information Sheets Nos. 71, 89, 105, 145, 184 and 191. The most recent information has been published by the FSA in its Food Survey Information Sheets Nos. 4/00, and 5/00, and the FSA Press Release of 10 May which issued precautionary advice for certain population groups on eating shark, swordfish and marlin. Copies of all these papers will be placed in the Library. The FSA is also aware of a range of published studies that have been carried out both in the United Kingdom and abroad.

  (£)

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Maintenance

  1,800,000

  1,951,000

  911,000

  900,000

  1,300,000

  Maintenance plus salaries, support and marketing

  2,204,000

  2,223,000

  1,176,000

  1,170,000

  1,580,000

  a) There are no specific restoration costs per kilometre available.

  b) The average maintenance costs per kilometre of each National Trail are as follows, although again there are major variations in the work needed:

  (£)

  Maintenance materials only

  plus salaries and overheads etc

  Pennine Way

  383

  641

  Cleveland Way

  310

  606

  Offa's Dyke Path

  88

  143

  South Downs Way

  396

  741

  South West Coast Path

  516

  719

  Ridgeway/Thames Path

  110

  536

  North. Downs Way

  153

  368

  Wolds Way

  191

  346

  Peddar's Way/Norfolk Coast Path

  288

  450

  Average

  271

  505

  In the case of Offa's Dyke Path the figures are for the English element of the Trail and the rest of the funding comes from Countryside Council for Wales. Thames
  24W
  The FSA advises that consumers should eat at least two portions of fish a week, one of which should be oily, as part of a healthy, balanced diet. The FSA has however been asked about the risks and benefits of eating larger amounts of fish, including oily fish such as salmon, and currently is seeking advice on this from its independent experts.

  Fats and Proteins(UK) Ltd
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when her Department in tends to provide a minded-to letter for Lancaster City Council in the matter of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the appeal by Fats and Proteins (UK) Limited. [85007]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 4 December 2002]: A letter, outlining the decision which the Department proposes to make in respect of the appeal by Fats and Proteins (UK) Limited, will be sent shortly.

  Long-distance Trails
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding has been available for the maintenance of long-distance trails in each of the last four years; what estimate she has made of the cost per kilometre of(a) restoring and (b) maintaining long-distance trails; and what budget is available for the repair and maintenance of the Ridgeway. [85213]

  Alun Michael
  Through the Countryside Agency DEFRA funds 75 per cent. of the cost of maintaining National Trails. The other 25% is funded by the highway authorities. The Countryside Agency states that their funding has been as follows for established National Trails:

  Path and Ridgeway figures are combined due to joint management structures. This year the Ridgeway/Thames Path have received £203,705 via the Countryside Agency and £53,460 from highway authorities. This figure includes all maintenance costs and salaries.

  Organic Milk
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funds have been allocated to the marketing and promotion of organic milk in the UK in each of the next five years; what funds have been spent in each of the years the Organic Farming Scheme has been in operation; and if he will make a statement. [85009]

  Margaret Beckett
  No funds have been allocated to the marketing and promotion of organic milk in the next five years. However, under the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP), funding is generally available for the marketing of quality agricultural produce, including organic, through the Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES), and for capital projects
  25W
  through the Processing and Marketing Grant (PMG). Under RES, farmers and others are able to propose projects for the marketing of any organic product.

  Non-capital grants are also available under the Agriculture Development Scheme. For all of these schemes, applications need to comply with scheme rules and each is considered on its merits in competition with others. State aid rules limit the extent that Government can support the promotion or advertising of agricultural produce. Previously, the organic milk sector also benefited under the Marketing Development Scheme (MDS), which is now closed to new applicants.

  During the life of the Organic Farming Scheme, which since April 1999 has assisted farmers to convert land to organic farming methods, but leaves them free to decide which enterprise to pursue, the following sums have been awarded to organic milk related projects under relevant schemes:

  £

  Agriculture Development Scheme

  2001

  22,548

  Marketing Development Scheme (MDS) (closed)

  1999

  7,908

  2000

  22,904

  2001

  6,086

  Processing and Marketing Grant (PMG)1

  2001–02

  3,869.10

  2002–03

  222,860.90 (committed)

  2003–04

  25,235 (committed)

  1 Two projects are currently being funded in England under the Processing and Marketing Grant.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Colombia (Trials)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many embassy staff, and of what grade, have been assigned to observe the trial of Niall Connolly, James Monaghan and Martin McCauley in Bogota, Colombia. [86014]

  Mr. MacShane
  None.

  Iraq (Human Rights)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps were taken to verify the information included in the report, "Saddam Hussein: Crimes and Human Rights Abuses", published on 2 December; and what considerations underpinned the timing of the release of the report. [86138]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The report is based on the testimony of Iraqi exiles, evidence gathered by UN rapporteurs and human rights organisations, and intelligence material. The report was released to provide the public with accurate information about the ruthless nature of Saddam Hussein's regime in the context of the Government's policy towards Iraq, the focus of which is the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the(a) preparation and (b) publication of special reports on human rights abuses in (a) Israel and (b) Saudi Arabia. [86140]
  26W
  Mr. Rammell
  The FCO lays before Parliament an Annual Report on Human Rights detailing UK action to promote human rights around the world. This year's Report was laid on 26 September. There are sections on Israel and Saudi Arabia. HMG has no plans to issue special reports listing human rights violations in Israel and Saudi Arabia.

  HMG continues to believe that in the vast majority of countries progress on human rights is best achieved by engagement and critical dialogue.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total expenditure of(a) his Department and (b) its agencies was on official travel in 2001–02. [84785]

  Mr. Rammell
  [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, columns 1374–75W. 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.

  The total expenditure on official travel in the FCO during 2001–02 was £12,502,000.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total budget of(a) his Department and (b) its agencies is for official travel in 2002–03. [84930]

  Mr. Rammell
  [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, columns 1.374–75W. 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.

  The FCO does not budget centrally at this level of detail.

  Travel Advice
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what co-ordination exists between the United States, Australian, French and British governments to ensure that travel advice is consistent. [85724]

  Mr. Straw
  Some consultation takes place with key allies, including the United States, Australia and France, on the evaluation of risks to travellers and communities abroad. Each country retains responsibility for formulating its advice for its own nationals, in the light of its own judgements. But we continue to develop mechanisms to improve information sharing.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when in the last two months his Department's travel advice on(a) Africa, (b) South East Asia, (c) Latin America and (d) the Asian sub-continent was revised. [85725]

  Mr. Straw
  FCO Travel Advice is under constant review. It was revised for the following areas on the following dates:

  Africa:
  Angola—18 October and 4 November, Benin 18 October and 2 November, Botswana–18 October; Burkina Faso—18 October; Burundi—18 and 28 October; Cameroon—2, 18 and 23 October and 29 November; Cape Verde 18 October; Central African Republic—18 and 28 October and 28 November; Chad—18 October; Comoros—18 October; Congo (Rep of)—18 October; Congo (Democratic Rep of)—18 October; Cote d'lvoire—2, 9, 11, 16, 17 18, 22, 23, 28 and 31 October and 4 and 15 November; Djibouti—18 October, 29 November and 5 December; Equatorial Guinea—18 October and 28 November; Eritrea—18 October, 29 November and 5 December; Ethiopia- 18 October and 5, 8, 29 November and 5 December; Gabon 18 October and 28 November; The Gambia -18 and 25 October and 12 November; Ghana—18 October and 6 November; Guinea 18 October; Guinea Bissau—18 October; Kenya—2 and 18 October, 6, 28 and 29 November and 5 December; Lesotho 15 and 18 October, 20 November and 4 December; Liberia 18 October and 4 December; Madagascar—16 and 18 October and 7 November; Malawi—18 October; Mali—18 and 31 October; Mauritius—18 and 31 October; Mozambique—18 October; Namibia—18 October; Niger—18 October; Nigeria—18 October and 25 and 29 November; Rwanda—18 October; Sao Tome and Principe—12 and 13 November; Senegal—18 October; Seychelles—18, 29 October; Sierra Leone 18 October and 28 November; Somalia—18 October, 29 November and 5 December; South Africa—18 and 31 October and 20, 27 and 29 November; Swaziland—18 October and 20 November; Tanzania 18 and 24 October, 29 November and 5 December; Togo 18 October and 6 November; Uganda—18 October, 7 and 29 November and 5 December; Zambia—18 October and 20 November; Zimbabwe-4, 18 and 31 October and 8 and 27 November.
  South East Asia:
  Brunei—15, 17, and 18 October and 1 November; Burma—15, 18 and 23 October; Cambodia—15, 18 21, 23 and 25 October and 5 November; East Timor—15 to 18 October and 4 December; Indonesia—13, 15, 17, 18, 21 and 25 October and 25 November; Laos—15 and 18 October; Malaysia—15 and 18 October; Philippines—15, 18 and 28 October and 1, 11 and 22 November and 3 December; Singapore—15 and 18 October; Thailand—15, 18 and 28 October and 29 November; Vietnam 15 and 18 October.
  Latin America:
  Argentina—18, 23 and 31 October; Belize—18 October; Bolivia—18 October; Brazil—18 October; Chile—18 October; Colombia—18 and 28 October; Costa Rica 18 October and 12 November; Ecuador—16 and 18 October and 4, 6, 14 and 26 November; E1
  28W
  Salvador—18 October; Guatemala 18 October and 25 November; Guyana—18 October and 5 November; Haiti—18 October and 20 November; Honduras—18 and 29 October; Mexico—2 and 18 October and 15 November; Nicaragua—18 October; Panama—18 October; Paraguay—18 October; Peru 18 and 15 October and 12 November; Uruguay 18 October; Venezuela—3, 9, 18 and 29 October and 20 November. Asian sub-continent: Bangladesh—4, 18 and 30 October; India 18 and 30 October and 13 and 29 December; Pakistan—8, 14, 18 and 24 October and 1 and 22 November. October and 6 November;Uganda—18 October, .7 and 29 November and 5 December; Zambia—18 October and 20 November; Zimbabwe—4, 18 and 31 October and 8 and 27 November. South East Asia: Brunei—15, 17, and 18 October and 1 November; Burma—15, 18 and 23 October; Cambodia—15, 18 21, 23 and October and 5 November; East Timor—15 and 18 October and 4 December; Indonesia—13, 15, 17, 18, 21 and 25 October 25 November; Laos—15 and 18 October; Malaysia—15 and 18 October; Philippines—15, 18 and 28 October and 1, 11 and 22 November and 3 December; Singapore—15 and 18 October; Thailand—15, 18 and 28 October and 29 November; Vietnam—15 and 18 October. Argentina—18, 23 and 31 October; Belize—18 October; Bolivia—18 October; Brazil—18 October; Chile—18 October; Colombia—18 and 28 October; Costa Rica—18 October and 12 November; Ecuador—16 & 18 October and 4, 6, 14 and 26 November; E1 Salvador—18 October; Guatemala 18 October and 25 November; Guyana—18 October and 5 November; Haiti—18 October and 20 November; Honduras—18 and 29 October; Mexico 2 and 18 October and 15 November; Nicaragua—18 October; Panama-18 October; Paraguay—18 October; Peru—18 and 15 October and 12 November; Uruguay—18 October; Venezuela—3, 9, 18 and 29 October and 20 November.
  Asian sub-continent:
  Bangladesh—4, 18 and 30 October; India—18 and 30 October and 13 and 29 December; Pakistan—8, 14, 18 and 24 October 8 and 22 November.

TRANSPORT

  A12/Colchester Northern Approach Road Junction
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when a decision will be made to approve a junction between the A12 and the Colchester Northern Approach Road; and if he will make a statement. [86515]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The principle of a junction between the A12 and the Colchester Northern Approach Road has been agreed for some time, but the Highways Agency is not yet able to fully assess the impact of the proposed new junction on the safety and operation of the A12. Despite several meetings and requests, a number of issues remain outstanding with the developer. No decision can be made until the Highways Agency is in possession of all necessary information to determine the application.

  Air Transport
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give an early response to the Midlands section of the National Consultation on the Future of Air Transport. [85736]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a national consultation and decisions taken in one area will have an effect on decisions for other parts of the UK. Therefore, we will make our decisions in the Air Transport White Paper, based on consideration of all responses received across the UK, once
  the extended consultation period has finished.
  29W
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it is his policy that before any option for Birmingham Airport is included in the White Paper, he will satisfy himself that the shareholders have sufficient funds available to fund the option stated in the White Paper. [85863]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Options included in the Air Transport White Paper will form a strategic framework for air transport in the UK for the next 30 years. We will wish to assure ourselves, as far as foreseeable, that preferred options have a reasonable prospect of being financially deliverable.

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport with reference to the Air Transport Consultation Process, whether the 30 year economic appraisal for the second runway at Birmingham Airport will commence in the year following completion. [85864]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The benefit stream for Birmingham International airport, with an additional second runway, has been estimated from the year following completion. The economic performance will vary depending upon the year of opening.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many aircraft departed from(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick and (c) Stansted airports in each month since December 2000, broken down by aircraft type; and which are exempt from noise limit standards announced on 18 December 2000. [86105]

  Mr. Jamieson
  22 individual aircraft, which were given specific exemptions from the Chapter 2 phase out provisions in the EC Directive 92/14, were also given exemptions from the new daytime noise limit (94dBA Lmax) announced on 18 December 2000 and introduced on 25 February 2001. The exemptions applied until 31 March 2002.

  During this period the actual number of departures by relevant aircraft was as follows:

  Heathrow Nil

  Gatwick Two (both in January 2002)

  Stansted Two (one in March 2001, one in January 2002)

  All of these movements were by DC8F-55s; none exceeded 94dBA at the relevant noise monitor, even though exempt from that limit.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that a Minister from his Department attends a public meeting on Canvey Island, organised by the hon. Member for Castle Point, to discuss the Government's Cliffe Airport option. [86522]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced to Parliament on 28 November 2002,Official Report, columns 474–75, that the consultation on airports capacity will be kept open until we have consulted on options for new runways in relation to Gatwick.

  We will set out our plans for the remaining stage of the consultation process when we publish the further consultation paper in the new year.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many responses had been received by 30 November in response to(a) the consultation
  30W
  document, Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: A National Consultation and (b) each of the regional consultation documents on the Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (i) in total and (ii) for each region; [85209]

  (2) how many copies of the (a) main document and (b) summary of the (i) national and (ii) regional consultation documents on Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom have been issued in hard copy as a result of each exhibition which has taken place to promote the consultation as of 30 November; [85211]

  (3) how many copies of the (a) main document and (b) summary of the consultation documents (i) Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: A National Consultation, (ii) Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: North of England, (iii) Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South West, (iv) Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: Midlands, (v) Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: Wales and (vi) Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East have been (A) issued in hard copy and (B) downloaded from the website by 30 November; [85208]

  (4) what the cost to his Department has been of (a) the exhibitions promoting the consultation documents on the Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom and (b) the printing costs relating to the publication of the consultation documents as of 30 November. [85210]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As at 30 November a total of over 118,000 main and over 180,000 summary consultation documents had been issued. A breakdown by area for both hard copy and website downloads is given as follows. The figures include consultation documents distributed at public exhibitions across the country. A breakdown of the numbers issued at individual exhibitions is not available.

  Hard copy

  Website downloads

  Region

  Main

  Summary

  Main

  Summary

  North of England

  13,005

  48,343

  14,382

  7,954

  South West

  5,366

  13,876

  8,977

  8,869

  Midlands

  35,297

  45,696

  8,767

  10,484

  Wales

  4,135

  5,453

  2,872

  2,244

  South East

  50,590

  49,399

  67,299

  73,878

  Northern Ireland

  4,317

  8,982

  3,083

  2,286

  Scotland

  5,810

  11,642

  11,499

  17,531

  Total

  118,520

  183,391

  116,879

  123,246

  To date, nationally, over 30,000 completed NOP questionnaires and around 31.000 letters responding to the consultations have been received. Additionally, around 2,000 responses have been received via the dedicated website. Very large numbers of responses are arriving and we do not yet have accurate numbers broken down by region.

  As part of the consultation there have been 17 exhibitions which cost approximately £929,000. The cost of producing the seven detailed consultation documents and seven summary documents was £609,000.
  31W
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced to Parliament on 28 November 2002, Official Report, columns 474–75, the consultation on airports capacity will be kept open until we have consulted on options for new runways in relation to Gatwick. We will publish a further consultation document in the new year.

  Channel Tunnel Links
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of private investment in the Thames Gateway area in advance of the completion and opening of the section of the High Speed Channel Tunnel Link between the Tunnel entrance and Fawkham Junction; what the level of investment was in each case, and what investment is anticipated for future years. [86111]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department's value for money assessment of the 1998 deal to secure construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link included an assessment of the regeneration benefits of the project. The main private investment impacts of the Link for the Thames Gateway area were anticipated to be associated with Ebbsfleet station. Details of the assessment are reported in the Public Accounts Committee, Twenty-Second Report, Session 2001–02, Appendix 2.

  Cliffe Airport
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his Answers of 2 December,Official Report, column 498W, on the Cliffe Airport Option, how he identified suitable venues for the exhibitions (a) in relation to proximity to the airport option and affected areas, (b) venue capacity, (c) accessibility and (d) availability; and in each case how many and which other alternative locations were considered. [85629]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: Specialist consultants in event management were commissioned to identify suitable venues and to organise the public exhibitions on the airport options.

  Using a database of potential venues in the region, they were able to recommend the most suitable venue for each airport exhibition taking account of the listed criteria.

  Disabled Access
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 2 December, Official Report, column 500W, how many of the stations owned by(a) London Underground and (b) train operating companies, defined as step free, rely on a lift service in their qualification as a step free station. [86516]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Thirteen London Underground stations rely on lifts in their qualification as step free, as do three of the TOC-owned stations served by London Underground.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met members of the Strategic Rail Authority regarding disabled access to train station platforms. [86518]
  32W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I, and other departmental Ministers, meet the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Strategic Rail Authority on a regular basis; specifically to discuss aspects or the Authority's work, or as part of wider industry meetings.

  European Ports
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the European Commission has decided to investigate public financing and charging in European ports in its proposed Directive on Market Access to Port Services. [85488]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Transport Council has adopted a common position on the Ports Directive and has also asked the Commission to present proposals for measures on public financing of port infrastructure, state aids and transparency. We understand that the Commission is currently working on these issues.

  Fatigue-Related Road Accidents
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what initiatives have been undertaken by his Department to reduce fatigue-related road accidents since 1 January 2000; when each initiative took place; how much each cost; to whom contracts were awarded; what assessment has been undertaken of the projects; and what further action is planned. [86082]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department is concerned about fatigue-related road accidents and has an extensive programme of publicity and research aimed at reducing these.

  The Department has been using a variety of media to encourage drivers to plan their trips and to take suitable breaks on long journeys. These include:

  nine bursts of radio advertising since August 2000 at a total cost of £1,165,000,

  TV advertising in January, April, and August 2002 at a cost of £814,000,

  poster advertising in July and December 2000, and in February 2002 at a cost of

  £121,000,

  some two million advisory leaflets costing £17,000 have been printed and

  distributed, many at Motorway Service Areas.

  The total publicity spend in the current financial year on driver sleepiness has been £1.152 million, which is just over 8.4 per cent. of the publicity budget.

  Since January 2000, advertising agency AMV.BBDO has been responsible for the creative work for the campaigns. Media buying until July 2002 was contracted to PHD, and to Carat Ltd. since then.

  Quantitative tracking research demonstrates that awareness of the dangers of driving while tired has increased considerably. The costs of this are included in tracking all aspects of the Department's Think! Road Safety campaign, which is contracted to Taylor, Nelson, Sofres.

  Nearly 400 Variable Message Signs on Motorways were used during the 2002 Easter period to carry the 'Don't Drive Tired' message in support of TV advertising. Over half those questioned at Motorway

  33W
  Service Areas said they had assessed their tiredness after seeing the message and some 12 per cent. of those surveyed decided to take a break as a result. The Variable Message Signs will continue to be used for this purpose over the coming year. The cost to the Highways Agency was some £40,000. Molt MacDonald (Consultants) were the project managers, SSL Ltd. and D.S. & S. Ltd. dealt with software changes and the Agency's routine maintenance contractors undertook the software installation. MVA Consultancy Ltd. surveyed drivers.

  Advice on how to avoid and combat driver tiredness is in The Highway Code and on the DfTs road safety website at "www.think.dft.gov.uk". We will continue to warn drivers of the dangers of falling asleep at the wheel.

  The Department has also undertaken considerable research to study driver sleepiness. The university of Loughborough Sleep Research Laboratory was contracted to carry out a series of road audits into sleep-related vehicle accidents on sections of selected trunk roads and motorways in the UK. The results were published in February 2001 in Road Safety Research Reports No. 21 and 22, available on-line at "www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/index.htm". The cost was £268,000. This contract has been extended and requires the Loughborough Laboratory to undertake six more audits. The cost is expected to be £120,000 and the report is due to be submitted in May 2003.

  Loughborough Sleep Research Laboratory have also been contracted to produce the following reports:
  "Over the counter medicines and the potential for unwanted sleepiness in drivers. A review". The report was published in February 2001 as Road Safety Research Report No 24 and is available on-line as above. The cost was £5,000.
  "A survey of Public Education Literature regarding Driver Sleepiness". The report
  was published in February 2001 and is available on-line at "www.roads.dft.gov.uk/roadsafety/sleepiness/index.htm". The cost was £5,000.
  On-going research, scheduled for completion during December 2002, into "the
  interactions between sleepiness and moderate alcohol intake". The cost is expected to be £ 198,000.
  A new research contract is being prepared to study "The Effectiveness of Motorway Service Areas in reducing fatigue-related accidents". This is scheduled to start in January 2003 and last one year.

  Intelligent Traffic Control Systems
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken by his Department to support the development of Intelligent Traffic Control systems across the United Kingdom; what financial support has been given to pilot or full projects, including those in(a) Reading, (b) Preston, (c) Stratford-upon-Avon and (d) York; over what timescale the projects have operated; what the expected outcomes of the projects were in each case; what assessment has been made by his Department in each case; and what the outcomes from each project have been, including their impact on congestion. [86113]
  34W
  Mr. Jamieson
  There are a wide range of Intelligent Traffic Control systems used by both the Highways Agency and local authorities. The Department, through the Highways Agency, has supported the development of these systems on the motorway and trunk road network. Most of the local authority schemes are funded through Local Transport Plan settlements. Specific initiatives to support this include:ITS Assist—helping and encouraging local authorities to use new information and communication technology, including, traffic control, in their plans;
  Clear Zones—encouraging innovative planning and use of technology, including for traffic management, to minimise the impacts of traffic in towns;
  Research—into traffic control systems and techniques for networks and isolated signalled junction and pedestrian crossings; and
  UTMC—The Urban Traffic Management and Control (UTMC) programme was devised by the Department to provide the framework to support efficient and effective network management in towns and cities. This concept is being developed and taken forward primarily through a five-year, £6 million research programme.
  As part of this, four demonstration projects were started in September 2000 and are due to complete in 2003. These are in Reading, Preston, Stratford-upon-Avon and York. The Department has contributed £1.7 million to these demonstration projects.
  A structure for evaluation of the projects has been agreed with the local authorities, reflecting their transport and environmental objectives, including impacts on congestion. As the projects are not complete, assessments cannot yet be made, but will be reported when the projects conclude.
  I have arranged for copies of leaflets describing the above initiatives to be sent to the hon. Member and also placed in the Libraries of the House.

  International Maritime Organisation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made by his Department of the success of the International Maritime Organisation's Quality Shipping Campaign. [86104]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has a key role in the international Quality Shipping Campaign, which is designed to rid the seas of substandard shipping. Progress is being made, not least in terms of the growing acceptance that there is a real need for more effective and consistent implementation of convention requirements by owners and flag States, reinforced through targeted Port State Control. But there is still a long way to go before we achieve the Campaign's objectives.

  One tangible initiative to arise from the Campaign has been the setting up of the EQUASIS database. This provides the industry with freely accessible safety-related information on the quality of the world's merchant fleet, answering calls for greater transparency. Charterers can no longer justifiably claim ignorance as an excuse for engaging in business with substandard ships.

  Lane Rental Charges
  Mrs Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the pilot schemes testing lane rental
  35W
  charges in Middlesbrough and the London Borough of Camden will end; and when the conclusions will be published. [85489]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The pilots are scheduled to continue until March 2004. My Department has appointed consultants, Halcrow, to carry out a study monitoring the effect of the pilot schemes. I expect to receive their first report shortly and copies will be placed in the House Libraries in due course.

  Local Transport Plan
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) kilometres of local roads, (b) bridges and (c) footways have been restored by local authorities using money in the Local Transport Plan settlement for capital maintenance work on local highways for (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03, (A) in total and (B) for each local authority. [86094]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Highway maintenance is funded from Revenue Support Grant as well as the Local Transport Plan settlement. It is not possible to identify works funded through either source separately.

  Local road condition is monitored through the National Road Maintenance Condition Survey. The latest results for 2001 showed that there was a possibility that deterioration in their condition may have been arrested, but this could not be confirmed until the results of subsequent years were available.

  From the data supplied through Local Transport Plan returns, 4,746 bridges on local roads required strengthening in 2000 and 4,504 in 2002.

  Montford Bridge Junction
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment the Highways Agency has made of the safety of the junction between the A5 and the B4380 at Montford Bridge. [86529]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mr. Tim Matthews to Mr. Paul Marsden dated 9 December 2002:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent question about the safety of the junction between the A5 and the B4380 at Montford Bridge.
  The Highways Agency shares the concerns of local people about the accidents that have occurred at this junction and we have instructed our Managing Agent for the A5, as a matter of urgency, to explore what measures might be used to improve safety in the short term.
  Montford Bridge was identified as a junction where safety is an issue in a Road Based Study completed in May. The study was commissioned by the Government Office for the West Midlands with the objective of making recommendations for addressing safety and congestion problems on the route between Shrewsbury and Chester. One of its recommendations is that a Route Management Strategy should be undertaken to support delivery of improvements to specific trouble spots, such as Montford Bridge.
  The Highways Agency, jointly with the National Assembly for Wales, have commissioned the Route Management Strategy study which is designed to develop a three year Action Plan and a ten year Route Management Plan for the A5/A483. It will further
  36W
  analyse the accident locations identified in the Road Based Study, including Montford Bridge, to suggest solutions and recommend priorities.
  I hope this is helpful; we will ensure that you are kept informed of developments on all these fronts. If you would like more information, the Agency's Route Sponsor for this part of the A5, Liz Talbot, would be pleased to help. She can be contacted at jour offices at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham B15 1BL, or by telephone on 0121 678 8746.

  Motorists (Mobile Phone Use)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will report on the findings of the consultations into introducing legislation to regulate the use of hands-free telephones in motor vehicles; when he intends the legislation will take effect; and if he will make a statement. [86514]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Consultation on a proposal to prohibit the use of hand-held mobile phones when driving ended on 25 November 2002. Some 1,000 responses have been received and the Department is now considering these. An announcement on the results of consultation will be made as soon as possible.

  Norwich Airport
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the environmental effects of the planned expansion of Norwich Airport. [85451]

  Mr. Jamieson
  "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East)" main consultation document summarises in chapter 12, paragraphs 12.1–12.10, the analysis undertaken as part of the SERAS Study relating to Norwich Airport.

  Further details of the appraisal of the impacts of, and constraints upon, development at Norwich Airport are reported in the "Small Airports—Demand and Impact Appraisal" (August 2001) and "Small Airports Optioneering" (January 2002) reports.

  Copies of these documents have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Roads
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his policy on encouraging the use of trenchless construction methods on existing roads. [85752]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We believe that it is vital to reduce the unnecessary disruption which works on roads cause to road users, and are taking a range of measures to achieve this. The use of trenchless techniques can help reduce this disruption, although there will be many occasions when—for technical reasons—these will not be suitable. My Department has recently set up a working party, involving representatives of local authorities and utility companies, to look at ways in which greater use can be made of trenchless techniques when works are carried out in the street.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost to local authorities was of roads maintenance and repair in each financial year since 2000–01 in respect of(a) flood and (b) other damage (i) in total and (ii) for each local authority. [86109]
  37W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on flood damage is not collected centrally on a regular basis. However, local highway authorities were asked in 2001 about the damage caused to highways by the severe flooding in the previous winter and spring. Their responses are shown in the table:

  Flood damage to bridges and highways: Reported costs to local authorities as at 29 June 2001

  £000

  Reported flood damage

  Kent

  7,060

  Hampshire

  6,531

  North Yorkshire

  3,275

  Surrey

  3,204

  Devon

  2,700

  West Sussex

  2,642

  East Sussex

  2,505

  Gloucestershire

  2,405

  Wiltshire

  2,365

  Herefordshire

  1,640

  Northumberland

  1,497

  Shropshire

  1,453

  Hertfordshire

  1,275

  Oldham

  1,199

  Dorset

  817

  Telford/Wrekin

  748

  West Berkshire

  557

  Brighton and Hove

  510

  Durham

  508

  Redcar and Cleveland

  430

  Project

  Company

  Length of road (km)

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  M1-A1

  Yorkshire Link Ltd.

  30

  —

  640

  676

  716

  A69

  Road Link (A69) Ltd.

  84

  489

  494

  488

  505

  A19

  Autolink Concessionaires (A19) Ltd.

  118

  —

  1,565

  1,611

  1,637

  A50

  Connect (A50) Ltd.

  57

  —

  675

  731

  793

  M40

  UK Highways M40 Ltd.

  122

  —

  3,844

  3,859

  3,932

  A1(M)

  Road Management Services (Peterborough) Ltd.

  21

  —

  405

  416

  429

  A417/A419

  Road Management Services (Gloucester) Ltd.

  52

  544

  574

  582

  604

  A30/A35

  Connect (A30/A35) Ltd.

  102

  —

  —

  591

  634

  Note:

  Figures are given in millions of vehicle kilometers

  The following table shows the total payments made under my Department's design build finance and operate contracts.

  Financial Year

  £ million

  1998–99

  105

  1999–2000

  119

  2000–01

  142

  2001–02

  130

  The Al3 DBFO scheme is operated by CountyRoute (A 130) plc under a contract let by Essex county council. I am unable to advise on the detailed information requested as that is a matter between Essex county council and their contractor.

  Statutory Harbour Authorities
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the statutory harbour authorities in the UK broken down by(a) companies, (b) local authorities and (c) trusts; which authorities have
  38W

  Flood damage to bridges and highways: Reported costs to local authorities as at 29 June 2001

  £000

  Reported flood damage

  Medway Towns

  302

  Transport for London

  300

  Lincolnshire

  286

  South Gloucs

  210

  Somerset

  207

  Leeds

  155

  Hartlepool

  144

  Richmond

  130

  Enfield

  104

  Total

  45,478

  No information on other damage to highways has been collected centrally since 2000–01.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles used each of the roads built or operating using the design, build, finance and operate contracting method, in each month of operation; who the contractor was in each case; how much was paid under each contract; and if he will make a statement. [86099]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The table shows the traffic figures (in vehicle kilometres) for each financial year for each of my Department's design build finance and operate projects since these were opened to traffic. Providing figures for each month would be disproportionately expensive.

  (i) completed and (ii) not completed implementation of the port marine safety code; and what steps he is taking to ensure full compliance. [86092]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have concentrated our monitoring on harbour authorities that have powers in relation to the regulation of shipping and safety of navigation under the Pilotage Act 1987—"competent harbour authorities"—because they comprise virtually all ports with significant functions to which the Code applies, and also account for almost all commercial port traffic. To date, the following competent harbour authorities have told my Department that they have implemented the Port Marine Safety Code:(a) Company Ports
  Associated British Ports:

  Ayr

  Barrow

  Barry

  Cardiff

  Fleetwood

  39W

  Garston

  Goole

  Grimsby

  Hull

  Immingham

  Ipswich

  King's Lynn

  Lowestoft

  Newport (Gwent)

  Plymouth

  Port Talbot

  Silloth

  Southampton

  Swansea

  Teignmouth

  Troon

  Whitby

  Boston

  Brighton Marina Estate Management Company

  Bristol Port Company

  Clydeport

  Falmouth Docks & Engineering Company

  Forth Ports Ltd (Dundee, Forth, Tilbury)

  Hutchison Ports (Felixstowe, Harwich International)

  Manchester Ship Canal Company

  Mersey Docks & Harbour Company (Heysham, Liverpool, Medway)

  Newhaven Port & Properties Ltd

  Portland Port Ltd

  Port of MostynLtd

  Seaham Harbour Dock Company

  Stena Line Ports (Fishguard, Folkestone, Holyhead)

  Tees & Hartlepool Port Authority

  (b) Local Authority Ports

  Aberdeenshire Council (Macdufi)

  Anglesey County Council (Amlwch)

  Argyle and Bute Council (Rothesay)

  Bristol City Docks

  Carrick District Council (Truro)

  Cumbria County Council (Workington)

  Fenland District Council (Wisbech)

  Gwynedd Council (Porthmadoc)

  Moray Council (Buckie, Burghead, Cullen, Findochty, Hopeman, Portknockie)

  North Devon District Council (Ilfracombe)

  Orkney Islands Council Harbours

  Penwith District Council (Penzance)

  Portsmouth City Council (Portsmouth Commercial Port)

  Sedgemoor District Council (Bridgewater)

  Scarborough Borough Council (Scarborough, Whitby)

  Shetland Islands Council (Lerwick, Scalloway, Sullom Voe)

  South Hams District Council (Salcombe)

  Thanet District Council (Broadstairs, Margate, Ramsgate)

  Torbay Council (Brixham, Paignton, Torquay)

  Torridge District Council (Bideford)

  West Dorset District Council (Bridport)

  West Somerset District Council (Minehead, Watchet)

  40W

  Weymouth & Portland Borough Council

  (c) Trust Ports

  Aberdeen Harbour Board

  Belfast Harbour Commission

  Berwick Harbour Commission

  Blyth Harbour Commission

  Bridlington Harbour Commission

  Caernarfon Harbour Trust

  Carlingford Lough Commission

  Chichester Harbour Conservancy

  Coleraine Harbour Commission

  Cowes Harbour Commisson

  Cromarty Firth Port Authority

  Dart Harbour and Navigation Authority

  Dover Harbour Board

  Falmouth Harbour Board

  Fowey Harbour Commission

  Fraserburgh Harbour Commission

  Gloucester Harbour Trustees

  Great Yarmouth Port Authority

  Harwich Haven Authority

  Inverness Harbour Trust

  King's Lynn Conservancy Board

  Lancaster Port Commission

  Langstone Harbour Board

  Littlehampton Harbour Board

  Lerwick Port Authority

  Londonderry Port

  Lymington Harbour Commission

  Milford Haven Port Authority

  Montrose Port Authority

  Neath Harbour Commission

  Newlyn Pier and Harbour Commission

  Padstow Harbour Commission

  Peterhead Bay Authority

  Peterhead Harbour Trust

  Poole Harbour Commission

  Port of London Authority

  Port of Sunderland Authority

  Port of Plymouth (Cattewater Harbour Commission)

  Shoreham Port Authority

  Stornoway Pier and Harbour Commission

  Teignmouth Harbour Commission

  Tyne Port Authority

  Warkworth Harbour Commission

  Warrenpoint Harbour Authority

  41W

  Wells Harbour Commission

  Whitehaven Harbour Commission

  Wick Harbour Trust

  Yarmouth (Isle of Wight) Harbour Commission

  (d)Other public sector ports

  British Waterways Board (Caledonian and Crinan canals, London Docklands, River Ouse, Sharpness Docks)

  Environment Agency (Rye Harbour)

  The following competent harbour authorities have not yet issued a statement of compliance in accordance with the Port Marine Safety Code:
  (a)Company ports

  Eastbourne (Sovereign Harbour)

  Irvine Harbour Company

  Porthleven Harbour & Docks Company

  (b)Local authority ports

  Canterbury District Council (Whitstable)

  Carmarthenshire County Council (Llanelli/Burry Port)

  Exeter City Council

  Isle of Wight Council (Newport)

  Waveney District Council (Southwold)

  Worthing Borough Council

  (c)Trust ports

  Crouch Harbour Authority

  Looe Harbour Commission

  Maldon Harbour Improvement Commission

  Maryport Harbour Commission

  Mousehole Harbour Commission

  Sandwich Port & Haven Commission

  (d)Other

  Duchy of Cornwall (Isles of Scilly)

  Environment Agency Wales (Dee Conservancy)

  Broads Authority

  My officials are continuing to correspond with these harbour authorities and many are reporting that they are in an advanced stage of implementing the Port Marine Safety Code.

  TAN21 Computer System
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what specifications were required by his Department in the contract for the development of the TAN21 computer system; what changes to this specification have taken place since the contract was awarded; and when these took place. [86087]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As part of the TAN21 Programme an Invitation to Tender (ITT) was issued through the European Journal (OJEC Ref: S251 (1999/S251-207302)) for the procurement of TAN's core operational systems. The specification attached to the ITT was based on the requirement to develop the core business applications of licensing, enforcement and bus route registration which would be integrated with support and management systems. This requirement was incorporated as Schedules to the final contract and has not changed.

  Train Performance
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport(a) how many and (b) what proportion of trains of each train operating company (i) arrived late by (A) more than five minutes and (B) more than 10 minutes and (ii) were cancelled in each month since September 2001. [86097]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Performance figures for each of the train operating companies are published by the Strategic Rail Authority in their quarterly publication "National Rail Trends", and in more detail in their six monthly publication "On Track". Copies of these publications are placed in the Library of the House. These next publications are on 12 December.

  Vehicle Standards
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes have been made to the rules on the(a) environmental, (b) safety and (c) security standards of cars and light vehicles imported from outside the EU since 1 January 2000; what assessment of the effect of the changes has been made; and what further changes are planned. [86114]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Most of the vehicles that are not the subject of a European or National type approval are subject to The Motor Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2001. Those regulations came into force on 1 February that year and replaced the Motor Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 1996 as amended. The regulations prescribe the technical standards the vehicle must meet before it can be licensed and registered for use on public roads. Compliance is determined by individual inspection of the vehicle. The main change was to replace the earlier single-tier set of technical standards with a two-tier system. The first tier—standard Single Vehicle Approval—set technical standards appropriate for vehicles entering service in very low numbers, such as amateur builds. The second tier—Enhanced Single Vehicle Approval (ESVA)—applied higher standards for vehicles being sold or entering service in competition with the mainstream supply of mass-produced cars and light goods vehicles in Britain. ESVA is much closer to the European or British type-approval standards for key safety, environmental and anti-theft items required of the mainstream manufacturers. It thus ensures a consistent level of consumer protection relative to the numbers of vehicles involved.

  We expect to consult very shortly on proposed amendments that reflect practical experience since the new arrangements were introduced. These will include:
  Changes to the arrangements for Disabled Persons Vehicles and for personal imports by serving members of the Armed Forces.
  Various other generally applicable changes on points of technical detail and procedures, most of which would simplify the inspection.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Airport/Port Security
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on changes
  43W
  in security at Northern Ireland's airports and ports following the Prime Minister's recent warning of terrorist attacks. [82102]

  Jane Kennedy
  Security at airports and ports in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the UK, is kept under continuous review. There have been changes since September 11 to take account of the threat from international terrorism, but it would not be appropriate to comment on the detail.

  Baton Guns
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many hours of additional training are required to enable PSNI personnel to discharge a Baton Gun to be fired in situations other than public disorder; what the minimum distance is at which a baton round may be discharged at a human target; what level of authorisation is required for this use of the baton gun; and what the reporting requirements are. [80634]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Chief Constable has advised me that in situations where it may be necessary to deploy personnel with baton guns other than public disorder, the preferred option of the PSNI is to deploy Tactical Firearms Teams. Officers within such teams who are trained in the use of the baton gun will, in addition to the initial three-day classification course in respect of the weapon, receive an additional 16 hours of training in the tactical use of the baton gun.

  With regard to the minimum distance in relation to baton round discharge I would refer my hon. Friend to the written reply of the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety on 6 November 2002, Official Report, column 312W.

  In situations other than public order situations authorisation to deploy Tactical Firearms Teams to carry baton guns lies with an officer of the rank of Assistant Chief Constable. Authority to deploy the baton gun lies with the senior officer in charge of the non-public order incident. The actual firing of the weapon (if such is felt justified) is self-authorised by the individual officer provided that the officer is satisfied that to do so is both lawful and proportionate in the circumstances.

  The firing of a baton gun whether in non-public order or in public order circumstances is classified as the discharge of a firearm. All discharges of firearms by the PSNI are subject to immediate report to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland for investigation. In addition, when a baton round is discharged a report is sent to the Policing Board for information.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to collect information from hospitals and general practitioners that have treated injuries as a result of impact damage of the L21A1 plastic baton round; and what(a) quantitative and (b) qualitative information has he received. [80633]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government have at present no plans to collect such information from hospitals or general practitioners.
  44W
  I understand that the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland does make inquiries of local hospitals after the discharge of rounds by the PSNI. The purpose of such inquiries is to establish whether anyone has suffered injury which may be attributable to a baton round and also to facilitate any necessary evidence gathering. The research report that the ombudsman published in May 2002 summarised the findings of seven reports: 86 per cent. of the 28 rounds that struck persons were observed to have struck the person's legs. While patient confidentiality is an important factor, the ombudsman is looking at ways that might facilitate inquiries.

  Belfast Agreement
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether paramilitary groups received public funding for the resettlement of prisoners following their release under the terms of the Belfast Agreement. [82839]

  Jane Kennedy
  No public funding has been paid to Paramilitary organisations for the resettlement of prisoners following their release under the terms of the Belfast Agreement.

  Civil Disturbance
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what rules govern the relationship between the police and the Army in situations of civil disturbance. [80632]

  Jane Kennedy
  The military support to the Police Service in Northern Ireland is in accordance with Military Task 2—Military Aid to the Civil Power in Northern Ireland.

  The military provide support to the police. The maintenance of order and response to public disorder will, wherever possible, be undertaken by the police. When necessary, the military can be deployed:

  a) in direct support of police as an integral part of operations;

  b) as a contingency reaction force (to deploy into operations at an agreed point); and

  c) as a reserve force (not necessarily in the operations area, but at notice to move within an agreed time).

  The level and type of military deployment will vary depending on the circumstances of the incident and the wider security environment, but the relationship remains one of provision of support to the police.

  Cod Fishing
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the response of Her Majesty's Government to the report by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea recommending a total ban on cod fishing in the Irish Sea. [85693]

  Mr. Pearson
  Ministers and senior officials from all the regions are working closely to ensure a viable and sustainable fishing industry is maintained. I have given a commitment to work energetically in the interests of the Northern Ireland fishing industry, particularly between now and the vital Fisheries Council meeting in Brussels just before Christmas, to ensure that the Northern
  45W
  Ireland dimension to this complex and difficult problem is not overlooked in developing the United Kingdom position.

  Decommissioning
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received on progress with decommissioning; and if he will make a statement. [82218]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State met the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning on 5 November 2002 and was briefed on progress on decommissioning to date. The Prime Minister categorically stated, on 17 October, that republicans had to make the commitment to exclusively peaceful means, real, total and permanent as should all paramilitary organisations. The IICD will continue to play their part in that process.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many weapons the IRA have reported as destroyed to General de Chastelain's International Independent Commission on Decommissioning. [82819]

  Jane Kennedy
  On 23 October 2001 the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported that they had witnessed an event which they regarded as significant in which the IRA had put a quantity of arms completely beyond use. The material included arms, ammunition and explosives.

  On 8 April 2002 the IICD reported the IRA had put a varied and substantial quantity of ammunition, arms and explosive material beyond use. An inventory

  European money—1997 to 20021

  EAGGF

  FIFG

  ERDF

  ESF

  Misc.

  Total

  1997–98

  22,158,556.82

  4,680,904.12

  61,113,779.16

  68,819,213.59

  67,519.76

  156,839,973.45

  1998–99

  12,584.851.60

  2,151,055.20

  115,803,539.45

  15,120,464.16

  152,996.37

  145,812,906,78

  1999–2000

  38,700,116.77

  3,993,133.59

  34,341,936.49

  61,796,083.14

  30,205.37

  138,861,475.36

  2000–01

  1,368,192.83

  511,266.42

  97,007,617.82

  77,421,881.19

  117,899.30

  176,426,857,56

  2001–02

  5,449,538.01

  1,281,775.97

  94,389,146.35

  43,202,897.92

  47,444.14

  144,370,802.39

  2002–03

  —

  —

  327,709.47

  —

  13,666.06

  341,375.53

  Total

  80,261,256.03

  12,618,135.30

  402,983,728.74

  266,360,540.00

  429,731.00

  762,653,391.07

  1 To date.

  Fire Authority for Northern Ireland
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was discussed at the meeting between the National Employers and the Fire Brigades Union in London attended by the Chairman of the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland and referred to in the authority's minutes of 22 January; and if he will make a statement. [85721]

  Mr. Browne
  The "meeting" referred to in the authority's minutes of 22 January 2002 was in fact an informal dinner arranged to acquaint the National Employers with recently appointed representatives of the Fire Brigades Union. No official record was kept of their discussion.
  46W
  of the arms will be provided to the British and Irish Governments when the Commission's task is completed.

  The arms and material in question have been dealt with in accordance with the decommissioning scheme and regulations.

  Draft Harbours (Northern Ireland) Order
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons his Department seeks the powers(a) to issue directive, (b) to obtain information and (c) to issue a code of practice detailed in the draft Harbours (Northern Ireland) Order 2002; and if he will make a statement. [86175]

  Angela Smith
  The main reasons for providing this legislation are to further improve the public accountability of Northern Ireland trust ports and to enable the Department for Regional Development to better safeguard the public interest in relation to their commercial activities.

  The proposals were advocated by the Regional Development Committee of the former Northern Ireland Assembly following the completion of an inquiry into a development proposal in Belfast Harbour.

  European Funding
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money Northern Ireland has received from(a) Special European Programmes and Initiatives, (b) the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, (c) the European Regional Development Fund, (d) the European Social Fund and (e) all European Union sources, in each financial year since 1997. [84388]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is in the following table.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on which occasions the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland has received a report on the meetings of National Joint Council for Fire Brigade Personnel since 22 January in accordance with the undertaking given to the authority at its meeting on 22 January recorded in minute number 6; and if he will make a statement. [85722]

  Mr. Browne
  The Fire Authority received a report on National Joint Council meetings at each of its monthly meetings from February to date.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the circumstances relating to, and the matters referred to, in
  47W
  (a) the HELM Report on Navigator Blue and (b) the Quality and Audit Manager's Report on the same subject provided to the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland. [85723]

  Mr. Browne
  Shortcomings identified in the Fire Authority's management of its media services contract with Navigator Blue have been addressed. The Authority now has in place open and accountable tendering procedures for these services. Its new procedures have been quality assured by the sponsoring Department's internal auditors, and are in line with the policies of the Government Purchasing Agency.

  The Authority's contract with Navigator Blue was terminated in May this year.

  Fire Dispute
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 2 December, ref 84475, if he will discuss the Fire Brigade dispute with Mrs. Rosemary Craig and Professor James Shields; and if he will make a statement. [85714]

  Mr. Browne
  No. Officials from the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety have been maintaining close contact with the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about the dispute, and they will continue to do so.

  Fishing
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of Northern Ireland's fishing fleet has been decommissioned under European Union regulations since 1990. [85687]

  Mr. Pearson
  In March 1990 there were 450 fishing vessels in the Northern Ireland fleet, compared with 318 vessels in December 2002. Since 1990, 102 Northern Ireland fishing vessels have been decommissioned with assistance from European Structural Funds.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many commercial fishing vessels were registered in Northern Ireland in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [85688]

  Mr. Pearson
  The number of commercial fishing vessels registered in Northern Ireland in January 1997 and December 2002 was 350 and 318 respectively.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed in the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. [85689]

  Mr. Pearson
  The latest available data relate to 2001 and are as follows:

  Full time

  Part time

  Catching

  933

  148

  Processing

  989

  208

  Others

  57

  30

  Total

  1,979

  386

  48W
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the impact on the Northern Ireland fishing industry of the most recent proposals from the European Union to ban cod and prawn catches in the Irish Sea. [85691]

  Mr. Pearson
  No such proposals have come from the European Union. I am making representations to make sure the concerns of the Northern Ireland fishing industry are fully heard and I shall give detailed consideration to the implications for the industry when the Commission advances its detailed proposals.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the representations made to Her Majesty's Government by fishermen in Northern Ireland concerning European Union proposals to ban cod and prawn catches in the Irish Sea. [85692]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have met representatives of the catching sector who have briefed me in considerable detail on the responsible efforts that they have made in recent years to secure sustainable fisheries in the Irish Sea, and on the potential social and economic consequences of further cuts in fishing effort.

  Home Expulsions
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate how many people have been forced from their homes by(a) Loyalist and (b) Republican paramilitary organisations (i) since the signing of the Belfast Agreement and (ii) during the year 2002; and if he will make a statement. [82017]

  Jane Kennedy
  From 1 April 1998 to 31 October 2002, 6,646 persons presented themselves to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive as being homeless due to intimidation. Information for the year 2002 cannot be supplied in the form requested but from 1 April 2002, 983 persons presented themselves to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive as being homeless due to intimidation.

  It is a deplorable situation where people have been forced from their homes and this has strengthened the Government's resolve to work with communities to find a resolution to this problem.

  IFI/Richardsons Plant
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland about(a) the pension scheme, (b) redundancy payments and (c) outstanding holiday pay entitlements for employees of the IFI/Richardsons Plant in Belfast. [84750]

  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. Furthermore I hope to meet Mary Harney TD Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment shortly.
  49W
  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 redundancy payments, applications from 151 employees of Richardsons for statutory entitlement have been received by the Department for Employment and Learning. All claims will be handled and, where payable, payments processed within normal timescales.

  Outstanding holiday pay owed to employees forms part of the debt owed to them by their former employer and is a matter for the liquidator.

  Marie Star Cafe
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the PSNI Aliens Branch checked individually the passports for workers at the Marie Star Cafe. [82444]

  Jane Kennedy
  The PSNI do not individually check passports for the workers at the Movie Star Cafe. This is an immigration matter.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total budget of(a) his Department and (b) its agencies is for official travel in 2002–03. [84935]

  Jane Kennedy
  The total budget for official travel in 2002–03 is:

  Department

  Travel budget (£)

  NIO

  (a) Core Department (excluding Commissions as we do not have a breakdown of their budgets)

  3,526,000

  (b) Agencies (excluding NDPBs)

  1,313,000

  Total

  4,839,000

  The total travel budget for the Northern Ireland Departments in the financial year 2002–03 is (a) £9,501,038 and (b) for its agencies the budget is £8,492,862:

  Department

  Travel budget (£)

  Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister

  628,000

  Department of Education

  507,250

  Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment

  467,916

  Department for Employment and Learning

  1,686,000

  Department for Social Development

  273,000

  Agencies

  2,127,000

  Department for Regional Development

  200,000

  Road Service

  1,300,000

  Water Service

  1,900,000

  Department of Culture Arts and Leisure

  135,000

  OSNI

  147,000

  PRONI

  14,150

  Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

  559,872

  Agencies

  160,615

  50W

  Department

  Travel budget (£)

  Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

  3,820,000

  Agencies

  940,000

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  1,047,000

  Agencies

  607,097

  Department of Environment

  177,000

  Planning Service

  443,000

  EHS

  338,000

  DVLNI

  102,000

  DVTA

  414,000

  Departments

  9,501,038

  Agencies

  8,492,862

  Total

  17,993,900

  Organised Crime
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to receive a report from Professor Goldstock giving recommendations for tackling the problem of organised crime in Northern Ireland. [83108]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State appointed Professor Goldstock in March 2002. He has been specifically asked to provide an international perspective on the problem of organised crime in Northern Ireland, to offer recommendations for tackling the problem and, in particular to formulate proposals for securing cross community support for action, drawing on his international experience.

  Prof. Goldstock has provided the Secretary of State with a report of his preliminary findings on 15 September. He is expected to report to the Secretary of State in June 2003.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what agreement has been made with Professor Goldstock as to the number of days he is(a) required and (b) expected to spend working in his capacity as an adviser to the Secretary of State on organised crime. [83109]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State appointed Professor Goldstock, ex-director of the New York State Organised Crime Task Force, in March 2002 to act as his independent expert and to provide an international perspective on the problem of organised crime in Northern Ireland.

  Professor Goldstock has been specifically asked to provide an international perspective on the problem of organised crime in Northern Ireland, to offer recommendations for tackling the problem and, in particular, to formulate proposals for securing cross community support for action, drawing on his international experience.

  Professor Goldstock's appointment does not carry a stipulation on the amount of time he is expected or required to spend in his capacity as an adviser to the Secretary of State on organised crime. To date, Professor Goldstock has visited Northern Ireland on four occasions and has met with all the main stakeholders within the law enforcement agencies and Government. He has also met with representatives from the loyalist and nationalist communities.
  51W
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings of the Organised Crime Task Force in Northern Ireland have taken place since its formation. [83105]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Organised Crime Task Force in Northern Ireland has met on 12 occasions since its formation in September 2000.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what priorities have been agreed by the law enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland as a result of the establishment of the organised crime task force. [83107]

  Jane Kennedy
  On 23 May 2002, the Secretary of State launched the second annual organised crime task force threat assessment and strategy. The OCTF threat assessment provides an overview of the scale and scope of organised crime in Northern Ireland and highlights trends and developments in the preceding year.

  Based on the issues highlighted in the new threat assessment, the OCTF's strategy for countering the threat sets priority areas for concerted multi-agency action by the OCTF partners. These are extortion, drugs, oils-related fraud, tobacco and alcohol duty evasion. To this list we have also added the trade in counterfeit goods, as this has an on-going potential to affect investment in Northern Ireland; and armed robbery which is on the increase here.

  During the year the OCTF, which I chair, will also keep a watching brief on emerging and new organised crime trends.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Police Officers are engaged full-time as investigators with the Organised Crime Taskforce. [85887]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Organised Crime Task Force (OCTF), is a Government-led multi-agency approach to tackling organised crime. The OCTF is established to provide strategic direction and generate close co-operation between the operational law enforcement agencies and other Government agencies backed up by a strong political will to succeed.

  The OCTF does not initiate operations. Operational response is a matter for the individual law enforcement agencies that take the lead in tackling, the strategic priorities agreed annually by the OCTF. There are no Police Officers engaged full-time as investigators with The OCTF.

  The PSNI have established an Organised Crime Co-ordination Unit headed by a Detective Chief Superintendent to co-ordinate the work of the PSNI in combating organised crime.

  Parade's Commission
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in implementing the recommendation made by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in their second 52W
  report published in March 2001 in which they called for greater transparency in the procedures adopted by the Parades Commission. [80667]

  Jane Kennedy
  The commission is currently attempting to achieve greater transparency in the light of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee (NIAC) recommendation. Where the commission considers a parade in depth, it is prepared to make known, to those expressing interest, the substance of arguments and information presented to it, while continuing to adhere to its statutory rules on confidentiality.

  This aspect of the commission's work has, for some time, been the subject of an application for judicial review. While both the Government and the commission would be keen, circumstances permitting, to see greater transparency (amending the Procedural Rules if necessary), neither would wish to pre-empt a judicial ruling on the subject.

  Following the Weston Park talks, John Reid appointed Sir George Quigley to review the Parades Commission and the legislation under which it was established. Sir George's report, which addressed the issue of transparency, was issued for consultation on 7 November 2002.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set out the total costs incurred by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the Review of the Parade's Commission carried out by Sir George Quigley. [83098]

  Jane Kennedy
  The total costs incurred by the Northern Ireland Office in respect of the Review of the Parade's Commission are:

  £

  2001–02

  38,572.43

  2002–03

  1102,156.53

  1 At end of October 2002

  Police
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what the basis is of the policy not to include members of the full-time police reserve in Northern Ireland in a pension scheme for service prior to 1988; [83121]

  (2) if he will take steps to ensure that service by members of the full-time police reserve in Northern Ireland prior to 1988 is included as years of service for the police pension scheme; [83122]

  (3) if he will grant full rights of access to the police pension scheme to all serving and former full-time police reserve officers in Northern Ireland. [84514]

  Jane Kennedy
  The decision to extend the police pension scheme to the full-time reserve was taken after detailed consideration and extensive consultation.

  The resultant policy led to the introduction of legislation in 1994, and this generously included recompense for prior denial to the police pension scheme, including six years free service credit for 1988–1994 and non-reclamation of SERFS benefits for that period.
  53W
  Treasury advocated backdating credit in full to all members of the full-time reserve both former and present for service rendered prior to the 6 April 1988, as this is the date from which Social Security legislation reduced the threshold for preservation of pensions on leaving employment from five years to two years

  These arrangements were unsuccessfully challenged by way of judicial review and petition to the House of Lords. Significantly, in the judicial review judgement from the Court of Appeal in 1997, the decision to backdate at all was considered very much an act of grace on the part of the Secretary of State. All aspects were given full and detailed consideration at that time, and there are no plans for a further review.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the full-time police reserve in Northern Ireland have been denied access to the police pension scheme because their service took place before 1988. [83123]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the successful candidates chosen after the recent competition for Chief Inspector posts in the Police Service of Northern Ireland have turned down two or more offers of postings. [84139]

  Jane Kennedy
  No successful candidates turned down two or more offers of postings.

  Prison Officers (Protection)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prison officers in Northern Ireland have been warned that their personal details have come into the possession of the Provisional IRA. [83124]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland have assessed that 1,426 staff have been identified as on the 'list'. At the time of writing, the majority of these staff have now received formal notification from the PSNI that their details have been compromised. The majority of those who have not yet received formal notification have been informed verbally. The notification process is ongoing.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are being introduced to protect those prison officers in Northern Ireland whose personal details have fallen into the hands of the Provisional IRA. [83125]

  Jane Kennedy
  I am satisfied that the schemes currently available to Prison Officers represent a proportionate and reasonable response to the situation. The schemes include the following:

  I. Key Persons Protection Scheme (KPPS)

  II. Assisted Home Removals Grant (AHR)

  III. Prison Service Protection Scheme (PSPS)

  IV. Special Purchase of Evacuated Dwellings (SPED)

  Prison Service
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the Northern Ireland 54W
  Prison Service staff that have applied to the SPED scheme, have (a) received their SPED certificates and (b) been granted a place on the SPED scheme. [84480]

  Jane Kennedy
  102 Northern Ireland prison staff have applied through the NIHE to be admitted to the scheme to purchase evacuated dwelling (SPED). To date 69 have been accepted on to the scheme.

  Real IRA (Ceasefire)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland about the Real IRA's ceasefire. [83097]

  Jane Kennedy
  Ministers and officials meet regularly with their counterparts in the Irish Government to discuss issues of mutual concern. While the Real IRA announced a complete cessation of all military activity from midnight, 7 September 1998, the Government continue to judge that organisation by its deeds, not its words.

  Shooting Incidents
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by month since April the shooting incidents attributed to the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland. [81103]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is not possible to provide the statistics in the format requested. The table provides details of the number of shooting incidents attributed to republican, loyalist and other groups.

  Number of shooting incidents by month-1 April to 15 November 20021

  Month

  By loyalists

  By republicans

  Other/Not know

  April

  12

  5

  3

  May

  10

  8

  1

  June

  23

  18

  3

  July

  26

  9

  1

  August

  24

  12

  1

  September

  19

  7

  —

  October

  22

  1

  3

  November2

  10

  1

  1

  Total

  146

  61

  13

  1 2002 statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor amendment.

  2 To 15 November

  Transsexual Rights
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action his Department is taking to implement previously continuing policy initiatives of the Northern Ireland Executive in response to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Goodwin with regard to transsexual rights; and what time scales have been set for implementation. [85882]

  Mr. Pearson
  The European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Goodwin v. UK, has found the UK in breach of Articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention. My officials are currently considering the implications of the judgment in the Northern Ireland context.

  Trust Ports
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make available in the Vote Office the consultation document published on 12 October 2001 on the proposals to improve the public accountability of the Northern Ireland Trust Ports; if he will publish responses received prior to the House considering the draft Harbours (Northern Ireland) Order 2002; and if he will make a statement. [86176]

  Angela Smith
  The consultation document and a summary of responses were made available to the Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 4 December 2002 to assist its deliberations on the draft Harbours (Northern Ireland) Order 2002. Copies were also made available in the Library and the Vote Office from the 4 December. The consultation document is also available on the Department's website.

  Welfare Organisations (Grants)
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been paid in grants to welfare organisations representing(a) republican paramilitary groups and (b) loyalist paramilitary groups since the signing of the Belfast Agreement in 1998. [82783]

  Jane Kennedy
  A total of £5.864 million has been paid to ex-prisoner groups by the various Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office. This includes Peace and Gap funding.

  In addition the Northern Ireland Prison Service has made payments of £44.5k to organisation or individuals assisting with the resettlement of prisoners under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.

  It is not possible to say which of these groups represent republican or loyalist organisations.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average length of time taken by the Northern Ireland Office to answer written parliamentary questions has been since the General Election; and if he will make a statement. [86287]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is not held in the format required and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, my Department's Parliamentary Section are currently introducing a computerised Parliamentary Question tracking system which will in due course allow for the provision of such statistics.

  The Northern Ireland Office as with all other Government departments endeavour to answer all Parliamentary Questions promptly and accurately.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the average time from 2001 for answering written questions to the Northern Ireland Office; and if he will make a statement. [86486]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is not held in the format required and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, my Department's Parliamentary Section is currently introducing a56W
  computed Parliamentary Question Tracking system which will in due course allow for the provision of such statistics.

  The Northern Ireland Office as with all other Government departments endeavours to answer all Parliamentary Questions promptly and accurately.

SOLICITOR GENERAL

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Solicitor General what the total budget of(a) the Attorney General's Department and (b) its agencies is for official travel in 2002–03. [84937]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 3 December 2002.]: The official travel budget for the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers in 2002–03 is £100,000. For Treasury Solicitor's Department for the same period it is £20,000 and for HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate £121,000.

  The budget of the CPS for official travel in the year 2002–03 is £4,271,000 and that for the Serious Fraud Office £626,000.

  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, columns 1374 75W.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  AIDS
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the Government are doing to help those suffering from AIDS and HIV in the developing world. [85389]

  Clare Short
  My Department continues to make a significant contribution to combating the HIV/AIDS epidemic. In our bilateral programmes alone, expenditure on HIV/AIDS related work has increased from £38 million in 1997–98 to over £200 million in 2001–02. Major new investments include support for programmes in Nigeria, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mozambique, Russia, and Ghana, China and India totalling over £350 million. We have also pledged US$200 million to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, and £30 million to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative and the Medical Research Council's Microbicides Development Programme. Considerable additional resources have also been committed to United Nations agencies and civil society organisations to help combat HIV/AIDS and to help people living with the disease across the developing world. We will continue to support health system strengthening and comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention, care, control and mitigation programmes. We are also supporting access to medicines, including
  57W
  for HIV/AIDS. The approach of the recently launched High Level Working Group on Access to Medicines Report is to facilitate widespread voluntary differential pricing of essential medicines for the poorer developing countries as the operational norm.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department has contributed to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative in each year since its inception. [85632]

  Clare Short
  The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) is harnessing public and private resources to accelerate the development of safe, effective and accessible preventive AIDS vaccines that will be affordable to poor countries. The UK was the first Government to support IAVI, initially with £200,000, followed by a grant of £14 million over five years, which the Prime Minister announced at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in November 1999.

  The annual breakdown of expenditure is as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  625,000

  2000–01

  875,000

  2001–02

  1,500,000

  2002–03

  2,250,000

  CDC Offices
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the funds proposed to target(a) power and (b) SMEs under the reorganisation of CDC Capital Partners. [85513]

  Clare Short
  CDC has established a power company to raise capital for investment in poorer developing countries. Aureos, which is a joint venture with Norfund, has launched a Central America Fund and is raising capital for three regional African Funds for SMEs.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations her Department has received concerning the re-organisation of CDC Capital Partners; and from whom these representations were received. [85516]

  Clare Short
  No such representations have been received.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many CDC Capital Partners offices have opened in(a) South Asia, (b) South East Asia, (c) Africa, and (d) Latin America since 1997. [85517]

  Clare Short
  CDC has opened two offices in South East Asia, two offices in Africa, and three in Latin America since 1997.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations her Department has received concerning the impact on development of closing CDC offices in Africa; and from whom these representations were received. [85610]
  58W
  Clare Short
  No such representations have been received.

  Chocolate Producers
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to encourage(a) chocolate producers and (b) supermarket chains in the United Kingdom to (i) transfer to fair trade products and (ii) source chocolate from Ghana. [85398]

  Clare Short
  DFID is supporting Kuapa Kokoo, a cocoa producers association, and the Day Chocolate Company. In 1999 DFID provided a loan guarantee agreement of £400,000 to Natwest Bank in respect of a loan made to Day Chocolate Company. The Day Chocolate Company has succeeded in encouraging a large number of supermarket chains in the UK (eg Coop, Sainsbury's, Waitrose and Tesco) to stock its products. Furthermore it has succeeded in securing contracts with supermarket chains, such as the Co-op and Sainsbury's, to produce their own brand Fairtrade chocolate products—the cocoa for which is sourced from Ghana.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what reports she has received on the origin of the virulent flu outbreak in the Equateur Province of the Democratic Republic of Congo; how many people are estimated to be infected with it in the DRC; and what response she has made to the outbreak in the north western region of the DRC; [84982]

  (2) what the suspected cause is of the outbreak of acute respiratory disease in Bosobolo in the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if she will make a statement. [85879]

  Clare Short
  The Communicable Disease Surveillance and Response unit of the World Health Organisation has confirmed the reports of this outbreak at Bosobolo in Equatuer Province of Democratic Republic of Congo. We do not have any information on the origin of the epidemic. What is reported is that as of 22 November, there have been over 4,000 cases of acute respiratory illness, including approximately 500 deaths, since October. The clinical features of the illness include rhinorrhea, headache, arthralgia and respiratory insufficiency. Laboratory confirmation of the cause of this outbreak is pending.

  This is a difficult area to get to and communications are poor. Currently, Medecins sans Frontieres (MSF-France), Epicentre and WHO are supporting the Ministry of Health in investigating this outbreak and providing medical services.

  We have not provided any direct support to address this problem. However a large element of our humanitarian support to DRC is focused on health. We remain ready to respond if necessary.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she is providing to help halt the spread of cholera in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [84988]
  59W
  Clare Short
  On 20 October 2002, the Ministry of Health, Democratic Republic of the Congo reported 394 cases of cholera including 41 deaths in Kasai Oriental. Cholera is reported in Congo most years. This year DRC reports the third highest number of cases, and the highest death rate from the disease. The surveillance committee (Ministry of Health, WHO, UNICEF and Health Net International) which was established to control the outbreak has set up five cholera centres and is reinforcing surveillance and community health activities.

  Unfortunately it is not only cholera that is a problem in DRC. Almost all indicators demonstrate evidence of an appalling health situation. DFID does not directly support any cholera interventions. However a significant part of our humanitarian programme is aimed at improving general health. Specific projects deliver improved water and sanitation to poor urban communities. Other support provided through the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross is not earmarked and can also be used for such work.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the outbreak of haemorrhagic fever in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [84991]

  Clare Short
  On 26 November the Minister of Health of the Government of Democratic Republic of Congo reported that eight people had died from a haemorrhagic disease at three widely spread locations in Oriental Province, in the north east of the country. The outbreak has not yet been reported by the Communicable Disease Surveillance and Response Unit of the World Health Organisation.

  This area is blighted by continuing fighting between groups that have not signed the peace agreement that continues to hold between the main warring parties. Access to carry out the proper investigations is therefore very difficult. The Minister of Health has called on the belligerents to allow safe access for medical teams.

  Economic Changes
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what changes there have been in(a) productivity, (b) income, (c) employment and (d) economic growth in (i) South Asia, (ii) South East Asia, (iii) Africa and (iv) Latin America since the 2000 White Paper 'Making Globalisation Work for the Poor. [85514]

  Clare Short
  The 2000 White Paper on Globalisation gave data up to 1998. Since then information for income for 1999 and for economic growth for 2000 has become available. This is presented in the following tables for the standard regions published by the World Bank.

  Percentage of the population with incomes of less than $1/day

  1990

  19981

  1999

  East Asia and Pacific

  28

  15

  14

  Latin America and the Caribbean

  17

  12

  15

  South Asia

  44

  40

  37

  Sub-Saharan Africa

  48

  48

  47

  1 Revised

  60W

  Gross domestic product per person (annual percent growth)

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  East Asia and Pacific

  6

  6

  Latin America and the Caribbean

  -1

  2

  South Asia

  4

  2

  Sub-Saharan Africa

  0

  1

  Statistics on productivity and employment are collated by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The information available is patchy and refers primarily to productivity and employment in the formal sector. Coverage of the informal sector is partial and as a result the ILO data will not necessarily present a complete picture for many developing countries. DFID does not currently have access to this data.

  Education Fast Track
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answers of 18 November 2002,Official Report, columns 15–16W, on the education Fast Track Initiative, when she expects (a) India, (b) Pakistan, (c) Bangladesh, (d) DRC and (e) Nigeria to join the Fast Track Initiative. [86124]

  Clare Short
  The UK has prepared technical notes detailing the analytical work which will need to be done in each of these countries to prepare them for support from the so called Fast Track Initiative. We have proposed to the World bank that these should be discussed at a meeting of FTI partners dedicated to these five countries, with the aim of gaining agreement on the way ahead and support for the process from other agencies.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to her answers of 18 November 2002,Official Report, columns 15–16W, on the education fast track initiative, what money has been allocated for (a) Burkina Faso, (b) Guinea, (c) Mauritania and (d) Niger following the decision of the World Bank to support the fast track education initiative within these countries. [86125]

  Clare Short
  The international community has agreed that FTI proposals should be reviewed rigorously by local donor groups, to ensure that they are coherent with each country's existing plans (including Poverty Reduction Strategies and Medium Term Economic Frameworks or their equivalent) and to confirm that countries have the capacity to absorb any additional finance. Specific sums will be allocated by development agencies only when this process is complete.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answers of 18 November 2002,Official Report, column 15–16W, on the education Fast Track Initiative, what finance will be provided for teacher salaries in countries included in the Fast Track Initiative; what emphasis will be placed on HIV/AIDS education; how many new school buildings will be built, in each country; and whether she estimates that adequate supplies of teachers exist. [86126]

  Clare Short
  The Fast Track Initiative is intended to be tailored to the needs of individual countries. These issues will therefore be addressed to varying degrees in the proposals which countries are now putting forward. Local donor groups will review the proposals, including
  61W
  an assessment of capacity issues. Until all the proposals have been endorsed, it is impossible to say how much finance will be dedicated to teacher salaries, how many school buildings will be constructed, or what the total teacher requirement will be.

  Eritrea
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to her answer of 26 November 2002,Official Report, columns 201–02W, on Eritrea, what meetings have been fixed with the Government of Eritrea to discuss bilateral support for its poverty reduction strategy. [86127]

  Clare Short
  No meetings have yet been arranged with the Eritrean Government. DFID officials are planning a visit to Eritrea early in the new year.

  Ethiopia
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact which Ethiopia's debt service payments are having on the ability of the Ethiopian Government to combat poverty. [85876]

  Clare Short
  Ethiopia qualified for interim debt relief under the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC) at Decision Point (DP) in November 2001. Irrevocable relief will be provided at HIPC Completion Point, which is expected within the next two years. Savings resulting from HIPC assistance will amount to around US$ 96 million per year on average until 2021. These resources will be freed up for the Ethiopian Government to use for poverty reduction. Poverty-targeted public expenditure increased by over 1 per cent. of GDP in the current year as a result of HIPC relief.

  Ethiopia owes the £UK 15.4 million. Provided Ethiopia remains on track with its programme of economic reform, we would not expect Ethiopia to make any further payments on its debt to the UK after DP.

  Malawi
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on how the focus on health and sustainable livelihoods in the bilateral donor programme in Malawi relates to her integrated approach to water supply, sanitation and hygiene designed to improve health and combat poverty. [84615]

  Clare Short
  Our substantial health and sustainable livelihoods programmes in Malawi do not directly focus on water supply, sanitation and hygiene as other bilateral and multilateral donor partners are leading in these areas.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what evidence has been collated by her Department regarding manipulation of food distribution by the Malawian Government for political gain. [84985]

  Clare Short
  Distribution of humanitarian food supplies provided to Malawi under the emergency operation led by the World Food Programme, is being 62W
  handled efficiently by an NGO consortium. We are working with other donors and NGOs to monitor the distribution processes and sales of subsidised commercial maize imported by the Government. To date we have no evidence of political interference.

  Manufactured Goods (Tariffs)
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on US proposals globally to abolish tariffs on manufactured goods; and what the level of US tariffs is for EU goods. [85057]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  We welcome the US proposal to reduce nonagricultural tariffs as an imaginative contribution to the Doha development round and will press for a positive EU response. It will be important to ensure that the Doha round contributes significantly to the position of developing countries in the world trading system. Current US tariff rates are available from the US International Trade Commission website at www.usitc.gov/taffairs.htm

  Pakistan
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent initiatives she has taken to help fund and encourage the education of girls in Pakistan. [84664]

  Clare Short
  DFID is working closely with the Government of Pakistan and other donors to improve school quality and increase opportunities for girls to go to school. At the national level, DFID is supporting improvements to information systems so as to better monitor and evaluate girls' education. In the North West Frontier Province and Azad Jammu and Kashmir, DFID is supporting the development of community schools, which have been shown to be more effective in attracting girls to school. With DFID support, girls' enrolment in the Northern Areas has increased by 73 per cent. since 1997–98. Despite some progress overall, the challenges facing Pakistan remain great.

  River Congo (Flooding)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the potential danger arising from flooding of the River Congo during the coming rainy season. [84989]

  Clare Short
  December is the month when the level of the river is usually at its highest level. On 27 November the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo warned that the level of the Congo river this year is rising at a rate, and to an extent, that suggests flooding is possible. In 1999, the last time the Congo river flooded at Kinshasa, as many as 80,000 people were displaced.

  Rwandan Refugees
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made in the repatriation of Rwandan refugees in Tanzania. [84990]
  63W
  Clare Short
  There is progress with repatriation of Rwandan refugees in Tanzania who volunteer. UNHCR provides assistance to those who register. It is estimated that over 4,500 returned to Rwanda in 2001 and there will be similar number this year. This has exceeded the number of arrivals.

  Tanzania
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she is giving to ensure adequate training of police officers in human rights issues in Tanzania; and if she will make a statement. [84987]

  Clare Short
  DFID provides budgetary support to the Government of Tanzania's Poverty Reduction Strategy which this year increased budgetary resources to the police, prisons and the judiciary. UNDP is the lead agency in the field of Human Rights and is working directly with the Government of Tanzania to improve standards across a range of institutions, including the police service.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  VAT
  Huw lrranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many VAT registrations per 10,000 resident population there were in each local authority in England and Wales in(a) 2002, (b) 1997, (c) 1992 and (d)1987. [85801]

  Nigel Griffiths
  VAT registrations before 1994 were on a different set of administrative boundaries. The latest VAT registration data available is for 2001. I have placed details of the VAT Registration rate per 10,000 Resident adults (16 +) in the Libraries of the House.

  Analogue Switch-off (Rural Areas)
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of analogue switch-off on remote rural areas. [83776]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting on 4 December 2002,Official Report, columns 535–36.

  Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum Pipelines
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the UK companies involved in the consortium applying for an Export Credit Guarantee for the(a) Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the (b) Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline. [83728]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The sponsors of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Company are seeking ECGD support for the supply of UK goods and services and for UK investments related to the project. BP plc is the only UK company in the sponsor group.
  64W
  (b) ECGD has not received an application from any UK company for an Export Credit Guarantee for the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum gas pipeline.

  Broadband
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evaluation she has made of the initiative between British Telecom and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to extend broadband coverage; and how she intends promoting similar initiatives to other remote and rural areas within the UK. [84966]

  Mr. Timms
  Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) are involved in the Exchange Activate trial being run by BT across the UK, including at two exchanges near Inverness. This is due to run until next spring, so no evaluation has been carried out as yet. If the initiative is successful, HIE will be keen to see this approach applied more widely in the area.

  A wider range of initiatives is also underway in the Highlands and Islands to increase broadband access. These include a pilot of aggregated public sector procurement and projects under the UK Broadband Fund, such as a major wireless trial in the Western Isles, a powerline carrier trial in Campbeltown, and a demand stimulation scheme based on road shows and demonstration centres.

  The UK Broadband Task Force, established in November, will find and disseminate exemplars of best practice around the country, including to rural and remote areas and by so doing stimulate the further roll out of broadband.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 26 November 2002,Official Report, column 228W, on priority areas how many (a) hospitals, (b) GP surgeries, (c) schools, (d) police stations, (e) local authority agencies and (f) other public sector places will SEEDA be upgrading to broadband in the Sittingbourne and Sheppey constituency; and how much of the SEEDA Broadband fund (i) has been and (ii) will be spent in Sittingbourne and Sheppey. [85002]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: SEEDA does not maintain data at this level. SEEDA's broadband fund has been allocated to projects that provide benefits to the region and there is no detailed breakdown of the amount of funding that has been spent specifically in Sittingbourne and Sheppey.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance her Department has made available to UK businesses to enable them to access broadband via satellite technology. [85107]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department of Trade and Industry has made available £30 million to the RDAs and Devolved Administrations for pilot projects to extend broadband access. Several of the recipients have used this fund to enable small businesses to access broadband via satellite technology. For example, the South West
  65W
  Development Agency, East Midlands, Development Agency, East of England Development Agency and Advantage West Midlands are collaborating in the Remote Area Broadband Inclusion Trials (RABIT) programme to trial alternative broadband Internet access to small businesses in rural areas using wireless and satellite. The scheme has been operating since September 2002. Some £700 is made available to each company. By the beginning of December, 264 applications had been approved, of which 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. involve satellite trials. About 1,800 to 2,000 companies are expected to participate in the programme to December 2003.

  Chemicals Innovation and Growth Team Reports
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Chemicals Innovation and Growth Team will produce its reports. [85490]

  Alan Johnson
  The Report will be available on 11 December, and I will place copies in the Libraries of the House.

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with interested parties about the contribution of CHP to Britain's future energy needs. [86188]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have had several meetings with interested parties from the CHP industry over the last year, where a range of issues affecting CHP were discussed.

  Commonwealth Countries (Trade)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the volume of trade between the UK and each Commonwealth country was in the last year for which figures are available; and what estimate she has made of UK investment in Commonwealth countries. [85716]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Statistics on UK trade in goods are published by HM Customs and Excise while those on UK investment overseas are compiled by the Office for National Statistics. The latest available information is as follows:

  £ million

  Country

  UK exports:Goods 2001

  UK imports:Goods 2001

  UK outward FDI stock End 2000

  Anguilla

  1.2

  0.1

  n/a

  Antigua Barbuda

  17.3

  3.4

  1—

  Australia

  2,321.9

  1,837.9

  10,004

  Australian Oceania

  0.4

  0.7

  0

  66W

  £ million

  Country

  UK exports:Goods 2001

  UK imports:Goods 2001

  UK outward FDI stock End 2000

  Of which:

  Christmas Islands

  0.0

  0.6

  2—

  Cocos Islands

  0.3

  0.1

  2—

  Heard and McDonald

  0.0

  0.0

  2—

  Norfolk Island

  0.0

  0.0

  2—

  Bahamas

  15.2

  7.1

  223

  Bangladesh

  68.0

  455.2

  158

  Barbados

  55.7

  40.2

  112

  Belize

  13.8

  34.9

  1—

  Bermuda

  34.0

  45.3

  6,071

  Botswana

  24.2

  1,076.9

  88

  British Indian Ocean Territories

  0.5

  0.0

  1—

  British Virgin Islands

  7.3

  6.8

  64

  Brunei

  59.6

  34.1

  1—

  Canada

  3,250.3

  3,786.3

  8,430

  Cayman Islands

  9.7

  3.1

  443

  Cook Islands

  0.1

  0.0

  n/a

  Cyprus

  291.5

  250.1

  40

  Dominica

  10.1

  12.0

  0

  Falkland Islands

  19.8

  6.9

  1—

  Gambia

  18.5

  7.7

  1—

  Ghana

  144.4

  134.0

  102

  Gibraltar

  127.6

  14.3

  237

  Grenada

  7.0

  0.8

  1—

  Guyana

  22.7

  60.6

  34

  India

  1,780.7

  1,884.1

  1,246

  Jamaica

  70.7

  117.9

  598

  Kenya

  172.5

  211.8

  430

  Kiribati

  0.1

  0.1

  0

  Lesotho

  1.9

  1.9

  1—

  Malawi

  8.2

  15.0

  25

  Malaysia

  1,033.3

  2,012.2

  1,741

  Maldives

  5.0

  6.4

  1—

  Malta

  217.4

  148.0

  81

  Mauritius

  52.3

  337.8

  234

  Montserrat

  1.1

  0.0

  n/a

  Namibia

  12.7

  316.5

  1—

  Nauru

  0.8

  0.0

  0

  New Zealand

  311.5

  560.5

  1.919

  Niue and Tokelau

  10.3

  2.2

  1—

  Of which:

  Niue Island

  0.3

  0.0

  2—

  Tokelau Islands

  10.0

  2.2

  2—

  Nigeria

  683.6

  68.2

  804

  Pakistan

  229.6

  437.9

  513

  Papua New Guinea

  4.3

  41.4

  1—

  Pitcairn

  0.9

  0.0

  0

  Samoa

  4.8

  0.0

  0

  Seychelles

  13.4

  47.9

  1—

  Sierra Leone

  61.9

  3.0

  1—

  Singapore

  1,603.5

  2,146.4

  6,300

  Solomon Islands

  0.3

  0.5

  1—

  South Africa

  1,547.4

  2,953.3

  3,051

  Sri Lanka

  142.4

  400.8

  108

  St. Helena

  9.7

  0.4

  1—

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  7.5

  7.1

  1

  St. Lucia

  17.0

  16.5

  1—

  St. Vincent

  9.2

  13.7

  1—

  Swaziland

  4.3

  33.6

  1—

  Tanzania

  66.0

  35.2

  39

  Tonga

  1.3

  0.3

  1—

  Trinidad and Tobago

  91.6

  53.9

  -102

  Turks and Caicos

  0.8

  0.2

  1—

  Tuvalu

  0.1

  0.2

  0

  Uganda

  34.8

  8.5

  35

  Vanuatu

  0.5

  0.1

  1—

  Zambia

  23.9

  11.7

  45

  Zimbabwe

  36.2

  91.4

  130

  The Commonwealth

  14,794.0

  19,805.2

  n/a

  1 Disclosive

  2 Not separately available

  Note:

  n/a = Not available

  Sources:

  HM Customs and Excise

  Office for National Statistics
  67W
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to encourage trade between Commonwealth countries. [85811]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have acted on specific commitments in the Edinburgh Commonwealth Economic Declaration of 1997 by vigorously supporting: the EU's stance on multilateral liberalisation, notably through the launch of the WTO Round at Doha; the full opening of the EU's market to the least developed countries, 14 of whom are in the Commonwealth; the launch and work programme of the Commonwealth Business Council, whose task is to promote Commonwealth trade and investment. DTI Ministers have also encouraged effective Commonwealth networking on trade through informal discussions with their counterparts and in an ongoing series of seminars with High Commissions in London. Trade Partners UK is responsible for helping UK companies export and invest overseas, including to our Commonwealth partners.

  Construction Industry
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she has taken to encourage a healthy and efficient construction and building industry in the last 12 months. [85825]

  Mr. Wilson
  I attach considerable importance to the health and efficiency of the UK construction industry. Construction represents 8 per cent. of GDP and employs almost two million people. Construction is central to the delivery and maintenance of the national infrastructure and therefore to all our public service, including health care, transportation, housing and education. The Government's Rethinking Construction initiative aims to work with the industry improve its productivity and competitiveness by addressing issues such as the efficiency of processes and the quality of the end product.

  Departmental Grants
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the grants funded by her Department for which individual members of the public and organisations may apply; and if she will make a statement as to(a) the total of such funding in the last financial year, (b) the total number of awards and (c) their administrative costs. [82191]

  Ms Hewitt
  (a) Information on the Department's grant-making schemes together with funding for 2001–02 is available in Annex BI and in the text of my 2002 Expenditure Plans Report (Cm 5416), a copy of which is in the Libraries of the House.

  (b) Information on numbers of awards is not held centrally by the Department and to provide it would entail disproportionate cost.

  (c) It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of related administrative costs as a large number of different units within the Department are involved with a wide range of staff making a contribution.

  India First
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial support her Department gives to the organisation India First. [84923]

  Nigel Griffiths
  None.

  Manufacturing Summit
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to hold a manufacturing summit(a) in the UK and (b) elsewhere. [83923]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: We have no current plans to hold a manufacturing summit in the UK or elsewhere.

  We meet industrial partners frequently to share views on the key manufacturing issues, and to focus on the practical steps of taking forward the Government's Manufacturing Strategy. For example, my colleague the Minister for Small Business met Chairs of the Regional Development Agencies, together with Digby Jones of the CBI, Brendan Barber of the TUC, and Martin Temple of the EEF on 3 December to discuss the publication of the Regional Development Agencies' reports on manufacturing which set out specific achievements to date and key strategic initiatives for the delivery of the Manufacturing Strategy at the regional level.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices in Lancashire are open for less than full-time hours; and what the corresponding figure was for 1997. [85340]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters that fall within the day to day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Post Offices (Wycombe)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices in the Wycombe constituency are open for less than full-time hours; and how many there were in 1997. [85661]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters that fall within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Process Centre for Manufacturing Excellence
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding the Government has provided to the Process Industries Centre for Manufacturing Excellence; which organisations have(a) been involved with the Centre and (b) benefited from the Centre; and if she will make a statement on the effectiveness and financial benefits of the Centre. [85491]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government are providing funding support of £1.525 million over the period 2000–01 to 2003–04 to the Process Industries Centre for Manufacturing Excellence (PICME) to help UK
  69W
  chemical and other process-based companies improve their productivity and manufacturing performance. Since becoming operational in March 2001, PICME has delivered 60 benchmarking analyses and 25 Masterclass workshops to companies in these sectors. To date, this activity has resulted in substantial direct savings being achieved by each of these companies, collectively totalling over £14 million per year.

  Quoted Companies Alliance Report
  Mr. Ruffiey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she proposes to take in response to the report of the Quoted Companies Alliance, The Threat to Enterprise Britain. [85201]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department is committed to helping UK companies, including the important Smaller Quoted Companies sector, improve their productivity and increase value added. We have strong

  £ million

  Wind

  Solar

  Wave and tidal

  Geo

  Hydro

  Other

  Total

  1975–76

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  1976–77

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.30

  0.30

  1977–78

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  1.00

  1.00

  1978–79

  0.30

  0.20

  1.80

  0.20

  0.00

  0.00

  2.50

  1979–80

  0.60

  1.20

  3.60

  1.30

  0.00

  0.10

  6.80

  1980–81

  0.80

  0.90

  4.70

  2.30

  0.00

  0.22

  8.92

  1981–82

  0.90

  0.71

  4.80

  8.20

  0.00

  0.43

  15.04

  1982–83

  2.50

  1.40

  3.13

  4.50

  0.00

  0.53

  12.06

  1983–84

  2.50

  0.90

  1.00

  4.70

  0.00

  0.27

  9.37

  1984–85

  4.80

  0.50

  0.70

  5.70

  0.00

  0.20

  11.90

  1985–86

  5.40

  0.70

  0.50

  3.80

  0.00

  0.29

  10.69

  1986–87

  3.70

  0.90

  0.20

  3.60

  0.10

  0.91

  9.41

  1987–88

  4.00

  1.10

  1.60

  3.60

  0.18

  2.00

  12.48

  1988–89

  3.90

  1.40

  1.30

  3.60

  0.10

  2.20

  12.50

  1989–90

  4.80

  1.90

  1.20

  3.50

  0.10

  2.66

  14.16

  1990–91

  4.50

  2.10

  2.30

  2.60

  0.03

  3.70

  15.23

  1991–92

  6.67

  2.35

  2.40

  1.62

  0.12

  4.79

  17.95

  Notes:

  1. Definition of each technology stream has varied over time.

  2. Spend prior to 1978–79 was not recorded by programme area.

  Renewable energy programme external expenditure (ie excluding ETSU/FES services) from 1972

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Wind

  8.69

  7.31

  2.73

  3.37

  2.37

  1.24

  0.95

  1.20

  1.10

  2.20

  Solar

  2.30

  2.38

  2.07

  1.88

  1.87

  1.66

  0.98

  1.73

  1.40

  2.70

  Wave and tidal

  2.06

  0.78

  0.33

  0.20

  0.05

  0.00

  0.09

  0.01

  0.40

  0.30

  Geo

  1.22

  1.13

  0.24

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Hydro

  0.07

  0.17

  0.15

  0.08

  0.14

  0.06

  0.08

  0.30

  0.00

  0.00

  Other

  4.37

  6.11

  6.54

  6.72

  4.90

  3.85

  3.75

  4.62

  6.80

  8.40

  Total

  18.71

  17.88

  12.06

  12.25

  9.33

  6.81

  5.85

  7.86

  9.7

  13.6

  Notes:

  1. Definition of each technology stream has varied over time.

  2. Spend prior to 1978–79 was not recorded by programme area.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the funding made available to support renewable technologies in March 2001 has been allocated to(a) existing and (b) new onshore wind programmes. [85110]

  Mr. Wilson
  For several years funding of research and development into wind technology has concentrated on
  70W
  links with the Quoted Companies Alliance who have played a key role in identifying the challenges facing Smaller Quoted Companies. I welcome this report and I look forward to working with them in the future to ensure that companies within this important sector reach their full growth potential.

  Renewable Energy
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much financial support has been given to(a) wind power, (b) solar power, (c) wave power, (d) geothermal power, (e) hydro power and (f) other renewable energy sources in each year since 1972. [80864]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 20 November 2002]: The available information is shown in the table from 1978 onwards. Regrettably, information for 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975 is not available and the figures for 1976 and 1977 were not broken down into these subject areas.

  off shore wind developments as onshore wind is considered to be close to becoming commercially competitive.

  There have been five projects commissioned since March 2001, with a total value of £356,898, that could be considered as onshore related. These have looked primarily at the impact of onshore wind farms on Radar and Aviation interests.
  71W
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the most recent development plans of local authorities in England and Wales make specific mention of renewable energy plans; and how many of these include technology-specific policies. [85320]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: That information is not held centrally.

  Planning is a devolved matter. In England, local planning authorities are required, in formulating the policies in their development plans, to have regard to any regional and strategic planning guidance and to current national policies. Development Plans should therefore take account of Planning Policy Guidance Note 22, Renewable Energy, and formulate policies on renewable energy which are relevant to the local planning authority's area.

  In Wales, local planning authorities submit Unitary Development Plans for scrutiny by the Assembly to ensure regard is paid to national planning policy outlined in Planning Policy Wales and Technical Advice Note 8, Renewable Energy.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets she has to increase the use of renewable energy supplies; and how she intends to achieve the targets. [86301]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government have set a target that 10 per cent. of electricity will be generated from eligible renewable sources by 2010.

  The Renewables Obligation Order, which came into force on 1 April 2002, is the primary instrument for the expansion of renewable energy in the UK. Licensed electricity suppliers are required to obtain specified proportions of their electricity from eligible renewable sources. The level of the Obligation will rise each year to reach 10.4 per cent. by 2010–11.

  The Renewables Obligation is being backed by over £250 million of direct support measures to bring forward newer renewable energy technologies. This provides a substantial incentive to renewable energy generation in the UK.

  Qualifying renewable energy sources are also exempt from the Climate Change Levy to further assist the expansion of renewable energy.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had regarding the appointment of the new Chief Executive of Royal Mail. [85407]

  Mr. Timms
  Although the recruitment of a new Chief Executive for Royal Mail is primarily a matter for the company the appointment will be made in accordance with public appointment procedures and requires the Secretary of State's consent. The Secretary of State has been kept informed of the recruitment process and in due course will be invited to consider a recommendation for appointment.

  Rural Post Office Network
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are being taken to improve security arrangements at rural post offices; and if she will make a statement. [85021]

  Mr. Timms
  Security arrangements at all post offices are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Small Firm Loan Scheme
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of firms in(a) Roxburgh and Berwickshire, and (b) the Scottish Borders that are eligible for the small firm loan scheme (i) now and (ii) following widening of the scheme's eligibility. [85703]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Eligibility for the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme is based on the business having a viable business proposal but lacking the collateral to obtain conventional finance. It is not possible, therefore, to estimate the number of businesses eligible now and following the recently announced changes on the basis requested.

  Detailed information is available at county level. During Financial Year 2001–02 the scheme guaranteed 16 loans for businesses in the Scottish Borders at a value of £710,000. It is estimated that overall the changes will result in a 25 per cent. increase in the number of applications received.

  Solar PV Projects
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many bids for funding solar PV projects were received in the first two rounds of stream 2 of her Department's solar PV Major Demonstration Programme; how many were successful; what was the total value of(a) bids received and (b) projects approved; and what the total size, measured by kWp, was of bids received. [86174]

  Mr. Wilson
  In the first two rounds of stream 2 of my Department's solar PV Major Demonstration Programme, 59 bids were received. Of these 27 were successful.

  The total value of grants requested was just under £9 million and the total value of projects approved was just over £3.5 million.

  The total size of bids received, for both rounds was just over 2100kWp.

  Thompsons Solicitors
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been paid to Thompsons Solicitors with regard to the processing of respiratory disease claims. [85668]

  Mr. Wilson
  As of 30 November 2002, a total of £18.6 million (inclusive of VAT and disbursements) had been paid to Thompson's Solicitors in costs with regards to the processing of respiratory disease claims.
  73W
  I would like to take this opportunity to correct erroneous information inadvertently relayed in reply to PQ No. 60802 tabled by my hon. Friend on 1 June 2002. My hon. Friend asked for a separate breakdown for the legal costs paid to the top 100 companies handling respiratory disease and Vibration White Finger claims. The figure given for Thompson 's solicitors was £19.2 million. The correct figure should have been £12.4 million. I have written to my hon. Friend about this.

  Wind Generators
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many wind generators are working in the United Kingdom; and how many are planned to be built in the next five years. [86402]

  Mr. Wilson
  There are at present, 75 wind power schemes working in the UK, comprising of 974 turbines. (British Wind Energy Association information).

  It is for developers to bring forward proposals for wind farms. The Government does not keep a register of such proposals, most of which are assessed by local authorities under the normal planning process. Only applications for consent to construct and operate wind farms with a capacity greater than 50 megawatts onshore, and greater than one megawatt off-shore, are required to be referred to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989.

  For onshore wind farm development, my Department is considering one application in England and Wales and the Scottish Executive are considering seven applications in Scotland.

  Out of 20 potential offshore sites offered by the Crown Estate in April 2001, the DTI and Scottish Executive are currently considering proposals in respect of 11 sites and a further two have now been granted construction consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Initiatives
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the schemes and initiatives sponsored by her Department and its agencies which are not the subject of national roll out showing(a) the authorities or areas covered by the scheme and (b) the budget of the scheme in the last year for which information is available. [86741]

  Dr. Howells
  The following schemes and initiatives are sponsored by my Department in partnership with other funding bodies.

  Space for Sports and Arts Programme (SSA)

  Space for Sports and Arts Programme (SSA) is a partnership between traditional public expenditure of £75 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund and £55 million from the three lottery distributors: New Opportunities Fund (£25 million), Sport England (£25 million) and Arts Council of England as million).
  74W
  The SSA programme is being rolled out in 65 local authorities in deprived areas. The budget for the programme £130 million from the beginning of 2000 to March 2004, which is the life of the programme. Approximately 297 projects are planned in the 65 local authorities. The Local Education Authorities (LEAs) invited to bid were:

  Barking and Dagenham, Barnsley, Bedfordshire, Birmingham, Blackburn with Darwen, Bradford, Brent, Brighton & Hove, Bristol, City of Nottingham, Cornwall, Cumbria, Derby City, Derbyshire, Doncaster, Durham, East Sussex, Essex, Gateshead, Greenwich, Hackney, Hartlepool, Islington, Kent, Kingston-uponHull, Knowsley, Lambeth, Lancashire, Leeds, Leicester City, Lewisham, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Newham, Norfolk, North Somerset, Northamptonshire, Northumberland, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Redcar and Cleveland, Rochdale, Rotherham, Salford, Sandwell, Sheffield, Slough, Somerset, South Tyneside, Southwark, St. Helens, Stockton-on-Tees, Stoke-on-Trent, Sunderland, Tower Hamlets, Trafford. Walsall, Wirral, Wolverhampton.

  Portable Antiquities Scheme

  The Portable Antiquities Scheme was established in 1997 to encourage members of the public to report all finds of archaeological objects. Since autumn 1997 DCMS has been funding six pilot schemes to promote voluntary reporting of all archaeological finds. These pilots were established in Kent, Norfolk, North Lincolnshire, North West (Cheshire, Lancashire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester and Cumbria), West Midlands and Yorks. A further six pilots have been funded for three years by Heritage lottery fund since spring 1999. These pilots were established in Dorset & Somerset, Hampshire, Northamptonshire, Suffolk, Wales, and in London.

  A bid for a three-year funding for a national network of 41 posts at a cost of £1.5 million a year from April 2003 was approved by the Heritage lottery fund in May. This bid has 63 national and local partners, each of whom is contributing 10 per cent. towards the cost. In 2002–03 the Department is providing £411,000 to support the current pilot schemes until the new funding comes on line. The following schemes and initiatives are by public bodies sponsored by DCMS. These are not the subject of national roll out.

  Splash Extra

  This was a joint DCMS/Youth Justice Board programme of summer activities targeted on those 9–17 year olds identified as most at risk of offending in the areas covered across Government. A list of those areas has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Resourced by the New Opportunities Fund and providing almost 300 estate-based schemes across England, Splash Extra established a menu of high quality sports, arts and personal development activities.

  The budget was £8.5 million for the last financial year.

  Creative Partnerships
  This initiative is to develop long-term partnerships between schools, cultural and creative organisations and artists. The partnerships will help children develop their own creativity, which should bring benefits in

  75W
  terms of educational attainment. The partnerships are being developed in 16 areas (listed below) across the country.

  The Arts Council of England is delivering the initiative and the budget for 2002–03 is £15 million.

  List of Creative Partnerships areas

  1. Manchester/Salford

  2. Merseyside (Liverpool, Knowsley, St Helens, Wirral, Sefton)

  3. Tees Valley (Redcar & Cleveland, Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Stockton)

  4. Durham/Sunderland

  5. Kingston upon Hull

  6. South Yorkshire Coalfields (Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster)

  7. Birmingham

  8. Black Country (Sandwell, Wolverhampton, Walsall)

  9. Nottingham

  10. Norfolk

  11. Bristol

  12. Cornwall

  13. Slough

  14. Kent

  15. Inner London East (Hackney, Islington, Newham, Tower Hamlets)

  16. Inner London South (Southwark, Lewisham, Lambeth, Greenwich).

  Sport England

  Sportsearch is being piloted in three local authorities (Southampton City Council, Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council and the London Borough of Lambeth). The budget for the pilot is £200,000 in 2002/03 and 31 schools in the three authorities are involved.

  Inclusive Fitness Initiative (IFI), Sport England have made a one-off grant of £1 million to the English Federation of Disability Sport to develop and deliver the Inclusive Fitness Initiative (IFI) scheme. There are currently 27 IFI sites around the country (eventually there will be 30). They are in Leeds city council, Oxford city council, Bolton MBC, LB Lewisham, Kerrier DC, Bury MBC, Cannock Chase DC, Plymouth city council, Coventry city council, Kirklees MBC, Bromsgrove DC, Dacorum BC, Borough of Pool, Slough MBC, Mansfield DC, Ipswich BC, Amber Valley BC, North Tyneside council, Leicester city council, Berwick upon Tweed, Spelthorne BC, Chichester council, Copeland BC and South Gloucestershire council. There are no current plans to roll out these initiatives nationally.

  Grants to Grade II Buildings at Risk in London

  Under the Local Government Act 1985, English Heritage is able to offer grants for the repairs of Grade II listed buildings within the Greater London area. The scheme is concentrated on those buildings included on the English Heritage Register of Buildings at Risk, and projects which make a strategic contribution to the conservation of historic buildings, areas, gardens, landscapes or archaeology within Greater London. In 2001/02 English Heritage offered a total of £175,000 under the scheme.
  76W
  Access Radio

  The Radio Authority is currently running a pilot study of 15 access radio projects across the UK. These are in Glasgow, Belfast, Banbridge, Bradford, Manchester, Stoke on Trent, Nottingham, Leicester, Birmingham, Forest of Dean, Pontypridd, Havant, Southall (London), Hackney (London), South Bank (London). The projects will be subject to an independent evaluation which will assist the Government in deciding whether to introduce access radio on a national basis. The full extent of coverage will depend on a number of factors such as local spectrum availability and the local radio ecology. None of these pilots have received funding from either the Department or the Radio Authority.

  This information is accurate as of 7 November 2002.

  Licensing Bill
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether a condition laid down in an existing planning consent would be superseded automatically by a permission given under the licensing regime proposed in the Licensing Bill before the House of Lords. [85565]

  Dr. Howells
  No. The planning and licensing regimes are entirely separate and one cannot supersede the other.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total expenditure of(a) her Department and (b) its agencies was on official travelling in 2001–02. [84792]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: DCMS expenditure for travelling and subsistence for 2001–2002 was £752,860. In addition, expenditure by the Royal Parks Agency was £26,015.

  Since 1999, the Government has published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government has also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Details of travel undertaken during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 were published on 24 July 2002 (Official Report, columns 1374–1375W). 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 both Houses.

  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.

  Wembley Stadium
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the Government's policy is on(a) giving, (b) loaning and (c) underwriting funding for Wembley Stadium additional to that set out in the final report of the English National Stadium Review. [86272]
  77W
  Mr. Caborn
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in response to a question from her right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), following her statement on the National Stadium on 23 May,Official Report, column 406, there will be no further public money invested in the National Stadium project beyond that already announced; £120 million from the Sports Lottery Fund, £21 million from the London Development Agency and £20 million from
  78W
  this Department for non-stadium infrastructure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport also set out in reply to a question from his hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on 19 March, Official Report, column 238W, that a further £7 million from his transport provision would be earmarked towards improvements to Wembley Park tube station which would be matched by a similar sum from the Mayor of London for the same purpose.

TREASURY

  Alcohol Sales
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the projected volume of(a) sales and (b) tax revenue is from high strength lagers for the 12 months since the 2002 Budget. [85399]

  John Healey
  The information requested is not available. HM Customs and Excise do not project the volume of sales or revenue from any particular category of beer.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the volume of(a) sales and (b) tax revenue was from high strength lagers in each year from 1988 to 2001. [85400]

  John Healey
  The information requested is not available. HM Customs and Excise does not record volumes or tax revenue for any particular category of beer. Figures are only available for the total of beer and cider. These are available in the HM Customs and Excise Beer and Cider Factsheet, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  The following table shows clearances and receipts of coolers and spirits as published in the Wine Factsheet and Spirits Factsheet respectively:

  Clearances and receipts of coolers and spirits

  Year

  Volume "coolers" thousand hectolitres of product

  Volume spirits Thousand hectolitres of pure alcohol

  1 Receipts (a) "coolers" £ million

  Receipts spirits £ million

  1988–89

  21

  992

  N/a

  1,576

  1989–90

  104

  988

  N/a

  1,514

  1990–91

  188

  987

  N/a

  1,703

  1991–92

  281

  888

  9

  1,742

  1992–93

  434

  863

  15

  1,661

  1993–94

  505

  850

  18

  1,707

  1994–95

  553

  887

  20

  1,776

  1995–96

  1,049

  814

  36

  1,653

  1996–97

  1,696

  823

  65

  1,593

  1997–98

  1,214

  810

  68

  1,546

  1998–99

  1,287

  840

  75

  1,643

  1999–2000

  2,028

  926

  122

  1,904

  2000–01

  2,911

  937

  185

  1,842

  2001–02

  3,823

  978

  236

  1,919

  1 Before 1991–92 receipts for "coolers" were included with made-wine.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the projected volume of(a) sales and (b) tax revenue is from (i) spirit-based alcoholic beverages and (ii) non-spirit based alcoholic beverages in the 12 months following the 2002 Budget. [85401]

  John Healey
  Not all of the information requested is available. Customs and Excise do not project the volume of 'sales'.

  Information on projected total duty receipts from spirits can be found inTable B12 of the Pre-Budget Report, November 2002 (HM Treasury Cm 5664). The projection for 2002–03 is £2.2 billion.

  Information on projected total duty from non-spirit based beverages is also in Table B12. The projection for 2002–03 for wine is £1.9 billion and beer and cider is £3.1 billion.
  80W
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the volume of(a) sales and (b) tax revenue was from spirit-based (i) ready to drink and (ii) alcoholic beverages in each year from 1988 to 2001. [85402]

  John Healey
  The precise information requested is not available. Until Budget 2002 wine and spirit-based products with an alcohol content below 5.5 per cent. referred to in the hon. Member's question as "ready to drink", were dutied at the same rate and classified as made-wines. These products are also referred to as "coolers". Data on volumes of UK duty paid "coolers" and receipts can be found on page 1 of the HM Customs and Excise Wine factsheet, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The data includes volumes from wine and spirit-based "coolers".

  Data on volumes of UK duty paid spirits and receipts can also be found on the factsheet. The figures do not include spirit-based "coolers"

  Child Care Tax Credit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people receive the child care tax credit in the Scottish Borders. [85699]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), on 16 January 2002,Official Report, column 293W.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Howard
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to table B11 of the Pre-Budget Report November 2002 (Cm 5664), on what basis he is forecasting a rise in corporation tax receipts as a proportion of GDP between 2002–03 and 2006–07. [85544]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 December 2002] : Details on assumptions underlying the projection for corporation tax receipts are given in paragraphs B45 and B46 of the Pre-Budget Report.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to Table B12 of the pre-Budget report November 2002 (Cm 5664), on what basis he is forecasting a further 7.2 per cent. rise in council tax receipts in 2003–04; and what measures he intends to take to achieve this rise. [85543]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: The Government do not set a target for increases in council tax receipts. Council tax rates are a matter for local authorities to set in consultation with their electorates. In line with this the Government do not operate a system of crude and universal pre-announced capping. The Government's approach was laid out in a note to the Treasury Select Committee on 19 November 2002.

  The 2002 Spending Review gave local government a substantial three year grant increase, amounting to an average real increase of 3.9 per cent. per annum. This should allow authorities to deliver high quality public services without excessive council tax increases.
  81W
  As in previous years the figure for council tax receipts presented in the pre-Budget report is for the United Kingdom as a whole; projections for future years are based on assumptions about changes in the council tax rate, the taxbase, the collection rate and council tax benefit payments.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of full-time workers in(a) Scotland, (b) each of the unitary local authority areas in Scotland and (c) Great Britain earn less than (i) £302.12 per week, (ii) £277.24 per week, (iii) £203.85 per week and (iv) £155.39 per week in gross pay (A) including and (B) excluding overtime, in the categories (1) male manual, (2) male non-manual, (3) all male workers, (4) female manual, (5) female non-manual, (6) all female workers, (7) all manual, (8) non-manual and (9) all workers; [86276]

  (2) what the average weekly earnings were in gross pay (a) including and (b) excluding overtime for full-time workers in (i) Scotland, (ii) each of the unitary

  New Earnings Survey, April 2002—Full time employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay period was unaffected by absence— Gross Average Weekly Earnings, Excluding Overtime

  Percentage of employees with gross weekly earnings

  <302.12

  <277.24

  <203.85

  <155.39

  Non-Manual Male Employees

  Great Britain

  18.6

  14.3

  3.8

  0.5

  Manual Male Employees

  49.2

  38.1

  10.2

  1.0

  All Male Employees

  30.8

  23.8

  6.4

  0.7

  Non-Manual Female Employees

  39.6

  32.0

  9.7

  1.3

  Manual Female Employees

  83.4

  76.2

  41.2

  8.2

  All Female Employees

  45.8

  38.2

  14.1

  2.3

  All Non-Manual Employees

  28.3

  22.5

  6.6

  0.9

  All Manual Employees

  55.2

  44.8

  15.6

  2.2

  All Employees

  36.4

  29.2

  9.3

  1.3

  Non-Manual Male Employees

  Scotland

  21.4

  17.2

  4.7

  0.4

  Manual Male Employees

  54.9

  43.7

  11.5

  1.4

  All Male Employees

  35.6

  28.4

  7.6

  0.8

  Non-Manual Female Employees

  43.9

  35.2

  9.7

  1.2

  Manual Female Employees

  87.0

  80.2

  45.0

  8.2

  All Female Employees

  50.2

  41.8

  14.9

  2.2

  All Non-Manual Employees

  32.9

  26.3

  7.3

  0.8

  All Manual Employees

  61.2

  50.8

  18.0

  2.8

  All Employees

  41.6

  33.9

  10.6

  1.4

  Non-Manual Male Employees

  Aberdeen City

  13.9

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Edinburgh, City of

  18.9

  15.6

  4.7

  1—

  Fife

  18.3

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Glasgow City

  26.4

  21.8

  6.7

  1—

  North Lanarkshire

  24.8

  19.3

  1—

  1—

  Manual Male Employees

  Aberdeen City

  52.1

  41.4

  1—

  1—

  Aberdeenshire

  62.5

  53.1

  1—

  1—

  Scottish Borders, The

  73.9

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Dumfries and Galloway

  59.4

  55.1

  1—

  1—

  Dundee City

  48.6

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Edinburgh, City of

  57.6

  46.8

  14.0

  1—

  Falkirk

  50.0

  43.1

  1—

  1—

  Fife

  56.1

  43.3

  1—

  1—

  Glasgow City

  52.1

  42.2

  10.2

  1—

  Highland

  57.0

  43.0

  1—

  1—

  North Ayrshire

  63.0

  55.6

  1—

  1—

  North Lanarkshire

  57.1

  44.6

  1—

  1—

  Perth and Kinross

  56.3

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Renfrewshire

  50.6

  43.8

  1—

  1—

  South Ayrshire

  52.6

  1—

  1—

  1—

  South Lanarkshire

  50.0

  40.0

  1—

  1—

  West Lothian

  40.6

  1—

  1—

  1—

  82W
  local authority areas in Scotland and (iii) Great Britain for (A) all manual, (B) all non-manual and (C) all workers. [86277]

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. Michael Moore, dated 9 December 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent questions on weekly earnings for workers in Great Britain, Scotland and the unitary authorities in Scotland. (86276, 86277)
  I attach tables showing average weekly earnings, both including and excluding overtime, (Table 1) and the proportion of people earning below the different thresholds you listed, both including overtime (Table 2) and excluding overtime (Table 3).
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) can provide earnings data for small geographical areas. The release of NES data is restricted to figures that are derived from a sufficiently large sample of employees, and have an acceptable level of accuracy and I have provided the available data for Scotland, the unitary authorities in Scotland and Great Britain only for those areas where the samples are large enough. These are based on the 2002 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.
  83W 84W

  New Earnings Survey, April 2002—Full time employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay period was unaffected by absence— Gross Average Weekly Earnings, Excluding Overtime

  Percentage of employees with gross weekly earnings

  <302.12

  <277.24

  <203.85

  <155.39

  All Male Employees

  Aberdeen City

  26.9

  20.8

  7.5

  1—

  Aberdeenshire

  40.7

  33.9

  1—

  1—

  Dumfries and Galloway

  41.1

  37.2

  1—

  1—

  Dundee City

  32.5

  27.4

  1—

  1—

  Edinburgh, City of

  29.9

  24.4

  7.4

  1—

  Falkirk

  38.2

  31.2

  1—

  1—

  Fife

  37.2

  28.6

  1—

  1—

  Glasgow City

  35.9

  29.3

  8.0

  1—

  Highland

  38.9

  30.1

  1—

  1—

  Moray

  44.7

  39.5

  1—

  1—

  North Ayrshire

  39.4

  32.3

  1—

  1—

  North Lanarkshire

  39.8

  31.0

  1—

  1—

  Perth and Kinross

  42.3

  31.7

  1—

  1—

  Renfrewshire

  32.4

  25.6

  1—

  1—

  South Ayrshire

  34.9

  28.6

  1—

  1—

  South Lanarkshire

  32.0

  24.3

  1—

  1—

  West Lothian

  32.1

  23.8

  1—

  1—

  Non-Manual Female Employees

  Aberdeen City

  34.9

  25.5

  1—

  1—

  Dundee City

  43.2

  37.1

  1—

  1—

  Edinburgh, City of

  37.7

  28.1

  6.3

  1—

  Fife

  48.4

  40.6

  1—

  1—

  Glasgow City

  45.2

  33.2

  8.7

  1—

  Highland

  49.0

  41.5

  1—

  1—

  North Lanarkshire

  44.2

  38.1

  1—

  1—

  Perth and Kinross

  52.6

  42.3

  1—

  1—

  Renfrewshire

  41.0

  32.1

  1—

  1—

  South Lanarkshire

  44.7

  36.0

  1—

  1—

  West Lothian

  42.9

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Manual Female Employees

  Edinburgh, City of

  75.0

  65.4

  1—

  1—

  Fife

  93.6

  89.4

  1—

  1—

  Glasgow City

  78.9

  73.7

  48.7

  1—

  South Lanarkshire

  84.2

  78.9

  1—

  1—

  All Female Employees

  Aberdeen City

  41.4

  32.7

  13.7

  1—

  Aberdeenshire

  62.5

  56.3

  1—

  1—

  Dundee City

  49.7

  42.6

  1—

  1—

  Edinburgh, City of

  40.7

  31.1

  8.3

  1—

  Fife

  57.3

  50.2

  15.1

  1—

  Glasgow City

  48.7

  37.3

  12.8

  1—

  Highland

  53.6

  47.0

  18.7

  1—

  North Lanarkshire

  50.7

  45.4

  1—

  1—

  Perth and Kinross

  57.8

  48.9

  1—

  1—

  Renfrewshire

  46.8

  39.2

  1—

  1—

  South Ayrshire

  44.8

  40.2

  1—

  1—

  South Lanarkshire

  52.7

  44.7

  1—

  1—

  West Dunbartonshire

  62.0

  1—

  1—

  1—

  West Lothian

  47.7

  35.1

  1—

  1—

  All Non-Manual Employees

  Aberdeen City

  23.6

  17.3

  1—

  1—

  Aberdeenshire

  29.9

  25.2

  1—

  1—

  Angus

  41.1

  35.8

  1—

  1—

  Dumfries and Galloway

  34.7

  30.6

  1—

  1—

  Dundee City

  33.3

  29.0

  1—

  1—

  Edinburgh, City of

  27.9

  21.6

  5.5

  1—

  Falkirk

  41.7

  32.1

  1—

  1—

  Fife

  33.9

  27.7

  1—

  1—

  Glasgow City

  36.2

  27.8

  7.8

  1—

  Highland

  36.7

  30.9

  1—

  1—

  Moray

  42.5

  41.1

  1—

  1—

  North Ayrshire

  31.3

  1—

  1—

  1—

  North Lanarkshire

  33.9

  28.2

  1—

  1—

  Perth and Kinross

  41.6

  32.8

  1—

  1—

  Renfrewshire

  30.7

  22.7

  1—

  1—

  South Ayrshire

  31.1

  27.0

  1—

  1—

  South Lanarkshire

  31.2

  23.9

  1—

  1—

  West Lothian

  32.6

  25.8

  1—

  1—

  85W

  New Earnings Survey, April 2002—Full time employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay period was unaffected by absence— Gross Average Weekly Earnings, Excluding Overtime

  Percentage of employees with gross weekly earnings

  <302.12

  <277.24

  <203.85

  <155.39

  All Manual Employees

  Aberdeen City

  59.5

  50.0

  23.2

  1—

  Aberdeenshire

  69.8

  61.1

  1—

  1—

  Angus

  71.2

  57.6

  1—

  1—

  Scottish Borders, The

  82.6

  71.0

  1—

  1—

  Dumfries and Galloway

  65.9

  61.2

  1—

  1—

  Dundee City

  57.7

  47.4

  1—

  1—

  East Ayrshire

  63.5

  1—

  1—

  1—

  East Lothian

  67.4

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Edinburgh, City of

  60.6

  50.0

  16.9

  1—

  Falkirk

  57.3

  50.6

  1—

  1—

  Fife

  63.9

  52.9

  15.4

  1—

  Glasgow City

  56.9

  47.8

  17.0

  1—

  Highland

  61.7

  49.6

  1—

  1—

  Inverclyde

  70.6

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Moray

  66.1

  59.3

  1—

  1—

  North Ayrshire

  68.1

  59.4

  1—

  1—

  North Lanarkshire

  62.2

  51.2

  1—

  1—

  Perth and Kinross

  61.8

  50.0

  1—

  1—

  Renfrewshire

  56.6

  51.3

  1—

  1—

  South Ayrshire

  56.9

  47.7

  1—

  1—

  South Lanarkshire

  58.2

  49.4

  1—

  1—

  West Lothian

  45.2

  31.0

  1—

  1—

  All Employees

  Aberdeen City

  32.5

  25.4

  9.9

  1—

  Aberdeenshire

  48.4

  41.8

  15.0

  1—

  Angus

  52.6

  44.2

  1—

  1—

  Argyll and Bute

  42.0

  38.5

  1—

  1—

  Scottish Borders, The

  58.5

  52.3

  19.9

  1—

  Dumfries and Galloway

  47.6

  43.2

  14.6

  1—

  Dundee City

  40.1

  34.1

  10.2

  1—

  East Lothian

  41.7

  32.3

  1—

  1—

  Edinburgh, City of

  34.4

  27.2

  7.8

  1—

  Falkirk

  47.1

  38.5

  12.1

  1—

  Fife

  45.2

  37.2

  9.8

  1—

  Glasgow City

  41.4

  32.8

  10.1

  1—

  Highland

  45.2

  37.2

  13.0

  1—

  Inverclyde

  54.5

  40.7

  1—

  1—

  Midlothian

  46.2

  38.5

  1—

  1—

  Moray

  53.0

  49.2

  1—

  1—

  North Ayrshire

  46.7

  38.2

  1—

  1—

  North Lanarkshire

  43.7

  36.1

  8.0

  1—

  Perth and Kinross

  48.8

  39.0

  1—

  1—

  Renfrewshire

  38.5

  31.3

  11.7

  1—

  South Ayrshire

  39.0

  33.3

  1—

  1—

  South Lanarkshire

  40.3

  32.4

  8.7

  1—

  West Lothian

  37.8

  28.0

  1—

  1—

  1 Denotes the data has been suppressed in line with NES publication criteria.

  Note:

  Where an authority does not appear the data has been suppressed.

  Economic Cycles
  Mr. Howard
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to paragraph A37 of the Pre-Budget Report November 2002 (Cm 5664), what further data is required before a definitive judgement can be made on the start date for the present economic cycle; and when he expects to be in a position to make that judgement. [85538]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: It is inevitably much more difficult to judge whether or not an on-trend point occurs when output hovers close to
  86W
  trend as it did in mid-1999 than when output clearly passes through trend. As paragraph A37 of the Pre-Budget Report states:
  "There is still some doubt about whether the economy was on trend in mid-1999 or just close to trend, so the judgement that the present cycle started in mid-1999 remains provisional. The data and methodology for estimating on-trend points and dating cycles are kept under review. But whether the current cycle started in 1997 or 1999 does not affect the judgement that the Government remains firmly on track to meet the fiscal rules over the cycle: the average current surplus since both 1997–98 and 1999–2000 is positive in every year of the projection period."
  Only future GDP revisions could change the current judgement that the present cycle started in mid-1999.
  87W
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to Chart A4 of the pre-Budget report November 2002 (Cm 5664), if he will make a statement on the projected end date of the current economic cycle. [85542]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: As set out in paragraph B7 of the pre-Budget report November 2002 (Cm 5664), the current economic cycle is projected to end in 2005–06.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish the estimates of actual UK trend growth prior to 2002 he has received from(a) the OECD, (b) the EC, (c) the OEF and (d) Goldman Sachs; and what reasons underlay his decision on the use of these estimates in the estimate of trend growth. [85539]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: Estimates of trend growth for the UK produced by the OECD, the EC, OEF and Goldman Sachs, among other organisations, are set out in Table 4.1 on page 26 of the Treasury paper, "Trend Growth: Recent Developments and Prospects" published at the time of the 2002 Budget.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effect of the reduction in assumed trend growth from 2007–08 on the public finances from that financial year. [85546]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: The forecast for the public finances in Budget 2002 covers the years to 2006–07. However paragraph 3.41 of the accompanying paper, Trend Growth: Recent Developments and Prospects, signalled that population effects could affect growth projections in 2007–08. Under the Pre-Budget Report assumptions on spending for 2007–08, set out in paragraph B20, changes in growth projections affect both spending as well as receipts.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his statement of 27 November, Official Report, column 318, on what evidence he based his statement that in 2003, Britain and North America are forecast to continue to be the fastest growing of all the major economies. [85549]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: According to the latest Consensus Forecasts, published in November 2002, growth in 2002 and 2003 is expected to be higher in the US, Canada and the UK than in the any of the other G7 economies.

  Economic Tests
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set a date for the publication of a verdict on whether Britain has met the five economic tests for Euro entry. [86204]

  Ruth Kelly
  A comprehensive and rigorous assessment of the five tests will be made within two years of the start of this Parliament. Once the assessment is complete, it will be published and will be subject to intensive public scrutiny and debate.
  88W
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he intends to have with the Governor of the Bank of England on whether the five economic tests for entry to the Euro are being met. [86205]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor meets regularly with the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss a range of issues.

  The assessment of the Five Economic Tests will be a Government assessment, and the work will be carried out by the Treasury.

  Employers' Liability Premiums
  Andy King
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the increase in employers' liability premiums. [86043]

  Ruth Kelly
  We receive a great many representations from both industry and individuals on this matter and on a variety of subjects.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to use revenue from insurance premium tax above the revenue projected by his Department to provide a pool for employers' liability insurance. [85965]

  Ruth Kelly
  None.

  Equitable Life
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in full the Penrose report into Equitable Life; and when the report will be published. [85405]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Penrose Inquiry is independent of the Government and the timetable for conducting the inquiry is a matter for Lord Penrose. However, Lord Penrose has recently said that he hoped that the inquiry would be able to report to Ministers next summer.

  I very much hope to be able to publish the full report of the inquiry. However, it may be that parts of the report will be subject to legal and commercial confidentiality restrictions. I will not be in a position to know whether or not we can publish in full until I have seen Lord Penrose's report. These legal and commercial confidentiality restrictions will be the only constraints on publishing in full. However, Lord Penrose is also aware of these issues and he assures me that he is proceeding on the basis that the report will be published.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Government schemes exist to compensate policyholders in Equitable Life in the event that it should go into receivership. [85502]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government established the Financial Services Compensation Scheme as part of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The Scheme became operational on 1 December 2001 and acts as an industry financed 'safety net' for customers of finance sector companies which become insolvent. The Scheme would first seek to take measures to safeguard policyholders, for example by trying to ensure that policies are transferred to another company. If this is not possible, compensation may be payable subject to the rules of the Scheme.
  89W
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the regulators in dealing with Equitable Life. [85753]

  Ruth Kelly
  Under the terms of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the FSA is obliged to produce an annual report assessing performance against its statutory objectives of maintaining confidence in the financial system, promoting public understanding of the financial system, securing an appropriate degree of protection for consumers and reducing the potential for financial firms to be used for financial crime. This is the primary mechanism for holding the FSA accountable to Ministers and Parliament.

  In August 2001 the Government announced an independent inquiry under Lord Penrose into the events surrounding Equitable Life. The terms of reference of the Inquiry, which covers events going back over 50 years, include the need to identify any lessons to be learnt for the conduct, administration and regulation of life assurance business. The Government looks forward to receiving Lord Penrose's report as soon as he is able to complete it. In addition, the Government published a report by the Financial Services Authority in October 2001 which reviewed the regulation of Equitable Life from 1 January 1999 to 8 December 2000 and which has been submitted as evidence to the inquiry conducted by Lord Penrose.

  Gateway and Child Trust Fund
  Mr.Howard
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate of cost for the saving gateway and child trust fund is factored into his public finance projections. [85541]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: Funding for the Saving Gateway in the pilot phase is included within current spending plans. Consistent with the Code for Fiscal Stability, the public finances projections presented in the Pre-Budget Report do not take account of measures proposed for consultation, including the Child Trust Fund, or other proposals where final decisions have yet to be taken, including the details of the Saving Gateway.

  Global Economic Slowdown
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his statement of 27 November 2002,Official Report, column 318, on what evidence he based his statement that there is the worst global slowdown for almost 30 years; and what estimates he has made of world GDP growth in each year since 1972. [85540]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: According to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook database, available on the IMF's website, World GDP growth fell from 4.7 per cent. in 2000 to 2.2 per cent. in 2001. This was the largest annual fall in World GDP growth since it fell from 6.9 per cent. to 2.8 per cent. in 1974.

  Growth Rates
  Mr.Howard
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis 2007–08 has been chosen as the year in 90W
  which the trend growth rate is assumed to change as a result of demographic effects, for the purpose of his calculations in the Pre-Budget Report November 2002 (Cm 5664). [85547]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 December2002]: As set out in paragraph B20 of the Pre-Budget Report November 2002 (Cm 5664), projections by the Government Actuary's Department imply a slowdown in the growth of the population of working age, beyond 2006–07 mainly as a result of women born in the years following the Second World War moving into retirement, as confirmed to the National Audit Office (HC 109 Session 2002–03). This reduces the estimated trend rate of output growth by a ¼ of a percentage point in 2007–08.

  Higher Rate Taxpayers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many higher rate taxpayers there were in(a) the Scottish Borders, (b) Scotland and (c) the UK as a proportion of the total relevant population in each area in each of the last 10 years. [85701]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Available estimates for the number of higher rate taxpayers1 as a percentage of the total population2 for the respective geographical areas are given in the table.

  1 Based on the Survey of Personal Incomes.

  2 Source for population estimates: Office for National Statistics and General

  Percentage

  Scottish borders

  Scotland1

  UK

  1996–97

  4

  3

  4

  1997–98

  4

  3

  4

  1998–99

  3

  3

  4

  1999–2000

  3

  3

  4

  2000–01

  3

  4

  5

  1 Government office region

  Inward Migration
  Mr. Soames
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer what the net inward migration of non-EU nationals was in each of the last five available years. [85810]

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

  Letter from Karren Dunnell to Mr. Nicholas Soames dated 9 December 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the net inward migration of non-EU nationals in each of the last five available years. I am replying in his absence.
  The information requested is provided in the attached table which shows the interim revised net migration estimates for non-EU nationals during the period 1997–2001.
  These interim migration estimates are consistent with the results of the 2001 Consus. This showed that the population of the UK had been overestimated between 1991 and 2000, mainly due to the overestimation of the net flow of international migrants into the UK. For this reason, an adjustment has been made equivalent to the average annual overestimation of net migration since 1991. This is approximately 76,000 each year. The first release of these interim revised estimates was made on Thursday, 28 November.

  91W
  More information is available on the NS website: http://wwwstatistics.gov.uk/about/Methodologybytheme/downloads/international migration methodology.doc.

  Interim revised total international estimates1: citizenship 1997 to 2001. Net migration to the UK

  Thousands (£)

  Year

  All citizenships

  British

  Rest of EU

  Non-European Union2

  1997

  10.8

  67.3

  7.6

  70.4

  1998

  96.3

  29.2

  19.8

  105.6

  1999

  100.5

  29.7

  2.1

  132.3

  2000

  99.6

  65.6

  0.1

  165.0

  2001

  125.7

  56.3

  4.0

  178.1

  1 These estimates represent interim revised migration estimates. Further revisions to the series, in the light of more detailed Census data, will be made available in spring 2003. This table includes adjustment for asylum seekers, and for persons admitted as short-term visitors who are subsequently granted an extension of stay for other reasons—for example, as students or on the basis of marriage. Migration flows between the UK and Irish Republic are also included.

  2 Figures for all years show EU as it was constituted on 1 January 1995.

  Money Laundering
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance has been given on the implications of money laundering regulations to applicants for post office card accounts. [86214]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Joint Money Laundering Steering Group (JMLSG), which is an industry-led body, produces general guidance on the implementation of the Money Laundering Regulations. I have endorsed this guidance under section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The guidance is flexible, recognising that people who cannot easily provide detailed evidence of identity should have access to financial services.

  Pension schemes
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the EU Directive on occupational pension schemes and its impact on UK pension schemes. [85983]

  Ruth Kelly
  The proposal for the Directive on Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision is entering the second reading in the European Parliament. The proposed Directive would apply to funded occupational pension schemes. It would not apply to state pension schemes and personal pensions. The proposal leaves member states free to determine the structure of their pensions systems.

  Procurement
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fair trade criteria the Government apply when deciding upon what suppliers to use. [85419]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is no Government-wide approach to the procurement of fair trade products. Each Government Department is responsible for making its own decisions on such products, against the background of the Government's value for money policy, the EC procurement rules and the Department's objectives. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State 92W
  for International Development has made clear, the Government are committed to supporting ethical trading wherever possible, and provide significant support to the Fairtrade Foundation's efforts in promoting the supply and marketing of fair trade products.

  Productivity Growth
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to paragraph A34 of the pre-Budget report November 2002 (Cm 5664), on what basis he is raising his estimate for the trend rate of productivity growth as set out in Table A3. [85536]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: As paragraph A34 of the pre-Budget report November 2002 (Cm 5664) sets out,
  "The corollary of Census 2001 related downward revisions to employment and hours in recent years has been somewhat stronger productivity growth than previous estimates suggested."
  A full explanation of how this affects estimates of the trend rate of productivity growth is set out in paragraphs A36 to A42 and Table A3 of the pre-Budget report.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his revised estimates for the trend rate of productivity growth are dependent upon the potential increases in the underlying productivity growth rate, specified in paragraph A35 of the pre-Budget report November 2002 (Cm 5664), being realised. [85537]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: No. In projecting productivity growth the Government do not score any potential gains from government policies whose impact is yet to materialise. Rather the approach is to estimate underlying productivity growth between past on-trend points for the economy and to use this as the trend rate for projecting forward.

  Savings
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he plans to introduce to improve the savings ratio in the short-term. [85962]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's strategy for promoting saving is focused on:improving the environment for saving;
  creating the right incentives for saving; and
  empowering individuals by providing greater financial information, improved access to honest and straightforward advice, and simpler, easier to understand savings products.
  The pre-Budget report included statements on the progress of the Government's saving policies.

  Skills Budgets
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to devolve the management of skills budgets to regions other than the North-east, North-west, South-east and East. [85959]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have asked regional development agencies and local learning and skills councils in the North-east, North-west, South-east and East of England to draw up proposals for pilots to test how they
  93W
  can pool and co-ordinate adult skills budgets in their regions to improve the delivery of training and skills provision to both employers and individuals. The pilots will start in April 2003 and will run for two years. They will be carefully monitored and evaluated. PDAs and LLSCs in other regions are also looking at ways of working together more closely outside the formal pilot arrangements and I greatly welcome this.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements have been made to reassess recipients of family tax credit whose entitlement is due to be reassessed before the introduction of the new tax credits system in April 2003. [86133]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Transitional arrangements are currently in place so that any Working Families' Tax Credit award made on or after 4 June this year will run until April 2003. However families who have a new child can surrender their existing award and make a new claim.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures exist for those in receipt of working families tax credit to seek a review on material change of circumstances prior to the introduction of the new system in April 2003. [86134]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) is a fixed award. Once made, awards generally remain in payment at the same rate during the period of entitlement, regardless of changes in family circumstances. However, families receiving WFTC are able to surrender an existing award and make a new claim as soon as they have a new child.

  Tax Receipts
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis he is calculating the trend in levels of receipts from(a) the financial services sector and (b) stamp duty on property. [85535]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: Further details on projections of receipts from financial companies are given in paragraphs B45 and B46 of the pre-Budget report.

  Details of the projections of stamp duty receipts are given in paragraphs B52 and B53 of the pre-Budget report. They are based on the assumption that house price inflation moderates towards its long run relationship with earnings, as explained in paragraph B54 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2002.

  The public finance projections are deliberately based on cautious assumptions for key economic variables, including the trend rate of growth of the economy.

  VAT
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to paragraph B56 of the pre-Budget report November 2002 (Cm 5664), how much the strategy on VAT fraud and avoidance is expected to yield in 2002–03; and on what basis the figure for additional receipts by 2005–06 is calculated. [85545]
  94W
  John Healey
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: Projected VAT receipts in 2002–03 are calculated primarily on the basis of receipts to date. The forecast of VAT revenues from 2003–04 onwards is governed by an NAO-audited assumption, which has now been adjusted to take account of the VAT strategy. The NAO's "Audit of Assumptions for the 2002 Pre-Budget Report" sets out the additional revenue yield included in the forecast and the basis on which this has been calculated.

  Vehicle Fuel
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much HM Customs and Excise spent on its programme to detect the use of vehicle fuel on which fuel taxes have not been paid in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by region. [85996]

  John Healey
  I refer to the answer I gave to the Member for Edinburgh, West on 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 204W. A regional split is not available.

CABINET OFFICE

  E-Envoy
  Mr Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the budget is for the e-envoy; and how many staff he has. [85066]

  Mr. Alexander
  In respect of 2002–03, the Office of the e-envoy was given a current expenditure budget of £17.429 million. The Office of the e-envoy was also allocated £30 million capital expenditure from the Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF). As at 2 December 2002 the Office of the e-Envoy employed a total of 145 staff. This figure is rounded to full time equivalents.

  Ministerial Performance
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent steps he has instituted to help Her Majesty's Government's Ministers improve their performance; and if he will make a statement. [86229]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office provides central training for Ministers. This supports them:

  operating as a member of the Government team;

  managing the strategic policy and communication aspects;

  of the job as a member of a departmental team;

  working with and through Parliament.

  The Programmes for Ministers series provides:

  access to expert contributors from government and the wider public and private sector;

  discussion with colleagues and sharing best practice;

  awareness of current developments in government.

  Specific needs of individual Ministers are met on a personal basis.

  The Ministerial Code sets out the standards and conduct expected of Ministers.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Medical Students
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total cost is of medical training per student in the United Kingdom; how many medical schools there are in the United Kingdom; how many medical schools have mandatory courses of six years training; how many medical schools have optional six-year training courses; and how many students in the United Kingdom are in receipt of full means-tested funds in each medical school. [85471]

  Margaret Hodge
  The cost per medical school student will vary according to the type and length of their course. Higher education institutions in the United Kingdom receive public funding from the relevant higher education funding body of between £5,700 and £6,700 per student in each of their non-clinical years, and around £13,000 for each of the clinical years. These include the standard contribution to tuition fees, whether or not these are paid by the student. The national health service also provides some £540 million per year to the hospitals for the clinical training of medical students through its Multi-Professional Education and Training levy.

  There are 47 medical courses offered at 30 higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. Of these, 11 are courses lasting six years. The remaining 36 include those for graduate entry and shorter accelerated routes into medicine, as well as courses of five years. Data on the number of students in receipt of full means-tested support in each medical school is not available.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many medical students are in receipt of maximum non-means tested loans, broken down by medical schools; and how many medical students are in receipt of(a) grants and (b) loans, broken down by university. [85472]

  Margaret Hodge
  Data on the support received by medical students is not separately identified.

  Asset Management Plans
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he will publish the remaining results of the first asset management plans; for what reason publication has been delayed; and if he will publish results of future asset management plans within six months of their completion. [83803]

  Mr. Miliband
  We will publish the remaining results of the first asset management plans by the end of February 2003. The work necessary to appraise, analyse and collate the information has impacted on the original publication programme.

  Subject to the necessary appraisal, we plan to publish the results of future asset management plans within six months of the receipt of all the information.

  Autism
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to monitor progress in implementing his Department's good practice guidelines on autism. [84502]
  96W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Good Practice Guidance on Autistic Spectrum Disorders, published by the Departments of Education and Skills and of Health, is designed to raise awareness of the disorders and act as a self-audit tool for schools, local education authorities and other providers to help them assess the effectiveness of their autism provision. The Guidance is non-statutory.

  Schools and local education authorities have duties to identify, assess and make suitable provision for children with special educational needs, including those with autism. Ofsted regularly inspects the provision made by schools and local education authorities, including that made for children with special educational needs. Where weaknesses are identified in the provision made for children with autism, the Guidance is available to schools and local education authorities to provide pointers to improvement.

  Craft Subjects
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans there are to recruit more lecturers to further education colleges in craft subjects. [85462]

  Margaret Hodge
  As independent organisations it is for individual colleges to recruit their own staff within the context of the overall resources available to them.

  We are making a £1.2 billion investment to increase expenditure in FE over the next three years. That is equivalent to a 19 per cent. real terms increase. Colleges will use this investment to increase participation in learning and to improve student outcomes. They will be able to raise standards of teaching and learning, improve the capability of the workforce and become more responsive to the demands of both employers and students. Importantly, they will also have the flexibility to use the resource to meet specific local or subject recruitment needs.

  We will continue to fund a range of recruitment and retention initiatives to attract new FE teachers into the profession. These include teaching bursaries for people undertaking post graduate certificates of education and certificates of education to enter FE and golden hellos and the repayment of teacher loans for new teachers in identified shortage subject areas. Although "craft" subjects are not a priority for golden hellos or the repayment of teacher loans, we are keeping the list of shortage subjects under review.

  Degrees
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what regulations prevent private institutions from awarding degrees; what(a) advice and (b) representations he has received on allowing private institutions to award degrees; and if he will place copies in the Library. [84141]

  Margaret Hodge
  The regulations that limit the awarding of UK degrees are contained within the Education Reform Act 1988, which stipulates that UK degrees can be awarded only by organisations with powers granted by Royal Charter or Act of Parliament. Section 76 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 allows the Privy Council to specify any institution
  97W
  offering higher education as competent to grant degrees. There is no legislation preventing private organisations from applying for degree awarding powers. I have received no representations about allowing private organisations to award degrees. However, the Privy Council has received two applications from private organisations for degree awarding powers. These are currently being considered by the Quality Assurance Agency through the normal process of scrutiny for such powers.

  Number of permanent exclusions—academic years 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Chesham and Amersham

  Primary1

  Secondary1

  Special2

  Total

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population3

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population3

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population3

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population3

  1996–97

  0

  0.00

  14

  0.18

  2

  0.66

  16

  0.10

  1997–98

  1

  0.01

  12

  0.15

  0

  0.00

  13

  0.08

  1998–99

  0

  0.00

  16

  0.18

  0

  0.00

  16

  0.09

  1999–2000

  0

  0.00

  15

  0.17

  1

  0.30

  16

  0.09

  2000–01

  1

  0.01

  13

  0.14

  0

  0.00

  14

  0.08

  Buckinghamshire LEA

  Primary1

  Secondary1

  Special2

  Total

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population3

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population3

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population3

  Number of exclusions

  Percentage of the school population3

  1996–974

  5

  0.01

  42

  0.16

  2

  0.17

  49

  0.07

  1997–98

  13

  0.03

  54

  0.20

  10

  0.85

  77

  0.10

  1998–99

  8

  0.02

  52

  0.17

  5

  0.43

  65

  0.09

  1999–2000

  5

  0.01

  51

  0.16

  7

  0.60

  63

  0.08

  2000–01

  11

  0.03

  55

  0.17

  6

  0.53

  72

  0.10

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools.

  3 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of pupils in Primary, Secondary and Special schools.

  4 Before local government reorganisation.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Further Education Lecturers
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many further education lecturers were employed at colleges in England in each of the last five years, broken down by those on(a) permanent and (b) part-time contracts and what average hours were worked by each group. [84122]

  Lecturers in further education colleges in England, 1996–97 to 2000–01

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  All lecturers

  130,858

  139,693

  141,755

  136,730

  134,316

  Part-time lecturers

  82,100

  92,681

  95,662

  91,108

  87,547

  Permanent lecturers

  59,700

  56,600

  60,421

  60,656

  61,779

  Note:

  Information on the average hours worked by permanent and part-time lecturers is not available.

  Source

  Staff statistics, summary table and table 4

  Graduate Incomes
  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to his answer of 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 556W, on graduate incomes, if he will place a copy of the working

  Education Provision (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils have been excluded from schools in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire in each year since 1 January 1996. [85128]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: The information on permanent exclusions is shown in the table. Information on fixed term exclusions is not held centrally.

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: Information on the number of FE lecturers with permanent and part-time contracts is published in 'Staff Statistics', which is available in the Library of the House.

  paper, in which the figures of £1,075,000 and £675,000 are calculated, in the Library. [85550]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: The information requested has been placed in the library.

  Higher Education Students (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students from Warrington entered higher education in the past five years, broken down by social class. [84231]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The latest available information, covering students who were accepted for entry to full-time and sandwich first degree courses via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), is shown in the table. Comparable figures for 2002 will be available in January 2003.

  The Government are committed to raising the participation of those from social classes which are currently under-represented in higher education, and has introduced Excellence Challenge, including the AimHigher campaign, which is targeted at raising attainment and aspirations among young people who traditionally would not consider going to university.

  Students from Warrington LEA who were accepted for entry to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in the UK

  Year of entry

  Social class:

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Professional

  116

  122

  116

  141

  Intermediate

  340

  370

  351

  350

  Skilled non manual

  79

  78

  94

  93

  Skilled manual

  133

  116

  126

  128

  Partly skilled

  75

  74

  67

  61

  Unskilled

  10

  8

  6

  5

  Unknown

  80

  77

  93

  109

  Total

  833

  845

  853

  887

  Inspection
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to establish a standard framework for inspection bodies in the further education sector. [85461]

  Margaret Hodge
  The common inspection framework was introduced by the Office for Standards in Education and the Adult Learning Inspectorate on 1 April 2001, as required by the Learning and Skills Act 2000. It sets out the principles applicable to the inspections of all Government funded post-16 non-higher education and training, (except school sixth forms), including the further education sector.

  Literacy
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures will be taken to increase the number of 7-year-old children reaching set literacy standards. [85054]

  Mr. Miliband
  The National Literacy Strategy (NLS) is raising literacy standards in primary schools. In this year's national tests, 84 per cent. of 7-year-olds achieved the level expected for their age—level 2 or above— in reading compared to 80 per cent. in 1998 and 69 per cent. achieved at the upper end of level 2—level 2B or above—compared to 62 per cent. in 1998.
  100W
  We remain committed to making further improvements in standards. We have introduced a new intervention programme, Early Literacy Support, to help those children in Year 1 who are already struggling with literacy or at risk of developing literacy difficulties later on. We will also continue to review and refine the literacy strategy in response to the latest research and evidence from our most successful schools.

  Mature Students
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what financial support is available for mature students in higher education in England. [84964]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have greatly increased the financial support available to mature students. Nearly a quarter of a billion pounds is now spent on support for students with particular financial needs, including mature students, compared to £124 million five years ago. In the academic year 2002–03, in addition to means tested student loans (up to £4,815 in London, £3,905 elsewhere), and tuition fee grants (up to £1,100), full-time mature students can apply for dependants grants (up to £2.225 for an adult or otherwise for an eldest child, more for additional children), an additional dependants grant (£255), child care grant (up to £8,480 for two or more children), school meals grant (up to £275 per child) and travel, books and equipment grant (£510). They can also apply for discretionary support through their HE institution, in the form of £500 access bursaries, hardship funds and hardship loans. A single parent with two children in receipt of the full student loan and maximum child care grant could receive about £15,800 each year, plus discretionary support.

  Part-time HE students studying on at least 50 per cent. (or more) of a full-time equivalent course are eligible for means tested fee waivers, student loans of £500 and discretionary help from the hardship funds. There are also generous non means-tested allowances for both full-time and part-time disabled students.

  These arrangements are generous but overly complicated. From 2003–04 they will be simplified. A new grant (the Parents Learning Allowance worth up to £1,300) will replace the access bursary, the additional dependants grant and the travel, books and equipment grant and child dependants grant and school meals grant will be replaced by child tax credits and passported free school meals from the Inland Revenue. From 2004–05, hardship funds and loans will be replaced by grants from a new Access to Learning Fund. These streamlined arrangements will in some cases provide students with more help than they currently receive.

  NVQs
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people(a) enrolled for and (b) completed national vocational qualifications in (i) plumbing, (ii) bricklaying, (iii) bridge to construction (or intermediate construction award), (iv) painting and decorating and (v) wood occupations, in each year since the establishment of the courses. [83770]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Performing Arts
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on what basis Government funding is allocated for small specialist performing arts institutions in(a) music, (b) acting, (c) dance,(d) performance technology and (e) sound technology; and if he will make a statement. [82110]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 21 November 2002]: The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) is responsible for determining the allocation of grants to higher education institutions. In general, the HEFCE fund similar courses at similar rates irrespective of which higher education institution is providing the course. However, in the case of specialist institutions, additional funding is provided to reflect the nature of the institution and the characteristics of the courses provided. Guidance on the general funding methodology for specialist institutions was published in HEFCE circular 98/10 following advice from the Specialist Institutions Advisory Panel. Criteria for the funding of specialist performing arts institutions were published in HEFCE circular 99/41 and were based on detailed analysis of the costs and characteristics of the provision. The council does not distinguish between the different art forms in its funding methodology, and the amount of additional funding for these institutions varies according to how closely they meet the criteria set out in the guidance. HEFCE have also made public criteria for the funding of very high cost institutions specialising in music, dance and drama. The supplementary funding for specialist institutions is kept under review to ensure that the levels remain appropriate.

  Reception Classes
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many four year olds there were in reception classes in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [85432]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  The percentage of four year olds in classes not designated as nursery classes in maintained primary schools in England between 1993 and 2002 is shown in the table.

  Number and percentage1 of 4-year-olds in classes not designated as nursery classes2 in maintained primary schools. January 1993–2002—England

  Number of 4-year-olds educated in infant classes in maintained primary schools

  Percentage of 4-year-olds educated in infant classes

  1993

  3—

  3—

  1994

  3—

  3—

  1995

  3—

  3—

  1996

  343,400

  52

  1997

  345,200

  53

  1998

  351,000

  56

  1999

  353,900

  57

  2000

  349,400

  57

  2001

  3—

  3—

  20024

  358,300

  60

  102W

  1 Number of 4-year-olds in classes not designated as nursery classes expressed as a percentage of the 4-year-old population.

  2 Includes reception and other class provision for 4-year-olds but excludes designated nursery classes.

  3 Not available.

  4 Provisional.

  Since 1998, there has been a Statutory Duty on all LEAs to secure sufficient provision for all four year olds, whose parents want one, in their area. It is for each local education authority in consultation with their early years and child care partnership to plan and organise such provision: places are made available in the maintained, private, voluntary and independent sectors.

  Latest figures on under 5s' provision in England were published in Statistical First Release "Provision for children under five years of age in England —January 2002 (provisional estimates)", a copy of which is available from the Library or the Department's website www.dfes.qov.uk/statistics.

  School Closures
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research has been done on the impact of closing schools on(a) the educational attainment of former pupils in their new schools, (b) local communities and (c) areas of social deprivation. [85552]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: Decisions on whether to close schools are taken by the local School Organisation Committee or, if the committee cannot agree unanimously, by the independent Schools Adjudicator. Guidance issued by the Secretary of State requires both bodies to consider a range of factors in making their decision. For school closures, the factors include the effect on standards of educational provision, the need to preserve access to a local school for rural communities and access to community facilities, particularly in areas of social deprivation. The Department has not commissioned any research into the impact of school closures. However, where a failing school is closed, it is usual for the former pupils to show greatly increased attainment or better rates of progress at their new schools.

  School Laboratories
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the allocations to each local authority from the £60 million School Laboratories for the 21st Century Scheme. [85674]

  Mr. Miliband
  The table lists the allocations for school laboratories.

  £000

  LEA Name

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Barking and Dagenham

  127

  127

  Barnet

  200

  200

  Barnsley

  145

  145

  Bath and North East Somerset

  137

  137

  Bedfordshire

  246

  246

  Bexley

  168

  168

  Birmingham

  555

  555

  Blackburn with Darwen

  121

  121

  Blackpool

  103

  103

  Bolton

  185

  185

  Bournemouth

  121

  121

  103W

  £000

  LEA Name

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Bracknell Forest

  95

  95

  Bradford

  302

  302

  Brent

  153

  153

  Brighton and Hove

  134

  134

  Bristol, city of

  177

  177

  Bromley

  195

  195

  Buckinghamshire

  279

  279

  Bury

  134

  134

  Calderdale

  154

  154

  Cambridgeshire

  269

  269

  Camden

  130

  130

  Cheshire

  383

  383

  Cornwall

  275

  275

  Coventry

  201

  201

  Croydon

  170

  170

  Cumbria

  291

  291

  Darlington

  93

  93

  Derby

  155

  155

  Derbyshire

  387

  387

  Devon

  327

  327

  Doncaster

  204

  204

  Dorset

  224

  224

  Dudley

  195

  195

  Durham

  289

  289

  Ealing

  157

  157

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  209

  209

  East Sussex

  245

  245

  Enfield

  194

  194

  Essex

  657

  657

  Gateshead

  137

  137

  Gloucestershire

  319

  319

  Greenwich

  152

  152

  Hackney

  108

  108

  Halton

  115

  115

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  98

  98

  Hampshire

  551

  551

  Haringey

  129

  129

  Harrow

  111

  111

  Hartlepool

  98

  98

  Havering

  159

  159

  Herefordshire

  118

  118

  Hertfordshire

  579

  579

  Hillingdon

  163

  163

  Hounslow

  166

  166

  Isle of Wight

  113

  113

  Isles of Scilly

  51

  51

  Islington

  105

  105

  Kensington and Chelsea

  76

  76

  Kent

  703

  703

  Kingston upon Hull, city of

  165

  165

  Kingston upon Thames

  111

  111

  Kirklees

  233

  233

  Knowsley

  125

  125

  Lambeth

  103

  103

  Lancashire

  591

  591

  Leeds

  386

  386

  Leicester

  185

  185

  Leicestershire

  352

  352

  Lewisham

  134

  134

  Lincolnshire

  357

  357

  Liverpool

  296

  296

  Luton

  134

  134

  Manchester

  221

  221

  Medway

  189

  189

  Merton

  103

  103

  Middlesbrough

  115

  115

  Milton Keynes

  136

  136

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  170

  170

  Newham

  171

  171

  Norfolk

  364

  364

  North East Lincolnshire

  133

  133

  North Lincolnshire

  128

  128

  104W

  £000

  LEA Name

  2000–01

  2001–02

  North Somerset

  138

  138

  North Tyneside

  141

  141

  North Yorkshire

  332

  332

  Northamptonshire

  360

  360

  Northumberland

  216

  216

  Nottingham

  150

  150

  Nottinghamshire

  431

  431

  Oldham

  174

  174

  Oxfordshire

  308

  308

  Peterborough

  144

  144

  Plymouth

  186

  186

  Poole

  106

  106

  Portsmouth

  122

  122

  Reading

  96

  96

  Redbridge

  181

  181

  Redcar and Cleveland

  126

  126

  Richmond upon Thames

  106

  106

  Rochdale

  152

  152

  Rotherham

  195

  195

  Rutland

  65

  65

  Salford

  142

  142

  Sandwell

  194

  194

  Sefton

  198

  198

  Sheffield

  260

  260

  Shropshire

  173

  173

  Slough

  105

  105

  Solihull

  160

  160

  Somerset

  251

  251

  South Gloucestershire

  166

  166

  South Tyneside

  126

  126

  Southampton

  138

  138

  Southend-on-Sea

  130

  130

  Southwark

  122

  122

  St. Helens

  139

  139

  Staffordshire

  464

  464

  Stockport

  169

  169

  Stockton-on-Tees

  145

  145

  Stoke-on-Trent

  156

  156

  Suffolk

  358

  358

  Sunderland

  196

  196

  Surrey

  450

  450

  Sutton

  147

  147

  Swindon

  133

  133

  Tameside

  159

  159

  Telford and the Wrekin

  124

  124

  Thurrock

  108

  108

  Torbay

  113

  113

  Tower Hamlets

  152

  152

  Trafford

  162

  162

  Wakefield

  201

  201

  Walsall

  204

  204

  Waltham Forest

  143

  143

  Wandsworth

  124

  124

  Warrington

  149

  149

  Warwickshire

  282

  282

  West Berkshire

  132

  132

  West Sussex

  351

  351

  Westminster

  107

  107

  Wigan

  202

  202

  Wiltshire

  241

  241

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  117

  117

  Wirral

  224

  224

  Wokingham

  128

  128

  Wolverhampton

  169

  169

  Worcestershire

  295

  295

  York

  121

  121

  Total

  29,998

  29,998

  School Leavers (Careers)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what comparison has been made of places for careers among school leavers by the careers service in coalfield areas, compared to the national average. [82885]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Information in the following table has been taken from the annual activity survey of all school leavers in the autumn of the year they complete compulsory education undertaken by Careers Services and Connexions Partnerships. This data relates to all school leavers from the 2000–2001 academic year. It has not been possible to match the data exactly to the coalfield areas; data is collected by Education Authority and has been aggregated to provide the closest match possible. Details of areas included are given in the footnote to the table.

  The table shows that in the coalfield areas, young people are less likely to be settled in full time education, or training and rely more heavily on government supported training than in non- coalfield areas. The table also shows a higher rate of unemployment for young people living in these areas.

  Percentages

  Total of non coalfield areas

  1Total of coalfied areas

  England

  Full-time education

  72.3

  67.9

  71.7

  Government supported training

  3.6

  7.4

  4.0

  Employment

  11.9

  12.5

  12.0

  Not settled in full time education training or employment

  7.2

  8.4

  7.3

  Of which:

  Part-time employment/training

  0.5

  0.4

  0.5

  Unemployed

  5.5

  6.4

  5.6

  Not active in labour market

  1.1

  1.7

  1.2

  No response/move away

  5.1

  3.8

  5.0

  Survey total

  508,098

  74,788

  582,886

  1 The closest approximation of the coalfield areas includes: Coventry, Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, Wakefield, Merseyside, St. Helens, Darlington, Durham, Northumberland, Sunderland

  Student Exchange Programmes
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the European Commission's proposal, COM (2002) 401 final, and the subsequent Council decision to invite students from third countries to participate in European exchange programmes. [85056]

  Margaret Hodge
  I welcome the European Commission's proposal to establish "Erasmus World", which should provide UK universities and colleges with opportunities to attract overseas students, and will enable UK universities to forge useful partnerships with their counterparts in other EU countries. The UK and other member states have expressed some reservations about the funding of the proposal. The Danish Presidency of the European Union has recently circulated a revised version of the proposal. We are considering our position in the light of this.

  Students (Benefits)
  Annabelle Ewing:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions regarding extending the eligibility criteria for benefits to students in higher education. [82419]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: We have regular discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about specific student support and benefits issues. Social security is available to certain students in DWP vulnerable groups such as the disabled and lone parents but the general principle is that support for higher education students comes from the education system. There are no plans to change this.

  Student support is taken into account in deciding upon the level of benefit payable, but much of the additional financial support for such vulnerable students, for example child care grant, is disregarded for benefit purposes.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the part played by consideration of best value in determining whether surplus schools should be closed. [85554]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 5 December 2002 ]: Surplus places can represent poor use of resources. This is why the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sets annual Best Value Performance Indicators for the percentage of surplus places in an LEA each year. Decisions on whether to close schools are taken by the local School Organisation Committee or, if the Committee cannot agree unanimously, by the independent Schools Adjudicator. Guidance issued by the Secretary of State requires both bodies to consider a range of factors, including standards and access.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what financial penalties are in place if local education authorities have surplus school places. [85557]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: Local education authorities receive funding based on pupil numbers and there are no financial penalties for having surplus school places. While resources devoted to maintaining surplus school places can sometimes be more effectively used to support schools in raising standards, we recognise that in some cases it may not be possible to remove all surplus places due to demographic changes and falling rolls.

  Technology and Science College Status
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the reason underlying the decision not to shortlist the application by(a) Belvidere School and (b) Mary Webb School for technology college and science college status. [85643]
  107W
  Mr. Miliband
  In the judgement of our independent assessors, these schools did not meet the published criteria set out in the "Guide for Schools" available to all schools applying for specialist college designation in 2002–03. Both schools received written feedback from the Department on their individual applications. The feedback should provide a helpful basis on which to make a stronger revised application.

  University Entrants
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of sixth formers in schools in Sittingbourne and Sheppey went to university in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [85006]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: Figures for the number of school leavers who go on to higher education are not collated centrally on a constituency basis. The available figures for Great Britain, showing the proportion of under 21-year-olds who enter higher education for the first time from either sixth forms or FE colleges, are given in the table. There was an increase in the index in 1997–98 related partly to changes in the funding arrangements for higher education, with students choosing to enter HE rather than wait until 1998–99. There was a corresponding reduction in 1998–99 before the entry rates started to increase again in 1999–2000. Between 1997–98 and 2000–01, total HE students in English universities and colleges rose by 83,000.

  Age Participation Index (API)1 for Great Britain

  Percentage

  1997–98

  33

  1998–99

  31

  1999–2000

  32

  2000–01

  33

  1 The API is defined as the number of GB domiciled initial

  Number of defendants convicted of offences related to noise and fly tipping at all courts, England and Wales 1991–2000

  Offence description

  Principal statute

  Year

  Number of persons convicted

  Minimum penalty imposed

  Maximum penalty imposed

  Noise on construction sites, operating loudspeakers in the street, exceeding permitted noise level after service of notice and other summary offences

  Control of Pollution Act 1974, sections 60 and 62 and Noise Act 1996

  1991

  33

  Absolute discharge

  £1,000 fine

  1992

  43

  Absolute discharge

  £1,000 fine

  1993

  41

  Conditional discharge

  £2,000 fine

  1994

  44

  Conditional discharge

  £3,000 fine

  1995

  48

  Absolute discharge

  £3,000 fine

  1996

  65

  Absolute discharge

  £3,500 fine

  1997

  58

  Conditional discharge

  £3,500 fine

  1998

  61

  Absolute discharge

  £4,000 fine

  1999

  72

  £50 fine

  £4,000 fine

  12000

  38

  Conditional discharge

  £2,500 fine

  Prohibition on authorized or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal etc. of waste (fly tipping)

  Environmental Protection Act 1990 sections 33(6), 33(8), 33(9) and 34

  1991

  4

  £200 fine

  £500 fine

  1992

  18

  Conditional discharge

  £1,388 fine

  1993

  104

  Absolute discharge

  £10,000 fine

  1994

  124

  Absolute discharge

  3 months imprisonment

  1995

  202

  Absolute discharge

  18 months imprisonment

  1996

  262

  Absolute discharge

  18 months imprisonment

  1997

  237

  Absolute discharge

  18 months imprisonment

  1998

  296

  Absolute discharge

  2 years imprisonment

  1999

  317

  Absolute discharge

  8 months imprisonment

  12000

  393

  Absolute discharge

  18 months imprisonment

  1 Excluding any convictions at magistrates courts in Staffordshire.

  Note:

  All data are given on a principal offence basis.
  108W
  entrants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate HE aged under 21, expressed as a percentage of the average number of 18 and 19-year-olds in the population.

HOME OFFICE

  Anti-asbestos Campaign
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which anti-asbestos campaigners were investigated by MI5 between 1972 and 1980; [83485]

  (2) if the records compiled during the 1970s on the anti-asbestos campaigners will be opened to the public under the 30-year rule; [83487]

  (3) whether MI5 files on anti-asbestos campaigners are still live. [83486]

  Mr. Blunkett
  It has been the longstanding policy of successive Governments to neither confirm nor deny reports concerning Security Service operations. However, the Service has made clear that it has never investigated people simply because they were office-holders or members of campaigning organisations or pressure groups.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals were convicted of offences relating to(a) graffiti, (b) excess noise and (c) fly tipping in each of the last 10 years; and what were the (i) maximum and (ii) minimum penalties imposed. [84312]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The available information for England and Wales is shown in the table, and covers the years 1991 to 2000. It is not possible, in the statistics collected centrally, to distinguish offences relating to graffiti from other offences of criminal damage.

  Statistics for 2001 will be available in December.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on problems affecting asylum seekers in Clearsprings houses in the UK; [84655]

  (2) what contract Clearsprings have with the Home Office; [84649]

  (3) who monitors the performance and the running of homes run by Clearsprings [84654]

  (4) how much Clearsprings receives for looking after asylum seekers in the UK; [84653]

  (5) what guidelines he sets for Clearsprings in receipt of housing for asylum seekers. [84652]

  Beverley Hughes
  Clearsprings Management Ltd has a contract with the National Asylum Support Services (MASS) to provide accommodation for destitute asylum seekers. The contract is due to expire in March 2005. I am unable to give details about payments to Clearsprings under the terms of this contract since this information is commercial in confidence. Clearsprings Management Ltd is required to operate within the conditions of their contract with NASS. All properties supplied under contract must comply with all planning and other regulations set by the relevant local authority. NASS is responsible for monitoring the performance of Clearsprings Management Ltd. In particular all properties supplied by the company under contract to NASS will be inspected to ensure they meet the specification laid down in the contract. The contract also includes performance measures which the company is expected to show that it is meeting. NASS can impose financial penalties if either a property is shown to have defects or the company is not meeting its performance targets. I am not aware of any major problems with accommodation provided by Clearsprings Management Ltd. The company is meeting the terms of its contract with NASS and any problems with their accommodation are rectified within agreed timescales.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have completed all stages of their application and are awaiting removal from the country; and if he will make a statement. [84880]

  Beverley Hughes
  The requested information is not held centrally and could only be obtained through examination of individual case files thereby incurring a disproportionate cost.

  The demarcation between the end of the appeals process and the beginning of the removal process is not clear-cut. When asylum appeals have been dismissed, the scope for further legal challenge undoubtedly acts as an obstacle to removal, although by no means the only one. Other limiting factors in the removals process include difficulties in securing travel documentation and legal issues arising from judicial and human rights reviews.
  110W
  There are measures in place to counter these barriers and subsequently expedite removal.

  Mr.Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time between completion of all stages of the asylum seeking process and notice of removal being issued was in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [84882]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the time between completion of the asylum process and the issue of a removal notice may only be obtained by examination of individual case files at disproportionate costs.

  Different timescales apply for issuing a notice of removal following completion of the asylum process, according to the type of case. For example the timescale will differ for detained cases under the expedited appeals process, those on monthly reporting, and others whose determinations are served to the last known address.

  The initial programme of work to serve appeals in person has now been expanded nationally. The process allows for a six-week deadline for determinations to be served. Statistics are maintained for this particular workstream.

  The number of applications for judicial review that are specifically against removal directions is estimated at 30–35 a month. The opportunity to apply for Judicial Review, is usually sufficient to cause arrangements issued on more than one occasion.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his oral answer of 2 December 2002,Official Report, column 616, to the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), if he will withdraw his proposal to use the former police station in Shorncliffe road, Folkestone as a 24-hour reporting centre for asylum seekers. [85562]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave on 5 December 2002, Official Report, column 972W. There are no plans to withdraw the proposal for use of the former Police Station in Shorncliffe road, Folkestone, as a Home Office reporting centre, which forms part of a wider strategy to bring about improved contact with asylum seekers while their claims are under consideration and to control and counter illegal and clandestine entry into the United Kingdom.

  Cannabis
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are held in prisons in England and Wales for cannabis-related offences; and how many people were received into prisons in England and Wales in 2001 for cannabis-related offences. [83678]

  Hilary Benn
  Data on the number of people sentenced to immediate custody for drug offences involving cannabis are shown in the table.
  111W

  Number of persons sentenced to immediate custody at all courts for cannabis offences which can be separately identified, England and Wales 1996 to 20001

  Sentenced to immediate custody

  Offence description

  Statute

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  20002

  Production or being concerned in production of a controlled drug (cannabis)

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, sections 4(2) and 6(2)

  178

  233

  216

  206

  156

  Supplying or offering (or being concerned in) to supply a controlled drug (cannabis)

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, sections 4(3)

  628

  650

  656

  573

  405

  Having possession of a controlled drug (cannabis)

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, section 5(2), as amended by Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 157, schedule 8, part II

  204

  268

  410

  451

  361

  Having possession of a controlled drug (cannabis) with intent to supply

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. section 5(3)

  983

  1,129

  1,284

  1,112

  808

  Permitting premises to be used for unlawful purposes (cannabis)

  Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, section 8

  17

  18

  27

  25

  9

  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.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the prevalence of child abuse in the home within different categories of family configuration and marital status; [85102]

  (2) what research into the prevalence of child abuse in the home has been funded by Central Government in the last five years; and which of these studies break down their results by family configuration and marital status. [85115]

  Hilary Benn
  Central Government have funded or directly undertaken several research studies into different aspects of child abuse in the last five years, but none specifically into the issue of prevalence within the home.

  With regard to family configuration, a three-year study, jointly funded by the Home Office and the University of Birmingham, looked at the issue of repeated abuse during childhood (Hamilton and Browne, 2000). The index sample consisted of 400 children referred to police child protection units. The vast majority (91 per cent.) lived with their biological mother, 44 per cent. with their biological father and 39 per cent. with both natural parents. However, the study did not indicate the marital status of the relationship or the presence of a step-parent.

  Civil Contingency Planning
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funds have been allocated for the next financial year to cover CBW civil contingency planning in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [83532]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: Several Departments have responsibilities relating to management of the consequences of chemical and biological attacks, and these Departments are obliged to plan for carrying out those responsibilities. Like all civil contingencies work, this planning is part of Departments' mainstream activity and spending. The different elements of the response to a Chemical,
  112W
  Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) incident are well co-ordinated and are regularly exercised to ensure their effectiveness.

  My right hon. Friend (John Denham), Minister of State in the Home Office, is responsible for co-ordinating efforts to improve the United Kingdom's ability to respond to CBRN attacks, and is supported in this by the Home Office CRBN Team.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 14 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. Amjed Abu-Jazar. [85139]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 6 December 2002,

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 25 September from the right hon. Member Manchester, Gorton, with regard to the National Asylum Support Service. [85144]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 4 December 2002.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 14 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mihai Tudoreslu. [85145]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 4 December 2002,

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 16 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mrs. Inder Kavr Singh Taz. [85147]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 6 December 2002,

  Criminal Injuries
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the consequences of the case of R (H) v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. [84650]

  Hilary Benn
  The Home Office was not a party to this action, which was brought against the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA). Under the terms of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme approved by Parliament, the CICA and the complementary, independent Appeals Panel are exclusively responsible for the administration of the scheme, the interpretation of the scheme rules and the determination of individual applications. Ministers do not comment on, or intervene in, the administering bodies' handling of individual cases.

  However, I understand from the CICA that they have not yet received a copy of the judgment in writing. They will decide what action might be appropriate when they have had a chance to consider the written judgment in detail, and whether there are wider issues for the overall running of the scheme in which the Home Department needs to be involved.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will write to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam regarding the Criminal Records Bureau. [84809]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: I am sorry for the delay in responding to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, and I will be writing to him shortly.

  Custody Plus
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the likely impact of custody plus on the number of people sentenced to a period of imprisonment of under 12 months in each of the next five years. [84306]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: Final decisions have not yet been made about when the sentencing reforms in the Criminal Justice Bill—including custody plus—will be implemented.

  In modelling the potential impact of the new sentences, it has been assumed that the number of offenders receiving custody plus under the new framework will be broadly similar to the numbers of offenders sentenced to imprisonment of under 12 months now but that a small number of those offenders currently receiving sentences of under 12 months would receive sentences of over 12 months in the new framework, while some would receive community sentences. In addition we have assumed that a quarter of those currently receiving sentences of between one and three months would receive custody minus. The Government will encourage sentencers to use penalties other than custody wherever appropriate.

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome was of the study that considered expanding Victim Support's helpline to 24 hours, referred to in Annex 1 of the joint Home Office/Women's Unit publication, "Living Without Fear: An Integrated Approach to Tackling Violence Against Women. [85312]

  Hilary Benn
  Staff and volunteers manning Victim Support's Victim Support line provide support and information to anyone affected by crime. The phone lines are open from 9 am–9 pm Monday to Friday, 9 am–7 pm weekends, and 9 am–5pm on bank holidays. Calls are charged at local rates and are confidential.

  A study of calls to the Victim Support line has not provided evidence to suggest that there is a high volume of callers attempting to call the helpline outside the hours that it is already available.

  Drug Testing (Prisoners)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to introduce mandatory drug testing for prison inmates on reception. [85037]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 4 December 2002]: Reception testing is currently available under the mandatory drug testing programme.

  Drug Treatment Orders
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment and testing orders have been issued; at what cost; and how many of the orders have been successfully completed. [84307]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 2 December 2004]: The workload information required is provided in the table:

  Number of Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) Issued between 1 October 2000–31 October 20021

  Orders completed at(31 October 2002)

  The member of orders revoked fur non-compliance.

  Current caseload (at 31 October 2002)

  Orders revoked for other reasons

  9,510

  1,041

  3,794

  24,273

  402

  1 Latest date for which figures are available

  2 Note this figure does not incoude the caseload from the pilots.

  The average cost of a drug treatment and testing order is approximately £6,000.

  The current drop-out rate for non-compliance at 39 per cent. is not unexpectedly high. The DTTO is a tough and demanding community sentence that is aimed at serious problem drug misusers who commit crime to fund their habit. It was expected, given the intensity of the order, that a number of offenders would fail to last

  115W
  the course. The evidence suggests that for those who complete the order, their reduced levels of crime and drugs misuse are largely sustained over time.

  Drugs Trade
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking in conjunction with other EU countries to curtail the trade in narcotics. [82935]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The United Kingdom (UK) has a strategy to counter drug trafficking through end-to-end enforcement policies, concentrating on class A drugs as the drugs which cause greatest harm. In doing this we work closely with other European Union (EU) countries in preventing drugs from entering both the EU and the UK. We have drug liaison officers in most EU member states and have provided assistance to EU candidate countries in their development of drug strategies and enforcement capabilities. We are planning to post drug liaison officers to some of these countries too.

  The UK played a major role in the mid-term review of the EU Drugs Action Plan, which sets out the EU Drug Strategy. The review concluded that there is a need for more concerted action at EU level on the most significant drugs and this should be done to tighter deadlines. It makes clear the need for continuing work in Afghanistan to eliminate the poppy crop, an area in which the UK has been co-ordinating international efforts.

  The UK has co-sponsored with other member states an EU Framework Decision on joint investigation teams, which provides a formal basis for closer co-operation between EU member states' criminal investigation authorities. The UK is also pushing hard for an agreement on a Framework Decision which will establish common definitions for offences and penalties for trafficking drugs and precursor chemicals in the EU.

  Information and analysed intelligence on drug trafficking and related money laundering is collated and provided by Europol which acts in support of EU

  member states' law enforcement agencies.

  Hepatitis C
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake a study of the proportion of prisoners who are positive for hepatitis C(a) on reception and (b) on discharge. [85038]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 4 December 2002]: The Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) undertook an unlinked, anonymised survey of the prevalence of blood borne viruses among prisoners in England in 1997–98. This indicated that nine per cent. of adult men, 11 per cent. of women and 0.6 per cent. of male young offenders had evidence of previous exposure to Hepatitis C. The need for further studies in this area is kept under review.

  Khawaja Badar Rauf
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to make a decision in the case of Khawaja Badar Rauf (IND reference number R341351); and if he will make a statement. [83823]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 5 December 2002.

  Opioid Addiction
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will update Prison Service Order 3550 to take account of advances in the treatment of opioid addiction with buprenorphine; [85042]

  (2) in how many prisons buprenorphine is made available for opioid substitution treatment. [85043]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 4 December 2002]: Prison Service Order 3550 introduced a new Prison Service Standard for Clinical Services for Substance Misusers. This already provides that, as new evidence becomes available on the chemical management of detoxification or abstinence, establishments should develop further treatment guidelines which are in line with those available in the national health service (NHS).

  Buprenorphine is included in treatment protocols, developed in conjunction with the NHS, at six Prison Service establishments. This broadly reflects the extent of its current usage in the community.

  Osama bin Laden
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take over the circulation of a letter purporting to be written by Osama bin Laden on a UK website operated by an individual, details of whom have been supplied to him; and if he will make a statement. [83844]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have been in close touch with the relevant police and security authorities, about the work they have undertaken surveilling, monitoring and evaluating evidence that might be used in any prosecution. As my hon. Friend knows, the detailed operational functions lie with those authorities. Decisions on prosecutions lie with the Crown Prosecution Service. I have always made it clear that those who step over the line will be prosecuted.

  Outreach Programmes
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding from his Department has been provided to Outreach programmes for young offenders provided by ACFA in the financial year 2001–02; what will be provided in(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04 and (c) 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [82960]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 25 November 2002]: The Youth Justice Board, funded by the Home Office, paid £600,000 in 2001–02 for work done in 2000–01 by the Army Cadet Force Association's Outreach programme. The Home Office have committed £60,000 for 2002–03

  117W
  and subject to satisfactory performance plan to contribute £60,000 in 2003–04. No payment is planned for 2004–05.

  Paedophiles
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to propose amendments to the law to increase the maximum sentence for paedophiles convicted of abusing children; what measures are in place to ensure that police have the details of known paedophiles in an area where a child has gone missing; what proposals he has to ensure that internet service providers that allow paedophile web sites to operate on their systems are prosecuted; how much has been spent on combating internet child exploitation since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [83222]

  Hilary Benn
  The criminal law is a devolved matter for Scotland and recent proposals for changes to the law in England and Wales are different from those in Scotland.

  For offences committed in Scotland, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill will increase the maximum penalties available to the courts to 10 years for taking and distributing indecent images of children and to five years for possession, (which are both offences under-the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982). The Bill will also implement certain of the recommendations arising out of the recent report of the Expert Panel on Sex Offending, chaired by Lady Cosgrove. The Executive is committed to tackling all forms of child abuse and keeps this area of the law under review.

  In England and Wales, recent proposals in the Government command paper "Protecting the Public" outlined our plans for comprehensive legislative reform of sex offences. Protection for children will be strengthened by proposed new offences of unlawful adult sexual activity with a child, familial sexual abuse of a child, sexual grooming and commercial sexual exploitation of a child, alongside the non-consensual offences of rape and sexual assault, among others. The proposed penalties for these offences, which in many cases are higher than penalties for existing offences, will clearly demonstrate the abhorrence with which society views sexual activity with children. Legislation to implement these proposals is planned for the New Year.

  In answer to your second point, the Sex Offenders Act 1997, which applies to the whole of the UK, places requirements on sex offenders who have been cautioned, convicted or found guilty by reason of insanity in respect of sex offences against children and other serious sex offences. Offenders convicted of a relevant offence must report to a police station prescribed by regulations within three days of the date of their conviction, caution etc. or their release from prison, and notify the police of their name (and any aliases), home address and date of birth. They are also required to notify any changes to their details within 14 days. Failure to comply is a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
  118W
  The Sex Offenders Act applies to sex offenders cautioned, convicted or found guilty by reason of insanity after 1997. Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, when the police consider that a sex offender has behaved in a way that gives reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary to protect the public from serious harm from him, they can apply to a court for a Sex Offender Order to be made. The order will place restrictions upon his behaviour and activities and requires the offender to 'register' with the police for the duration of the order. An order lasts a minimum of five years and can be indefinite.

  In the event that a child is abducted, the Government welcomes the pilot scheme based on the Amber Alert system used by some states in America, to try and ensure the safe return of the child. It was launched on 14 November and is known as 'Child Rescue—Sussex Police'. It involves a joint effort by police, the media and the public. Its intention is to notify the general public that a child has been taken, so they look out for the child, the abductor or any vehicle used in the abduction. They then report any relevant information to the police.

  Decisions on taking prosecutions against internet service providers are a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. An internet service provider (ISP) which knows of the presence of an indecent image of a child on their system and does not remove or disable access to it expeditiously on becoming aware of it, would be at risk of prosecution under the Protection of Children Act 1978. The internet industry funds the Internet Watch Foundation to assess images which have been referred to it and notify ISPs and the police of those that are illegal. The Foundation also provides its members with a list of newsgroups which should not be carried because they contain or appear to offer indecent images of children. These arrangements apply across the UK as a whole.

  Operational decisions on allocation of police resources to combating child exploitation rest with police authorities and chief officers and no central records exist to determine how many cases have been investigated or the resources allocated to them. The new National Policing Plan reinforces the recommendation in the Joint Chief Inspectors' Report on Arrangements to Safeguard Children that police forces and authorities should review the role, remit, location and status of child protection units to ensure that child protection is dealt with to a consistently high standard. We have also set up a National High Tech Crime Unit within the National Crime Squad to provide additional support to local forces in investigating the most technically sophisticated crimes, including internet child protection. As well as policing resources we have worked with industry and child protection organisations through our Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet to tackle this issue, for example producing Codes of Practice and running public awareness campaigns targeting children and their parents.

  Combating the exploitation of children by offenders who use the internet to facilitate the abuse, is an integral part of the work of the police in tackling child sexual exploitation. The Government have provided specific

  119W
  resources for the National High Tech Crime Unit but this is not broken down across the different areas of their work.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government are taking to find the suspected paedophiles at large whose details were given to the police six months ago. [84547]

  Hilary Benn
  Police forces across the UK are prioritising and tracing e-mail addresses for investigation, assisted by the National Crime Squad.

  It is not appropriate for me to provide more significant details of what are, and will be for some time, ongoing investigations.

  Ministers are monitoring the law enforcement response and the progress of this investigation.

  Parenting Orders
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many parenting orders have been imposed, broken down by each constabulary, in each year since their introduction. [83172]

  Hilary Benn
  2,488 Parenting Orders were made between September 1998, when piloting started, and March 2002. The Orders were available nationally from June 2000. We have the breakdown by constabulary area for the year April 2001 to March 2002, which is shown in table.

  Constabulary

  Parenting Orders

  Avon and Somerset

  17

  Bedfordshire

  15

  Cambridgeshire

  22

  Cheshire

  1

  Cleveland

  45

  Cumbria

  4

  Derbyshire

  8

  Devon and Cornwall

  5

  Dorset

  9

  Durham

  16

  Dyfed/Powys

  11

  Essex

  39

  Gloucestershire

  1

  Greater Manchester

  200

  Gwent

  10

  Hampshire

  103

  Hertfordshire

  24

  Humberside

  8

  Kent

  34

  Lancashire

  20

  Leicestershire

  50

  Lincolnshire

  2

  Merseyside

  12

  Metropolitan

  165

  Norfolk

  29

  North Wales

  25

  North Yorkshire

  3

  Northamptonshire

  0

  Northumbria

  85

  Nottinghamshire

  9

  South Wales

  21

  South Yorkshire

  17

  Staffordshire

  12

  Suffolk

  36

  Surrey

  1

  Sussex

  27

  Thames Valley

  22

  Warwickshire

  0

  120W

  Constabulary

  Parenting Orders

  West Mercia

  21

  West Midlands

  45

  West Yorkshire

  39

  Wiltshire

  3

  Total

  1,216

  Persistent Offenders
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persistent offenders he estimates there are in England and Wales aged(a) under 18 years, (b) 18 to 20 years and (c) 21 years and over. [84296]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 9 December 2002]: Recent data from the Police National Computer shows that: in England and Wales, there is a group of about 6,600 persistent offenders aged 18–20, and 26,800 aged 21and over; and that about 4,800offenders aged under 18 years had been convicted of six or more recordable offences in the previous 12 months.

  Police and CPS
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he plans to take to improve the integration of police and CPS functions. [84397]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: There has already been considerable progress towards the co-location of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in criminal justice units. Our aim is that all criminal justice areas should have co-located units by April 2004. Such co-location means improvements to the way in which cases are prepared for court, and have led to good working relationships; in which advice can be sought quickly on more difficult cases, and have also resulted in considerable savings in casefile preparation. Such a set-up will also support the new arrangements in which the CPS take over from the police responsibility for charging. The evidence of piloting these arrangements is that there are improved working relationships between the police and the CPS and more focused investigations. Ready access to legal advice and improved understanding means that cases, which previously would not have resulted in a charge, will now be taken to court. The outcome is fewer discontinued cases and earlier guilty pleas. The Criminal Justice Bill contains provision to put these arrangements on a statutory basis.

  Prisoners
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures the Government are taking to rehabilitate prisoners who are drug addicts. [84546]

  Hilary Benn
  Her Majesty's Prison Service has in place a framework to address the needs of prisoners with low, moderate and severe drug misuse problems. This includes detoxification services which are available in all local and remand prisons, a drug service known as CARATs (counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare) and voluntary drug testing which are both
  121W
  available across the prison estate. There is also a range of intensive treatment programmes available in 60 prisons.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners who have taken the Alpha Course in prisons have re-offended. [84749]

  Hilary Benn
  This information is not available and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisons
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what emergency accommodation he plans to use to ease prison overcrowding; [82132]

  (2) when the next batch of new prison places will become available; and how many there will be; [82134]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the use of police cells to house those (a) sentenced and (b) remanded in custody by the courts; [82136]

  (4) what plans he has for the expansion of places in Her Majesty's prisons; [82137]

  (5) what the total (a) operational capacity, (b) prison population and (c) certified accommodation capacity in prisons is. [82138]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: As at 27 November 2002, the useable operational capacity of the Prison Service was 72,684; the total prison population was 72,500 (excluding 160 prisoners held in police cells) and the in use certified normal accommodation was 64,608.

  Following the unexpected rise in the prison population, the Prison Service is using police cells for keeping both remand and sentenced prisoners in safe custody. The number of police cells used in this way (under Operation Safeguard) peaked at 448 on the night of 29 October 2002. Since then, new accommodation has been brought into operation, which has enabled the Prison Service to reduce its use of police cells.

  By 27 November 2002, the number of prisoners being held in police cells had fallen to 160.

  By providing additional capacity, along with sentencing reform and other measures to contain the rise in the prison population, the Government aim to limit prison overcrowding to manageable levels agreed with the Prison Service.

  We have recently announced that £60 million will be made available to provide 740 places at existing prisons by March 2004. This is in addition to funding from the 2002 budget to provide an extra 2,320 places this year.

  We have also approved Prison Service plans for two new prisons, which will provide 1,290 places by 2004–05. The first is scheduled to open in the summer of 2004 at Ashford (near Heathrow) and will be a female prison of 450 places. An 840-place prison for 360 female and 480 male prisoners is scheduled to open at Peterborough in Cambridgeshire in the summer of 2005.

  Sexual Offences
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a judicial direction that consent means free agreement. [84288]

  Hilary Benn
  Consultation with the Judicial Studies Board has confirmed our view that it would be inappropriate to incorporate a standard direction on consent in statute because the exact direction in any particular case will need to vary according to the individual circumstances.

  Once the new sex offences legislation is in force, the Judicial Studies Board will be invited to consider whether there needs to be a specimen direction covering the various provisions relating to consent and, if so, what the appropriate terms of such a direction might be.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the list of reverse presumption situations in the White Paper Protecting the Public at paragraph 31 will be exhaustive. [84289]

  Hilary Benn
  The list of circumstances in which it will be presumed that consent is most unlikely to have been present will be exhaustive and will be clearly defined in the Sex Offences Bill. It will not be possible to amend it other than by means of further primary legislation.

  However there are clearly numerous other situations in which consent will not be present and the alleged offence will be proveable in court. The list is confined to those circumstances where prima facie the position is so clear that it is justified to provide a rebuttable presumption that consent was not present.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many sexual offences against children were reported in each of the last ten years, broken down by category of offence; and what proportion of these resulted in conviction; [85116]

  (2) how many people have been convicted of sexual offences against children in each of the last ten years; and what percentage of the population has been convicted of a sexual offence against a child; [85117]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the average number of children abused by each paedophile convicted in the last five years. [85118]

  Hilary Benn
  The available information, relating to recorded crime and persons convicted in England and in Wales for the years 1991 to 2000 (2000/01 for recorded crime), relates to those offences where the age of the victim is identified by the offence, Statistics for 2001 will be available shortly. Information is not held centrally on the number of children abused by each paedophile convicted, nor on the proportion of the population with convictions for sexual offences against children. Information is not held centrally on the number of children abused by each paedophile convicted, nor on the proportion of the population with convictions for sexual offences against children.
  123W

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police and persons convicted at all courts of sexual offences against young people where the age of victim is identified by the offence, 1991 to 2000–01 England and Wales- Number of offences and number of persons Recorded Crime

  Offences

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998–991

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Indictable Offences

  Sexual offences

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Buggery by a male of a male under 16

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged 16 or 17

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Buggery by a male aged 18 to 20 with a male aged 16 to 17

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Buggery by a male with a female under 16

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a female aged 16 or 17

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Buggery by a male aged 18 to 20 with a female aged 16 or 17

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Gross indecency by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged under 18

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Gross indecency by a male aged 18 to 20 with a male aged under 18

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Rape of a female aged under 16

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Rape of a male aged under 16

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Attempted rape of a female aged under 16

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Attempted rape of a male aged under 16

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Indecent assault on a female under 16

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  315

  253

  268

  275

  178

  171

  148

  153

  181

  155

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  1,949

  1,563

  1,433

  1,446

  1,260

  1,261

  1,112

  1,135

  1,270

  1,237

  Incest with a girl under 13

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with firl under 16

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc.

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Male aged 21 or over procuring or attempting to procure a male under 18 of gross indecency with another male

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 18

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Gross indecency with boys aged 14 and under

  1,147

  1,158

  1,280

  1,512

  1,287

  1,215

  1,269

  1,293

  1,365

  1,336

  Gross indecency with girls aged 14 and under

  1,147

  1,158

  1,280

  1,512

  1,287

  1,215

  1,269

  1,203

  1,365

  1,336

  Other indictable offences

  Take or make indecent photographs, or pseudo-photographs, or children

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Summary Offences

  Possession of an indecent photograph, or pseudo-photograph of a child

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Total for England and Wales

  3,411

  2,974

  2,991

  3,233

  2,725

  2.647

  2,529

  2,581

  2,816

  2,728

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police and persons convicted at all courts of sexual offences against young people where the age of victim is identified by the offence, 1991 to 2000–01 England and Wales—Number of offences and number of persons Persons convicted2

  Offences

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998–991

  1999–00

  2000–01

  Indictable Offences

  Sexual offences

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  168

  163

  136

  135

  85

  5

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  26

  17

  20

  16

  14

  2

  Buggery by a male of a male under 16

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  29

  66

  70

  57

  57

  51

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged 16 or 17

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2

  3

  6

  7

  1

  5

  Buggery by a male aged 18 to 20 with a male aged 16 to 17

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1

  1

  1

  Buggery by a male with a female under 16

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  7

  17

  21

  23

  13

  13

  124W 125W

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police and persons convicted at all courts of sexual offences against young people where the age of victim is identified by the offence, 1991 to 2000–01 England and Wales-Number of offences and number of persons Persons convicted2

  Offences

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998–991

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a female aged 16 or 17

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Buggery by a male aged 18 to 20 with a female aged 16 or 17

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  351

  363

  293

  324

  339

  355

  365

  342

  337

  299

  Gross indecency by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged under 18

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  11

  11

  17

  18

  10

  11

  Gross indecency by a male aged 18 to 20 with a male aged under 18

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2

  Rape of a female aged under 16

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  113

  210

  198

  221

  247

  206

  Rape of a male aged under 16

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2

  13

  24

  15

  37

  24

  Attempted rape of a female aged under 16

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  21

  35

  52

  41

  44

  32

  Attempted rape of a male aged under 16

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2

  2

  5

  14

  7

  2

  Indecent assault on a female under 16

  1,469

  1,331

  1,205

  1,355

  1,446

  1,597

  1,627

  1,505

  1,491

  1,353

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  105

  89

  76

  64

  81

  54

  44

  55

  52

  53

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  223

  218

  170

  205

  203

  207

  199

  225

  189

  214

  Incest with a girl under 13

  68

  52

  51

  35

  21

  19

  19

  19

  13

  12

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual

  intercourse

  3

  3

  1

  4

  5

  3

  1

  2

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with firl under 16

  1

  3

  6

  2

  3

  1

  2

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc.

  2

  1

  3

  1

  1

  1

  Male aged 21 or over procuring or attempting to procure a male under 18 of gross indecency with another male

  (3)

  (3)

  (3)

  (3)

  2

  3

  6

  7

  3

  4

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  8

  12

  6

  9

  6

  3

  1

  4

  1

  3

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 18

  1

  1

  Gross indecency with boys aged 14 and under

  91

  99

  80

  77

  56

  53

  56

  61

  73

  58

  Gross indecency with girls aged 14 and under

  128

  129

  123

  112

  99

  111

  153

  144

  135

  Other indictable offences

  Take or make indecent photographs, or pseudo-photographs, of children

  39

  44

  37

  27

  44

  69

  103

  82

  139

  218

  Summary Offences

  Possession of an indecent photograph, or pseudo-photograph of a child

  43

  30

  35

  36

  37

  79

  81

  105

  99

  77

  Total for England and Wales

  2,728

  2,553

  2,241

  2,401

  2,635

  2,916

  3,011

  2,958

  2,962

  2,774

  1 New Home Office rules for counting and classifying crime were introduced in April 1998: information on notifiable offences is presented on a financial year basis from that date.

  2 Data are on the principal offences basis.

  3 Counts are not collected centrally for these detailed offences.

  Women Prisoners
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women are in prison for(a) drug offences, (b) drug trafficking offences and (c) supply offences; and of these groups of women, what percentage (i) have dependent children, (ii) are UK nationals and (iii) are non-UK nationals giving countries of nationality. [82861]

  Hilary Benn
  Information on the number of women in prison for drug supply offences, unlawful import/export and other drugs offences, and the nationality of these prisoners, is contained in the table.

  Statistics on whether women currently in prison for drugs offences have dependent children is not available.

  Previous Home Office research (Caddie & Crisp, Imprisoned women and mothers, 1994, Home Office Research Study 162), found that 61 per cent. of women in prison were mothers of children aged under 18 and/or were pregnant. 28 per cent. of sentenced mothers in this study were in prison for drugs offences.
  126W

  Imprisoned women England and Wales 31 October 2002

  Nationality

  Number

  Unlawful import/export

  Drugs supply

  Other drugs offences

  Antarctica

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Australia

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Bangladesh

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Barbados

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Belgium

  5

  5

  —

  —

  Brazil

  10

  9

  —

  1

  Canada

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Columbia

  6

  3

  1

  2

  Dominican Republic

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Ecuador

  1

  —

  —

  1

  France

  7

  5

  2

  —

  Germany

  4

  3

  —

  1

  Germany

  5

  5

  —

  —

  Ghana

  5

  4

  1

  —

  Greece

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Grenada

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Guyana

  3

  3

  —

  —

  India

  4

  2

  —

  2

  Irish Republic

  4

  3

  1

  —

  Italy

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Jamaica

  459

  397

  35

  27

  Kenya

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Latvia

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Liberia

  1

  1

  —

  —

  127W

  Imprisoned Women England and Wales 31 October 2002

  Nationality

  Number

  Unlawful import/export

  Drugs supply

  Other drugs offences

  Montserrat

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  21

  20

  —

  1

  Netherlands Antilles

  3

  3

  —

  —

  Nigeria

  17

  15

  1

  1

  Not known

  9

  9

  —

  —

  Pakistan

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Peru

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Poland

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Portugal

  7

  7

  —

  —

  Singapore

  1

  1

  —

  —

  South Africa

  22

  21

  1

  —

  Spain

  12

  12

  —

  —

  St Christopher and Nevis

  1

  1

  —

  —

  St Kitts and Nevis

  2

  2

  —

  —

  St Lucia

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Stateless

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Surinam

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Sweden

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Switzerland

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Thailand

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Tongo

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Trinidad and Tobago

  3

  3

  —

  —

  United Kingdom

  842

  283

  320

  239

  United States of America

  9

  9

  —

  —

  Venezuela

  4

  4

  —

  —

  Vietnam

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Virgin Islands

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Zimbabwe

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  1,497

  857

  364

  277

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women are held in prisons in England and Wales, broken down by the offences they are held for. [83670]

  Hilary Benn
  The requested data are shown in the following table. Female prisoners held in prisons in England and Wales on the 31 October 2002, broken down by offence.

  Offence Group

  Number of female prisoners

  Total

  4,427

  Violence against the person

  695

  Sexual offences

  21

  Burglary

  305

  Robbery

  481

  Theft and handling

  726

  Fraud and forgery

  133

  Drugs offences

  1,497

  Other offences

  460

  Offence not recorded

  108

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women were received into prison in each of the last three years, broken down by offences. [83671]

  Hilary Benn
  The number of women first received into prisons in England and Wales over the last three years by offence type is given in the table.

  First receptions of females into prison service establishments in England and Wales by offence group

  Offence Group

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Total

  10,982

  10,752

  12,164

  Violence against the person

  1,126

  1,182

  1,318

  Sexual offences

  28

  37

  29

  Burglary

  468

  426

  527

  128W

  First receptions of females into prison service establishments in England and Wales by offence group

  Offence Group

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Robbery

  254

  311

  395

  Theft and handling

  4,135

  4,156

  4,587

  Fraud and forgery

  673

  619

  678

  Drugs offences

  1,275

  1,196

  1,452

  Other offences

  2,063

  1,934

  2,181

  Offence not recorded

  958

  891

  997

  Young Offenders
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department will take following the High Court decision that the Children Act 1989 applies to children held in prison; what assessment his Department has made of the(a) additional training required of prison officers and (b) additional costs to the Prison Service; what time schedule his Department is working towards to implement the High Court ruling in prisons and young offender institutions across England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [85406]

  Hilary Benn
  The Court upheld and endorsed the Prison Service's policy in relation to juveniles in custody. One sentence in its policy, which was to be changed regardless of the outcome of the judgment, has been found to be wrong. This will now be changed in the context of the judgment. There is undoubtedly a need for more consistency in the provision for young people across the prison estate and work is under way to ensure that this happens. There has been considerable investment across the juvenile estate and resources have been put into all establishments; however, these funds must be allocated according to specific needs and priorities.

  The Prison Service has already in place a Child Protection Protocol through which Governors have been required to introduce arrangements to protect children from significant harm, in line with its wish to reflect the principles of the Children Act 1989 and safeguard the welfare of those in its custody. The Court's judgment has found that it is for local authorities to co-operate with the Prison Service in carrying out their duties, subject to the necessary requirements of imprisonment.

  Young Offenders Institutions
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been held in segregation cells in each of the prisons in the juvenile estate since April 2000; and of those, how many have been held for(a) longer than seven and (b) 28 days. [83824]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is not held centrally and I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend when it is available.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Bain Inquiry
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the remuneration and expenses paid to each of the members of the Bain Inquiry into the firefighters; and if he will make a statement. [85317]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Sir George Bain does not wish to be remunerated for his role as chairman of the independent review of the fire service. Sir Anthony Young is being remunerated at a rate equivalent to the daily rate for members of the Central Arbitration Committee. The employers of Sir Michael Lyons are being reimbursed at his usual rate for his time spent working on the review. All three members have their reasonable expenses reimbursed in accordance with the arrangements which normally apply for such inquiries and reviews.

  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost was to public funds of the Bain Inquiry into the firefighters' wage claims; and if he will make a statement. [85318]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The independent review has not yet completed its work so it is not possible to give a figure for the total costs involved in the review.

  British Fire Service
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the 2001 Pathfinder report into the British Fire Service will be published. [85670]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Fire Cover Review Task Group agreed the text of its final report on the pathfinder trials at the end of September, 2002. The Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council will consider the report at a future meeting. If the council endorses the report, it will be published.

  Affordable Housing (Chesham and Amersham)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish(a) the current value of the liabilities for pensions of the Fire Service in payment and other liabilities in respect of service to date, (b) the amount by which it would increase if firefighters' pay were immediately to increase by 10 per cent. more than the rate of earnings growth allowed for and (c) the annual cost of (b), if that were spread over the expected working lifetime of current firefighters; what financial and demographic assumptions were used to make these estimates; and if he will make a statement. [84910]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Firefighters' Pension Scheme is administered locally by or on behalf of fire authorities and the information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Brownfield Land
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what targets the Government are introducing, and over what time, to reduce the quantity of brown field land in the UK; and what steps the Government are taking to relax regulatory and fiscal barriers that prevent property developers from acquiring and redeveloping brown field land. [83947]
  130W
  Mr. McNulty
  The best way to reduce the quantity of brown field land is to build on it. The Government have met their target of 60 per cent. of new dwellings on brown field land and intend to maintain at least this level.

  Concealed Telephone Masts
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many concealed phone masts there are, ranked by county. [85019]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 28 November 2002,Official Report, columns 383–84W, to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles).

  Fire Service
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many hours retained firefighters are required to work in order to receive the annual retaining fee; [85807]

  (2) what the average annual income received by a retained firefighter was during 2001–02 as (a) a leading firefighter with 10 years' service and (b) a firefighter with 2 years' service; [85808]

  (3) what the average number of hours was for which individual retained firefighters were paid the hourly rate during 2001–02. [85806]

  Mr. Raynsford
  To receive the full annual retaining fee a retained firefighter must be on call at all times. Where the retained member has enrolled on conditions requiring attendance only during limited periods, the retaining fee may be reduced proportionately. Payment is not directly related to hours worked.

  Information on the average income received by retained firefighters and the average number of hours for which individuals were paid the hourly rate is not held centrally, and could provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the impact on the annual income of(a) a retained leading firefighter with 10 years' service and (b) a retained firefighter with 2 years' service, of the arrangements for the retained service pay, as set out in the fire employers statement of 13 November. [85809]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As a result of the offer set out in the Fire Brigades Employer Circular of the 12 November the local government employers estimate that all firefighters, wholetime and retained, would have received an increase of 4 per cent. in November 2002. This would have been followed by an increase in the pay bill of 7 per cent. in November 2003, although the amount firefighters actually received would have depended on how much of the pay bill increase was used to reward some staff, for example, with special allowances. Due to changes in their allowances retained firefighters would have typically received 6.4 per cent. more than wholetime firefighters under the arrangements proposed.

  Government Offices for the Regions (Staff)
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many registered architects, planners and urban
  131W
  designers are employed in (a) each of the Government Offices for the Regions and (b) his Department. [85186]

  Mr. McNulty
  58 staff currently in post with Government offices have satisfied the requirements of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) for membership, and include one dual qualified architect/planner. (East of England and West Midlands each have three, East Midlands five, North West six, Yorkshire and the Humber seven, South West and London each have eight, North East and South East each have nine.)

  Our latest information (Autumn 2002) shows that 24 staff within the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have satisfied the requirements of the RTPI for professional membership.

  Information on staff with other professional qualifications is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. There are also 93 active inward secondments to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, many of whom have professional backgrounds.

  Large Scale Voluntary Transfers
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to improve the large scale voluntary transfers process; and how many council properties will have their transfer finalised under the LSVT programme during 2002–03. [83802]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is reviewing the various methods available to authorities for meeting the decent home target, including large scale voluntary transfer of their housing. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects that up to 175,000 dwellings in England will transfer during the current financial year.

  Local Government Finance Settlement
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if the increase in the council tax at standard spending in the local government finance settlement will be limited to the change in retail price index. [86382]

  Mr. Leslie
  The level of the assumed national council tax is determined by the national total for formula spending, the total of revenue support grant, the distributable amount of business rates and the council tax base.

  The increases from year to year in these figures, rather than any inflation assumption, are therefore what determine the increase in the assumed national council tax. Assumed national council tax is simply an assumption used in the distribution of grant; it is not a prediction of actual council tax.

  Planning
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on changes he has made to the workings of the planning system by the update of PPG22. [84556]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently preparing the revised planning guidance on renewable energy (PPG22) following 132W
  informal consultation with a number of interested parties. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends to issue the draft guidance in the new year for full public consultation. Until that time, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will not be detailing potential changes to the original.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what criteria the Government will use to determine public support for regional assemblies; [83424]

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what powers elected regional assemblies will have to make changes to the delivery of public services. [85392]

  Mr. Leslie
  Elected regional assemblies will be responsible for strategic priorities rather than for direct service delivery. But they will add value to service delivery by bringing coherence to, and improving the delivery of, the large number of strategies and partnerships that have developed at the regional level. Assemblies will set the framework for their region and co-ordinate activity on issues such as economic development, planning, housing and transport. An assembly's block grant will allow it to allocate spending according to what it considers as priorities for that region.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether alternatives to elected regional assemblies will be offered as part of the consultation; and if he will make a statement. [85394]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government are currently taking soundings to test the level of interest in each region in holding a referendum on establishing an elected assembly.

  Chapter 2 of the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" sets out the Government's proposals for strengthening all regions; these arrangements will therefore continue to apply in those regions which do not choose to establish elected assemblies.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what economic measures elected regional assemblies will be empowered to take. [85395]

  Mr. Leslie
  Chapter 4 of the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice" makes clear that improving the economic performance of its region will be at the heart of an elected regional assembly's objectives. This is reflected in the range of powers and functions for which elected assemblies will be responsible. In particular, they will be responsible for the Regional Development Agency in their region. They will also have a range of other responsibilities for regional economic development relating to business support, training and skills, and European programmes.

  Assemblies will be able to spend their block grant as they judge best, subject to agreeing a small number of targets covering their key responsibilities. Some additional funds will be available if an assembly meets or exceeds these targets. Elected assemblies will also be able to raise additional funds from a precept on the council tax and will have powers to borrow money, subject to certain limits.
  133W
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has for(a) a question in the referendum on regional assemblies and (b) further referendums, on the constitution of regional assemblies. [85396]

  Mr. Leslie
  Clause 2 of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill sets out the question to be asked in a referendum on regional assemblies. The Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to comment on the intelligibility of any referendum question, and on 25 November the commission announced that the question set out in the Bill meets its guidelines. The commission made some small but constructive suggestions for the wording of the preamble, which the Government will consider carefully and respond to in due course.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister intends that regions that do not have a referendum on establishing an elected assembly in the first instance should have another opportunity at a later date. In regions where a referendum results in a "no" vote, the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill provides that a further referendum can be held after a period of at least five years has passed starting from the day on which the referendum was held.

  Regional Co-ordination Unit
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the cost implications to(a) his Department and (b) other Departments of implementing the review of area-based initiatives by the Regional Co-ordination Unit; and if he will make a statement. [86253]

  Mrs. Roche
  Any costs which may arise in implementing the review of area based initiatives are expected to be offset by the savings which will arise from streamlining the administration of fewer funding streams. Those areas receiving support are also expected to benefit from a reduced bureaucratic overhead.

  Urban Design Skills
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to raise the level of urban design skills within the Government Offices for the regions. [85193]

  Mr. McNulty
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear to the House in his statement on 18 July 2002, and subsequently in his address to the Urban Summit, that the quality urban design is a key element in delivering sustainable communities. It is recognised that there is a shortage of urban design skills across the public and private sectors. In the context of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Ministers' document, we will be looking at effective means of raising urban design skills.

  Through our support to the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) we are already actively encouraging improved understanding and awareness of the value of urban design. We expect the Commission to promote the highest standards of urban design and use its enabling and review roles to help develop skills and best practice in both the public and private sector.
  134W
  The Government endorse the "Design Champion" model that is working well in Government Departments and some local authorities to improve the quality of design. Our "Living Places: cleaner, safer, greener" report published in October 2002 stated that, by April 2003, all Regional Development Agencies will be expected to have a Design Champion in place to help them achieve their objective to promote excellence in urban design. By April 2004 the Government would like to see all major agencies and non-departmental bodies follow suit. Copies of this document are available in Libraries of the House.

  Young Runaways
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he plans to take, following the publication of the Social Exclusion Unit's young runaways report, to tackle the issues of abuse at home and bullying that cause children to run away; and whether one of the proposed two flagship schemes will be based in West Sussex. [86429]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department of Health is responsible for ensuring the implementation of the action plan in the Social Exclusion Unit's report on young runaways.

  The action plan sets out a range of practical steps to prevent children and young people from running away and to tackle issues like abuse and bullying. Those steps include better information for schools and teachers, early identification of children and young people who might run away and the development of more effective family support services.

  The Green Paper on Children at Risk announced to Parliament by my right. hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 30 October 2002, Official Report, column 860, will look further at some of the wider issues that contribute to running away and that put children and young people at risk. The Green Paper will identify radical new options to improve services for children. It will cover all services which work with children and young people including social services, youth justice, as well as the role of schools, families and communities.

  No bids for runaways development projects were received from West Sussex.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the daily capacity is of the telephone helpline provided for claimants seeking advice on automatic credit transfer. [86209]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department's customer conversion centre and information line have in place service level agreements to deal with anticipated levels of contact from customers. The service level agreements will ensure that effective customer service is provided and any change in customer contact volumes will be managed.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many suspected benefit frauds have(a) been investigated and (b) resulted in a successful prosecution as a result of (i) submissions to the Targeting Fraud website and (ii) calls to the National Benefit Fraud Hotline in each year since 1997. [85991]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the tables.

  Targeting fraud website (launched May 2000)

  Period

  Investigations completed

  Successful Prosecutions

  1 May 2000 to 31 March 2001

  184

  0

  2001–02

  673

  4

  1 April 2002 to 31 October 2002

  722

  9

  Full information on the number of investigations and successful prosecutions resulting from calls to the National Benefit Fraud Hotline is available only from April 2000.

  National benefit fraud hotline

  Period

  Investigations completed

  Successful Prosecutions

  2000–01

  35,589

  492

  2001–02

  108,986

  768

  1 April 2002 to 31 October 2002

  58,592

  432

  Source:

  Fraud Information By Sector system

  EU Employment Barriers
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the informal barriers to employment for British workers in the EU. [84576]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The main informal barriers relate to such problems as language or culture and are therefore not readily solved. However, the UK Government take up individual cases where any barriers seem to be unreasonable, and intervenes where appropriate when cases come before the European Court of Justice.

  The Department has worked with the European Commission to help produce their communication of 28 February 2001 on "New European Labour Markets, Open to All with Access for All" and have contributed to the subsequent House of Lords Select Committee investigation. We will continue to look to improve our understanding of this issue so that we can raise the employment opportunities available to all UK jobseekers.

  Free movement of people is one of the four freedoms within the internal market of the European Union. Within the free movement title of the EC Treaty, Article 39 states that free movement of workers "shall be secured within the Community". This means that workers of the member states are free to accept offers of employment actually made in another member state, and to remain in another member state for the purposes of carrying out employment. However, Article 39 does not apply to employment in the public service.
  136W
  The main EU regulation giving effect to free movement rights for workers of EU member states is EEC Regulation 1612/68. This guarantees migrant workers equality of treatment with nationals of the host country in respect of:

  The right to take up an activity as an employed person;

  The right to negotiate and conclude an employment contract;

  Full and free access to the host country labour market;

  Assistance from public employment offices;

  Enlargement and recruitment conditions;

  Conditions of employment and conditions governing reemployment, social and tax advantages, vocational training, retraining, and clauses contained in collective or individual contracts of employment;

  Membership of trade unions and the exercise of rights attaching thereto;

  Housing; and

  Access of children to education and vocational training.

  The regulation guarantees, subject to certain conditions, the right of the migrant worker's family to live in the host country.

  Nevertheless, provided they fulfil their obligations under EU legislation, member states can and do place restrictions on the free movement rights of EU citizens. In particular, Article 39(3) of the EC Treaty allows member states in some circumstances to restrict the movement and residence of workers on the grounds of "public policy, public security or public health".

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will simplify the procedures for the payment of Incapacity Benefit to councillors in receipt of councilors' allowances. [84622]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Incapacity Benefit rules recognise councillors' particular obligations and all work carried out in connection with their elected office is disregarded in deciding entitlement. Any allowances paid are taken into account only if they exceed the permitted work rules limit of £67.50 in any week.

  In March 2002, new guidance on the treatment of councillors' allowances was issued to decision makers. This simplifies procedures by allowing the averaging and estimation of expenses, thereby reducing the need for a weekly calculation.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answers of 27 November 2002, Refs 82508, 82511 and 82513, if he will list the additional job entry target point scores which apply in respect of each client group in each of the 60 local authority areas referred to; and if he will make a statement. [85292]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 4 December 2002]: The job entry target point scores are helping Jobcentre Plus to achieve the objectives laid out in its Business Plan for 2002–03. One of the Agency's goals is to help people of working age in the most disadvantaged groups and areas to move closer to the labour market, compete effectively for, and remain in work.
  137W
  It is these groups and areas that have been given highest weight. Awarding additional points in this way gives extra incentives to build Jobcentre Plus performance in difficult labour markets and towards those people who are hardest to help back into the labour market.

  Details of the point scores are in the table.

  Client Group

  Points per job entry

  Participants in the New Deal for Lone Parents

  12

  Other jobless lone parents

  12

  Participants in the New Deal for Disabled People

  12

  Other people with disabilities receiving benefit1 (other than those receiving Jobseeker's Allowance)

  12

  Other jobless people receiving benefit1 (other than those receiving Jobseeker's Allowance)

  12

  Participants in the New Deal for people aged 50+

  8

  Participants in the New Deal for people aged 25+

  8

  Participants in the New Deal for Young People aged 18 to 24

  8

  People helped into work through Employment Zones

  8

  Other people with disabilities

  8

  Other people who have been receiving Jobseeker's Allowance for six months or more.

  8

  People who have been receiving Jobseeker's Allowance for up to six months

  4

  Other Jobless people not claiming benefits

  2

  People already employed, changing jobs

  1

  Additional Points

  People receiving Jobseeker's Allowance who remain off Jobseeker's Allowance four weeks after being helped into work

  1

  People living in 60 specified Local Authority areas.

  2

  1 The benefits are: Income Support, Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Allowance, Bereavement Benefit and Invalid Care Allowance.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the basis for the calculation by his noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, of the amount of money saved by a typical married woman who opted to pay National Insurance contributions at the reduced rate. [86072]

  Mr. McCartney
  My noble Friend quoted an illustrative example comparing what a married woman would have paid in full and reduced rate National Insurance contributions if she had earned around £4,000 in 1977 rising evenly to around £27,000 in 2002. The saving of £18,000 in this case is the total cash saving and has not been adjusted upward to take account of inflation over the period. The exact amount of savings any married woman will enjoy depends on her level of earnings because the amount of National Insurance contributions is calculated based on earnings.

  New Deal
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people had benefits withdrawn for failing to accept all options under(a) New Deal for Young People, (b) New Deal 50 plus and (c) New Deal 25 plus. [83511]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: New Deal 50 plus has always been a voluntary programme and so there are no benefit sanctions for not participating.
  138W
  Between January 1998 and September 2002, 64,106 sanctions, to withdraw any Jobseeker's Allowance in payment, had been imposed under the New Deal for Young People. Between April 1998 and June 2002, 21,607 sanctions to withdraw benefit had been imposed under the New Deal 25 plus. We record only the total number of sanctions imposed and not the number of people sanctioned. Some people are sanctioned more than once.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of entrants to New Deal for Young People were functionally illiterate in(a) its first year and (b) the latest period for which figures are available. [83512]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: We estimate that at least 32 per cent. of all unemployed people have literacy, language and/or numeracy needs, which in part prevent them from improving their employability and finding secure work. Information is not available specifically on the level of illiteracy among entrants to the New Deal for Young People.

  Jobcentre Plus screens around 15,000 people a week for literacy and/or numeracy needs. Clients who need help with their literacy and/or numeracy can access job focused training to ensure they are able to develop the skills they need to find and retain work. From April 2001 to January 2002, more than 4,400 young people received basic skills help in the New Deal for Young People. In the same period 10,000 began basic skills training though other programmes or voluntary New Deals.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the improvements in employability of those on each New Deal; and if he will make a statement. [83514]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: The New Deals are delivering services tailored to meet the needs of individuals, giving people the skills, confidence and motivation they need to help them find work.

  We have in place a wide-ranging programme of evaluation of our New Deals. This evaluation examines the benefits that New Deals are providing, including the increased likelihood of participants moving into work. Evaluation reports are placed in the Library as they are published.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have entered the New Deal gateway(a) once, (b) twice and (c) three times or more in respect of (i) New Deal for Young People, (ii) New Deal 50 plus, and (iii) New Deal 25 plus. [83515]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: The New Deal 50 plus, does not have a gateway period.

  At June 2002, 738,950 people had started on the gateway of the New Deal for Young People programme.

  139W
  Of these 101,160 clients (16.7 per cent. of all gateway starters) have entered the gateway twice and 16,040 (2.7 per cent. of all gateway starters) have entered the gateway three times or more.

  At June 2002, 482,680 people had started on the gateway of the New Deal 25 plus. Of these 55,990 clients (13.6 per cent. of all gateway starters) have entered the gateway twice and 7,050 (1.7 per cent. of all gateway starters) have entered the gateway three times or more.

  Many participants will leave the programme before they reach the gateway stage (e.g. by finding work following their initial interview) so the numbers entering the gateway are significantly lower than the number entering the programme.

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide the information given in his Answer to the hon. Member for Hertsmere of 31 January,Official Report, column 537W, in respect of 2001–02. [86056]

  Expenditure on the New Deals1

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–022

  Total 1997 to 2002

  Of which: Windfall Tax

  Planned3 spend 2002–03

  Young People

  50

  268

  378

  368

  285

  1,347

  1,080

  354

  25 plus

  0

  24

  108

  128

  226

  486

  420

  303

  50 plus4

  0

  0

  5

  20

  15

  40

  40

  16

  Lone Parents

  0

  21

  41

  41

  36

  139

  135

  142

  Disabled

  People

  0

  5

  20

  10

  10

  45

  45

  58

  Partners

  0

  0

  5

  10

  10

  25

  25

  26

  1 Includes expenditure in Northern Ireland.

  2 2002–03 figures reflect planned gross expenditure, including Windfall Tax. Future New Deal allocations are currently being revised to reflect the outcome of Spending Review 2002.

  3 New Deal 50 plus expenditure does not include employment credits, which are met from Annually Managed Expenditure.

  Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list(a) Green Papers, (b) reviews and (c) consultations or pensions since 1997. [81794]

  Mr. McCartney
  We produced a Green Paper—Partnership in Pensions in 1998. Quinquennial reviews of occupational and personal pension schemes: review of certain contracted out terms took place in 1998

  Title of consultation

  Date

  Occupational pension scheme winding up notices and reports (etc) regulations 2001

  August 2001

  Occupational and personal pension schemes (disclosure of information) amendment regulations 2001

  August 2001

  The minimum funding requirement: The next stage of reform, consultation on the draft occupational pension schemes (minimum funding requirement and miscellaneous amendments) regulations 2001

  September 2001

  Private pensions

  October 2001

  Simplification (Pickering)

  Bulk transfer of accrued pensions rights without member consent

  December 2001

  Consultation on three recommendations in the Myner's report—"institutional investment in the UK—a review (issued by Treasury 2001)"

  February 2002

  Member nominated trustees and directors

  February 2002

  Modernising annuities

  February 2002

  140W
  Malcolm Wicks
  During 2001 and 2002 a total of 11,183 sentences were imposed. Of these, 648 were custodial sentences and 3,067 were community sentences. The remaining 7,468 comprised a range of punishments including conditional discharge, probation, suspended imprisonment and payment of compensation.

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus Fraud Information By Sector system

  New Deal Costs
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total expenditure has been to date on(a) New Deal for Young People, (b) New Deal 50 plus and (c) New Deal 25 plus. [83516]

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the gross annual cost is of each of the New Deal programmes since they were first established; how much of this cost has been met by the proceeds of the windfall tax; and what projections have been made for future years. [81795]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 26 November 2002]: The information requested is in the table.

  and 2001. A quinquennial review of the pensions ombudsman took place in 2000. The Pickering review took place in 2002.

  The Pension Credit: a consultation paper was produced in November 2000. It is a general requirement to consult on all draft amendment regulations on occupational pensions and the following list details consultations of the new Department for Work and Pensions compiled from August 2001. A detailed list of consultations before this date is not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  141W

  Title of consultation

  Date

  Occupational and personal pension schemes (contracting-out) miscellaneous amending regulations

  April 2002 (Fegs)

  Quinquennial review occupational pensions regulatory authority (Opra)—consultation

  May 2002

  The future of the residential allowance component of income support, minimum income guarantee, jobseeker 's allowance

  May 2002

  Notes: The following point should be noted:

  (i) The Government's code of practice on written consultation applies to written consultations which have a national impact on policy and services from 1st January 2001. This is in addition to our unique obligations as a Department to consult the Social Security Advisory Committee on certain legislative changes. Such changes may, or may not be subject to a public consultation.

  (ii) All public consultations are published on the DWP website and can be found on www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2002/index.htm.

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many personal invitations documents for post office card accounts will be printed; [86210]

  (2) what proof of identity will be required for future holders of a post office card account who are in receipt of pensions and benefits. [86215]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Customers who wish to open a post office card account will be issued with a personal invitation document to take to their post office branch where they will then be handed a post office card account application form to fill in.

  Customers will need to prove who they are when opening a post office card account by presenting items such as a current passport, a full current driving licence or a council tax or utility bill. The personal invitation document can also act as a form of identification. We have said repeatedly that anyone who wants to open a card account will be able to do so, so there is no need to "ration" post office card accounts by restricting the number of personal invitation documents that are printed.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what criteria are being employed in the decision to approve promotional literature for the post office card account; [86212]

  (2) when he will make a decision approving the promotional literature for the post office card accounts. [86213]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions will be writing to customers over the next two years when it is their turn to change to direct payment into their account. Customers will be provided with information (including letters and leaflets) which clearly sets out the different types of accounts and enables them to choose the account that best meets their needs and circumstances.

  All of our information material includes references to post office access and post office card accounts; there is no need for any specific promotional literature for the post office card account. The post office have also
  142W
  produced customer information which mentions the post office card account and have plans to produce further material.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what arrangements are being made for those pensioners and benefit claimants who wish to apply for a post office card account who have(a) hearing difficulties, (b) impaired sight, (c) serious learning difficulties, (d) mental illness and (e) seriously restricted mobility. [86217]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There will be a range of accounts available for people. We will provide customers with information (including letters and leaflets) which clearly sets out the account options as part of the move to direct payment. Customers, including those with a disability, will then be able to consider the options available and choose the account that best meets their needs and circumstances. They will be asked to provide details of their chosen account so that the Department can begin to pay their benefit or pensions by direct payment.

  Post office card account customers will also be able to give third party access to a nominated individual who will be able to access their account via a second card and a separate PIN.

  It has always been recognised that there will be some customers who are unable to use any of the banking options or the post office card account. For these people we are currently exploring the options available to ensure they receive their benefit at outlets which will include the post office.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the procedure for opening a post office card account; and whether he plans to take action to simplify it. [86474]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions will be writing to customers in Great Britain over the next two years when it is their turn to change to direct payment into an account. Customers will be provided with information (including letters and leaflets) which clearly sets out the different types of accounts and enables them to choose the account that best meets their needs and circumstances.

  Customers who wish to open a post office card account will need to contact the Department to discuss their account options with an adviser. They will then be issued with a personal invitation document. This document should then be taken to a post office branch where the customer will be given a post office card account application form to complete.

  Overall the process of applying for a post office card account is already straightforward and no more onerous than that of applying for a basic (or other) bank account.
  143W
  Similar arrangements will be put in place for customers living in Northern Ireland by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Statistics
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answers of 27 November, Refs 82508, 82511 and 82513, if he will rank the(a) unemployment rates and (b) ethnic minority population statistics of each 60 local authorities referred to in respect of (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) each nation of the UK. [85293]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 4 December 2002]: The information is in the table.

  Many of the local authorities with the lowest employment rates are also among the local authorities with the highest ethnic minority populations. The local authorities listed as having high ethnic minority populations are therefore the 30 local authorities with the highest ethnic minority populations that do not already feature in the list of the 30 local authorities with the lowest employment rate.

  Percentage

  Local authorities with lowest employment rates

  Employment rate

  Tower Hamlets (E)

  55

  Knowsley (E)

  55

  Merthyr Tydfil (W)

  56

  City of Glasgow (S)

  57

  Blaenau Gwent (W)

  57

  Newham (E)

  57

  Easington (E)

  58

  Hackney (E)

  58

  Liverpool (E)

  59

  Manchester (E)

  59

  Middlesbrough (E)

  59

  East Ayrshire (S)

  61

  Neath Port Talbot (W)

  62

  Sunderland (E)

  62

  Newcastle upon Tyne (E)

  62

  South Tyneside (E)

  63

  Redcar and Cleveland (E)

  63

  Pembrokeshire (W)

  63

  Halton (E)

  64

  Southwark (E)

  64

  Kingston upon Hull, City (E)

  64

  Nottingham (E)

  64

  Islington (E)

  65

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff (W)

  65

  Salford (E)

  65

  Hartlepool (E)

  66

  North Lanarkshire (S)

  66

  West Dunbartonshire (S)

  66

  Dundee (S)

  66

  Caerphilly (W)

  67

  Local authorities with highest minority ethnic population

  Population

  Birmingham (E)

  157,990

  Brent (E)

  98,297

  Ealing (E)

  85,407

  Leicester City (E)

  63,889

  Bradford (E)

  60,694

  Barnet (E)

  58,832

  Lambeth (E)

  58,458

  Redbridge (E)

  57,153

  144W

  Local authorities with highest minority ethnic population

  Population

  Harrow (E)

  54,580

  Westminster, City of (E)

  52,805

  Haringey (E)

  52,712

  Croydon (E)

  47,935

  Lewisham (E)

  44,678

  Hounslow (E)

  43,733

  Waltham Forest (E)

  43,233

  Wandsworth (E)

  37,384

  Luton (E)

  33,679

  Enfield (E)

  33,496

  Camden (E)

  33,007

  Sandwell (E)

  32,370

  Kensington and Chelsea (E)

  32,261

  Leeds (E)

  31,681

  Kirklees (E)

  31,436

  Wolverhampton (E)

  30,275

  Merton (E)

  29,636

  Hammersmith and Fulham (E)

  28,652

  Hillingdon (E)

  27,608

  Sheffield (E)

  26,224

  Greenwich (E)

  25,738

  Coventry (E)

  23,172

  Notes:

  1. (E) = England, (S) = Scotland, (W) = Wales

  2. Jobcentre Plus does not operate in Northern Ireland

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey

  Sustainability Strategy
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the sustainability strategy is for his Department; and how it has changed since the Earth Summit in Johannesburg. [83444]

  Maria Eagle
  DWP confirmed its commitment to sustainable development by publishing a sustainable development policy statement in July this year. The 2nd DWP annual sustainable development report, published on 25 November, also introduces the departmental strategy for sustainable development that has been developed. This contains targets for improvement and sets out how the Department will continue to contribute to sustainable development. Both of these documents have been placed in the Library.

  WSSD outcomes and first views on follow-up will be reflected in the annual report on UK progress on sustainable development for 2002. The DWP Strategy will be reviewed regularly to ensure that it continues to meet the aims and objectives of the UK strategy for sustainable development. The Introduction to the DWP strategy contains specific information on the World Summit on Sustainable Development. This will be updated to reflect the outcomes and as each element of the Strategy is reviewed outcomes from WSSD will be reflected as appropriate.

HEALTH

  Youth Provision (Battersea)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance is available to young people resident in Battersea who have left care homes or foster parents over the age of(a) 16 and (b) 18 years. [85522]
  145W
  Jacqui Smith
  The assistance available to young people resident in Battersea who have left care homes or foster parents over the age of 16 or 18 is governed by the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000.

  This Act came into force in October 2001 and is accompanied by the Children (Leaving Care) (England) Regulations 2001 and associated guidance. The regulations and guidance set out the framework for young people who leave local authority care.

  Both the Act and the regulations and guidance are available in the Library.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will make it his policy to seek an amendment to the Food Supplements Directive prior to its full implementation to allow member states to permit onto their own national markets those products which fall outside the technical restrictions of that Directive but which the competent authority accepts as safe and appropriately labelled; and if he will make a statement. [84523]

  Ms Blears
  The Government has no plans to seek any amendments to the Food Supplements Directive. It has already secured provisions which enable Member States to allow the continued sale of products which do not comply with the compositional requirements up to 31 December 2009.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nutrients and nutrient sources on the United Kingdom market are absent from the list of permitted nutrients included in the annexes to the Food Supplements Directive; and what estimate he has made of the cost of(a) commissioning the research and (b) producing a dossier to the standards required by the European Scientific Committee for Foods for consideration for approval to be given for the addition of such missing nutrients to the annexes in the future. [84525]

  Ms Blears
  According to information provided by industry, the list of permitted nutrients included in the annexes to the Food Supplements Directive excludes six nutrients (six minerals) and some 270 individual nutrient sources used in food supplements currently on the United Kingdom food supplements market. The costs of producing dossiers will largely depend upon the amount of new safety data that needs to be gathered, and will vary between individual cases.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received from(a) industry and (b) the Food Standards Agency a list of those nutrients missing from the lists of approved nutrients and nutrient sources contained within the annexes of the Food Supplements Directive; what information he has received from industry as to which of those nutrients are the subject of projects to prepare adequate dossiers for consideration by the European Union Standing Committee for Foods; and what steps he intends to take to ensure the remaining nutrients are added to those annexes in the future. [84574]
  146W
  Ms Blears
  United Kingdom industry representatives have sent to the Food Standards Agency a list of those nutrients missing from the lists of approved nutrients and nutrient sources in the annexes to the Food Supplements Directive. The same representatives have also sent to the Agency a list of dossiers being considered by industry for preparation and submission to the EU Scientific Committee for Foods (SCF). These dossiers cover 51 sources of 17 vitamins and minerals. As required by the Directive, the Food Standards Agency will forward to the Commission any such dossiers submitted to the Agency by industry for submission to the SCF.

  Mobile Phones
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into the effects of radio waves on leukaemia cells, with particular reference to mobile phone users. [85018]

  Ms Blears
  The Department has not undertaken research into the effects of radio waves on leukaemia cells.
  The independent expert group on mobile phones examined exposures from both mobile phones and base stations and experimental and epidemiological studies on possible health effects. It concluded that the balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to radio waves below national and international guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population.

  The expert group also proposed that gaps in knowledge were sufficient to justify a precautionary approach to the development of this technology and made recommendations for further research. A comprehensive research programme has now been established in this country under an independent programme management committee (PMC). Out of more than 120 submitted applications the PMC has approved 1 5 research proposals to date. This research includes studies of the effects of radio waves on cells and studies of the incidence of leukaemia and other cancers in populations. Information can be found on the mobile telecommunications and health research web site (www.mthr.org.uk). The World Health Organisation's international electromagnetic fields project lists the research being carried out in a number of other countries (see www.who.int/emf)

  GM Foods
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the budget for the Food Standards Agency debate on GM foods; who will be contracted to conduct the debate; and how the Government's own debate on GM foods will interact with that of the FSA. [85148]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency is providing an independent contribution to the Government's debate on genetically modified (GM) foods. The Agency's contribution will consist of several elements including a citizen's jury and surveys on attitudes of young people and those on low incomes to GM foods, the details of which have yet to be finalised. The Agency has estimated that this will cost approximately
  147W
  £110,000. It has agreed to provide updates to the independent GM debate steering board and the results of the Agency's work will be discussed in public at an FSA Board meeting before the Government's GM debate concludes.

  Adoptions
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many inter-country adoptions there were by British citizens in each of the last three years, broken down by country. [85527]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not held centrally. Children habitually resident outside the United Kingdom may be adopted by British residents in the child's state of origin where the adoption order is recognised under UK law or brought to the UK by British residents for the purposes of adoption in the UK courts. British citizens living outside the UK may also adopt children habitually resident outside the UK through procedures agreed with the child's state of origin. Figures are only held for the number of applications involving a home study assessment in the UK and sent to the Department for processing. Not all of these applications are by British Citizens.

  The table shows how many overseas adoption applications the Department has received in each of the last three years.

  Country name

  Number of applications

  Applications received by country from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2000

  Algeria

  1

  Armenia

  1

  Belarus

  1

  Bulgaria

  3

  Cambodia

  1

  Canada

  1

  China

  176

  Colombia

  1

  Ghana

  1

  Guatemala

  24

  India

  14

  Iran

  1

  Jordan

  1

  Kazakhstan

  2

  Latvia

  1

  Lithuania

  1

  Macedonia

  1

  Mexico

  1

  Morocco

  3

  Peru

  1

  Philippines

  3

  Romania

  23

  Russia

  14

  Singapore

  1

  Sri Lanka

  2

  Thailand

  45

  Ukraine

  2

  USA

  15

  Vietnam

  10

  Total applications received

  351

  Applications received by country from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  1

  Brazil

  2

  Bulgaria

  3

  China

  176

  148W

  Country name

  Number of applications

  Colombia

  4

  Ethiopia

  1

  Georgia

  1

  Guatemala

  13

  Hong Kong

  1

  India

  19

  Mexico

  1

  Morocco

  1

  Pakistan

  4

  Peru

  1

  Philippines

  7

  Poland

  1

  Portugal

  1

  Romania

  5

  Russia

  13

  South Africa

  1

  Sri Lanka

  7

  Thailand

  29

  Turkey

  1

  Ukraine

  1

  USA

  22

  Vietnam

  11

  Total applications received

  327

  Applications received by country from 1 January 2002 to 2 December 2002

  Armenia

  1

  Brazil

  1

  Bulgaria

  4

  Cambodia

  4

  Chile

  1

  China

  126

  Colombia

  1

  Guatemala

  17

  India

  19

  Lithuania

  1

  Madagascar

  2

  Malaysia

  1

  Mauritius

  2

  Mexico

  1

  Morocco

  3

  Nepal

  1

  Pakistan

  2

  Philippines

  4

  Poland

  1

  Romania

  3

  Russia

  14

  Samoa

  1

  South Africa

  2

  Sri Lanka

  1

  Taiwan

  1

  Thailand

  19

  Turkey

  1

  Ukraine

  2

  USA

  18

  Vietnam

  15

  Total applications received

  269

  Agency Staff
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total cost was of hiring agency staff to carry out operating department practitioner duties(a) in England and (b) in the north-west region in the last year for which figures are available. [85434]
  149W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: The Department collects information on the cost to the national health service of temporary workers, by category but not the duties undertaken nor the hospital department they are employed in.

  Ambulance Personnel
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many former ambulance personnel are on retirement pensions; and how many ambulance personnel there are in service. [82172]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 27 November 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally. The number of staff who have taken a retirement pension since the establishment of ambulance trusts, up to 8 November 2002, is 1,645. The number of ambulance staff in service at 30 September 2001 was 16,920.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many assaults on ambulance staff were recorded in each of the past five years. [85770]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the type of and levels of violent incidents by individual staff group is not collected centrally, but may be held at a local level by national health service employers. Data on violent incidents involving all staff in the NHS was not collected on a national basis prior to 1998.

  The results of the 2000–2001 survey of reported violent or abusive incidents, accidents involving staff and sickness absence in NHS trusts and health authorities in England have been placed in the Library, along with a report setting out the Government's proposed action in light of the findings. The survey found that there were an estimated 13 reported violent or abusive incidents per 1,000 staff per month in ambulance trusts, compared to an estimated ten such incidents for all NHS trusts.

  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what dedicated facilities and support are available to children diagnosed with ADHD in the UK. [84584]

  Jacqui Smith
  Children with ADHD normally receive help and support from within the spectrum of child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) which range from primary care, including school and social services interventions, to specialist and inpatient services. Child and adolescent psychiatrists, and increasingly paediatricians, provide specialist diagnostic and treatment services for children with ADHD, supported by members of multidisciplinary teams.

  A number of voluntary bodies also provide information, advice and support specifically for parents and children with this disorder. The Department provides grant-aid to the ADHD National Alliance which helps to coordinate voluntary sector activity and development work in this field.

  Arrangements for Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of the devolved administrations. Whilst the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.
  150W
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the number of school-aged children diagnosed with ADHD. [84586]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on numbers diagnosed is not collected centrally. The prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) of all types is estimated at around five per cent. of school-aged children, approximately 345,000, six to 16 year olds in England.

  BCG
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether all teenagers in England and Wales are being offered BCG vaccinations; and if he will make a statement. [81774]

  Ms Blears
  BCG is recommended and available for children between the ages of 10 to 14 years as part of the school immunisation programme.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of breast cancer patients have been waiting less than two months between urgent referral and the start of treatment in(a) England and (b) each NHS region. [85301]

  Ms Blears
  Data is not yet collected centrally on performance of this target. The standard of a maximum wait of two months from urgent referral to first definitive treatment for breast cancer comes into effect at the end of December 2002. Central monitoring will begin in 2003 and data will be published on a quarterly basis next year. Data on current cancer waiting times targets is published on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/cancerwaits.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list Health Authorities/PCTs that have received funding from the Cancer Care Plan for specialist palliative care, announced in May 2000, together with the amounts received. [84996]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 3 December 2002]: The NHS Cancer Plan pledged that the national health service contribution to the costs of specialist palliative care, including hospices, would increase by £50 million by 2004. Funding for specialist palliative care is included in the overall increased NHS investment for implementing the Cancer Plan and is, therefore, included in baseline allocations to health authorities (HAs) and primary care trusts (PCT). Each HA and PCT has received increased funding.

  As mentioned in my earlier reply to the hon. Member on 3 December 2002,we have made available an extra £10 million for specialist palliative care in 2002–03 to support the work the National Cancer Director is undertaking with the NHS and the voluntary sector to develop proposals for a new approach to specialist palliative care funding and planning. A list of the allocations made to each PCT from that extra funding has been placed in the Library.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extra(a) doctors, (b) nurses and (c) managers have been employed by NHS trusts using the extra money allocated for the improvement of cancer services. [83701]
  151W
  Mr. Hutton
  Information specifically on the number of staff employed by national health service trusts using the money allocated for the improvement of cancer services is not available.

  A table showing the increase in hospital and community health services (HCHS) medical staff employed in the cancer specialties in NHS trusts, primary care trusts (PCTs) and the National Blood Authority, excluding staff who work elsewhere in the NHS, between 2000 and 2001 follows. Information on staff groups other than HCHS medical staff working in cancer services is not collected centrally.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Medical staff working in the cancer specialties1 employed in NHS trusts, PCTs and the National Blood Authority in England as at 30 September each year

  2000

  2001

  Difference

  Medical staff employed in the cancer specialties

  5,650

  6,090

  440

  1 Excludes hospital practitioners and clinical assistants most of whom are GPs

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census.

  By 2003–04 we will be making an additional £570 million available to support the implementation of the NHS Cancer Plan. These increased resources will enable PCTs to decide where NHS resources are best spent in line with local priorities in providing high clinical standards and good value for money.

  The Government are implementing a range of measures to improve recruitment and retention of all staff, including nurses. Since 1997, the nursing work force has grown by 39,520. Between September 1999 and March 2002 there was an approximated net increase in nurses working in the NHS of 28,740—the NHS Plan

  Staffing trends in registration and inspection units England: all inspection units

  Number

  Whole time equivalent (WTE)

  Posts vacant (WTE)

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  Professional staff

  2,120

  2,035

  1,580

  1,880

  1,790

  1,410

  80

  95

  45

  of which: registration/inspection officers

  1—

  1,220

  895

  1—

  1,100

  820

  1—

  70

  30

  Support staff

  795

  790

  680

  695

  670

  560

  40

  45

  40

  Note:

  1 not available

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 28 November, Official Report, column 408W, on care home inspectors, what types of premises the inspectors are required to inspect; and how many of each type of establishment there are, by region. [86259]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) inspects children's homes, care homes, independent hospitals, independent clinics, independent medical agencies and fostering agencies. It also carries out welfare inspections of boarding schools and further education colleges accommodating under-18 year olds. The NCSC is also responsible for the
  152W
  target and Manifesto commitment have been reached two years early. The increase in nurse numbers will enable the recruitment of additional cancer-site specific nurse specialists, chemotherapy nurses, district nurses, palliative care nurse specialists and additional nurses on wards caring for cancer patients.

  Care Expenditure
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent, adjusted for inflation, on(a) homecare, (b) secure accommodation, (c) fostering, (d) day care, (e) nursing care and (f) residential care for (i) children, (ii) 18 to 64 year olds and (iii) people aged 65 and over in each year since 1997–1998 in (A) Cumbria, (B) Devon, (C) East Riding of Yorkshire, (D) Herefordshire, (E) Lincolnshire, (F) North Yorkshire, (G) Northumberland, (H) Rutland, (I) Shropshire, (J) Wiltshire and (K) England. [85566]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Care Home Inspectors
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health[pursuant to his answer of 28 November, Official Report, column 408W], on care home inspectors, how many (a) established care home inspector posts and (b) vacancies there were in each of the last five years. [86258]

  Jacqui Smith
  The available information on the number and whole time equivalent (WTE) of professional and support staff and the number of posts vacant in England is shown in the table for the years 1998–1999 to 200–2001. Data for 2001–2002 is not available.

  The data for 2000–2001 are not directly comparable with previous years as they do not include the inspection of provision of under eight activity.

  inspection of local authority adoption and fostering services. Provisions in the Care Standards Act 2000 relating to inspection of domiciliary care agencies, nurses agencies, residential family centres, and voluntary adoption agencies have not yet been commenced.

  Information on the number of different types of establishment is not yet available.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 28 November, Official Report, column 408W, on care home inspectors, how many
  153W
  vacancies have been unfilled for (a) up to one month, (b) one to three months, (c) three to six months. (d) six months to one year and (e) one year or more. [86261]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not available. The National Care Standards Commission does not currently hold retrospective data relating to vacancies.

  Carers Grant
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been available in the carers grant for each of the last five years; how much was unallocated; and how much will be allocated to the carers grant for each of the next three years. [86293]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is shown in the table. The entire grant was allocated.

  Year

  £ million

  1999–2000

  20

  2000–01

  50

  2001–02

  70

  2002–03

  85

  2003–04

  100

  2004–05

  125

  2005–06

  185

  Change Agent Team
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the Department of Health's Change Agent Team. [86371]

  Jacqui Smith
  As of 5 December, members of the change agent team are: Richard Humphries (Director), Fran McCabe, Maureen Allan, Anne Ashby, Janet Crampton, Ruth Eley, Moira McGrath, Fiona McLeod, Liz Sargeant, Elizabeth Foley, Michael Padgham.

  Children
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to introduce legislation to give children the same legal right of protection for assaults as adults; and if he will make a statement. [83220]

  Jacqui Smith
  The law governing assault is the same for adults and children, except only in respect of the "reasonable chastisement" defence of the physical punishment of children. Use of this defence is now governed by the outcome of the European Court of Human Rights ruling in the case of A.v. United Kingdom, which was heard on appeal from the domestic courts. Since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force in the UK in October 2000, the Courts have been obliged to take note of the outcome of the European Court of Human Rights ruling. Following the A. v. UK case, certain factors must be taken into account by the Courts when considering whether a punishment may be described as reasonable chastisement. These factors include the nature and duration of punishment, its physical and mental effects and the state of health and age of the child. The Government believe that parents have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to use physical punishment in bringing up their children. The law is therefore formulated to allow
  154W
  them to make that choice, while affording protection for children against unacceptable forms of physical punishment.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have been diagnosed obese since 1997; and what percentage of these children were diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. [84544]

  Ms Blears
  The prevalence of overweight and obesity is increasing in children in England. No exact figures on how many children are obese are available, although analyses of the Health Survey for England (1999) showed the prevalence of obesity was 10 per cent., at age six rising to 17 per cent., at age 15. There are also no figures available on the numbers of children who are obese and have Type 2 diabetes. There is however evidence to suggest that the rise in the number of children with Type 2 diabetes is in proportion to the number who are obese.

  The Government are committed to tackling the rising trend in childhood obesity arid have put in place cross-Government programmes of work to improve eating habits and increase physical activity levels. One Government Department cannot tackle obesity on its own. The Department of Health is working with other Government Departments and a wide range of other partners at national, regional and local levels.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received from non-Members on the reform of the child protection system; and if he will make a statement. [85138]

  Jacqui Smith
  We receive many representations on this important issue although exact numbers are not available.

  The Government is aware that a wide range of views about the reform of child protection have been submitted for consideration by the Victoria Climbié Inquiry, and we look forward shortly to receiving Lord Laming's report. The recommendations of the Victoria Climbié Inquiry, together with those contained in the Joint Chief Inspectors report Safeguarding Children will provide the Government with an authoritative basis for any reforms to child protection that may need to be made and, if reform is necessary, the Government will implement it.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the introduction of the Children Act 1989 in prisons following the High Court ruling on 29 November; and what extra resources his Department will make available to social services departments to ensure its implementation. [86288]

  Jacqui Smith
  Mr. Justice Munby's judgment, handed down on 29 November, ruled that the Children Act 1989 applied to children in prison, subject to the requirements of imprisonment. This was the Department's own view, set out in its statement to the court.

  The Department therefore sees no immediate need to revise existing guidance to councils with social services responsibilities or to review resource allocations. However, we will, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department,

  155W
  carefully study Mr. Justice Munby's judgment, in the context of the recommendations of the joint chief inspectors' report, "Safeguarding Children".

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in care have access to the internet at home, broken down by local authority. [85155]

  Jacqui Smith
  We do not hold central information on how many children in care have access to the internet. However, £20 million has been made available from the capital modernisation fund to increase access to information and communication technology (ICT) for children in and leaving care. The majority of this money is being paid to local councils over this year and next as part of the Quality Protects programme (details in the circular LAC(2001 )28). The remainder is supporting the development of "CareZone" by the Who Cares? Trust. "CareZone" will provide a range of interactive, secure, on-line services for children in care.

  Local authorities' Quality Protects management action plans, submitted in January 2002, included details of their plans for increasing access to ICT. The average position reported by councils was that just under half of their looked after children had access to a computer where they lived. This was projected to rise to three-quarters by 2004.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children's hospice funding was paid by his Department in each year since 1997. [85637]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, a survey conducted by the association of children's hospices indicated that children's hospices derive, on average, some 5 per cent., of their funding from national health service sources.

  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what budget estimates have been submitted by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health; what specific allocations have been made; what factors have been taken into account in his estimate of the budget required by the Commission; what his estimate is of the staffing levels required by the Commission for(a) general support for patients forums, (b) cross forum working by patients forums, (c) independent complaints advocacy and (d) community development; and what budget allocations are proposed for each of these budget heads; and if he will make a statement. [84887]

  Mr. Lammy
  Funding decisions for the next three years will be announced shortly. I will write to the hon. Member when final decisions have been made.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when community health councils will cease to exist; and when patients forums will be established. [84884]

  Mr. Lammy
  The abolition of Community Health Councils (CHCs) is a matter for the Government and we hope to be able to make announcements about the timetable for the abolition very soon. The timetable for 156W
  the establishment of patients' forums is a matter for the Commission and it is one of the issues currently being considered by the Commissions designate chair, designate chief executive and the interim team. We will be working closely with the Commission to ensure that there is a smooth transition from CHCs to patients' forums.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 3 October 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Karen Smith; [81713]

  (2) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 3 October 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Karen Smith. [83426]

  Mr. Milburn
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 4 December 2002.

  Deafness
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England and Wales are deaf in one ear. [86294]

  Jacqui Smith
  While the Department does not collect that information, the Institute of Hearing Research recently conducted a survey of ear, nose and throat conditions. This suggested that around 17 people in every 1,000 have moderate to severe hearing difficulty or no hearing at all in one ear, but no difficulty in the other ear.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the organisations from which he has received representations regarding the proposed delayed discharge fines. [83848]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: A summary and a list of respondents to the consultation on reimbursement around delayed discharge have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the impact on the number of delayed discharges of the introduction of fines over the next three years. [83852]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 November 2002]: The proportion of older people waiting to be discharged from hospital on any one day has reduced from around 14 per cent. in 1996 to just under 8.9 per cent. today. The Government are determined to tackle the problem of delayed discharges and that is why we have brought legislation forward to deal in line with it. This is in line with the commitment in the NHS Plan to end widespread delayed discharges by 2004. Furthermore, the priorities and planning framework 2003–06 envisages delayed transfers of care will reach minimal levels by 2006.
  157W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he collates on a regional basis regarding delayed discharge and emergency readmissions; and if he will list the figures for Q1 2002–03. [85046]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: None. The information is collected by primary care trust only. The Q1 data for 2002–03 are in the Library.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to distribute the £100 million from the NHS to social services to recompense for delayed discharge. [85234]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 December 2002]: The distribution of this funding is still under consideration and will be announced as soon as possible.

  Duplex Scans
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the current waiting time is for Duplex scans at Maidstone Hospital. [85481]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: The information requested on current waiting times for duplex scans is not held centrally. However, I am advised by Kent and Medway Strategic Health Authority that no waiting list operates when such scans are considered to be clinically necessary. These are carried out as needed.

  Herbal Medicines
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many products now on free sale will be required to be licensed when the European directives on nutritional supplements on herbal remedies come into effect; and whether grandfather rights will be given to products already on free sale; [83839]

  (2) what steps he intends to take to secure a continued route to market, other than full pharmaceutical licensing, for those products which are not able to demonstrate they have been on the European market for the period specified by the Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive, but which are able to demonstrate a tradition of safe use in another country. [84524]

  Ms Blears
  Directive 2002/46/EC on Food Supplements does not require licensing of any products.

  There is currently no requirement for the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) to be notified of unlicensed herbal remedies placed on the market under section 12(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 and therefore there is no information available on the number of products placed on the market under this provision and which may fall within the terms of the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products. We expect that some broad pointers as to the likely numbers of products for which registration might be sought will
  158W
  emerge from continuing discussions between the MCA and the herbal sector, particularly in the light of further refinements to the text during continuing negotiations.

  There is no provision within the Directive for grandfather rights to be given as such. However, in the MCA's consultation on the proposed Directive earlier this year, the herbal sector was invited to submit examples of products which are currently legal but which may fall outside the terms of the proposed Directive. Analysis to date of the responses suggest that there will be few existing herbal medicine on the United Kingdom market which, while having 30 years use, are unable to meet the proposed requirement that at least 15 years use should have been within the European Union. This assessment also takes account of the proposed five year transitional period for products already on the market, during which time evidence of traditional use can continue to be accumulated.

  A recent proposed amendment from the European Parliament, which we will support, would reduce the required minimum period of EU usage from 15 years to 10 years. This would further reduce any possibility that products currently on the UK market would fall outside the Directive solely by virtue of the required minimum period of EU usage.

  Where non industrially produced unlicensed herbal remedies are supplied following one to one consultation in accordance with the terms of section 12(1) of the Medicines Act 1968 there is no requirement to demonstrate traditional usage of the remedy.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on, and how many were(a) for and (b) against, the proposed new EU directives on nutritional supplements and herbal remedies from (i) small and medium enterprises, (ii) large manufacturers, (iii) drug firms and (iv) the public. [83842]

  Ms Blears
  Directive 2002/46/EC on Food Supplements came into force on 12 July 2002 and must be transposed into member states' national legislation by 31 July 2003. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is currently consulting on draft implementing Regulations.

  During lengthy negotiations on the Directive the FSA received a large number of representations from a wide range of stakeholders expressing a range of views.

  We have also received a large number of representations about the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of responses in the categories requested as many of those commenting have made specific comments rather than directly indicated support for, or opposition to, the proposed Directives.

  To the best of our knowledge, we have not received any representations, either for or against the Directive, from any manufacturers not already involved in the manufacture of products in the natural health sector.
  159W
  The position of representatives of United Kingdom manufacturers of herbal remedies was set out in a letter from the Herbal Forum to my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (The Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) on 18 November. The membership of the Forum, which covers small, medium and large businesses operating in the sector, comprises the Health Food Manufacturers' Association, the Proprietary Association of Great Britain, the British Herbal Medicine Association, the Council for Responsible Nutrition, the Natural Medicines Manufacturers' Association, the Ayurvedic Trade Association, the Trade Association of Producers and Suppliers of Ayurvedic Products from India, the Chinese Medicine Association of Suppliers, the European Herbal Practitioners Association, the Aromatherapy Trade Council, and the Small Growers and Producers Association.

  The Forum indicates its view that the traditional medicines sector needs appropriate regulation in order to ensure that the public is properly protected against inferior quality products which the current system can allow on the market. The Forum also says that its members appreciate the need for the proposed Directive, while outlining a number of areas of specific concern that it wishes to be addressed through the continuing European negotiations or at national level. We welcome the stated intention of the Forum to continue to work constructively with the Government and the MCA in particular, to address the various issues identified.

  We have received a wide range of representations from stakeholder interest groups in herbal sector in the form of letters and through points made in discussions with Ministers and with the MCA. The stakeholders cover many interests including, manufacturing, retailing, consumers, herbal practitioners, other complementary and alternative medicine groups, pharmacists, doctors, other health care professionals and academics. Some have been supportive of the Directive or have been supportive subject to the resolution of specific concerns. Others have raised specific points without indicating an overall view of the Directive. A minority has indicated strong opposition. Among representative groups wholly or broadly supportive of the Directive are the British Herbal Medicine Association, Consumers Association, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and the European Herbal Practitioners Association. Representative groups expressing strongest opposition to the Directive include Consumers for Health Choice (CMC) and the National Association of Health Stores (NAHS).

  In a number of meetings Ministers have held with a wide range of stakeholders directly involved in the sector the position taken by the majority of interest groups has been that the UK should support the Directive as being in the interests both of the sector and of consumers, while arguing for additional flexibility on a number of issues; and that the Directive should be
  160W
  interpreted and implemented in a way which minimised regulatory impact, consistent with the protection of public health. A minority of stakeholder groups has expressed strong opposition, citing fears in particular that the Directive would have an adverse effect on specialist health food retailers and consumer choice.

  Representations from individual companies also express a wide variety of positions, ranging from strong support to concern or opposition.

  We have received around 1,300 letters, mainly from the public, opposing the Directive. Many of these express the fear that large numbers of herbal remedies would no longer be available as a result of the Directive. A significant proportion specifically indicate support for the position against the Directive taken by CHC or the NAHS. We have received a number of petitions expressing a similar point of view. A number of these representations from the public also express opposition to the Food Supplements Directive.

  We have in addition received around 400 letters from the public opposing the possibility of traditional use registration applying to flower essences. This followed a statement by the MCA, in response to a request from a company, that it might be possible in principle for a company to secure a traditional use registration for a product. Nearly all those writing were concerned that the possibility of a company making a successful application implied a requirement that all flower essences should be registered under the Directive. This however is not the case.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many products which are accepted as safe by the Food Standards Agency he expects to(a) be removed from the United Kingdom market and (b) have to be substantially reformulated when the full provisions of the Food Supplements Directive are implemented; and what estimate he has made of the costs of such compliance. [84573]

  Ms Blears
  The impact of the Directive on the future availability of products currently on the United Kingdom market will depend upon future developments on lists of permitted nutrients and on maximum levels of nutrients in food supplements. The Food Standards Agency is currently consulting on a maximum reformulation cost assessment of £4 million based on an assumption that no further nutrient sources are approved.

  Foster Care (Recruitment)
  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

  161W
  carers, what methods he used to conclude that the profile of foster care had been raised by the recruitment campaign. [84761]

  Jacqui Smith
  The method used to conclude that the profile of foster care had been raised by the recruitment campaign was through the number of responses received by the national call centre by people requesting further information. It was clear that people rang in because of their interest in the positive role of foster care as

  General medical practitioners by age in Havering primary care trust and England as at 31 March 2002

  Number (Headcount)

  Of which: Aged

  England

  Total

  Under 30

  30–34M

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  50–54

  All Practitioners1

  32,011

  1,305

  3,557

  5,497

  6,272

  5,376

  4,633

  Of which:

  NHS Plan group2

  28,950

  341

  2,648

  4,859

  5,894

  5,259

  4,594

  Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)3

  27,956

  285

  2,441

  4,698

  5,774

  5,140

  4,525

  UPEs aged 66 and over4

  309

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Havering Primary Care Trust

  All Practitioners1

  126

  3

  7

  28

  12

  21

  15

  Of which:

  NHS Plan group2

  116

  0

  4

  24

  12

  21

  15

  Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)3

  114

  0

  4

  22

  12

  21

  15

  UPEs aged 66 and over4

  5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Number (Headcount)

  Of which: Aged

  55–59

  60–64

  65–69

  70+

  Unknown

  Average age

  England

  All Practitioners1

  3,379

  1,419

  506

  66

  1

  44.7

  Of which:

  NHS Plan group2

  3,365

  1,419

  506

  65

  0

  45.8

  Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)3

  3,281

  1,358

  454

  0

  0

  45.8

  UPEs aged 66 and over4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Havering Primary Care Trust

  All Practitioners1

  23

  11

  6

  0

  0

  47.6

  Of which:

  NHS Plan group2

  23

  11

  6

  0

  0

  48.8

  Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)3

  23

  11

  6

  0

  0

  49.0

  UPEs aged 66 and over4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 All Practitioners include UPEs, Restricted Principals, GP Registrars. Assistants, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA). PMS Others and GP Retainers.

  2 NHS Plan GPs include UPEs. Restricted Principals. Assistants, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SFA) and PMS Others.

  3 UPEs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried GPs.

  4 UPEs have to retire as a principal by the age of 70. Those that are aged 66 plus in the 2002 census will have to retire (as a principal) by 2006.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs have worked in the NHS since 1997, broken down by nation of the UK. [84603]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of general practitioners who have worked in the national health service in England in
  162W
  described in the campaign through television, radio and other media coverage.

  General Practitioners
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average age is of GPs in the Havering Primary Care Trust area; and how many will reach retirement age before 2006. [85076]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  each year since 1997 is set out in the following table. Information for GPs working in Scotland and Wales are the responsibilities of the devolved Administrations. While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.
  163W

  General medical practitioners in England; 1997 to 2002

  numbers (headcount)

  1 October

  30 September

  31 March

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  All practitioners1

  —

  —

  30,959

  31,369

  31,835

  32,011

  Of which

  Practitioners (excluding GP retainers)

  29,389

  29,697

  29,987

  30,252

  30,685

  30,858

  NHS plan group2

  28,046

  28,251

  28,467

  28,593

  28,802

  28,950

  Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)3

  27,099

  27,392

  27,591

  27,704

  27,843

  27,956

  GP registrars

  1,343

  1,446

  1,520

  1,659

  1,883

  1,908

  1 All practitioners include unrestricted principals equivalents (UPE), restricted principals, GP registrars, assistants, salaried doctors, persona medical services (PMS) others and GP retainers.

  2 NHS plan GPs include UPEs, restricted principals, assistants, salaried doctors and PMS others. The base year for NHS plan starts at 1999.

  3 UPEs include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to encourage more GPs to set up practice in East Lancashire; and if he will make a statement. [82547]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Primary Care Trust is working together with the Hyndburn and Ribble Valley and Blackburn with Darwen Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) on a number of initiatives, both long and short-term, to help recruit and retain general practitioners in East Lancashire. All three PCTs., are actively pursuing initiatives around personal medical services and the local implementation finance initiative, but are also developing individual ways of encouraging more GPs into East Lancashire. Examples include:

  Blackburn with Darwen PCT, which is looking at the skill mix in its practices Ito make optimum use of the relevant professional skills, such as nurse triage;

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale PCT, where three new GPs have been appointed and are due to start practising in February 2003. The PCT is working closely with its neighbouring PCTs by providing mentoring support to all new GPs; and

  Hyndburn and Ribble Valley PCT, which has established a work force and training sub group of the professional executive committee. The work force sub group is leading the work towards the production of a work force development plan.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average number of GPs per 1,000 of the population was in(a) rural and (b) urban areas in each year from 1997 to 2002; [84498]

  (2) what the average number of GPs per 1,000 of the population in (a) Shropshire and (b) the UK was in each year from 1997 to 2002. [84497]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answers 2 December 2002]: The table shows the number of General Practitioners in Shropshire and England, and rural and urban areas in 2001. Population figures for earlier years are currently being revised by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), in light of results from the 2001 national population census. 2001 Census based population estimates for mid-year 2001 were published in October 2002, however it is not possible to provide figures for earlier years on a comparable basis. Revised population estimates for earlier years are expected to be published
  164W
  by ONS in February 2003. Information for GPs working in Scotland and Wales are the responsibility of the devolved Administrations, while the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Average number of GPs per 1,000 population

  All practitioners1

  Shropshire

  0.62

  England

  0.65

  Rural areas

  0.69

  Urban areas

  0.64

  1 All Practitioners include Unrestricted Principles and Equivalents, Restricted Principals. GP Registrars, Assistants, Salaried Doctors, Personal Medical Services, Others and GP Retainers.

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Health Protection Agency
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses(a) positive and (b) negative he has received to the consultation on the creation of the Health Protection Agency. [86028]

  Ms Blears
  We received 215 responses to the consultation paper. Many of them provided detailed comments on various aspects of the proposal: it is not possible to categorise them simply as either "positive" or "negative". An account of the points made in the responses, and of the decisions we are taking in the light of them, will be made available as soon as possible.

  Home Help
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the definition of intensive home help is; and how many people have been receiving intensive home help in each year since 1994. [86291]

  Jacqui Smith
  From 1999 intensive home care/home help is defined as six or more visits with more than 10 contact hours per household per week. Prior to this the definition was six or more visits with five or more contact hours.

  The information centrally available is on households, not individuals. The number of households receiving intensive home help/home care in a typical week in September is shown for England in the table for both

  165W
  definitions. Data for the current definition is available only from 1998 to 2001. Data for 2002 is not yet available.

  Number of households receiving intensive home help/home care, 1994 to 2000. England, survey week during September

  rounded numbers

  Year

  6 or more visits and 5 or more contact hours

  6 or more visits and more than 10 contact hours

  1994

  74,760

  —

  1995

  94,100

  —

  1996

  107,910

  —

  1997

  112,940

  —

  1998

  133,840

  58,140

  1999

  138,530

  63,070

  2000

  143,450

  72,100

  2001

  156,010

  76,400

  Source:

  HH1 form

  Hospital and Nursing Home Costs
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health hat his latest estimate is of the average cost per week of(a) keeping a person in hospital and (b) keeping that person in a nursing home in Leeds. [83476]

  Jacqui Smith
  The average cost of a seven day stay in hospital in the specialty of elderly medicine is £1,015. For 2000–01, the average gross total cost to Leeds Metropolitan Council of supporting someone in nursing care was £412 per week.

  Notes:

  1. Sources of information:

  (a) West Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority.

  (b) Department of Health

  2. This cost does not include any intensive medical inputs.

  3. Figures are for 2000–01, and refer to Leeds Metropolitan Council. The figure given is an average figure for older people and adults under 65 with physical disabilities, mental illness or learning disabilities. These four client groups are listed in descending order of expenditure/activity, the dominant group being older people. The average figure for this group alone is £382.

  Medical Degrees
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with university authorities and ministers at the Department of Education and Skills concerning the number of students applying for medical degrees. [83296]

  Mr. Hutton
  I met the Minister of State for universities and lifelong learning on 27 November. Matters relating to medical education were discussed.

  The Department and the higher education funding council for England have set up a group to monitor the progress medical schools are making in delivering the extra medical school places announced between 1999 and 2001.

  The Open University Centre for Education and Medicine has recently published a report entitled, "An analysis of trends in Applications to Medical Schools", which was commissioned by the Department.
  166W
  Recent information published by the universities and colleges admissions service shows that between October 2000 and October 2002, the number of home applicants to study medicine has increased by 51.6 per cent.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being carried out by his Department into how individual personal choice might be improved on mental health. [82970]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is no research currently being carried out by the Department or the Medical Research Council into how personal choice might be improved on mental health.

  However, the implementation of mental health policy, as set out in the National Service Framework and the NHS Plan, will have the effect of increasing the amount of choice for service users.

  For example, the 1,000 graduate primary care workers will increase the availability of psychological therapies in the primary care setting, providing a cost-effective alternative to medication for many people with common mental health problems such as depression.

  Strengthening specialist community mental health services by the delivery of 50 early intervention teams, 220 assertive outreach teams and 335 crisis resolution teams by 2004 will mean that greater numbers of people with mental health problems will have the option to be treated in their own homes, or alternative accommodation close to home, rather than having to be admitted to hospital in order to gain access to the care they need.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of mental health patients were given physical health checks in each health authority in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [86150]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how mental health service users are consulted on the effectiveness of complementary therapies. [86151]

  Ms Blears
  National health service organisations are expected to put in place procedures for seeking the views of users of services they provide that are timely and meaningful to the communities they serve, and for taking service users' views into account alongside other factors when planning future services.

  To support the NHS in performing this duty, the system for patient and public involvement has been reformed, and new mechanisms and structures have been developed. The national patient survey programme is an example of one of the mechanisms that is supporting the new system. It is being developed so that in future it will include a focus on the patient experience of mental health service users.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients attending GP clinics he estimates have mental health problems. [86156]
  167W
  Jacqui Smith
  No formal assessment of the proportion of patients with mental health problems attending general practitioner clinics has been undertaken by the Department. However, the NHS plan refers to evidence from independent research suggesting that as many as one in four consultations are with people with mental health problems. More detail about this evidence is presented in guidance published recently for primary care and other services on "Gateway" workers. It is available on the mental health website at www.doh.gov.uk/mentalhealth.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of carers of mental health patients have been given a carer's assessment. [82752]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not hold this information centrally. Assessments are the gateway to carers receiving help. The assessment is the responsibility of the statutory sector to arrange and agencies should work together to ensure that a carer has one assessment which will enable them to access all services. The recently issued guidance, "Developing Services for Carers and Families of People with Mental Illness", will help local mental health services ensure that this is achieved.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support and advice is given to mental health service users to become advocates for other mental health service users. [86153]

  Jacqui Smith
  The national service framework states that specific arrangements should be in place to ensure both service user and carer involvement and advocacy arrangements. Decisions about the involvement of mental health service users as advocates remains the responsibility of local services. However, the NHS plan testifies to the emphasis that the Government are keen to place on the involvement of patients at all levels in the national health service. Furthermore, a proposal in the draft Mental Health Bill provides that where someone is subject to the powers in the Bill they have a right of access to a specialist mental health advocate.

  The Department is also providing three year funding for the United Kingdom advocacy network to develop standards in independent advocacy whereby they are establishing programmes of regional training courses for advocates which includes service users.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he is implementing to ensure that one or more performance indicators are assigned to each piece of NICE guidance so that progress in implementing the guidance can be effectively monitored. [86374]

  Mr. Lammy
  All technology appraisal guidance issued by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) which was initiated after October 2000 includes specific audit advice and measurable criteria to be used in local reviews. A similar approach is being adopted by NICE for clinical guidelines.

  NHS Staff (Reservists)
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in respect of contingency planning to deal with the call up of NHS staff as medical reservists, for how many(a) doctors, (b) nurses and (c) other medical staff cover would have to be arranged; and what assessment he has made of how this would affect performance targets for NHS institutions. [83399]

  Mr. Hutton
  No decisions have been made about the call-up of medical reservists and so it is not possible to make any estimates concerning what cover may be needed. The Department would liase with the Ministry of Defence on any requirement to call up medical personnel. Together, we would work closely with the national health service trusts concerned to minimise disruption as far as possible.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls the NHS Overseas Nurses Advice Line has received since it was established; and what the average cost to the NHS is per call. [84895]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: To date the National Health Service Overseas Advice Line has received 53 calls which have required advice.

  The NHS Overseas Nurses Advice Line is funded by the Department of Health. The average cost per call for this financial year will not be available until March 2003.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses left the NHS last year, broken down by nation of the UK. [84545]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of nurses leaving the national health service each year is not available. The non-medical workforce census collects data on staff in post as at 30 September each year but does not distinguish between leavers and recruits.

  The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) publishes an annual statistical report which includes information about the number of nurses and midwives leaving the register. This data can be found on the NMC website at www.nmc-uk.org.uk.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much was(a) budgeted for and (b) spent on NHS nursing and midwifery staff in each year since 1996–97 in (i) England and (ii) each NHS region; [83720]

  (2) how much was (a) budgeted for and (b) spent on agency nursing and midwifery staff in the NHS in each year since 1996–97 in (i) England and (ii) each NHS region. [83721]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about staffing budgets is not held centrally. It is for primary care trusts, in partnership with health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.
  169W
  Funding for nurses, midwives and health visiting staff will have been made available in health authority unified allocations. Table I sets out these allocations for England and the average annual increase in each year.

  Information outlining the expenditure on national health service nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff is shown in table 2.

  Information outlining the expenditure on non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff is shown in Table 3. The figures in table 2 include all agency staff and any other staff not directly employed by the individual NHS trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts. We are unable to disaggregate agency nursing costs.

  Table 2: Expenditure on NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff England, 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Region

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Northern and Yorkshire

  831,340,241

  850,015,207

  902,854,418

  997,003,489

  1,087,774,444

  Trent

  638,295,285

  652,938,065

  683,240,140

  748,449,639

  791,095,390

  West Midlands

  647,197,186

  661,729,190

  684,544,989

  746,590,274

  809,642,109

  North West

  908,283,904

  932,480,126

  976,794,428

  1,064,401,204

  1,148,750,339

  Eastern

  583,429,006

  584,789,352

  607,820,759

  664,906,741

  720,152,396

  London

  1,109,678,665

  1,147,415,728

  1,186,661,273

  1,287,889,856

  1,378,785,300

  South East

  950,338,890

  963,640,965

  1,003,409,193

  1,095,639,106

  1,181,989,752

  South West

  625,822,737

  622,034,275

  664,540,071

  725,391,300

  784,221,142

  England Total

  6,294,385,914

  6,415,042,908

  6,709,865,271

  7,330,271,609

  7,902,410,872

  Sources:

  1. Annual financial returns for NHS trusts, 1996–97 to 2000–01

  2. Annual financial returns for health authorities, 1996–97 to 2000–01

  3. Annual financial returns for primary care trusts, 2000–01

  Table 3: Expenditure on non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (inc. agency, etc.)—England

  Region

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Northern and Yorkshire

  6,028,667

  6,714,833

  7,504,774

  9,670,403

  11,687,978

  Trent

  5,960,334

  7,697,702

  10,064,129

  12,885,286

  16,582,418

  West Midlands

  16,939,663

  20,265,855

  26,503,757

  32,564,528

  37,964,326

  North West

  9,570,017

  13,211,621

  17,857,451

  23,917,194

  31,022,389

  Eastern

  14,055,474

  15,719,904

  22,670,380

  30,951,975

  42,387,041

  London

  108,202,417

  111,628,043

  130,573,228

  180,665,901

  202,308,850

  South East

  21,586,155

  29,963,665

  41,469,988

  52,808,574

  66,046,899

  South West

  9,153,908

  11,136,944

  15,581,455

  18,192,822

  27,431,981

  England Total

  191,496,635

  216,338,567

  272,225,162

  361,656,683

  435,431,882

  Sources:

  1. Annual financial returns for NHS trusts, 1996–97 to 2000–01

  2. Annual financial returns for health authorities, 1996–97 to 2000–01

  3. Annual financial returns for primary care trusts, 2000–01

  Patient Discharge
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow of 28 November 2002,Official Report, column 413W, on patient discharge, when he expects to publish the revisions to the hospital discharge workbook; how long the consultation stage has taken; and who has been consulted on the redrafting. [86257]

  Jacqui Smith
  A revised version of the hospital discharge workbook will be published shortly. As part of the review process, a number of wide-ranging stakeholder meetings have been held over the last few months with practitioners and managers, national professional and carer bodies, and with people who have been responsible for promoting good practice in their localities.
  170W

  Table 1: England allocation and cash increase 1996–97 to 2002–03

  Year

  Allocation (£000)

  Cash increase (£000)

  Percentage

  1996–97

  20,886,002

  766,228

  3.81

  1997–98

  21,816,441

  824,521

  3.93

  1998–99

  22,895,307

  1,028,244

  4.70

  1999–2000

  31,192,915

  1,932,040

  6.60

  2000–01

  34,234,888

  2,792,354

  8.88

  2001–02

  37,157,382

  3,039,979

  8.91

  2002–03

  41,468,469

  3,704,200

  9.88

  Note:

  The allocations for 1999–2000 onwards are not comparable with those for 1996–97 to 1998–99 which cover hospital and community health services (HCHS) only. 1999–2000 was the first year of unified allocations which cover HCHS, prescribing and discretionary general medical services.

  Patients Forums
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the cost of recruiting the membership of patients' forums. [84885]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is the responsibility of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health to recruit members to patients forums. It will be for the Commission, within its available budget, to determine the cost of recruitment.

  Prison Cells
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what proportion of(a) young offender institutions and (b) adult prisons changes have been made to the physical cell environment to reduce ligature points. [84011]
  171W
  Hilary Benn
  Cell windows and beds are considered high risk, as statistically they are more used to attach ligatures. Ligatures can however be attached to many other elements of a cell structure and installed furniture. Establishments use local funding to address individual ligature attachment points, but unless a cell has been installed as a full "safer cell" its efficiency in reducing ligatures cannot effectively be measured, and are therefore not monitored.

  The number of safer cell installations to date is as follows:

  Adult male—2,100 cells

  Juvenile and Young Offender Institution—610 cells

  In addition 880 adult male safer cells are planned to come on line in 2003–04.

  The Prison Service is currently working on a number of initiatives that will enable safer cell and reduced risk cell furniture to be more easily available to establishments. Work has commenced on the production of prototypes for large-scale production of safer cell furniture. The current initiative is hoped to reduce the current cost of safer cell furniture installations by approximately one third. Work is continuing with the Prison Service Industries to produce a range of furniture that is designed to reduce possible ligature attachments points. The furniture, when approved, will be available to establishments via the normal furniture supply routes.

  Public Heallth Laboratories
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance NHS Chief Executives have been given regarding the need for preservation of public health microbiology in relation to the proposed establishment of a Health Protection Agency. [84253]

  Ms Blears
  The Chief Executive of the National Health Service and Permanent Secretary of the Department, Nigel Crisp, has written to NHS chief executives saying that the public health activities of Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) laboratories transferring to NHS trusts are to be protected and maintained.

  The regional public health microbiologists, to be appointed within the Health Protection Agency (HPA), will be working with the NHS trusts to ensure that all

  Expenditure on non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff as a proportion of total nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff—England 1995–96 to 2000–01

  Region

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Northern and Yorkshire

  n/a

  0.007

  0.008

  0.008

  0.010

  0.011

  Trent

  n/a

  0.009

  0.012

  0.015

  0.017

  0.021

  West Midlands

  n/a

  0.026

  0.030

  0.037

  0.042

  0.045

  North West

  n/a

  0.010

  0.014

  0.018

  0.022

  0.026

  Eastern

  n/a

  0.024

  0.026

  0.036

  0.044

  0.056

  London

  n/a

  0.089

  0.089

  0.099

  0.123

  0.128

  South East

  n/a

  0.022

  0.030

  0.040

  0.046

  0.053

  South West

  n/a

  0.014

  0.018

  0.023

  0.024

  0.034

  England total

  0.026

  0.030

  0.033

  0.039

  0.047

  0.052

  n/a = Not available

  Sources:

  1. Annual financial returns of NHS Trusts, 1995–96 to 2000–01

  2. Annual financial returns of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals, 1995–96

  3. Annual financial returns for health authorities, 1996–97 to 2000–01

  4. Annual financial returns for primary care trusts, 2000–01
  172W
  the microbiology laboratories within NHS—not only those transferred from the PHLS—play their full public health role.

  The establishment of the HPA is intended to enhance public health microbiology and to position the protection of public health in the mainstream of NHS activities. This is just one element of the Chief Medical Officer's strategy for combating infectious diseases, "Getting Ahead of the Curve".

  Retention of Hospital Doctors
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital doctors left the NHS in each of the last four years on grounds of(a) retirement, (b) early retirement, (c) ill health and (d) taking up an alternative post. [84889]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 December 2002]: The number of hospital and community doctors in England and Wales who have received a retirement pension before or after age 60 and on the grounds of ill-health for each of the financial years 1998 to 2002 is in the table.

  Year

  Before 60

  From 60

  Ill-health only

  Total

  1999

  125

  479

  102

  706

  2000

  114

  418

  97

  629

  2001

  176

  522

  111

  809

  2002

  157

  540

  122

  819

  Total

  572

  1,959

  432

  2,963

  Temporary Nursing Staff (Wages)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the nursing wage bill was spent on temporary nursing staff in(a) England and (b) each NHS region in each of the last six years. [85298]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table contains data outlining the expenditure on non-national health service nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff as a proportion of the total nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff. The non-NHS figures include all agency staff and any other staff not directly employed by the individual NHS trusts, health authorities and primary care trusts. A regional breakdown prior to 1996–97 is not available.

  Theatre Staff
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operating department practitioner vacancies there are(a) in England and (b) in the north-west region. [85433]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 7 December 2002]: Separate information about operating department practitioners is not collected centrally. Vacancies for operating theatre staff, which include operating department practitioners, in England and the northwest are shown in the following table.

  Department of Health vacancies survey, March 2002 qualified operating theatre staff vacancies in NHS trusts in England and the north-west regional office area—3 month vacancy rates

  England

  North-west

  Operating theatre staff (excluding HA staff)

  3 month vacancy rate (percentage)

  4.8

  3.6

  3 month vacancy rate (number)

  210

  20

  Staff in post (wte)

  4,110

  540

  Staff in post (hc)

  4,300

  560

  1. Three month vacancy information is as at 31 March 2002.

  2. Three month vacancies are vacancies which trusts are actively trying to fill, which had lasted for three months or more (whole time equivalents).

  3. Three month vacancy rates are three month vacancies expressed as a percentage of three month vacancies plus staff in post.

  4. Three month vacancy rates are calculated using staff in post from the Vacancy Survey and the Consultant Census, March 2002.

  5. Staff in post data are from the Non-Medical Workforce Census, September 2001

  6. Staff in post data excludes staff employed by health authorities, as vacancy information was only collected from trusts, PCTs and special health authorities.

  7. Vacancy and staff in post numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

  8. Percentages are rounded to one decimal place.

  9. Due to rounding, calculating the vacancy rates using the above data may not equal the actual vacancy rates.

  10. Figures may not match previously published data due to a different method of rounding used on the staff in post data.

  Sources:

  Vacancy numbers and rates: Department of Health Vacancies Survey March 2002 and Consultant Census March 2002.

  Non medical staff in post: Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census September 2001

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the consultations undertaken by his Department prior to the announcement that operating department practitioner trainees should be paid a student bursary or grant rather than a salary. [85435]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 5 December 2002]: The announcement concerning operating department practitioner (ODP) trainees set out new additional arrangements by which students would be eligible to apply for national health service funded bursaries. This does not remove or preclude existing routes for employees wishing to pursue ODP education through secondment opportunities funded by their employers.

  The announcement was made following consultation by the association of operating department practitioners on the changes to registerable qualifications and the
  174W
  need to find new education routes to support the increased numbers of ODPs required to deliver service commitments.

  Vulnerable Adults
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken under the Protection of Children Act 1999 to protect vulnerable adults with mental impairment from(a) sexual and (b) physical abuse. [85413]

  Jacqui Smith
  Section 10(1) of the Protection of Children Act 1999 was never enacted to protect vulnerable adults with mental impairment from abuse. This provision was later repealed by the Care Standards Act 2000, which made provision to protect all vulnerable adult groups.

  Waiting Times
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is made available on current waiting times for treatment for types of cancer; and what plans he has to publish such information in the future. [84969]

  Ms Blears
  The NHS Cancer Plan set out new goals to reduce waiting times for cancer treatment. The first step in reducing cancer waiting times was the introduction of the two week waiting time standard from urgent general practitioner referral to outpatient appointment for cases of suspected breast cancer from April 1999 and for all urgent cases of suspected cancer from 2000.

  From December 2001 targets of a one month maximum wait from diagnosis to first treatment for breast cancer and a one month maximum wait from urgent general practitioner referral to first treatment for children's cancers, testicular cancer and acute leukaemia were introduced. From December 2002, there will be a maximum two month wait from urgent general practitioner referral to first treatment for patients with breast cancer. By 2005 there will be a maximum two month wait from urgent general practitioner referral to first treatment and a one-month wait from diagnosis to first treatment for all cancers.

  Existing monitoring arrangements and published data cover the two week standard and the December 2001 targets. Data will be published on further Cancer Plan targets as data collection is rolled out. Data are published on the Department website.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extra resources have been allocated to the implementation of the two week waiting time target for referral of patients with(a) breast cancer, (b) prostate cancer and (c) other types of cancer. [84972]

  Ms Blears
  £10 million was made available for each of the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 to support implementation of the two week outpatient waiting time standard. From 2001–02 the additional £10 million was put into health authority baseline financial allocations. An additional £30 million was also made available for each of the financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02 to further support the two week standard and the modernisation of cancer services. The additional
  175W
  funding was not identified for individual tumour types. It is for health authorities to identify their priorities and target resources appropriately, in this case towards meeting the two week standard.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients in NHS units in Chesham and Amersham waited longer than(a) four and (b) 24 hours in accident and emergency in each of the last 12 months; and what proportion they were of the total; [81199]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress on reducing waiting lists at NHS units in the Chesham and Amersham constituency; [81195]

  (3) if he will make a statement on progress on visiting times for accident and emergency services at NHS units in the Chesham and Amersham constituency. [81193]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 November 2002]: Action continues to be taken to improve waiting times in the accident and emergency department of Wycombe General Hospital, which is the main provider of accident and emergency services to the people of Chesham and Amersham. The chief executive of South
  176W
  Buckinghamshire National Health Service Trust has personally led the Reforming Emergency Care agenda, with support from Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority's service improvement managers and the Modernisation Agency.

  Quarterly data relating to waiting times in accident and emergency departments will be published for the first time shortly. Data on total time in accident and emergency will be published for the second quarter of 2002–03.

  I am advised by Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority that South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust has been performing well. Waiting time figures at April 2002 showed a reduction of 6.8 per cent. from the previous year. Currently the trust is performing above target in this area.

  Wycombe Hospital
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many delayed discharges there were from Wycombe hospital in each year since 1997. [85530]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

TREASURY

  Container Security
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown)
  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the United States Customs Service signed a Declaration of Principles to implement the Container Security Initiative today, 9 December. Detailed guidance on how the Initiative will be implemented and on deployment of US Customs Officers at UK ports will be agreed in the New Year. A copy of the Declaration has been placed in the Library.

  National non-domestic rates—calculation of Distributable Amount for 2003–04

  £million

  2000–01 Provisional Outturn

  2001–02 Provisional Outturn

  2002–03 Provisional Outturn

  2003–04 Estimated in-year contribution

  1. Income from local lists

  Multiplier (p)

  41.6

  43.0

  43.7

  44.4

  Gross Yield

  16,190

  16,955

  17,230

  17,471

  (i) Reliefs

  (a) Net Transitional Relief

  -943

  -499

  -209

  -193

  (b) Empty Properties

  -970

  -1,045

  -1,054

  -1,070

  (c) Charitable

  -539

  -582

  -600

  -609

  (d) Rural Shops & Post Offices

  -2

  -5

  -6

  -6

  (e) Discretionary

  -34

  -43

  -39

  -39

  Net Yield after reliefs

  13,701

  14,781

  15,323

  15,554

  (ii)Collection Costs/reductions to contributions

  (a) Cost of collection

  -85

  -84

  -84

  -84

  (b) Losses on collection

  -116

  -93

  -134

  -140

  (c) City of London offset

  -7

  -7

  -7

  -7

  Total contribution in respect of year

  13,494

  14,598

  15,099

  15,324

  (iii)Repayments/interest payments

  Total adjustments

  -615

  -345

  -311

  -342

  Net Local Yield

  12,880

  14,253

  14,788

  14,982

  2. Income from Central List

  Net Central List Yield

  868

  1,049

  1,063

  1,081

  3. Income from Crown List

  Contribution in Aid

  Net Crown Yield

  9

  12

  12

  12

  Total NDR Yield

  13,757

  15,313

  15,862

  16,075

  4. Exchequer

  Total Exchequer Contributions

  415

  262

  41

  111

  Total NNDR pool payments

  (1+2+3+4)

  14,172

  15,575

  15,903

  16,186

  5. Adjustments

  Surplus brought forward

  929

  -302

  137

  -586

  Combined total

  15,101

  15,274

  16,041

  15,600

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  National Non-domestic Rates
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  On Thursday 5 December 2002 I presented the draft Settlement for 2003–04. Included in the announcement was the amount available of non-domestic rates in England for 2003–04 to be redistributed to local authorities. This statement details the calculation of the Distributable Amount and announces the non-domestic rate poundage (multiplier) for 2003–04.

  The multiplier will be 44.4 pence. The amount of non-domestic rates in England for 2003–04 to be redistributed to local authorities will be £15,600 million.

  The calculations for 2003–04, and the prior-year figures, on which this is based, are set out in the following table.
  3WS

  National non-domestic rates—calculation of Distributable Amount for 2003–04

  £ million

  2000–01 Provisional Outturn

  2001–02 Provisional Outturn

  2002–03 Provisional Out turn

  2003–04 Estimated in-year contribution

  Distributable Amount

  15,402

  15,136

  16,626

  15,600

  Surplus Carried Forward

  -302

  137

  -586

  0

  Notes:

  For 2001–02 and 2000–01 the amounts shown are those recorded in the post end-year (NNDR3) returns. For 2002–03 the amounts shown are the provisional outturn for the year based mainly upon authorities' provisional contributions to the non-domestic rating pool. For 2003–04 the estimates are based on:

  1. Item 1: The gross calculated rate yield represents the total value of non-domestic hereditaments on local rating lists times the multiplier.

  2. Item 1(i)(a)The transitional decrease adjustment includes the estimated amount of rates that will not be recouped from local list ratepayers under the transitional arrangements made by regulations under section 58 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the transitional relief scheme, announced by written PQ on 25 November 1999,Official Report, column 770W.

  3. Item 1(i)(b)The empty property relief adjustments include voids and partially occupied hereditaments. The 2003–04 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rate yield.

  4. Item l(i)(c)Charitable rate relief. The 2003–04 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rate yield.

  5. Item 1(i)(d)Rural Shops and Post Office relief. Figures include mandatory relief for general stores and post offices under the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. Figures for 2001–02 onwards includes mandatory relief for petrol filing stations and public houses under the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Houses and Petrol Filling Stations) (England) Order 2001 (SI 2001/1345) and mandatory relief for new enterprises on former agricultural premises under the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001. The 2003–04 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rate yield.

  6. Item 1(i)(e)Discretionary relief granted to charities, non-profit making organisations and for other reasons including discretionary relief for village shops and post offices under the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. Figures for 2001–02 onwards include discretionary relief for petrol filing stations and public houses under the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Houses and Petrol Filling Stations) (England) Order 2001 (SI 2001/1345) and discretionary relief for new enterprises on former agricultural premises under the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001. The 2003–04 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rate yield.
  4WS
  7. Item 1(ii)(a) and (b)The allowances for the costs and losses incurred by authorities in collecting non-domestic rates from ratepayers.

  8. Item 1(ii)(c)City Offset—the amount which the City of London will not be required to pay into the non-domestic rating pool. It is the amount which will be retained by the City to meet its own expenditure.

  9. Item 1(iii): net adjustment in respect of appeals and other amendments to the rating list affecting liability for previous years rates settled in that year.

  10. Item 2: the rateable value of non-domestic hereditaments on the central rating list times the multiplier, less the net effect of transitional arrangements, and adjusted for appeals and other changes in respect of previous years.

  11. Item 3: Almost all properties included in the crown list in previous years are included in the local list figures at item 1.

  12. Item 4: the contribution from central government to offset the amount of the Secretary of State's estimate of income forgone as a result of transitional arrangements established by regulations under section 58 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the transitional relief scheme, announced by written PQ on 25 November 1999, Official Report, column 770W.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Science Budget
  The Minister for Women (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  I have pleasure in announcing the allocations of the Science Budget for the period 2003–04 to 2005–06, following the announcement in July this year by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the outcome of the spending review. The spending review reaffirmed this Government's commitment to a healthy and vibrant science and engineering base at the heart of the life of the nation. The Science Budget, already growing at an average of about 7 per cent. in real terms year on year will now accelerate to a growth rate of 10 per cent. real terms year on year.

  Details of the allocations are set out in a document I am publishing today, "Science Budget: 2003–04 to 2005–06". Copies have been placed in the library of the House and are also available on the website of the Office of Science and Technology at www.ost.gov.uk/.

  The allocations which I am announcing today focus on the new resources which are being made available to the Research Councils and other funded bodies for the pursuit of science, engineering and technology research. As a result of these allocations, the Research Councils

  5WS
  will receive significant new funding to increase the volume of top-quality research. I have also allocated funding to enable the Councils to take forward specific new projects in the following key areas of research:

  Stem cells—£40 million over two years

  Sustainable Energy Economy—£28 million over two years

  Rural Economy and Land Use—£20 million over two years

  In addition to this, I have provided the Councils with contributions to enable them to fund programmes in other key areas such as brain science, animal infectious diseases and gravity waves and planetary exploration.

  The Councils will also continue the cross-Council programmes in genomics, e-science and basic technology begun following the previous spending review. The Genomics programme is being expanded to include research into the important area of proteomics. The Basic Technology programme will also be expanded in response to the very high level of demand generated in the first year.

  The Research Councils will receive funds to allow them to implement some of the recommendations of SET for Success, the review of science, engineering and technology skills carried out by Sir Gareth Roberts. These are:
  An increase in the minimum Research Council PhD stipend to £12,000 by 2005–06
  The provision of better training in transferable skills for PhD students and postdoctoral researchers supported by the Research Councils.
  6WS
  The implementation of other aspects of the Roberts review recommendations which were funded in the spending review will be announced next year.

  The Science Budget settlement included funding for the top-priority large facilities projects identified on the large facilities road map, including the Diamond synchrotron. Funding for these projects will be released as each one reaches the necessary state of preparation.

  I am allocating limited capital funding to those Councils which operate institutes, centres and surveys of their own to enable them to address the most serious capital investment backlogs as soon as possible. I have also indicated that I will allocate further funds for this purpose in due course on receipt of robust business plans which indicate how the funding of institutes will be put on to a long-term sustainable footing.

  A key feature of the allocations booklet which I have referred to above is the inclusion of a suite of objectives for the management of the Science Budget. These objectives support my Department's Public service Agreement target for science, exploitation and innovation, namely:
  To improve the relative international performance of the UK's science and engineering base, the exploitation of science and the overall innovation performance of the UK.

  I am grateful to the Director General of Research Councils for his advice on these allocations and to the members of the RCUK Strategy Group for their part in the successful outcome of the allocations process.

  The Government's commitment to science is unwavering. We believe that excellent science delivers the advances we will need as a nation if we are to improve productivity, improve the quality of life and so deliver greater prosperity for all.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford

Ballistic Missiles
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that efforts to contain the threat of ballistic missiles through the negotiation of multilateral arms control agreements have now failed.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, on the contrary, on 25th November, the International Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation was adopted in The Hague. The UK was one of 98 states that subscribed, all committing themselves to restraint, vigilance, confidence-building and transparency measures in the field of ballistic missiles. The code is the most significant step towards securing broad-based agreement on internationally agreed standards in that area.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for kindly publishing that Answer to my Question this morning in a public discussion paper on missile defence that I have unfortunately not had time to read in full. The reason for my Question was partly that we have all read in the newspapers that US Under-Secretary of State John Bolton came to Britain in mid-November to discuss with the Government the contribution that they might make to the American missile defence scheme. John Bolton is well known for publicly opposing multilateral disarmament regimes and insisting that
2
the United States has the right to go it alone, expecting Britain to follow. Can we have two assurances: first, that the Government will not simply follow the Americans into sharing contracts under the unilateral American approach to missile defence; and, secondly, that the Government will continue to press for a strong multilateral framework to contain the threat of ballistic missiles, so that we do not have to go down the immensely expensive and uncertain road of ballistic missile defence?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the Government share the concern of the United States Government about the proliferation of ballistic missiles. With the United States, we have a range of responses to tackle the potential threat from those weapons of mass destruction. We have a comprehensive strategy that includes non-proliferation, counter-proliferation measures, diplomacy—which is always our first resort—and deterrence, as well as the defensive measures to which the noble Lord referred. We are very much in favour of ensuring that we follow our allies' concerns. However, we have not at present received any type of request from the United States to use any facilities in this country for its missile programme.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, while congratulating the Government on their achievement, does my noble friend recollect that some of us have been asking for a long time when we may expect the United Nations' fourth special session on disarmament? We have always been told that the time was not right. How will we know when it is right?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I cannot answer my noble and learned friend's question directly with a time-scale. If there is information which is not available to me this afternoon, I shall be happy to send it to my noble and learned friend, but he will be pleased to know that the international code of conduct to

3
which I referred in my original reply has the blessing of the United Nations. Indeed, we hope eventually to fall within the United Nations' regime with that code.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, reverting to the original Question, does the Minister agree that ballistic missile defence systems can actually reinforce and work with multilateral arms control negotiations—they can fill the gaps where the latter fall down? Even though we have not received a formal approach from the Americans on a ballistic missile defence system, have we been advised whether such a system would embrace our own protection and that of the rest of Europe, or merely the American continent? Does she agree that a multi-layered BMD system would be enormously valuable in developing and enhancing world security—not upsetting the security balance, as many self-appointed gurus and experts insist, but quite the reverse?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will read in the paper to which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence will be speaking this afternoon in another place, and which is now in the Libraries of both Houses, we are considering seriously with our allies, including the United States, the options for missile defence. As I told the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, we have not at present received a formal request for any use of our facilities. However, we would agree to such a request only if we were satisfied that the overall security of the United Kingdom and the alliance would ultimately be enhanced.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us whether the Government consider that the international code of conduct is likely to have sufficiently robust effect to help to deal with the various problems concerning proliferation, including preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons?
Baroness Crawley: Yes, my Lords, we have great confidence in the code of conduct. However, it is not the only instrument to deal with arms proliferation. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, mentioned in his question that we need to use a range of responses to reinforce our defence against ballistic missile proliferation. In that sense, this is the first multi-arms control instrument in the field of ballistic missiles. It will ensure that the countries that subscribe to it—today, 99 countries subscribe to it and the Government were instrumental in writing its first draft—exercise maximum possible restraint in the development, testing and deployment of ballistic missiles, including where possible reducing national holdings of such missiles.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the US Congress has just passed a Bill advancing 7.4 billion dollars to be spent on the national missile defence
4
programme. May we anticipate a statement from Her Majesty's Government on how much we intend to spend in that area?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the whole public discussion on costs following our discussions with the US Government about the missile defence programme is brought to public attention in the document that the noble Lord is holding to his breast.

Housing: Right-to-Buy Scheme
2.43 p.m.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to reform the "right to buy" for social housing tenants.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we have no plans to end the right-to-buy scheme, but we see difficulties with some aspects of the way in which the scheme is operating. We are looking at what can be done to tackle abuses and at the effects of the scheme in areas of high demand for housing.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to the Dispatch Box. I hope that I shall not give him too much of a hard time on his first outing. I declare an interest as patron, president and vice-president of various housing associations concerned with affordable housing. The number of sales under the right-to-buy scheme is three times the rate at which we are building affordable homes. In 2000–01, the annual value of discounts to tenants, under the scheme, was £1.2 million, a figure greater than the amount given in grants to housing associations to build affordable homes. Given those facts, does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need to stop the haemorrhaging through sale of affordable homes, particularly in areas of acute need? Local authorities are best placed to make decisions in that area because they write the local housing strategies. In the long term, we need to review the policy and identify a means of enabling tenants to accumulate assets, without reducing the supply of affordable housing.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for her warm welcome.
The Government realise that there are problems. The right-to-buy scheme has attracted criticism because it reduces the social housing stock and the stock of affordable homes. The Government have indicated publicly that they are concerned about the impact of RTB sales in areas of housing pressure and that they will take action to address it. Also, the rules are being abused. In particular, companies build up portfolios of ex-council properties by entering into deferred resale deals.
Measures for changing RTB must be evidence-based and targeted. The Government have therefore commissioned research by Heriot-Watt University

5
into the scale, nature and impact of the exploitation. The results of that survey are expected shortly and will be published thereafter. They will help the Government to move forward with their new policies.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have plans to change the right to buy in respect of properties specially adapted for people with disabilities?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I repeat the absolute blanket commitment given by my noble friend Lord Rooker. A mere 10 days ago, he said that we were not planning any change in the right to buy. If there were to be any exceptions to that, he would have made that clear when he spoke at the Empty Homes Agency conference on 29th November.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, from these Benches, I welcome the Minister to his new role. We are delighted to see him.
Does he agree that home ownership on estates where properties have been sold into private hands—whether to first buyers or second buyers—has resulted in greater involvement of occupants in the maintenance of standards and security on such estates?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for her warm welcome. I agree with the statement she has just made. The more community awareness there is, in the regions and in London, the better the estates are.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I am sure the House was glad to hear my noble friend's expression of the Government's concern about the shortage of social housing. It is a particular concern in rural areas. Have the Government any plans to tackle the problem?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we recognise the importance of affordable housing in maintaining balanced and successful rural communities. We have already taken substantial measures to help to alleviate housing pressures in rural communities, as outlined in the rural White Paper. Through increased Housing Corporation investment and subject to local authorities' investment decisions and use of planning powers, we expect to deliver 9,000 affordable homes in rural areas annually by 2003–04. That will include 3,000 in small rural settlements.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it will come as a welcome surprise to many of us to hear the Minister say that any change in policy must be evidence-based. Given that he made that remark—it is, I hope, a. view that he will sustain throughout his career in the Government—can the Minister say whether the Government have any evidence as to the time the original owners of right-to-buy properties remain in those dwellings?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, my naive view is that any change of policy that is not evidence-based is probably a mistake.
A noble Lord: You won't last!
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Right! In answer to the noble Lord's second point, I do not have the figures. If I can obtain them I shall happily write to the noble Lord. When we talk about abuse of the right-to-buy policy, we are talking about a comparatively small number of people. We can assume that the right to buy has helped many thousands of ordinary people to realise their aspirations to own their own homes and create mixed-income communities.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his new responsibilities. Do the Government have plans to introduce schemes to enable tenants of social properties to move into home ownership?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, if my noble friend is referring to the right to acquire, I can tell him that that facility is available in 50 per cent of local authorities. However, the take-up has been small; about 70 sales since 1997.

English Heritage: "Images of England" Project
2.51 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements are being made by the Heritage Lottery Federation to photograph all listed dwellings in the country and what exemptions will be allowed for house owners who do not wish their property to appear on a website.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, English Heritage's Images of England project is taking an external photograph of each of England's 370,000 listed buildings. Most of the photographs are being taken from public land and will be published on the project's website. Where it is impossible to take a photograph from publicly accessible land, the owner's consent will be sought. If it is refused, no photograph will be taken.
There will be an exemption scheme for those who object to photographs of their houses being placed on the website. Details will be available shortly.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, does not this constitute a burglars' charter, certainly in respect of all those who live within sight of a road or public footpath and who cannot prevent such a photograph being taken? A 10-year limit is planned to any exemption, but is that

7
not quite unsatisfactory as the people concerned may have forgotten about it by that time and may then be burgled?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not believe that this is a burglars' charter, although I understand the concerns of some people that having their property photographed and put on the website might encourage burglars. However, I know that English Heritage received advice from the security industry and insurance companies which did not believe that the project would lead to more burglaries or was likely to be a problem.
As regards the length of an exemption and whether at the end of the period there should be an automatic decision to put the photographed listed property on the website, further details are still being discussed and considered.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, do I understand from my noble friend that English Heritage can take photographs without permission? Is not that rather presumptuous?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I should explain that information about listed buildings is already publicly available to anyone who wishes to obtain it. It can be found in libraries and in the records offices of local authorities. It is available to amenity groups, historians, local history clubs, schools, universities and a wide variety of other potential users. The aim of the project, which was a millennium project, was to have a snapshot of our heritage in approximately 2000 which could be used not just today but in the future.
The photographs are, for the most part, being taken from the street where anyone can take a photograph of anything—it is a free country. Where they cannot be taken from a public place, permission is of course sought from the owner.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be a pity if a message went out from this House that there was a criticism which ought to be met as regards the use of lottery funds for our heritage? Does she further agree that this is one bright spot of lottery funding? More than 9,000 projects have been funded and at no stage—certainly in my lifetime—have the public been more aware of their built and natural heritage. The work done by the Heritage Lottery Federation has been outstanding. I am sure that the Minister, with her colleagues, has the wit to solve the problem, which I acknowledge exists.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I entirely accept, agree with and endorse his comments about the invaluable work of the Heritage Lottery Federation in funding many projects that have supported our heritage. This is just one such project that makes it possible for people in future as well as today to have a better understanding of the extent and range of our extraordinary heritage.
8
I am sure that the issue can be sorted out. I also accept that some people will be concerned. I believe that about 7 per cent of those who have listed properties have made their concerns clear.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I confess that I am the owner of a Grade II starred listed building and received nothing when I thatched it. Does the Minister believe that in return for having our properties photographed there might be the possibility of the odd little grant to help?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is extremely fortunate to be the owner of a Grade II starred listed property. Many people must be very envious of him. I am sure that when he needs in some way to improve the quality of his Grade II starred listed property, if he is eligible for a grant and applies, he will receive one.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, are there restrictions on photographs being taken of these properties from the air?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as regards this scheme, I am not aware of photographs being taken from the air. The vast majority are being taken by volunteer photographers who have been suitably trained for the task and have received an identity card. However, I am not aware of photographers applying for a pilot's licence and going up in the air to take photographs.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, has the Heritage Lottery Federation written to all the owners of the properties it has photographed? When will further information be available, bearing in mind that this was supposed to be a millennium project?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it was not thought practical to write to the owners of 370,000 listed buildings. Instead, English Heritage has publicised the scheme widely in all the local newspapers, public libraries and so forth so that people are aware of it.

Electricity Supplies
2.58 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are able to guarantee the continuity of electricity supplies following the collapse of an electricity supply company; and what support they plan to provide for companies currently running at a loss.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, under the Utilities Act 2000, the regulator has powers to nominate alternative suppliers to take over the supply to customers who were formerly supplied by licensed electricity or gas suppliers which have ceased trading. This does not in any way restrict the freedom of such customers to choose any other supplier of their choice.
Electricity supply is a commercial and competitive business. The financial position of such companies is a commercial matter for them and their financial backers.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. When there is a collapse such as that of TXU, what are his views about the domino effect on AES Drax, on Scottish and Southern Energy and on British Energy which has had to renegotiate the contract with BNFL, obviously with some detriment to BNFL? As it would appear that there is adequate spare capacity, can the Minister tell the House why we are still importing power from the highly subsidised French generators?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I said in my first Answer, it is not for us to comment on commercial matters affecting electricity supply companies. I can tell the noble Baroness that AES Drax has successfully severed all of its contracts with TXU, the company to which she referred. I should declare an interest as a customer who has been transferred from TXU to Powergen—although you would not notice it as the electricity comes through the same cables. There is no reason to suppose that there will be what the noble Baroness calls a "domino effect" on other electricity suppliers.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the Minister say whether or not the electricity companies which seem to be running into financial trouble will still maintain a quota of energy from alternative methods of electricity production such as windmills? Many farmers in the rural areas of Scotland are looking towards this as a possible new source of income. They do not want to be disappointed should the electricity companies go broke or be unable to deliver the income required.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two parts to that question. First, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that even if other electricity suppliers go into administration—and, as I said. I do not see any reason why they should—it would not be the same as closure. For almost all electricity suppliers, current wholesale prices are above the level of their ongoing operational costs. As to the second part of the noble Lord's question, there is no change involved in the renewables obligation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that if the financial difficulties that a number of power stations are presently encountering spread, it could have an impact on the security of supply of electricity? Is he aware that on 23rd November the National Grid
10
announced that there was likely to be a marginal shortage of 2 per cent in the supply of electricity the next day? In effect, this was satisfactorily covered. However, does it not augur badly for the time when the weather could get worse, as, judging by the temperature both in the Chamber and outside, it already has?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, it is nice and cold and clear, is it not? We have a capacity of electricity generation of 65 gigawatts. As the estimated peak demand this winter is 55.3 gigawatts, that provides a margin of 17.5 per cent, which is very close to the margin we have had over a large number of years. In addition, 7.1 gigawatts are mothballed, many of which could be brought into operation fairly quickly. I have already said that I do not believe that there is any serious prospect of a domino effect bringing down other electricity suppliers. Although I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, we are well protected. The notification to which he referred has been made on a number of occasions in the past.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: My Lords, the Minister referred to the Utilities Act. Does he not recollect that the Government ultimately accepted my amendment that the regulator should have regard to the long-term security and diversity of supply? At the same time, the Minister referred to the "operational" costs. Most accountants would refer to those as "short-run marginal costs". Does it make sense to run an industry such as the electricity supply industry on the basis of prices that reflect short-run marginal costs?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not claim that the industry was running on that basis. I simply referred to the fact that current wholesale prices of electricity are above the ongoing operational costs—or short term marginal costs, if you wish—and that therefore there is no particular reason to suppose that anyone else will go into administration, let alone into closure, which is not the same thing.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, given the Minister's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, can he answer the second part of the question of my noble friend Lady Miller—that is, why are we still importing electricity from France?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a matter of commercial judgment. If it is to our advantage to do so and the electricity is available, it is not our concern whether there is a subsidy in France.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the answer is probably connected with the fact that there is a higher proportion of nuclear plant in France than there is in the United Kingdom?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I do not think so.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland will repeat a Statement on education and skills spending plans. For the convenience of the House, I can say that it is hoped that the Statement will be taken immediately after the speech on the Courts Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.

Tax Law Rewrite Bills: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should point out that this committee used to be called the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills. It has been renamed but there are no changes to its terms of reference.
Moved, That the message from the Commons of 3rd December be now considered and that a Select Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons to consider tax law rewrite Bills, and in particular to consider whether each Bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:

L. Blackwell,

L. Brightman,

B. Cohen of Pimlico,

L. Goodhart,

L. Haskel,

L. Howe of Aberavon;

That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the quorum of the committee shall be two;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed;
That the procedure of the Joint Committee shall follow the procedure of Select Committees of the House of Commons where such procedure differs from that of Select Committees of this House, and shall include the power of the chairman to select amendments.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Barnett: My Lords, while I welcome the appointment of this Joint Select Committee and the work it intends to do, how will it deal with the decision of your Lordships' House that the Economic Affairs Select Committee should also look at finance Bills? I am grateful to the Clerk for giving the noble Lord the
12
answer to my question, which I have not yet finished. The House gave power to the Economic Affairs Select Committee to deal with finance Bills, to look at their composition and possibly to amend the law. Can the Chairman of Committees tell me how that will impact on the Motion we are now being asked to agree to?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as far as I am aware, it has absolutely nothing to do with the consideration that the Economic Affairs Select Committee may give to finance Bills. In the same way that other laws are consolidated, this committee will consider consolidating existing tax laws in the hope of simplifying them.
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to private Bills be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:

L. Brett,

L. Brougham and Vaux,

B. Gould of Potternewton,

L. Greaves,

L. Luke,

L. Naseby,

E. Sandwich. — (The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order of commitment of 25th November last be discharged, and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House. —(Baroness Crawley.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I wish to make it clear that we thought it right for this Bill originally to go to a Grand Committee. But timing problems for the Government have made that difficult and we acquiesce with this Motion on this occasion.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a number of people believe that this is the kind of Bill that should not go to a Grand Committee but should be taken on the Floor of the House? We therefore welcome this Motion.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I understand that this procedure has been agreed through the usual channels.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courts Bill [H.L.]
3.10 p m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This year, the gracious Speech had at its heart the need to maintain a balance between rights and responsibilities. Reform of the criminal justice system is key to achieving that balance.
This Government have already achieved a great deal on crime. The British Crime Survey indicates that, overall, crime has fallen 22 per cent since 1997. We have beaten our pledge to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders by cutting it from 142 to 68 days; and we have reduced juvenile re-convictions by over 14 per cent in the first year of operating our youth justice reforms. But we have to do better still.
In 2000–01, 5.17 million crimes were recorded, but only 19.8 per cent—less than one in five—resulted in an offender being brought to justice; that is, being cautioned, convicted, or having an offence taken into consideration. So it is clear that, whatever our successes, the criminal justice system is still not working as well as it should. In 2001, Labour's manifesto made clear the Government's intention,
"to re-equip the Criminal Justice System to deliver justice for all—the victims, the public and the defendant".
The Bill is central to the Government's programme of reform as set out in the White Paper, Justice for All. Together with the Criminal Justice Bill, it forms a coherent package designed to reduce crime, bring more offenders to justice and offer a better service to those who use the courts. So I shall say a little about some of the major themes of reform and how they find expression in the Courts Bill.
But, first, let me say this: we cannot reform the criminal courts without regard for the civil and family jurisdictions. There is a good deal of interplay among the three. For example, some members of the judiciary sit in each jurisdiction. The Crown Court and county courts share the same building in 48 locations; and magistrates, of course, deal with criminal, family and civil matters. So the Bill brings forward improvements across the court system. Its fundamental aim is to deliver modern, efficient courts, free from avoidable delay, in touch with the communities they serve and more responsive to the needs of their users.
The Government's plans for reform of the criminal justice system are broad based, but changes to law practice and procedure must be underpinned by the
14
right infrastructure. At present, magistrates' courts are administered by 42 separate magistrates' courts' committees, while the county courts and supreme court are administered by the Court Service, an executive agency of my department. Sir Robin Auld—for whose incisive report the Government are grateful—found this division to be a barrier to the effective operation of the courts. The Government agree. The Bill therefore makes the Lord Chancellor responsible for the administration of all courts in England and Wales below the House of Lords—civil, family and criminal. I intend to establish a new, single, executive agency to run the courts administration. This will replace both the existing Court Service and the magistrates' courts' committees. It will be accountable to Parliament through my department and will offer an improved and more consistent level of service to court users. It fulfils our White Paper commitment and is in line with the Prime Minister's principles of public service reform.
The new agency will have a strong local element and greater accountability through court administration councils which will work in close partnership with local managers. These councils will increase very significantly the opportunities for local people to have a real say in the way in which court services are delivered in their area; and, for the first time, this will include all court services, not just the magistrates' courts. The Lord Chancellor will be obliged to give due consideration to recommendations made by the court administration councils when discharging his general duty to provide an efficient and effective system for running the courts.
The Bill will bring the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court closer together. Closer integration will remove unnecessary geographical boundaries, allowing cases to be heard at the most convenient location, taking account of the needs of victims, witnesses and defendants, and helping to reduce delay. It will bring about greater consistency in practice and procedure between the criminal courts; and it will remove statutory restrictions, allowing for more flexible use of the court estate and more effective deployment of judges and magistrates.
A new structure that facilitates rather than hampers the effective management of the courts will be complemented by an entirely new case progression system for criminal cases. We will introduce this largely by administrative means, although supported by provisions in the Bill. The case progression project, led by my department, will see that cases progress with greater efficiency and less delay through the criminal justice system. It will support and pull together current legislation, new legislation and other administrative initiatives to help us bring more offenders to justice and to give victims and witnesses a better deal.
One of the main strands of the Government's reform package is to ensure that sentencers have the means to impose punishments that are appropriate to the crime. The Government's position on sentencing is reflected in the new sentencing framework introduced by the Criminal Justice Bill. Protecting the public from violent, sexual and other serious offenders remains our

15
priority. But the courts must strike the right balance between the need to deal effectively with serious and violent crime and the need to keep prison as a last resort in other cases. The Government share the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice: imprisonment only where necessary and for no longer than necessary. The Bill supports this, with provisions to improve the system for the enforcement of fines.
Fines are imposed in three-quarters of all criminal cases sentenced in the magistrates' courts. Yet the most recent statistics show that, as at September this year, the national payment rate is only 57 per cent. That is clearly not good enough. We are considering carefully the recommendations made by the Public Accounts Committee in its recent report on the Collection of Financial Penalties in the Criminal Justice System. Many of the recommendations for legislative change in that report are being taken forward in the package of measures included in the Bill.
I turn to the specific provisions of the Bill. The core is contained in Part 1—
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord leaves the question of nonpayment of fines, have the Government given consideration to further pilot schemes on the unit fine system which was abolished by Mr Kenneth Clarke when he was Home Secretary before there had been an opportunity for the scheme to be tested properly?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Government continue to be of the view that the fine is an important form of disposal in criminal cases. It is a means of keeping people out of prison, which is highly important. The fine, however, must be seen to be an effective disposal; otherwise magistrates will not use it and the public will not have confidence in it. All options and alternatives to fines are under active consideration.
The core of the Bill, as I said, is contained in Part 1. That gives the Lord Chancellor responsibility for the new administration of the courts. The new executive agency that we intend to establish will be an entirely new organisation. This is not a take-over of the magistrates' courts by the Court Service, nor is it a centralising measure. The new agency will build on the undoubted strengths of each of the existing systems and will embrace greater flexibility, efficiency and responsiveness to local needs. The agency will have a strong centre, as the higher courts do now, to set strategic direction and standards. That will be allied to decentralised management and local accountability.
The agency will be headed by a chief executive, and local areas will be managed by agency chief officers. They will work in co-operation and partnership with local court administration councils established by Clause 4. Last Wednesday, I placed in the Libraries of both Houses a statement on the principles that will form the basis of the agencies framework document. That explains how I expect the agency and court administration councils to work together.
16
Court administration councils will comprise magistrates, judges and representatives of the local community so that the community is fully involved in the management of courts. At the moment there is no formal local accountability in the Court Service. The administration of magistrates' courts is accountable only to a committee primarily composed of magistrates. The Bill will greatly enhance the input of the local community. Councils will approve the area strategic plans at the beginning of the year and will receive regular performance reports so that they can propose remedial action where necessary. Chief officers will be required to seek the agreement of the councils on issues of particular importance. Any proposals to open, close or relocate courthouses will be brought forward jointly by local councils and chief officers, wherever possible. Where not, it will be open to both councils and chief officers to make separate proposals. Any proposals to close courthouses will continue to be subject to wide consultation with the local community. We will establish a process for appeals to Ministers where local agreement is not reached.
Areas performing well will have greater freedom and flexibility to operate. Those performing badly will see more support and intervention. It will allow us to set in place a clear framework of national standards and tackle poor performance and unacceptable variations. For example, fine enforcement varies from over 80 per cent in some MCCs to under 40 per cent in others. At the moment there are almost no mechanisms to address poor performance in MCCs. Achieving all that will involve far more than merely merging existing administrative bodies. A team comprising staff from magistrates' courts and my department is working in consultation with many others, including the judiciary and the magistracy, to develop the detail of the proposed agency.
The arrangements in Part 1 are the result of much consideration within government and discussions with several bodies that represent people working in magistrates' courts. They are also in line with Sir Robin's recommendations. They strike the right balance between the central direction needed to raise standards and the need for all courts, not just magistrates' courts, to be accountable to local communities. I am convinced that our proposals, which are supported by, among others, the judiciary, the Bar, the Law Society and the Association of Justices' Chief Executives, represent the best way of delivering decentralised management and local accountability within a strong national framework.
Part 2 will give magistrates national jurisdiction. It will allow them to be reassigned quickly if they change address, to sit at a court near their work, or to provide for circumstances where it is inappropriate for a local Bench to hear a case. However, Clause 10 places the Lord Chancellor under a statutory duty to assign magistrates to local areas. Under no circumstances will magistrates be pressed to sit in areas where they do not wish to sit.

17
Clause 31 and Schedule 2, together with Clause 89, provide for the improvements to fine enforcement that I mentioned earlier. Clause 89 will put the burden on the defendant to disclose his income and expenditure so that courts can match a fine to an offender's ability to pay, and to avoid potential enforcement problems later.
Clause 31 will enable the appointment of specific staff in courts who will be responsible, on behalf of the court, for ensuring that fines and compensation orders are paid. Under Schedule 2, fines officers will have discretion to vary payment terms, but only on application by the offender. They will be able to impose sanctions on defaulters who refuse to co-operate; for example, vehicle clamping or restricting access to credit by entering the fine on the new register of judgments.
Let me correct a misapprehension that has appeared in the press. Fines officers will not have the power to increase fines. Schedule 2 provides for a discount for prompt payment and an increase if the offender fails to pay on time, but that increase will be set by the court. The court will explain the increase to the defendant when sentencing, and the increase will only take effect if, and when, he or she defaults. Even then, the offender will have the opportunity to avoid the increase by contacting the fines officer and agreeing and complying with new payment terms.
Let me make this clear: for any discretionary decisions taken by fines officers, such as the sanctions I mentioned or a refusal to vary payment terms, there will be a full right of appeal to the court. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the package of measures complies with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The measures are designed to ensure that there are strong incentives for offenders to stay in touch with the court during the "lifetime" of the fine, making it easier for the court to trace them, and to deal with them, should they default. The legislation provides for piloting the new system so that the best package of arrangements can be introduced nationally in the light of experience. In parallel with that, we will develop within the community legal service, which now has full nationwide coverage, a network of support and advice for those having genuine difficulty with payment of fines. Taken together, those measures will put in place a robust but flexible framework for fine enforcement, ensuring that sentencers and the public can have full confidence in the efficacy of the fine as a punishment.
In support of the case progression project, to which I referred earlier, Clause 40, together with Schedule 3, gives judges and magistrates—for the first time—the power to make binding rulings and directions at pre-trial hearings in criminal cases that are to be tried summarily in the magistrates' courts. The powers will mirror those already available in Crown Courts.
Part 4 covers court security, which is obviously of great importance in all court buildings. The proposals have been driven in part by the Auld review and in part by the recommendations of the fundamental review of court security which I ordered last year following the
18
attack on her Honour Judge Goddard at the Old Bailey. Part 4 will help to make courts even safer, particularly for witnesses and victims, through the provision of more effective court security presence. It defines the role and powers of new court security officers who will control and maintain security in court buildings and complement the physical improvements in buildings and courtroom security that we will continue to make.
Part 5 creates a new, independent inspectorate of court administration. It will cover all administrative and support services, including security services, in Crown Courts, magistrates' courts and county courts, as well as the children and family court advisory and support service. It will ensure an improved and more consistent level of service to all court users by highlighting best practice and reporting on inefficiencies.
In Part 6, Clauses 58 and 59 aim to improve the public's perception of the justice system by allowing a female judge of the Court of Appeal to be formally referred to as "Lady Justice" and by granting the Lord Chancellor power to modernise other judicial titles further. Those are relatively minor, but none the less essential, provisions. The recent appointment of Dame Janet Smith to the Court of Appeal was a timely reminder of the need to put that right. Clauses 60 and 61 will allow greater flexibility in the deployment of judicial resources.
Part 7 is aimed at greater consistency of practice and procedure in the criminal and family jurisdictions. Clause 65 will create a statutory criminal procedure rule committee to make rules determining practice and procedure for all criminal courts in England and Wales. At present there is no single forum for discussing improvements to the trial process, and changes to rules therefore develop piecemeal. Charged with a modernising and streamlining agenda, the new committee will underpin the goal of greater integration in, and consistency across, the criminal justice system. Clause 72 will create a single family procedure rule committee. This will help promote consistency of approach across the various courts hearing family disputes.
Clauses 88, 92 and 93 are the final clauses to which I shall refer. Clause 88 enables the courts to award costs against third parties whose serious misconduct causes cases to collapse or be delayed. Tins would shift the burden of wasted criminal costs from the taxpayer to the third party responsible for the wastage. This will fill a gap in criminal courts' powers on costs and should deter conduct that might unnecessarily delay or prolong criminal proceedings, or cause them to be abandoned.
The provisions in Clauses 92 and 93 will enable the civil courts to award damages in personal injury cases in the form of periodical payments rather than a lump sum. This will provide a more appropriate way of compensating claimants and will ensure that they have the money to which they are entitled for as long as it is needed without the anxiety of the award running out if they live longer than expected.

19
This is a package of measures which, together with the Criminal Justice Bill, furthers the Government's programme to reform and modernise the criminal justice system. The Courts Bill is crucial in achieving clarity, credibility and consistency in the criminal justice system and ensuring that we provide justice for all. But it goes further than that. It will deliver modern, efficient courts across all jurisdictions, with fewer delays, greater accountability to local communities, and better responsiveness to the needs of their users. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his presentation of the Government's proposals. It is a privilege to speak at this stage in this Second Reading debate. I do so with humility, as I am very conscious that many of those who are to speak this afternoon are distinguished legal practitioners whose views have been assembled by expertise and years of experience in courts of all types on a daily basis. My only claim is to have had the honour of being a member of my local magistrates Bench for over 30 years and to have served as its chairman at a very interesting time in its history.
This is an important and necessary Bill and one that we hope will improve the efficiency of the court system, as I believe this is a key to respect for justice in this country. A more efficient system where cases are processed more quickly would enable victims of crime to put their experiences behind them and continue with their lives.
However, we do have concerns regarding the Bill. The first of these relates to fines. The most frequent penalty imposed by magistrates is a financial one. The enforcement of these fines has always seemed to me an essential element of sentencing policy. The fine imposed has been, or should have been, the result of thorough scrutiny of the defendant's financial and personal situation. It is therefore vital that the fine is paid as directed by the court, and if not the defendant must be brought back to court to explain why not.
I remember some years ago when a defendant was giving his reasons to the court as to why he had not sent the agreed weekly sum as ordered and promised. Quoting his outgoings he said that he had rented a new television that was costing him £10 per week. As he was on benefit he was asked if he did not think that was excessive. In reply he said not at all, it was a 32-inch screen and very good value. His weekly contribution to the payment of his fine obviously figured low on his list of priorities until it was pointed out in no uncertain terms that if he did not pay as directed then something unpleasant would happen and a more serious penalty would be imposed. Inability to pay can always be approached with sensitivity and understanding, but unwillingness to pay should not be tolerated.
I have never understood why it was considered unacceptable for interest to be added if a fine was just ignored. After all, in any hire-purchase scheme, where
20
there is a default high rates of interest are added. To leave the level unaltered is unfair to those who often make sacrifices to pay on time. Therefore I was pleased to note that the Government were addressing this issue in the Bill. We understand there would be sanctions for those who simply would not pay but I must confess to being unsure how these would work in practice.
We are told, for example, that if a person does not pay his fine his car may be clamped as a penalty. However, this seems an arduous and time-consuming task. The new fines officers would have to find the offender's car, make sure it is not co-owned with an innocent party, clamp the car and presumably value it if it does have to be sold to pay the fine, all of which sounds an expensive process and does not seem to be an effective use of the resource of the new fines officers.
One of our main concerns with the Bill is that we feel most strongly that giving these fines officers the power to increase and decrease fines for early or late payment is wrong. These officers—who could be civil servants, but it seems that they could also be the employees of a private company; the Bill does not seem to prevent this—would exercise a power that should only ever be exercised at the discretion of the court. Any possible increase or decrease should be spelt out at the time of sentence. If fines need to be varied, this should be the job of the magistrates. Otherwise this surely has implications for the Human Rights Act. People have a right to a fair and public hearing and, if convicted, the right to be punished by an independent and impartial tribunal.
Continuing on the subject of fines, while we welcome a clear structure, we are concerned that a national framework of standards and direction may mean the Government set rigid targets which would interfere with the application of justice. I hope we can obtain an assurance that this would not be the case.
Another major concern we have with the Bill is the Government's plans to abolish the magistrates' courts committees, which are made up of local magistrates and other local figures, and replace them with court administration councils. This change puzzles me somewhat, as in the White Paper on which this Bill is based, Justice for All, the Government stated that court management decisions would be taken locally by local management boards. The White Paper clearly stated:
"We expect the decision making to be decentralised to the local management boards, so that resources can be managed flexibly to meet local requirements".
However, after reading the Bill, I do not think the new CACs meet these requirements. Far from providing genuine local management and accountability of local justice, they appear to be merely consultative bodies with no real power other than the rather ambiguous "red card" rights to refer any issue to the national level, meaning back to the centralised power of the Lord Chancellor. It is also the Lord Chancellor who would appoint the members of CACs and the Lord Chancellor who would provide councils with guidance about the way in which they should discharge their functions, although we are not privy to this

21
information in the Bill. It would be most helpful if the guidance could be published by the time we reach Committee stage.
It would seem that the only saving grace to these councils is the inclusion of at least one lay magistrate, which we welcome and believe is essential as they will have a real and local knowledge of the needs of justice in the area.
Having served as a magistrate for many years, I have first-hand knowledge of just how essential it is to have a good working relationship with your justices' clerk. It is a relationship of mutual trust and respect which can be cultivated only over a period of time. I was therefore unhappy to read in the new Bill that justices' clerks will no longer be appointed to a particular petty sessions area as these will no longer exist. I hope that that does not mean that they will no longer be assigned to one particular area. It would be a great loss to the system to disregard the importance of a sustained relationship and most disruptive to the working of the court.
I should also like to mention the appointment of lay justices in the Duchy of Lancaster. This has traditionally been the responsibility of the Duchy and is yet another provision in this Bill which moves power to the Lord Chancellor.
Lastly, I understand that Clause 11 will replace Sections 7 to 9 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 which has the effect of abolishing supplemental lists. I must state that I am wholeheartedly opposed to this measure which strikes me as a mean spirited attack on people who have given at least 15 years of their life to the Bench and the community. This is an issue which we shall oppose unreservedly. Those on the supplemental list often, for example, sign passports and witness signatures which save many people the chore of finding an appropriate person. It costs no money to retain a list and gives pleasure to a magistrate on retirement to be included on what might be called a "roll of honour".
I fear that this Bill, like so many that come before your Lordships' House, is described as decentralising by the Government yet on study reveals that it is completely the opposite. It takes power to the centre and leaves the Lord Chancellor in control at the expense of local autonomy.
Much of this important Bill is acceptable but I am sure that as it proceeds through the House there will be many issues which will cause lively debate. On these Benches we look forward to the challenge of ensuring that it will go to another place a better Bill which will improve justice throughout the country.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, there is much in the Bill that we on these Benches welcome. Several of its parts raise no issues of principle although their detail may still need to be reviewed. Those include Part 4 on the enhancement of court security, Part 5 on the inspection of courts' administration and Part 6 on the changes to the titles of the judiciary and judicial flexibility.
22
By far the most controversial element—it is seriously controversial—is the abolition of the magistrates' courts committees and the replacement of them, and of the Court Service, by a new agency accountable to the Lord Chancellor. We would be willing to accept the principle of merger but we would do so only on the basis that the Bill provided for a high degree of devolution to local management, and the Bill does not so provide.
On the face of the Bill the court administration councils will have only a consultative role and no executive role. They are not a replacement for the magistrates' courts committees. Management matters will be solely a matter for the executive agency. There is nothing whatsoever in the Bill about how that agency will actually work. There is nothing in the Bill that even recognises its existence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, pointed out, the Government stated in their White Paper that management decisions would be taken by community-focused local management boards. That proposal has been scrapped. According to the latest proposal in the statement that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor placed in the Library last week. decisions at the local level will be taken by local chief officers. The statement says that the court administration committees will work in partnership with the local chief officers.
The statement makes some helpful remarks. It states in paragraphs 14 and 15:
"On issues of particular importance chief officers will be required to seek the agreement of the local council. At the beginning of the year councils will approve the area strategic plan, its staffing structures and recruitment and retention strategy and spending priorities for the year. The relationship between the local council and the chief officer will be crucial to an area's success. Councils will be involved in the selection of the local chief officer. In addition, councils will have a right of access to the national chief executive about any issue including managerial performance".
Those remarks are welcome and go some but by no means all the way to meeting our objections, or they would do so if they were on the face of the Bill. But there is nothing of that on the face of the Bill itself. The proposal regarding the involvement of the court administration councils could, under the Bill, be revoked instantly without any parliamentary involvement whatsoever. We need to ensure that the role of the court administration councils will be spelt out much more fully on the face of the Bill. Details of the councils' role should be contained in a statutory instrument subject to scrutiny by Parliament and not simply in guidance subject to no parliamentary control whatsoever. We also need guarantees that members of the court administration councils will be appointed on the basis of the Nolan rules and appointments will be subject to supervision by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
I must make clear that we on these Benches will not support the abolition of magistrates' courts committees unless the court administration councils are given wider and more effective powers on the face

23
of the Bill. What we want is the equivalent for courts of NHS trusts. What the Bill offers is the equivalent of community health councils and that will not do.
I turn to other matters. We are concerned about the provision in Clause 2 to contract out non-judicial services. We do not necessarily object to that in principle. Some services could, indeed, be contracted out. But, even so, we think that the decision, for example, to contract out the role of providing court security to a private security agency, which is clearly a possibility, should be taken only after consultation with the four senior judges. Can we be assured that the duties of fines officers are not among those that can be contracted out?
I wish to consider the role of fines officers whose establishment we welcome in principle. The provision appears to apply only to fines imposed by the magistrates' courts. Why cannot it be extended to fines imposed by the Crown Court as well? There is no doubt that the rate of fine collection is too low. The recent report of the Public Accounts Committee shows that the collection of fines is both ineffective and almost random throughout the country. For instance, rates of collection are 34 per cent in urban Merseyside; 86 per cent in urban West Yorkshire; 89 per cent in rural Dorset; and 36 per cent in rural Cambridgeshire. Having a fines officer with the specific duty of collecting fines is a good idea, although we are concerned that in magistrates' courts the power will be exercisable by the clerk and not necessarily by the magistrates themselves. We certainly support discounts for prompt payment. However, we have reservations about the proposed increase in the fine itself on default. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, I believe that there is much to be said for requiring the payment of interest on default rather than an increase in the fine itself. We believe that an injustice could arise if an increase in the fine itself is imposed that is not linked to the length of the default. It is true that the most vulnerable people are likely to have the most difficulty in paying.
The most controversial element in the role of the fines officer is the clamping order. It could lead to the loss of the defendant's job, if the defendant uses his car for his job or for travelling to his job when there is no available public transport. Clamping could penalise someone other than the fine payer who needs the car for similar purposes—the defendant's spouse or partner, for example. If the defendant uses a car registered in someone else's name, a clamping order cannot be made, which might encourage people not to register vehicle transfers, to register a transfer in someone else's name or to obtain a bogus disabled badge. If clamping orders are to be made at all, which we believe is doubtful, although we accept that there should be pilot trials, they should be made only by a magistrates' court and not by a fines officer.
We have no objection to the change in judicial titles in Part 6, but we wonder whether it should not be extended to Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. When, as is long overdue, a woman is appointed as a Law Lord, will she remain as a Lord of Appeal rather than a Lady
24
of Appeal? Why should the Law Lords be described as "ordinary"? Some of them are extremely extraordinary.
Passing on to Part 7 and the rules of procedure, we welcome plans for unified, criminal and family procedure rules, with their own rules committees, on the model of the civil procedure rules. However, we are concerned that power is to be given to the Lord Chancellor to alter the rules made by the various rules committees. A power to alter is, in effect, a power to make rules. The old arrangement for the Supreme Court Rules Committee and, later, for the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, provided for the necessary agreement of the Lord Chancellor to rules for the High Court and Court of Appeal. Agreement is one thing, but we believe that there should be no unilateral power on the Lord Chancellor to alter the rules. If the Lord Chancellor does not like the new rules, he is entitled to refuse to approve them. He can indicate to the committee what rules he would approve, and a compromise could no doubt be negotiated. We are wholly against the unilateral power of default. The same principles should apply to the criminal and family rules.
Fee orders, which are currently subject to no parliamentary control, should be made subject to that control. Some two years ago, the Lord Chancellor's Department increased court fees sharply. We believed that the move posed a serious threat to access to justice and wanted to challenge it but were unable to do so. It may be a convention that fee orders are not made subject to parliamentary control; if so, it is a bad convention that should be abandoned. Fees can, we believe, be a real deterrent to litigants and should be subject to control.
We welcome third party costs orders, but plainly the third parties must have the right to challenge allegations of misconduct at a proper hearing.
We strongly welcome the power to order the payment of damages by periodic payments as an alternative to payment by lump sums. However, that raises a number of points. First, we would like an assurance that the payments would have to be index linked, so that the real value does not decline as time goes on. Secondly, we agree that the right to payments should not be capable of being assigned, but we want to know what the position will be on the insolvency of the claimant. Will the trustee in bankruptcy have a right to seize future payments and, if so, on what condition?
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, we have received representations from representatives of the insurance business, pointing out the difficulties for insurers if payments are capable of being varied subsequent to the conclusion of the court proceedings. A strong case has been made out for at least providing that the power to vary should be exercisable only in a limited period from the time of the reward, so that the potential for increases is not left hanging indefinitely over the heads of the insurers for what could be decades rather than years.

25
I turn to a few general points. First, the Bill contains several Henry VIII clauses. Not all of them require the affirmative procedure when the statutory instrument to exercise the powers is introduced. After the row at the end of the previous Session over the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, I believe that we should move to a general rule that Henry VIII clauses should require the exercise of the affirmative procedure, even if the changes are minor, consequential and transitional. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is making a face, but it is an import ant matter of principle that primary legislation should be capable of being changed only by statutory instruments that receive the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
Secondly, the administration of family courts is left in its existing condition—that is, it is still highly fragmented. That requires unification as well.
Thirdly, with regard to a wider reform of the court system, I regret that the Bill contains no modification of the circuit system. It dates back to the days of Henry IL who used it as a means of imposing royal authority throughout the kingdom. The assize system has been much modified in recent years, but the time has now come for the abolition of the system whereby High Court judges have to spend several months a year on the circuit. That must be a deterrent to the acceptance of office, especially for women. We should set up permanent High Court centres in each region of England and Wales, staffed by judges based in that region.
To sum up, there are strong objections to the abolition of the magistrates' courts committees unless the Bill provides for much greater devolution of powers over magistrates' courts to locally based court administration committees. That is an example of the continued centralising tendency of the current Government. We give a welcome, but in some respects a critical welcome, to the rest of the Bill.
3.58 p. m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, so far as I am aware, I am unique among chief justices around the world in being able to address your Lordships directly. I value that privilege but I am conscious that it should be used sparingly. I personally reserve its use for occasions when l consider that it will help the House in its deliberations to be aware of the judiciary's views on prospective legislation or other issues.
During the current Session this House is to debate two Bills that will have a major impact on the administration of justice: the Courts Bill, which is before your Lordships today, and the Criminal Justice Bill, which has just had its Second Reading in the other place. Because of its practical experience, the judiciary is, I believe, in a position to make a positive contribution to the debate on both Bills. I must warn your Lordships that not only am I intervening today; I propose to do so again on the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill.
Subject to certain comments which I shall make later, I am glad to make it clear that the judiciary welcomes the Courts Bill. I am most grateful to the
26
noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the extent to which his officials consulted the judiciary on the Bill and, where appropriate, took account of its views. The result, I believe, is a better Bill, although I recognise that going through the procedures in Parliament it may be improved further.
Your Lordships will be well aware that the criminal justice system has suffered as a result of its constituent parts failing to work together effectively. There has been a deep divide between the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court. I hope that the Bill will go a long way towards establishing a unified criminal court with a unified administration. That unified approach, together with the changes proposed in Parts 2 and 6, should enable greater flexibility in the deployment of magistrates and judges. It should also ensure that cases are heard by judges of the appropriate level irrespective of the location of the hearing.
The senior judges are already holding discussions with magistrates and, I hope, making it clear that we—the judiciary—welcome magistrates joining the wider judicial family. My only concern with regard to the proposals that try to bring magistrates' courts and the Crown Court closer together is whether lack of resources will prevent full advantage being taken of that initiative.
What could help to ensure the success of the new unified approach is what at first sight may appear an unimportant reform. The criminal courts have lacked a common criminal code of procedure. In his seminal report, Sir Robin Auld recommended the establishment of a single criminal procedure rule committee whose task—under the chairmanship of the Chief Justice of the day—would be to produce a new procedural code and keep that code up to date.
As a result of the Access to Justice reforms, there is already such a civil procedure rule committee. It has made a significant contribution towards improving the civil justice system. The new criminal procedure rule committee will face a considerable challenge. Members of this House who are lawyers will, I believe, confirm that the plethora of criminal justice legislation of recent years has created a criminal justice system that is highly technical and of labyrinthine complexity. Indeed, one of our High Court judges recently approached me and said that his difficulty when sentencing a prisoner was to know whether it was better to pass the sentence and then ask the prisoner to sit down while going through the loops that judges are required to go through when sentencing, or to go through the loops first and then pass the sentence. That should not be so. If the new rule committee is given the opportunity, it will replace those technicalities—and the complexities—with contemporary flexible and efficient procedures. Because of the width of its membership and the standing of the proposed members of the committee, I also believe that the rules it produces will have the confidence of both sides of the profession as well as of the judiciary.
It is the shared sense of ownership that lies behind the success of the civil rules. One of the problems with the present multiple criminal rules of procedure is that

27
there is no such sense of ownership. Unfortunately, ignoring the proposed role of the new criminal procedure rule committee, which will be established by this Bill, the Criminal Justice Bill, if enacted in its present form, will add to the existing statutory procedural complexity and contribute to the delay in proceedings which I know the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wishes to reduce.
The Home Secretary appealed at Second Reading to people with a longstanding professional involvement and interest to play their part in making the Criminal Justice Bill a better Bill. I hope that the judiciary falls within that description because I have made recommendations on this aspect of the Bill. I am still awaiting an indication of whether they are to be accepted. I shall report back to the House in due course about how fortunate I am in having my recommendations accepted.
I shall spend my remaining time on Clause 87 which changes the role of the senior judiciary in relation to the setting of court fees. At present, the setting of court fees requires the consent of the respective heads of division. That was designed to provide a protection against excessive fees. But a predicament was created for the heads of the judiciary. To explain why the judiciary wants to give up what should be a valuable safeguard for civil litigants it is necessary shortly to summarise the background.
Historically, the cost of court accommodation and salaries and pensions of judges was borne by the state, the rest of the running costs being paid by fees levied on litigants. In the early 1980s, it was decided that accommodation costs should henceforth be borne by litigants by way of fees. In 1992, it was decided that judicial salaries should also be funded by litigants through fees. That significant change of policy was apparently made without any formal announcement or debate in Parliament. The current Treasury policy maintains that the full costs of the civil courts should be recovered from fee income less agreed exceptions, remissions and subsidies. I suggest that that policy is totally misconceived; so do the other heads of division. It ignores the public function that civil law and litigation perform; it ignores the social importance of civil law. For example, it ignores the fact that an appeal decision not only relates to the dispute in an individual case; it is also laying down the law for the future. It is not only important for the parties to the proceeding but also to other litigants who have similar disputes which require resolution.
As to accommodation, as noble Lords know, many of the courts are historic buildings—for example, the Royal Courts of Justice, which is the flagship of the common law system around the world. It is an absurdity, I suggest, that the cost of the Royal Courts of Justice should be taken into account and given a capital value in working out what court fees should be. That policy also ignores the costs of modernising the civil justice system. Under the present regime, the senior judiciary has felt compelled to agree levels of fees about which they are most unhappy. More importantly, the senior judiciary has, in doing so,
28
apparently endorsed a totally misconceived and unrealistic policy of the Treasury. The practical result is that the civil justice system is being starved of resources. The gains achieved as a result of the Access to Justice reforms, rigorously supported by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, are in grave danger of being lost.
Our commercial court is celebrated around the world, the majority of its cases involving at least one litigant from abroad. Its present accommodation, I am ashamed to say, is a disgrace and plans that the Lord Chancellor had to replace it have had to be postponed for the time being and, I suspect, indefinitely. Throughout England and Wales, courts are deprived of the technology which has been repeatedly promised and which should be at the heart of the civil justice reforms to which I have referred. Those courts are struggling to provide an adequate service, relying on the loyalty of the judiciary and the staff. Whether they will be able to continue to achieve that is open to question. The Government's recent spending review suggests that providing a satisfactory system of civil justice for the citizens of this country is towards the bottom of the political agenda. It is forgotten that at stake can be a member of the public's home, a widow's damages or a citizen's human rights. That position is not tolerable.

Education and Skills Spending Plans
4.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. The Statement is as follows:
"In July, my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced the outcome of the 2002 spending review. He stated that education spending will increase by an average of 6 per cent a year in real terms over the three years beginning in April 2003.
"Following that announcement, my predecessor, the right honourable Member for Birmingham Yardley, published our agenda for change, Investment for Reform. This set out how we would match those extra resources with sustained reform to achieve our objectives of a world-class education and training system that meets the needs of individuals and the economy.
"I now want to tell the House more about these investment and reform plans. With the exception of higher education, about which an announcement will be made next January, I am today announcing the details of our three-year settlement for the whole education and skills sector. I begin with the early years.
"This Government remain of the view that a strong early start is vital to continued educational success. So, as the Chancellor announced in July, we will continue our substantial investment in the early

29
years, including our Sure Start programme, and will fund a further expansion of 250,000 childcare places.
"Working together with my colleagues in other government departments, particularly in the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions, we will continue to expand our Sure Start programme and to mainstream the approaches in those areas which we believe have been successful.
"As the Chancellor announced in July, expenditure on early years and childcare will rise from about £1 billion this year to some £1.5 billion in 2005–06. Next year, £300 million will be transferred to enable local authorities to provide universal nursery provision for three year-olds.
"I turn now to the subject of schools, which will form the majority of my Statement today. The reforms that I am announcing will provide a simpler, fairer system. Alongside those, we are seeking a continued drive to raise standards in every school in the country.
"Last week, my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced the outcome of the review of local authority funding. As he announced, the national average increase in overall funding for schools and local education authorities is 6.5 per cent. Moreover, every local authority will next year receive an increase in funding per pupil of at least 3.2 per cent.
"The new system provides every local authority with a basic entitlement per pupil, plus more money for authorities with significant deprivation or recruitment and retention difficulties. Our three-year funding announcement means that we are giving local authorities certainty about their budgets in future years, so they can in turn give schools indicative three-year budgets, and we expect them to do so. This will enable head teachers and governing bodies to plan and implement longer-term reforms.
"As my right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions announced last Thursday, the Government are committed to allowing local authorities more freedom over the use of resources. Ring-fenced grants will form a reducing proportion of local spending.
"So, on top of the £4.3 billion increase by 2005–06 in local authority general education funding which we have already announced, substantial funds will be moved from central Department for Education and Skills spending to local authority spending. This will be an extra £500 million in 2003–04, and a further £800 million in 2005–06.
"That means that, by 2005–06, over 92 per cent of all schools funding will be allocated through local authorities in accordance with local priorities. Thus we will end the ring-fenced grants from my department for the following programmes: in 2003–04, grants for nursery education for three year-olds; funding for infant class sizes; the school
30
improvement grant; school inclusion—pupil support; performance management; and induction for newly qualified teachers.
"In 2004–05, in addition, we will do the same with grants or: special educational needs; study support; `Golden Hello' payments; advanced skills teachers; school support staff; drugs education; and teacher sabbaticals. We shall also focus grants for the national literacy and numeracy strategies and the key stage 3 national strategy.
"The substantial increases in local authority funding that I have set out will enable them to take over the delivery of these important programmes in ways that meet local needs. We shall of course closely monitor the effects of these changes.
"From 2005–06, we are also reforming the system for rewarding those good, experienced teachers who pass the performance 'threshold'. The money for teachers who pass the threshold will be devolved to the schools budget. In the New Year, we shall announce further measures to strengthen performance management in schools and cut associated bureaucracy. We shall also discuss with all stakeholders measures to ensure that the allocation of the money meets the cost of the threshold payments made by schools.
"However, we will continue with ring-fenced funding to provide national drive in some key areas. Three key grants will contribute to this aim The first is the leadership incentive grant with £175 million a year for each of the next three years. We will provide £125,000 to each of 1,400 secondary schools in the inner cities and in challenging circumstances beyond. This money is being provided because it is clear that a good head teacher and leadership team is the key to raising expectations and achievement in schools. This grant will support them.
"This money will be used in a variety of ways; for example, including strengthening poorly performing departments, helping strong departments to help other schools, buying in specialist advice on leadership, or working together with other schools to provide leadership training. And, particularly in the weakest schools, the money can be used to change the leadership of the school.
"One purpose of this money is to encourage local schools to behave in a more collaborative fashion, and it will be for local schools to decide how best to use the money to strengthen their leadership teams. But I will reserve powers to ensure that the weakest schools make effective use of the money.
"The second is the school standards grant, which will provide £800 million in 2003–04 rising to £875 million by 2005–06. This money will be paid direct to schools and is intended to drive forward reform of the school workforce. It will allow more and better trained teaching assistants to be employed to help the school team to work together more effectively. As we made clear in July, our substantial extra investment in the school standards grant must be matched by a commitment from unions and employers to a restructured teaching profession and

31
a reformed school workforce—more flexible, more diverse and more focused on raising standards. We are making good progress towards an agreement, but the resources will not be released until a satisfactory agreement is reached.
"Thirdly, the standards fund, which will provide about £1.5 billion in each of the next three years, will enable schools to galvanise reform on standards, behaviour and choice. In 2003–04, this will allow us to support the following programmes, among others: key stage 3 strategy, £120 million from DfES in 2003–04; ethnic minority achievement, £80 million; music services, £60 million; Excellence in Cities and Excellence Clusters, £290 million; and school support staff and training, £170 million.
"For specialist schools, we will, as I announced a couple of weeks ago, provide sufficient funding to enable every secondary school that meets the required standard to become a specialist school. And it will provide support for primary literacy and numeracy. We are determined to build on the outstanding improvements that our primary schools have made since 1998.
"The national literacy and numeracy strategies have transformed standards, but we know that there is much more to be done to achieve the ambitious targets that we have set. We will therefore continue to provide funding and support focused on those schools that are underperforming in comparison to similar schools.
"Schools will have the freedom to spend their standards fund budget on any purpose provided that they deliver the improvements in standards, behaviour and choice that we need. We have already given the details to local authorities and we are looking for significant improvements in outcomes.
"I am also today publishing details of the capital funding that schools will get to improve and modernise schools buildings. A typical secondary school will get £75,000 of devolved capital funding next year, rising to £87,000 by 2005–06.
"This is part of a total investment in school buildings that, including Private Finance Initiative credits, will rise from £3 billion in the current year to £3.8 billion in 2003–04, £4.5 billion in 2004–05 and over £5 billion by 2005–06.
"Though this represents a seven-fold increase on capital spending since 1996–97, it remains true that the condition of too many school buildings has suffered decades of underinvestment. The extra resources which I am announcing today do mark very substantial extra resources to provide clean, modern, secure places for children to learn.
"I have today announced a real terms increase in school funding of over 7 per cent from 2002–03 to 2003–04, which will be followed by annual real terms increases of more than 4 per cent and 5 per cent, a total over the three years of the spending review of over 17 per cent in real terms. This means an average
32
real terms increase in revenue funding per pupil of over £1,000, from some £2,840 to £3,850 in the 10 years between 1996–97 to 2005–06.
"Finally, I turn to further education and skills. The importance of this area cannot be overstated: developing the skills of our people is critical to improving our productivity, and therefore to the economic and social future of this country.
"We have to transform the performance of the learning and skills sector. We need to make it far more responsive to the needs of learners, employers and communities. We need to raise the quality of the sector and increase the achievement of those studying and learning in the sector.
"The document I published last month, Success for All, sets out our work on the further education reform strategy, and our challenge to the further education sector.
"In all this, we will work closely with the Department of Trade and Industry to co-ordinate the work of the departments more effectively.
"We are investing to match our ambition. I have already announced £1.2 billion for reforms to further education at the Association of Colleges' conference on 19th November. This forms part of the Learning and Skills Council's budget which I announced last week, which will increase by £1.4 billion, reaching a total of £9.2 billion by 2005–06. This means an increase on total spending on skills from £8.6 billion in 2002–03 to over £10 billion in 2005–06. This represents a real terms increase over the spending review period of almost 12 per cent.
"As the Chancellor made clear in his Pre-Budget Statement a fortnight ago, at a time when we face economic uncertainty it is more important than ever that we continue to invest and reform to drive up the skills of our people and improve our productivity as a nation.
"The very substantial investment in education and skills funding, which I have announced today, is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for raising standards in our schools and colleges, tackling the attainment gap and creating a world-class system of education and training at all ages.
"These will be achieved only if, in addition to investing, we also reform our schools and colleges so that they genuinely meet the aspirations of every child. That will be the ultimate test of our success at the end of this spending review period.
"I am confident that, with the help of all those millions of people throughout our country who are committed to our educational success, we will pass that test".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.24 p.m
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. In the past few days my noble friend Lady Blatch skilfully exposed the attempts by the Chancellor on 27th November to give an impression that spending on education would

33
increase by £45 billion by 2006. We now know that the actual figure is to be £15 billion. Let us hope that our ailing economy can sustain increased spending even on that scale.
Before she replies on LEA points, will the Minister say nothing about cash for higher education in 2003–04? Can she not say what percentage of the £9 billion funding gap identified by UK universities she hopes to fill? Can she confirm that top-up fees have been ruled out, as stated by the Prime Minister?
I turn to nursery education. Previous ring-fenced payments for nursery children are now to be subsumed in general grant funding. Can the Minister give a categorical assurance to the House that money still will be provided to each local authority to pay for the actual number of three and four year-olds in their areas, as Ministers pledged in the past? Will she publish a table showing a hypothecated element paid for nursery education for each LEA? If she does not agree to do that, many will fear that the Government are quietly abandoning their commitment to fund fully-fledged nursery education for every child.
I turn to schools. Has the noble Baroness seen the widespread concern expressed by local authorities about the settlement this year? The LGA has commented that whereas in the past elements in the overall school grant were weighted according to established local spending needs, from 2003–04 they are set by ministerial judgment. Is not that jargon for politics taking the place of need? Is not that why so much money in the settlement has been channelled away from authorities in the South, which serve their children well, to incompetent and high-spending Labour councils facing elections next year?
We broadly welcome any move that leaves more money to local discretion and reduces central control. So, we welcome the fact that Ministers are dropping the running of 12 ring-fenced grants by the DfES. Can the Minister tell the House how many civil servant posts will be saved in the DfES as a result of those changes? Can she assure the House that in the event of any regional assemblies being set up, those assemblies will not have the power to ring fence money in that way?
Among the central initiatives being pruned is the much vaunted literacy and numeracy strategy. Does that mean that the Government accept some of the recent criticisms of the defects of that strategy? If not, why is spending being reduced at a time when figures still show desperately worrying levels among young children of an inability to read and add up? Is not that shuffle from centralising gimmicks back to local funding making up policy on the hoof? Can the Minister say more about the so-called leadership incentive grant, a title which in itself suggests Ministers still think they know more about how to run a school than governors and head teachers?
There is talk in the Statement of up to £175 million per year being used to buy services from other schools or alternatively to sell them. Will that involve Ministers investing taxpayers' money in companies being set up by schools? Can the Minister assure the
34
House that reserve powers will not be used to force schools to buy services from companies backed with public money?
The Statement boasts of over £5 billion of PFI credits in 2005–06. Will that count against totals for public borrowing? Can the Minister gibe the House some idea of the scale of the extra money that will be needed to make up the value of pension funds for teachers and other LEA staff, which the Chancellor has done so much to erode? Can she tell the House the cost to schools and local authorities of the I per cent national insurance charge coming in next April?
Perhaps I may also ask about plans for teachers' pay. The Statement refers to £875 million going to schools only in the event of,
"a commitment from unions and employers to a restructured teaching profession and a reformed school workforce".
We welcome any sensible reforms, but does that not sound suspiciously like the strategy that gave us the tire dispute? Will the Minister assure us that the Government will not intervene behind the scenes in talks between unions and employers? Does she accept that withholding money from schools would not be a proper weapon in an industrial dispute?
What is meant by the claim that:
"Schools will have the freedom to spend their standards fund budget on any purpose providing they deliver the improvements … that we need"?
What kind of freedom is that? It will take time for each local authority and school to read behind the words of the Statement to find out exactly what is meant for them. When the Government say that they will decentralise, we hope that they mean what they say, but the lesson of the past few years is that centralising gimmicks do not work—as the genuine decentralisation of the previous Government in the great success of grant-maintained schools so obviously did. We have had six wasted years, far too much bureaucratic intervention and far too little trust in teachers and schools. Trust would be more precious to schools than any amount of money.
4.31 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches always welcome any extra money for education, and the basic entitlement principle is certainly to be welcomed. The new system is slightly clearer. 'The distribution data are more up-to-date, relevant and reliable. However, ambiguity remains—a point to which I shall return in a moment.
Long-term planning is always a good idea. When people know how much is coming in future years, they can spend money more sensibly. So three-year budgeting should help schools, but how can it if they do not know how much they will have to pay staff? Again, I shall return to that point.
How much of the 7 per cent increase will come from PFI capital? Can the Minister confirm whether LEAs will now have to pay the full liability for meeting the needs of the teachers' pension fund?

35
However, despite that welcome, the Government have not given up their addiction to spin. When we read the figures carefully it is clear that, when additional liabilities and reductions in grant are taken into account, next year investment in education will be lower than was announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review by not £250 million but £400 million. What undertakings can the Minister give about the remaining years—the second and third years? Will there be further cuts? If so, how will that affect schools' ability to plan?
As the money will not be coming from the Government, will the Minister confirm that the level of spending assumed by Government will require an increase in council tax of about 9 per cent? Council tax payers will have to pay for that increase in educational spending. That is a bit like me announcing to my children that their pocket money is to be increased, but that they must go to the man down the road to get the extra money.
Although we welcome the devolving of distribution of funding to local authorities, too much is still provided through centrally managed initiatives, such as the leadership incentive grant and the specialist schools programme. The Government have missed an opportunity to drop the entrance fee for specialist school status. However, we should have liked one grant to be ring-fenced. The transfer of threshold management and performance related pay removes any pretence that that scheme can deliver a fair deal for teachers. Can the Minister continue to guarantee that performance related pay will be paid on the basis of actual performance rather than pressure on local budgets? If not, she must expect a great deal of unhappiness among teachers, as the Government will have broken a key pledge made to them when the scheme was introduced.
The standards fund grants are still dependent on matching funding, have bureaucratic, political strings attached and are still distributed in crude tranches. Do the Government have any plans to improve accessibility to that money? There will be new cliff edges as a result of the new system. For example, for all area-based initiatives, such as Excellence in Cities, there is a risk that neighbouring schools with similar needs will receive very different levels of funding. The leadership incentive grant will be available to Excellence in Cities schools and schools chosen on the basis of low attainment at GCSE and free school meals. That is a fudge. Vulnerable schools outside Excellence in Cities areas will have every right to resent schools in easier circumstances inside those areas receiving larger grants.
Unfortunately, the Statement represents too many missed opportunities. The Government have not taken the opportunity to ally financial and academic years. They have not brought forward the School Teachers' Review Body pay recommendations, so that schools and LEAs will know what the numbers will mean. How can they plan for three years unless they know
36
that? The Government's explanation of why they dropped three years' work on an activity-led formula is wholly unconvincing.
The Minister mentioned the commitment to a restructured teaching profession and negotiations with unions and employers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, mentioned, the Government's recent track record on negotiation with public servants is not a happy one. How will the Government ensure that the negotiations will result in a more, rather than less, motivated teaching workforce?
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for giving me a plethora of questions to attempt to answer; I shall certainly try to do so. I hope that, buried beneath their comments, was a welcome for some of my comments on our commitment to schools and education.
I shall not dwell on my question and answer session with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the Chancellor's words; I have already dealt with that as far as I can. It is perfectly clear in my mind; I feel that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would say the same, were she here. Equally, I shall say little about higher education. I appreciate that noble Lords are keen for me to say as much as possible about that but, as my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made clear, we shall be making a major announcement in January, which we shall of course debate in your Lordships' House. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was clear in what he said and we of course support his words.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, mentioned nursery grants and ensuring that the Government would not stop paying for all three year-olds. That commitment is absolutely firm. We are giving that money to local authorities. They will be able to continue with their own plans. It is an aspiration that some of them may be able to achieve universal support for three year-olds in nursery education earlier, but we are in no way abandoning nursery education for our three and four year-olds. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that that is an important beginning for our youngest children.
I do not know what are the consequences for civil servants. We are proud of our civil servants in the Department for Education and Skills. Personally, I should hate to lose any of them, but we have made clear that part of this announcement is about ensuring that money is devolved from the DfES to local education authorities and schools—something for which noble Lords have argued for some time.
We do not accept that the literacy and numeracy strategy is flawed; we accept that we need to do more to support schools that are not achieving with their children what other schools are achieving in similar circumstances. That is an important part of our strategy.

37
Both noble Baronesses asked about the leadership incentive grant. As I said in the Statement, we shall be using it to support 1,400 schools, and I mentioned the need for schools to work closely together. We want to ensure that there is the opportunity to provide the one thing that we know can make a difference—that, as noble Lords will be aware, has transformed schools—quality of leadership. We therefore want to give support to the head teachers and leadership team of schools that face challenging circumstances.
Reserved powers will not be used to force schools to buy services from school companies; that is not their purpose. For pensions, there will be a separate grant to cover employer contributions. I did not want to announce that and, therefore, possibly be accused of putting it in as a separate figure. I hope that that will answer the points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Seccombe.
It is not a question of the Government interfering in the negotiations between the unions and the employers, but I believe that what we have said about changes in the workforce and the strategy that we have for that is right: it is important that we have the right kind of workforce. In your Lordships' House, we have talked for some time about the need to ensure that we engage with adults who can contribute and have contributed in schools. We must ensure that teachers can teach and that there are adults available to support them in that role by taking on some of the other tasks and challenges that teachers face.
I shall answer the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked: I think that a three-year budget is important for long-term planning. I cannot answer her question about the 7 per cent PFI capital. It was an interesting question, and I shall write to the noble Baroness with specific details about that, unless something wings its way to me in the mean time.
We have created a £3 million partnership fund for specialist schools. The fund is to support schools that are having difficulty in finding the £50,000. The fund will provide the full amount or part of the amount. We will look for a demonstration that schools have contributed to improvement, growth and development in the community, which is part of what we are trying to achieve with specialist school status, and have sought to involve people in that work, including the securing of financial contributions. The money is there to address the specific points that the noble Baroness raised.
Substantial increases in education funding for local authorities have already been provided for in the spending review. I said in the Statement that there would be £4.3 billion more by 2005–06 before any transfer of DfES grant to local authorities. On top of that, the department is transferring £500 million from grant in 2003–04 and 2004–05 and a total of £1,340 million from grant to local authorities in 2005–06. By 2005–06, schools and LEAs will get £5.5 billion more than in 2002–03. To me, if to nobody else, that sounds like an increase.
There is no change in the position on the threshold for 2003–04 to 2004–05. Every teacher will be covered in a per capita payment. In 2005–06, we will transfer
38
that payment into local funding, as part of the general commitment to reduce ring-fencing. However, on the basis of rising budgets, we are confident that, with our partners, we can find ways to ensure that resources are available. I hope that that addresses that point for the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I will, of course, write to noble Lords on any points that I have failed to address.
4.43 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I apologise for leaping to my feet so enthusiastically—and prematurely.
The increased funding set out in the Statement is welcome. I have just come from a meeting of a school governing body, at which we assessed the performance of the head. I want to raise two issues that have been covered already, as I want to talk more about them: one is about leadership and the other is about nursery education.
Leadership is crucial to the formation of a good school, particularly if the school works in difficult circumstances. Can my noble friend say a little about the role of OFSTED and other inspectors and the role of governing bodies in developing and ensuring good leadership?
Guaranteed nursery education is also crucial. I thought that the Government had made their policy on it absolutely clear. How will schools, particularly in the early years, link with other bodies in local inter-sectoral initiatives to support children such as the Department of Health's children's trusts?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, OFSTED plays an important role in determining how effective the leadership of the school is. I believe that I have visited the school to which my noble friend referred. I was very impressed by the quality of leadership from the head teacher. I hesitate to mention the chair of the governing body because I believe that my noble friend is chair of the governing body; I might be accused of sucking up to her, which I would not wish to be seen to do. The role of the governing body is essential, as noble Lords will be aware.
I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that we have made our position on nursery education clear. Collaborative working—of which children's trusts and children's centres are a good example—is part of the reason why I have been created a joint Minister for the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions. As we develop our budgets, we want to ensure that local authorities can use the moneys appropriately—particularly in the early years—to support our children. That is part of the reason for the reduction of ring-fencing. Children's trusts, which are being developed by my honourable friend Jacqui Smith at the Department of Health, are designed to develop the process of bringing health, education and social services together to support children and families. It is important that our budgets reflect that.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I refer to the latter part of the Statement, in which the noble Baroness mentioned the learning and skills councils. It was my privilege to visit, a few days ago, the Building Crafts College. It is based in Stratford in east London and provides expert training in woodwork and masonry to a fair number of young people and some adult returners at a high standard of skill.
It is a small college, and it was strongly represented to me that the college is deeply apprehensive that, under the new arrangements for the learning and skills councils and for funding that the noble Baroness announced, it will be difficult for small, specialist colleges to get a fair crack of the whip. I hope that the noble Baroness will utter some reassuring words that I could draw to the attention of that college.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, with great pleasure, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that I can offer him reassurance. We would have failed in our endeavours if, as a result of what we are trying to do, small, specialist colleges offering high-quality training to students were to suffer in any way. That is not what we are trying to achieve—quite the opposite. I hope that the noble Lord will take that message back. If he chooses to write to me, I shall pass the matter on to my appropriate colleague.
Lord Winston: My Lords, the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which I once had the honour of chairing, conducted an inquiry into science in schools. We found a severe deficiency in science training, particularly between the ages of 11 and 16, which meant that children left school less scientifically literate and numerate than they should have been.
One of the issues for the committee was that, whereas Shakespeare and Chaucer do not change from year to year, science is a continually moving target. What plans are there in the new funding arrangements for better personal career development for teachers of science and for such teachers to teach the subjects that they are qualified to teach, rather than teaching all sciences as a blanket subject, as happens too often?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Winston, about the importance of science. We have discussed that in your Lordships' House on several occasions.
In the key stage 3 strategy, which covers children aged from 11 to 14, we have focused on science to allow for the changing nature of science—precisely the reason that the noble Lord gave. We must acquaint our children and young people with the current issues and ensure that they understand how quickly scientific progress is being made. That is also the reason why we have extended "Science Year"—now called "Planet Science"—for a further year. It will do several things. It will recruit ambassadors for science, particularly young, bright, motivating people who can go into schools and help young people to learn. They can encourage them not only to take up science but to continue with it, which is important. It will also help
40
with training materials, through work with partners who can provide the expertise that we need in the training of teachers.
I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Winston, specific figures. We have announced them, and I am happy to set them out in detail for him. I hope that he will consider that they are good news.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I understood the Minister early in her Statement to say that secondary schools would receive grants of £125,000 for a number of purposes, one of which could be a change in the leadership of the school. She also said that the Government wanted to ensure that weaker schools used the grant in the best possible way. What does that mean? Within the present law, how can £125,000 be used to change the leadership of a school? Does it mean that the Government will ensure that in a weak school they obtain the right leadership? That is important because, to my Scottish soul, it is a strange statement for a Minister to make. I am not aware of exactly how things work in schools in England, but I would like to know what is intended.
Furthermore, I do not believe that the Minister answered the excellent question from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. How much of the enormous sum of money which the Government are taking from taxpayers to give to schools will come from council tax payers?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the money I have announced today is coming from taxpayers centrally. It is for local authorities to determine what they do in addition. I apologies if I did not answer the question directly, but the money I am focusing on specifically today is that available for local education authorities and for schools.
The noble Baroness, as always, picks up on the detail. I said that we are providing £125,000 for the 1,400 schools in the inner cities and in challenging circumstances beyond the inner cities. I said, too, that in the weaker schools the money can be used to change the leadership of the school. The focus is on the word "change". Within what I am describing—and we want schools to develop the system for themselves—is the possibility perhaps to buy in the additional support they need in order to support the leadership. We want them to be able, perhaps, to recruit and to use the money in challenging circumstances where additional resources might be needed to attract people of the right calibre to the school. We want them to be able to work in collaboration with other schools, perhaps with more joint working. In other words, we want to make changes by enabling them to say everything from, "We need new leadership in this school and we have the resources to obtain it", to, "We need support and development mechanisms and the additional people coming forward who will help us".
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Minister spoke about making further education and skills more responsive to the needs of learners, employers and communities. In my 30 years' experience as an employer, I often

41
found those in conflict. The question which always arose was: to whom does the training belong? Does it belong to the person being trained, who will want to do what he is interested in, or does it belong to the employer who will want him to gain the skills he needs for his business?
The answer to that—and it may be an answer 10 the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin—is to extend the training and broaden it out. As well as teaching specific skills, we should also teach managing people, productivity through lean manufacturing, basic costing, taking responsibility, ethics and all the other subjects which are increasingly important as we become a service economy. Will the additional funds be directed towards such subjects?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, makes an important point about the value of training. I answer his initial point by saying that this is a partnership. The role we want to have, and the role of the Learning and Skills Council, is to try and identify the needs of the individual in terms of skills training and also, as all good projects have done for a long time, to focus on the skills required by local employers. The routes into employment are fundamental and important.
As regards the specifics of the training, I fear that my colleagues at the department who have ministerial responsibility might not be too happy if I were to give a categorical assurance of what is to be included. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied if, in response to his comments, which I fully accept, about the need to help train people in a variety of different ways, not least in terms of managerial responsibility, I say that I shall obtain an appropriate and proper answer from the Minister responsible.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I understand the higher education moratorium and the reasons for it, hut there is one question that the Minister could answer. As of now, in each year, a residual amount, which she has not been able to announce today, will be set aside for higher education. By what average percentage per annum will that residual amount rise in real terms over the three years beginning April 2003?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sorry. I hate being unable to answer the noble Lord's question in full. However, I cannot prejudge what will be announced in January. Although the noble Lord may believe that the residual amount is a simple calculation, there are within it issues to be discussed about exactly how the funding is to be used. No doubt negotiations and discussions will be required with others outside the department.
I apologise that I cannot answer the question now. If I can obtain a satisfactory answer, I shall write to the noble Lord and place a copy in the Library.

Courts Bill [H.L.]
4.55 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the remainder of the debate may take other contributors to it by surprise. However, I had intended to apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having the feeling that the Bill is not the more exciting of the criminal justice Bills being introduced in this parliamentary Session. As seems usual, the other place gets the first crack at the more controversial and interesting Bills and, only after it has finished debating them or, as is so often the case, completed its work without adequately debating them, do the Bills come here. Well, we must today muster as much patience as we can before we tackle the highly charged subjects of double jeopardy, the admission of previous convictions and the possibility of certain trials being by judge alone without a jury.
What this Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill now before the other place have in common is that they both have a foundation in the comprehensive and weighty report from Sir Robin Auld entitled Review of the Criminal Courts in England and Wales, published in October last year. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is to be congratulated on asking Sir Robin to fulfil this mammoth task. Whatever now happens regarding the outcome of these Bills, his report will for many years stand as a major source book for the facts and issues on all these matters.
What Sir Robin said about the management of magistrates' courts was that it was highly complex, a product of history and,
"an increasingly tortuous legislative overlay".
That same sort of point can be made about many aspects of our criminal justice system.
When I was a newly called barrister in the 1950s, I spent a lot of time in magistrates' courts, usually prosecuting, and often in central London courts manned by professional stipendiary magistrates, now called district judges. Conditions have changed so much that I would not dream of drawing on my experience of magistrates' courts of 40-plus years ago as being particularly relevant today. But I will indulge in just one recollection to make a general point about judicial appointments.
One court building I went to frequently had two stipendiary magistrates sitting in adjacent courts. In one sat a stipendiary with a well-founded reputation for toughness in his verdicts and his sentencing. The other had completely the opposite reputation—extreme leniency was his watchword. Each had sat on the Bench for some 20 years. Each day they had more or less the same kind of caseload of petty cases and, although they had completely different attitudes, they both, I thought, had been in the job rather too long and suffered from an occupational hazard that was not good for justice.

43
I believe that many improvements have been made in the system since those years. Judges at all levels are given a much more varied diet of different kinds of cases and district judges—stipendiary magistrates—now have the prospect of promotion to the circuit bench. I like the flexibility mentioned by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in Part 6 of the Bill which will enable judges to take a different range of cases in different courts.
But I would like to be reassured by my noble and learned friend that there will be a degree of monitoring of judges' performances over their years of service and that they will have training opportunities to help keep their minds fresh to new legislation and fresh to new research in criminology and the penal system.
Compared with a much more modest number in my early days at the Bar, we now have some 150 stipendiaries and there may be some advantage in mixing professional and lay magistrates in certain criminal cases. Each kind of magistrate, the professional and the lay, could well benefit from such joint sittings, in the same way as Crown Court judges and lay magistrates do when they sit together on appeals from magistrates' courts in the Crown Court. Lord Justice Auld comments that in many areas today there is an atmosphere of resentment and distrust between the lay and professional magistrates. Working together, as lawyers and others do in, for example, employment tribunals, may be part of the answer.
The proposals in the Bill to unify court administration—I noticed, as I am sure we all did, the general approval for them of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice—are sound. Following the unifying of court administration above the level of magistrates' courts in the Courts Act 1971, there has been a measure of unfinished business. Perhaps the Bill will finish the business of unification and sensible administration.
After all, the aim of the Bill is the worthy and proper one of better service for all those who have to do with the courts. I agree with the creation of national standards and a strategic direction from the centre under the new executive agency described by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in partnership with local court administration councils. As I understand it, to use a European word as it were, subsidiarity should be an essential principle of the new dispensation, with local accountability and responsiveness to local needs and, as Lord Justice Auld said,
"the maximum delegation of managerial responsibility and control of resources to an accountable local manager working in close liaison with the professional and lay judiciary".
But, as has been said already in the debate, short as it has been so far, the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees, in a briefing on the Bill, argues that the Government have not kept to the intentions
44
stated in the White Paper of July of this year, Justice for All. The Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees feels that local management boards have been relegated to being merely consultative bodies. Obviously it is difficult to get the right balance, here as elsewhere, between central strategic direction and local accountability, but clearly this is a sensitive area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, indicated earlier. Bearing in mind the fine centuries-old tradition of service to the community of lay magistrates, without which the whole British criminal justice system would either collapse or have to be very radically altered, it is most important that magistrates do not feel that the views of their representatives will count for little. Magistrates—lay magistrates in particular—should be cherished and not spurned.
I welcome with enthusiasm the part of the Bill dealing with the enforcement of fines imposed by magistrates' courts. At present, 40 per cent of fines are never paid, and we know about the haphazard nature of fine collection and the variation in collection rates from one part of the country to another. In the words of the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in another place, this has resulted in the payment of a fine as an almost voluntary activity.
I like the combination of sticks and carrots in the introduction of discounts for prompt payment and surcharges and other penalties for delayed payment. I listened to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in regard to car clamping and the difficulties involved in clamping cars and the problems that might arise in selling them. The Committee may wish to consider with considerable care the implications of Schedule 2 in regard to that.
Generally, however, I commend the Bill and I hope that the House will give it an enthusiastic Second Reading.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I associate myself warmly with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in regard to members of the lay magistracy. I agree that they should be cherished and that it is very important that they should not feel that the views they hold about the provisions of the Bill will not be taken into account by the Government. It is a pity that the Magistrates' Association has not yet, as far as I am aware, publicly commented on the parts of the Bill that bear upon its courts. No doubt it will very shortly, and we should all heed what it has to say with great care.
As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said, it is true that the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees has expressed great anxieties about certain proposals, to which I shall return in a moment. However, by way of preface, it is perfectly obvious that a great deal of work has gone into the preparation of the policy of the Bill, no doubt beginning with the massive work of Sir Robin Auld.
It seems to me that there is plenty of scope for rationalisation. I rather liked Sir Robin's point early in the report where he stated that one can scarcely talk

45
about a criminal justice system, so great is the mish-mash of overlapping ingredients—at least I think he said that; if he did not, I do—especially at local level. He referred to,
"a muddle of administrative complexities and responsibilities".
As to previous and current well-intended efforts to address these problems, he stated:
"There are pilot studies, working parties, steering groups and reviews all over the place".
For my part, I counted 49 current government research projects and pilots in Appendix 3 to the White Paper. So although I am not by temperament a centraliser or an interferer with something that seems to be working fairly well, I readily concede that there is ample scope at least for rationalisation in the criminal justice field.
However, I do not at present believe that the Bill's proposals for the magistrates' courts can be justified, either in pursuit of the objective of modernisation and greater efficiency, or at all. I am sorry to have to say that they constitute a quite unjustified exercise in centralisation, one which has the potential to impinge dangerously upon the independence of the lay judiciary.
I see no justification for turning justices' clerks into civil servants and, in the process, bringing them under the control of the Lord Chancellor and his department. I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lady Seccombe and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on this matter.
What is the case for the proposed change? In a nutshell, it comes down to wide variations in performance. I do not doubt that there are such wide variations. But I should want to know rather more about the reasons why 87 days is taken to bring a case to completion in Bedfordshire, as opposed to 37 or so days in Surrey. I should want to know how many lay magistrates there are. I should want to know a good deal about local circumstances before I could know what weight to attach to that fact.
It seems to me inevitable that there will be wide variations. Goodness knows, there are wide variations in the Crown Courts—which are much more liable to direction from central authority than are the magistrates' courts. At present, I am far from persuaded that it is right to impinge, in the way the Bill does, on the present set-up in the magistrates' courts by turning justices' clerks into civil servants.
Under the present system, justices' clerks are appointed by the magistrates' courts committees. There is, it seems to me, ample scope for the selection of the candidates to be influenced by local considerations. I believe that to be very important—and for the following reason. The relationship between magistrates and their clerks is a very personal one. This was referred to with becoming modesty by my noble friend Lady Seccombe, who has been a magistrate for many years. One knows how intimate such a relationship needs to be if there is to be the necessary mutual trust that has been referred to.
46
The justices' clerk advises his or her Bench on technical matters in terms of law and on administrative matters. But he or she does not go into the retiring room with members of the Bench. They, and they alone, carry the burden of producing the adjudication. If members of the Bench do not have confidence in their clerk, I suggest that they must have the power to get rid of the clerk, because the system will riot work without such confidence. It is a local matter. The power that they have at present is by no means in practice a dead letter.
I am worried, but not surprised, by the opposition and the grounds for it that have been published by the central council of Her Majesty's courts' committees. The council believes that the clerk will not be able to serve two masters—it is seldom that anyone is able to do so. It is particularly important in this case, because in practice and in law the clerk will serve the Lord Chancellor alone. His career will be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, or of his Permanent Secretary. A failure by his Bench to meet the target of the day will be his failure in professional terms, regardless of whatever local considerations have led his Bench to make the relevant decisions and set the relevant priorities.
It seems to me that there is not sufficient comfort in the substitution of courts administration councils for the magistrates' courts committees. As has been powerfully pointed out, they are no more than consultative. They will riot appoint the clerks. They will have no executive authority whatever. They will advise the new board, higher up in this administrative or bureaucratic change. So there is no answer to the point that has been made several times already—and alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie— drawing upon the statement on page 148 of the White Paper:
"The aim of the new agency"—
the criminal justice board—
"will be to enable management decisions to be taken locally by community focused local management boards, but within a strong national framework"—
and so on. I do not believe that that is a sufficient answer to the creation of the new board at local level; namely, the criminal justice board. It is certainly not a sufficient substitute for the power of the Bench itself to appoint its clerk.
It gets worse. The Bill empowers the Lord Chancellor, by order, to confer some judicial powers on justices' clerks—powers which could be exercised by a single justice sitting alone. It is true that they have marginal powers of that character at present. 'The Bill enables the Lord Chancellor to enlarge those powers. This has set alarm bells ringing among the lay magistracy—and I believe that they ought to ring in this House. I do not believe that it is at all safe that these extended powers should be available to servants of the executive.
As a consequence of the Bill, lay local decision-making input into the location of courts, the appointment of staff, the priorities of expenditure and accountability for performance will be removed altogether. It is pointed out in a statement placed in the

47
Library that there is to be a lay magistrate on the local criminal justice board. But, as has been stated from the Front Bench, that does not appear in the Bill. I do not know how the Lord Chancellor reckons that he will, through his staff, improve upon the present performance of the magistrates' courts' committees.
What went wrong between the point at which the part of the White Paper that I have cited was written and the formulation of the Bill? It is hard to think of a reason other than a rush of centralising blood to the head. There will be no community-focused local management board. The one that we have already will have had its throat cut. This approach to getting the criminal justice system "right at the start", to quote from the White Paper, seems to me rather erratic.
A tribute to the lay magistracy might not have come amiss in the Lord Chancellor's speech. There is time for such a tribute to come from the Front Bench opposite at the end of this debate.
It will be helpful to learn publicly what the reaction from the Magistrates' Association will be. It has a long history of constructive participation in the formulation of policies which are designed to modernise and make more efficient the administration and jurisdictions that it has historically performed. It is an historic office, but it is ever vigorous and ever important.
I noted that in the list of approving bodies read out by the Lord Chancellor, the Magistrates' Association did not feature; nor did the Justices' Clerks' Society—unless I missed any mention of them. It is true that the Association of Justices' Chief Executives featured in the list; but that is a very different kettle of fish, and not one that altogether inspires confidence in respect of the anxieties that I have expressed.
The magistrates represent a body of the judiciary which is unique to this country, or at least to a small part of the common law world. They need to be cherished. They provide a staunch check against abuse of executive power at local level. They also reinforce public confidence in the operation of the law at levels that are especially important to local communities. I put it no higher than to say that they may well need to have the continued provision of an exceptional jurisdiction and an exceptional mode of administration.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, further to a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, one of the reasons why lay justices have a low profile in England and Wales is that we are becoming evermore metropolitanised and centralised in what we do and in how the nation is governed. Lay justices are the Cinderellas of the justice system. I applaud what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and my noble friend Lord Goodhart said about the lay justices.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that he was a practitioner in stipendiary courts at the beginning of his legal career. I was a practitioner in lay justice courts
48
and sometimes sat as a temporary clerk to justices. I shall comment largely on the position of lay justices under this Bill in tribute to my late father, who died in May. He spent 50 years as an advocate in lay justice courts and more than 30 years as a part-time clerk. I was reared in the law in the shadow of that remarkable institution.
Given our deep concern about the malaise of democracy and participation in this country, with predictable results, we should recollect that lay justices are still deeply embedded in the culture and history of our country. Those 30,000 men and women, of all sorts and conditions, are at the heart of the justice system. Lay justices dispose of over 93 per cent of all criminal cases. The only direct experience that the majority of our fellow countrymen will have of the law will be a visit to a magistrates' court, whether as accused, applicant, witness, friend or professional.
Benches of magistrates were almost wholly self-governing until the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, pursuant to which they have functioned within magistrates' courts committees, which are established for each administrative county and certain non-county boroughs. In the past decade, the number of magistrates' courts committees has been reduced from more than 100 to 42. Alongside that, there has been a steady amalgamation of Benches and petty sessional divisions. Chief executives of MCCs, many without any legal experience or background, have been appointed under the 1999 Act. Meanwhile, the closure of local courts has continued apace. Last year, I instigated a debate in this House on that subject, which provoked an all-but-unanimous condemnation of the impact on local justice and local people of what is still happening. Around 400 magistrates' courts remain.
The Bill continues down the same one-eyed track that this Government and their predecessors pursued vis-a-vis court closures by enshrining the phrase "efficient and effective", as if those words comprised a clear and comprehensive statement of what is needed for local justice. That verbal formula is, no doubt, behind the Government's pretending to weigh the pros and cons of closures of tens, and indeed hundreds, of magistrates' courts without including in the costs-savings balance the expense to the public, the police, magistrates and advocates of getting to and from distant courthouses.
One of the amendments that I will table at the next stage will seek to import into Clause 1 the much broader set of yardsticks employed by the Lord Chancellor in his most recent departmental report; namely, to,
"enable criminal justice to be dispensed fairly, effectively and without undue delay, promoting confidence in the rule of law".
I suspect that, if that is the keystone of this legislation, some of the unnecessary damage that will be done to the lay justice system and the magistrates' courts committees will be avoided.
Yet, the Access to Justice Act 1999 reforms have scarcely bedded down. As Sir Robin Auld said, they are still in transition. As is the fashion, the Bill will uproot them long before their success can be properly

49
assessed, thus throwing the system into further chaos and demoralisation. The Civil Service and politicians do not consider that factor enough.
Last week, a delegation of chairpersons of magistrates' Benches came to see me. They made it plain in the most powerful terms that they and their colleagues view the proposed changes to court organisation as likely, if not certain, to result in further resignations of some of their best JPs and the deterrence of some of their best potential recruits. They see the changes as likely to cause the further distancing of justice from those over whom it is exercised, and that they will lead to greater inefficiency and ineffectiveness of justice in their courts.
How often have we been promised radical improvements in administration and efficiency in affairs of state—health, education, transport, you name it—only to end up with increased lines of communication, loss of local input, demoralisation, additional bureaucracy and diluted citizen ownership. The last factor, to which the Lord Chief Justice referred earlier, is crucial.
As the Suffolk Magistrates' Court Committee said in its most recent report,
"the Committee is conscious of the effect that low esteem can have upon staff morale and, to a degree, the Auld review may also be less conducive to a "feel good" factor amongst staff. There are some signs that this is beginning to translate itself into a difficulty in retaining staff".
I suggest that that is typical. In fact, over one-fifth of the committee's staff resigned last year, along with over 10 per cent of justices of the peace. Yet, I suspect, Suffolk is better than most.
Another example, only too well known by the outdoor staff of my London firm of solicitors, is the impact of the forced merger of the Westminster and Bloomsbury County Courts five years ago to form the Central London Court. That has led to a catastrophic drop in efficiency and effectiveness. As I was told, you never see the same staff twice, they all seem to be young and experienced, and, too often, the result is poor service.
My noble friend Lord Goodhart, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, spoke effectively about the impact of the proposals to abolish magistrates' courts committees and replace them by court administration councils—or "CACs", as they will undoubtedly be known, giving a new meaning to the expression "cack-handed". The problem is that Clause 4 leaves it entirely up to the Lord Chancellor to decide how many CACs there will be. One confident prediction is that there will be a mere 10, coinciding with regional administrations. What hope is there, then, for local justice?
Whereas magistrates' courts committees make decisions on where their courts will be, who shall be the chief executive, the appointment of justices' clerks and other staff, the terms of those appointments and where justices' clerks will sit, CACs will be responsible only for making recommendations in all those fields. They will have no decisive powers. I am informed that they were not called court management councils precisely because they will have no management powers.
50
Whereas magistrates' courts committees comprise 12 justices of the peace practising in the area concerned, a CAC will have only one justice of the peace. If we really want justices who know their patch, know what is needed, know what resources there are and how best to deploy them, with a sense of "owning" and running their own courts, and having responsibility for them, it will scarcely be achieved by replacing a committee comprised of 12 serving magistrates by a council comprising only one. It is not merely that the courts committees are comprised of serving magistrates; they are selected by a panel, to which representatives of every Bench in the area are elected. We have in place an extremely effective, democratic, accountable procedure to ensure that magistrates' courts committees are run effectively by those responsible for the courts. All that will go. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the new proposals will keep the courts,
"in touch with the communities they serve".
He also said that they will not be "a centralising measure", that they will be better responsive to local needs and that they represent "decentralised management". Either the noble and learned Lord is reading a different Bill or I have to say that I disagree with him totally and absolutely, and so do others of your Lordships.
Justices of the peace will in future not serve as part of distinct petty sessional divisions—which are to be abolished—and will be commissioned on a countrywide basis, but will serve in what are poetically to be known as "local justice areas", to one or more of which the Lord Chancellor will assign them. I am not sure where local Benches sit in this reorganisation. If the local Benches are to go, that will be a retrograde step of the first order, because the morale, cohesion and self-knowledge of Benches is a critical part of the effectiveness of lay justice. I am sure that I do not need to elaborate on the effects to local justice of all this. That has been made clear enough already.
Court service circular 199, emanating from the Lord Chancellor's Department, issued on 29th of last month, said:
"the national jurisdiction means that a summary offence can be treated in the same way as an indictable offence and will allow proceedings to be brought anywhere in England and Wales, rather than in the local justice area where the offence was committed. This will have the effect of reducing delay by allowing bulk processing of cases"—
that is the key phrase—
"and will allow specialist courts within an area to hear certain types of cases".
JPs, who are after all volunteers, will swiftly tire of a diet of, as the circular puts it, "bulk processing of cases". Many have told me so and it is pretty obvious. Unless good justices of the peace have a good cross-section of cases, including some of the most difficult in terms of law, fact and judgment, they will simply walk away, as many of them have already done because of workload, court closures and the like. Apart from t hat, centralising a certain type of case in a certain court

51
inevitably means even greater distances for all those involved to travel, with all the other consequences already touched on.
The Government were partly frustrated by this House in their comparable attempts to centralise control of county probation committees and county police authorities. This is an even more important battle to win for the sake of justice. If it is true, as I think it is, that this country is distinguished by a level of probity and respect for law and order among the vast majority of its citizens—despite the lamentable crime statistics that we hear so much of—those characteristics of Britain have a great deal to do with the role of justices of the peace at the heart of communities up and down the land since the 14th century. Although one can exaggerate and dramatise the impact of reorganisations such as that proposed, I strongly believe that for the magistrates' courts committees to be replaced by recommendatory councils would be an own goal and a self-destructive move of the first order.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, when I first received a print of the Bill, I started, as one would, with Clause 1. I was puzzled as to why it should set out this extensive duty on the Lord Chancellor. Could it be an aide memoire in case he had forgotten? Could it be a coded "Trespassers will be prosecuted" notice sent to the Home Secretary? I really did not know, but as I read further I came to the conclusion that it was an attempted justification for the enormous centralisation to which the Bill gives effect.
There is of course a widespread requirement for consultation, but if I were a Minister I do not think that a requirement to consult would blow me much off course. It would, of course, delay, but that is about all. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may be different; he may be swayed by the results of consultation.
I looked to see whether anywhere the Bill says that anyone has to concur. In paragraph 281 of the Explanatory Notes I found a power in relation to Northern Ireland that requires the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. I then looked at the Bill. Unfortunately, it was a typographical error—it is, in fact, consultation again.
When I was in office, I was one of those who had to concur in the fees. Even in 1992, when I left, there were considerable anxieties among my brethren, which I shared, about the extent to which increases in fees would close access to justice. That has been highlighted recently in statements by one of my successors. I well understand the four heads of division saying that they no longer wish to accept responsibility for the fees being charged. But it would be difficult for them to oppose. The issue relates to the provision of the sinews or resources necessary to run the system.
I noticed with surprise the comment by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice that, in working out the costs of accommodation, a notional
52
capital cost is now put on the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand. I did not know anything about that. Of course, there are heavy maintenance costs as it is a listed building and a very extensive one. However, it seems odd to put a capital cost on it because, as many of your Lordships will know, it cost not a penny piece to build. The sensible course was taken of having a look at the enormous sums in the court funds that were never going to be claimed. It was then provided by statute that that money could be taken to build the courts, provided there was an indemnity that would provide payment for anybody who turned up to claim it. I commend to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the thought that we might do that again. It is over 100 years since it was done. That might build a new commercial court.
Then there were the civil procedure rules. I was a member of that committee for a long time. Under the 1981 Act, the Lord Chancellor and at least four members of the committee had to concur. In other words, there was a right of veto on both sides. That was replaced under the Civil Procedure Act 1997 by a requirement for eight members of the committee to agree, giving the Lord Chancellor a veto—the right to approve or disapprove.
Clause 80 of this Bill allows the Lord Chancellor to "allow, disallow or alter" the rules. Paragraph 195 of the Explanatory Notes accurately comments on that, but it requires careful reading before anybody realises what the facts are. It says this is not a new power and goes on to talk about the county court rules. It is not a new power in relation to county court rules, but it certainly is a new power in relation to supreme court rules. So much for that.
I turn to appointments of staff. Justices' clerks are to be appointed under the provisions of subsection (1) of Clause 2. They are defined under Clause 22. As was pointed out, they are to be civil servants. They are to have powers to do anything that a single justice of the peace can do. Under Clause 24 they are to be independent in the sense that the Lord Chancellor's Department cannot require them to do anything in particular. I am reminded forcibly of the apocryphal story of the managing director who summoned the office boy and said, "Well, Brian, you really must comb your hair properly and have clean fingernails. I am not, of course, giving you an order, I am just making a suggestion. But I do hope that you will remember who is making the suggestion". I cannot help thinking that such a relationship might exist between some justices' clerks and the department.
Clause 30 gives justices' clerks an indemnity if they are sued. That is quite right, but subsection (5) of Clause 30 leaves it to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to decide whether they should have an indemnity. I accept that there are rules and approaches which no doubt would fetter his discretion but I consider that provision rather unfortunate.
The provision of fines officers is a welcome development. Any system of fines where recovery is problematical is bound to lack all credibility. It is the experience of all citizens advice bureaux that large

53
sections of the population are quite incapable of managing their financial affairs. That can lead to those who are fined getting into genuine difficulties. They need help to get them out of those difficulties rather than a penal sanction. There are, of course, a few who just will not pay. I accept that sanctions must be imposed on those people, but I have slight doubts about paragraph 9 of the second schedule which provides that there shall be an uplift. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that it would be imposed by the court. That may be the case, but paragraph 9 reads differently. Paragraph 9(2) states:
"An increase is imposed on the fine which is the subject of the order".
Paragraph 9(3) states:
"The amount of the increase is to be determined in accordance with fines collection regulations but must not be greater than 50%of the fine".
Paragraph 9(4)—the key provision—states:
"The increase is given effect by treating it as part of the fine imposed on P on his conviction".
So it is a deeming clause. Is that really a provision that either represents what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said or that would pass scrutiny under the Human Rights Act? For my part I have doubts.
I wish to say a few words about administrative councils. I can quite understand why they are being introduced, albeit I do not altogether approve of the form in which they are being introduced. But they involve the abolition of the magistrates' courts committees. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that the magistrates' courts committees serve a very important localising function. But if they are to go, instead of having just one lay justice on the new body, could we not have several? Even more importantly, ought they not to be nominated or elected by the magistrates and not appointed from on high? I also note—I am not sure how this works—that under Clause 5 the councils' recommendations are limited to matters specifically relevant to their own area. But there may be matters which relate across the board and which affect them. I certainly hope that they will be able to make recommendations on those matters.
The supplementary list should never be abolished. Many people up and down the country have given years of voluntary service. It is right that that should be recognised by their being allowed to put the letters "JP" after their name even if they have passed the point at which they are able actively to adjudicate. That may be due to age or merely due to the fact that they have adjudicated for a quarter of a century and they consider enough is enough.
I turn to damages. I wholeheartedly welcome the provision with regard to structured settlements. My only qualification is that it would be a good idea if the media were taught that a structured settlement does not necessarily involve the millions of pounds that they usually attribute to such settlements. In most cases the amount involved is much less. Only in a worst case scenario, as it were, would the costs run to the sort of figures that the media mention. That causes litigants to think in terms of unrealistic figures for settlements.
54
I return for a moment to fines officers. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor mentioned clamping and appeared to regard the registration of a keeper as having something to do with ownership. It has nothing whatever to do with ownership. I am bound to say that if I was threatened with a fine, or even if I received a summons from a magistrates' court, I would give careful consideration to who ought to be the keeper of my motor vehicle. I am reminded again of an apocryphal story concerning King George V who asked one of his Ministers what was the state of the economy, to which the answer was, "Well, your Majesty, if I were you, I would put the colonies in the wife's name". I should have thought that that would certainly be the reaction of anyone whose vehicle was threatened with being clamped.
Subsection (1) of Clause 58 concerns nomenclature in the Court of Appeal. The justification for the proposed changes is said to be that the term "Lord Justice" is gender indicative. I do not agree for one moment. A large number of offices contain the word "Lord" none of which, so far as I know, has ever been treated as gender indicative. There is, for starters, the First Lord of the Treasury. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, occupied that office for a long time. I do not believe that she ever considered that her femininity was called into question. There is—this is perhaps closer to home—the Lord President of the Council. There are perhaps—if not, there will be—female Lords Lieutenant. There are Lord Mayors, for example, the Lord Mayor of Westminster and the Lord Mayer of the City of London. Both those offices have been occupied by women who have been called Lord Mayor. There must be many other examples.
I was so puzzled by that provision that I had a look at my own patent. I did not want to bring it to the House as it has a heavy seal, I took a photocopy. Apart from referring to me as,
"Our trusty and well beloved"
which I appreciate, it continues,
"Sir John Francis Donaldson Knight, one of the justices of our High Court of Justice".
The style relates to the office. The document continues, having said "do give and grant",
"the Office of one of our Lords Justices of Appeal".
It is an office. It has nothing to do with what one calls oneself. Section 4 of the 1991 Act says that the puisne judges of the High Court should be styled "justices of the High Court".
We all know that, long even before there were women judges of the High Court, judges were universally called Mr Justice so-and-so. It was quite logical that when women High Court justices were appointed they should call themselves Mrs Justice. I say "logical", but of course none of the Mr Justices was a Mister, because they were all Knights, and none of the Mrs Justices was a Mrs because they were all Dames. Subject to that, however, it was perfectly logical and it did not require any statutory approval.
If there is a sensitivity, as there is, although I believe it to be misguided, among the lady members of the Court of Appeal about the title of "Lord Justice". the

55
obvious answer is to modify the Bill to provide that the word "Lord" shall be removed from the style or description of the office. If the office were known as "Justice of Appeal", the present incumbents would be free to do what their puisne brethren and sisterhood have done, which is to put some indication on the front of their title as to which gender they subscribe. In that way, life will be able to go on as it is at the moment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am interested in the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. However, I do not believe that he can do anything to prevent the Bar from referring to High Court judges, Lords of Appeal and others in those high judicial positions as "my Lord".
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, there is no reason why the Bar should do that. In this House, when I rise to my feet I say "my Lords", and I hope that none of the lady Members present is in any way offended. It is an accepted collective term. I criticise my erstwhile brethren for having got their underwear in a twist on this question, so much so that, as one legal periodical reports, one member of the court volunteered to be a male judge for a day to make matters easier. The answer is that the court as a whole should be addressed as "my Lords", and individual members as "my Lady" or "my Lord" as the case may be. That would not be a problem.
I have even greater difficulties with Clause 59, which allows the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to run through the whole gamut of judicial offices to give effect to a policy of political correctness. I was delighted to see that he did not contemplate turning the office of Master of the Rolls into Mistress of the Rolls. I hope that he would not even consider making that an alternative, so that it could be Master or Mistress as the case might be. I remind him that, although his office is slightly older than my erstwhile office, the first Master of the Rolls saw the light of day in 1297. The title should not be altered today.
Finally, I very much regret that the Bill will be in Committee when I am briefly out of the country and trying to warm up. I shall not be able to take part in it, but I hope that one or two of my remarks will ring a bell with some of your Lordships. I shall certainly be back for the Report stage.
5.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, the Bill is about justice, and the judgment to be made upon it will be whether it strengthens the confidence of our people in the delivery of justice in our country.
As noble Lords have said, there are serious inconsistencies. It cannot be right that a person living in Cambridgeshire is more than twice as likely to avoid paying a fine as someone from West Yorkshire. Surely, if the courts in Yorkshire can get the money in, it must be possible to get it in anywhere in our country.
In the early 1990s, I served as a member of the South Yorkshire Probation Committee. I remember our discussion of and response to the Criminal Justice Act
56
1991. Do noble Lords remember those heady days when there were only 45,000 people in our prisons? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has reminded us today that the crime figures are down, but the prison population has risen to 72,000. That ought to be the headline.
The 1991 Act made us think about the philosophy and practice of justice with a view to reducing our prison populations. There are four prisons in the diocese of Guildford, two of which have recently been converted into women's prisons. Many lay people go into those prisons to work with families and children, in parenting courses and other educational activities. They come out feeling bewildered as to why so many people are in those institutions. We must tackle that matter.
The 1991 Act was part of a coherent strategy to reduce the prison population. It caught our imagination at the time, although there were serious problems about the way in which it applied fines. It is good to see this Bill addressing the vacuum that followed its demise.
For there to be justice, two things have to happen. First, sentences must be enforced. The public needs to be able to feel confident that, when a court imposes a fine, it will be collected. Justice collapses if the message gets round that people can joyride in a car, destroy it, appear in court and be sentenced to a fine but never pay a penny of it. The outcome is that some of the most disadvantaged communities in our country suffer a loss of justice; the poor and vulnerable communities suffer as a consequence of our failure to administer justice. The provisions of the Bill offer some remedy to those experiences.
I am interested by the Bill's proposal to pilot some ways in which to collect fines. Speaking from these Benches, I have to say that money can corrupt even systems for collection of fines. I shall be interested to hear how we will set up simple, transparent and fair systems after the experience of the Child Support Agency, which was excellent in principle, wonderfully founded in aim and absolutely fell apart in the forest of bureaucratic practice.
The overriding experience that fines will be collected will increase confidence in fines and reduce pressures in our prisons. There must be a multitude of ways in which that can be enforced, and no doubt we shall assist the Lord Chancellor in working on the detail of the Bill as it goes through its stages.
The second principle is to have consistency in practice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has pointed out that the God-fearing and law-abiding citizens of Surrey wait only seven days to appear in court while the wicked of Bedfordshire have to wait 86 days. That is not good news for the administration of justice. Although it is not easy, we must balance the desire for local diversity with a need for consistency in the administration of justice. Those who appear in our courts have an overriding right to justice to the highest levels applicable.

57
'The proposals encourage us to think towards greater coherence and flexibility. Other parts of the world, such as New Zealand and Australia, have succeeded in many measures and kept their prison populations down to a minimum.
The shadow of Dickens' father being flung into Marshalsea prison for non-payment of debt and fines has haunted English justice for far too long. It is time to rehabilitate fines so that fewer people are sent to prison; that is what the 1991 Act tried to do. I welcome the Bill and hope that the House will give it the support that it deserves.
6 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, this is a first-class Bill and I very much welcome its broad thrust. It is, dare I say, a Bill for modernisation; that word has a certain ring about it these days. However, I want to touch on a few aspects that bear on the effective management of the new system. Obviously, effective management is vital for the new system because it is stated to be one of the major parts of its rationale.
As the Lord Chief Justice pointed out in his role as shop steward for the judiciary, issues are raised about co-ordination in the system and the lack of resources and satisfactory financial arrangements in relation to, for example, accommodation. I trust that they will be referred to more authoritatively later.
The Bill represents a major change, although that may not appear on the face of it to be the case. One advantage is that it will avoid the amount of poaching that currently occurs between one or other of the 42 magistrates' courts committee areas. Someone in one of those areas, not having a framework system, may think that they would like to have a clerk from another area in their system. That is one of the downsides of the much-vaunted principle of decentralisation.
It would be counter-productive if both opposition parties, as they have hinted, sought the rather paradoxical result of duplicating the new structure and the new agency by arguing that local management committees should also have responsibilities which, if it means anything, means in relation to the employment of staff. That would surely increase confusion rather than provide the clarity which is the main thrust of the Bill. However, there is local accountability where it matters to the citizen. That distinction has not been brought out; quite the opposite. I shall be corrected if I am wrong but there is currently no real system of accountability for MCCs, certainly not in an explicit sense, as is proposed—this is the new proposal—in relation to CACs.
The question of the collection of fines has been touched on by almost every noble Lord. That may have been highlighted as a problem by discussion in the press. The conclusion that one should reach is perhaps the opposite to that reached by many noble Lords. In effect, noble Lords have been saying—I do not know whether they were clear that this is what they were saying—that the more we "contract out" the collection of fines, by some miraculous wave of a magic wand a greater proportion of fines will be
58
collected. There has been a trend towards w hat I should call more contracting out of the collection of fines. But it has not had that result. Bailiffs often go in for cherry-picking and establish which fine is the most economical to collect. I may be echoing the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. I put it in my own terms: that adds up to the least cost to, or profit maximisation for, those who do the collecting. I do not believe that we are going down that road. I do no more than mention the important point about citizens advice bureaux made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
It is hard for most of us to follow the Bill on the question of contracting out. I point out where the Bill alludes to it. I am told that the coded language in Clause 2(4) allows for more contracting out. If I have got that right, staff will ask whether that repeals the provisions of the Act—I believe, the 1971 Act—that explicitly provides that any proposal to contract out (I stress that we are talking about the justice system, which is, all people agree, innately a public good and a public service) must first be examined by the four senior judges and both Houses of Parliament. Are we repealing those provisions? Perhaps I can seek an assurance from my noble friend that that is not the case. I hope that I am wrong in this regard.
Finally, I turn to the protection of employees' rights in the transfer of employment. As I understand it, the 10,000 employees of magistrates' courts will in effect be merged with the 11,000 relevant employees of the Lord Chancellor's Department in the new structure or agency—whatever we call it. On the face of it, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 apply and, for the purpose of Schedule 1, the employing magistrates' court committee or local authority will be treated as a transferor and the Lord Chancellor will then he treated as the transferee. That is my understanding. I should be grateful if my noble friend will con firm whether that is correct.
Paragraph 9(1) in Schedule 1 states:
"The Lord Chancellor may make a scheme".
I am rather puzzled by that language because it suggests that the Lord Chancellor may not make a scheme. Does that leave open the interpretation that TUPE need not apply? I cannot understand how legally that could be the case. If that is not the intention, perhaps that ambiguity needs to be removed at a later stage.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I had not expected to have to speak in this debate because, in the summer, my contacts on the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees were satisfied with the phrase that appeared in the White Paper in July and which has already been quoted. The phrase is:
"The aim of the new agency will be to enable management decisions to be taken locally by community focused local management boards".
It would be interesting to know what happened between the printing and publication of that statement and the printing and publication of the Bill

59
I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I hope that he will forgive me, and be unsurprised, if I do not view the Bill through quite the same utopian spectacles.
The Lord Chancellor said, among other things, that the new structure facilitates rather than hinders progress; but I find it inconceivable that he should bring forward a Bill that would do anything else. I interpreted his comment as meaning not only that the Bill is good—one would expect the Government to produce something better; I should expect him to make that argument—but that the existing structure hinders progress. If that is so, the comment seems at the very least to demean the immense work done by many voluntary magistrates across the country who do not have the opportunity to bring before Parliament a Bill to get things done. They have to work with restrictive budgets and difficult local authorities and proceed by agreement. They are in a much more difficult situation.
The Lord Chancellor says that the new executive agency will not be a "take-over" but build on strength and decentralised management. That is all very fine. However, what was the original concept of executive agencies? In his 1988 report, Sir Robin Ibbs suggested that the agencies' focus could be "downward and outwards". The report said that,
"an agency was defined as a discrete area of work with a single named individual—a chief executive—in charge, with personal responsibility to the Minister for the day to day management",
and that the,
"principle was to he that agencies must be left as free as possible to manage within this framework".
The team responsible for the July 2002 review entitled Better Government Services found that,
"some agencies have become disconnected from their departments",
which brought us back to centralised working.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the new proposals would widen the input from the local community. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, said that magistrates' courts committees are not accountable to anyone. However, for the 14 or 15 years in which I served on Essex County Council, the magistrates' courts had to report their budget to me. I had to take that budget to pieces and put it together again. If I had not done so, I would have had subsequently to take it before a county council of 98 members who owned and accounted for every penny of that budget. The county council's budget was made up of so many boxes of matches, so that the public ownership by the community was direct and immediate.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The new body's committee dealing with accountability will have two representatives of the local community and an additional representative and so on. I am sure that the noble Lord has read the passage dealing with those
60
arrangements; I can cite it if necessary. Does he agree that there is no parallel for that representative structure in the current arrangements in councils?
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly correct. To me, however, accountability has always gone with the control of money. The control of money in the local administrative boards will be non-existent; at best, they are consultative and can make recommendations. The control of money will come from the centre. However devolved downwards the administration may be, those who know the source of funding will look to the hand that feeds them for direction on what they should do. That is one of the great realities of life.
One thing I have learned in long experience as a farmer is that there is not much point in tilling the same soil too many times as the soil will only become unproductive. The "soil" in relation to magistrates has already been well tilled today by many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Seccombe, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden, the noble Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and others. I shall therefore not continue except to make one observation. We are perhaps fortunate that 1984 is behind us. Nevertheless, the juggernaut postulated for 1984 seems to be growing ever closer.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I entirely agree that the courts' administrative provision and arrangements—from the High Court to the magistrates' courts—should come under one umbrella, but only if adequate provision is made for the extremely important local dimension in relation to magistrates' courts. Crown Courts, county courts and so on. In all the briefing papers I received on this matter, the one point that really registered was in a parliamentary briefing paper from the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees. One of its five criticisms of the Bill was that the proposal would make it easier for the Lord Chancellor to close courts irrespective of the needs of local justice and the concerns of the local community. That is the issue that I shall address.
I live in a very sparsely populated part of the country, in mid-Wales, where we are in the process of having to close almost all the courts regardless of whether they provide for the High Court, the Crown Court or the magistrates' court. Frequently, all courts share the same facilities because there has been no investment in them for many years. Although the Lord Chancellor is in the Chamber, the shadow of another Chancellor—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—hangs over this debate.
The Lord Chancellor is taking great powers in the Bill. I should like briefly to explore how those powers will be exercised and interpreted in relation to my own area. The precursor of an executive agency already exists in the Lord Chancellor's Department, and that agency has already intervened quite considerably in my own area. I seek the Lord Chancellor's guidance and explanation of how the powers will be interpreted and how they are intended to be used.

61
I am holding a document entitled Gwent and Dyfed Powys Courts Scheme, published in October 2002. It is subtitled, "Executive Summary Outline Business Case for a Public Private Partnership", and covers courts in Gwent, in south-east Wales; in Powys, my own area in central Wales, and in Dyfed in south-west Wales. The scheme was undoubtedly put together under pressure from the Lord Chancellor's Department. I have been consulting on it. Under the heading "The Outline Business Case—Key Facts", the scheme states:
"There is no capital money available within the required time frame. The funding route that has been identified for this project is PPP. The PPP Outline Business Case demonstrates real Value for Money based on a 25 year contract".
It continues:
"The PPP solution can be delivered by 2006. For the first time in England and Wales there will be a purpose built single Courts estate".
I quote that because in the scheme's financial provisions—for which the Lord Chancellor's Department has been pressing—there is mention of a contribution from the Welsh Assembly government funding, through the Revenue Support Grant, of £6.3 million. That is not part of the devolution arrangements. Has the Lord Chancellor had discussions with the Welsh Assembly on that matter? Is it being asked to contribute money to a scheme for providing courts?
Later on, under the heading "The Regional Dimension", the paper states:
"The exact method of funding from LCD still has to be finalised including the arrangements and involvement of the Welsh Assembly Government. The Assembly need to be part of the decision making process".
I know that the Lord Chancellor has not had notice that I was going to raise this point, but that illustrates the fact that in my area—I just deal with Powys—all the courts will have to be closed. They do not satisfy modern requirements. Therefore, new provision must he made. We are a rural, but not rich, area. How will that be funded? We are pressed by the Lord Chancellor's Department to go down the PPP course. That is how this document has come into being. What happened is that Gwent—which is a very different and much more populous area—had already, again in consultation with the Lord Chancellor's Department, instructed project managers, legal, financial and technical advisers to provide such a scheme. Then Powys and Dyfed, which are linked for magisterial purposes, piggy-backed on to the Gwent scheme at the suggest ion of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Therefore, we have this courts scheme document. It gives an indication of how the Lord Chancellor's Department is likely to act if the general thrust of the Bill is passed. I said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's shadow is over the Bill. Is he insisting that there should be private partnership arrangements? The failure of the Lord Chancellor's Department in that event is the failure of the Lord Chancellor to persuade his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to provide the money that is so badly needed to provide us with decent courts in country areas such as my own.
62
My fear is—and it is a fear expressed by many people in my part of the world—that we shall have to close the courts and that no proper provision will be made, because I cannot see that a private partnership will be enticed into this scheme. This paper is the preparation for it, but the money has not been provided. Is this scheme an indication of the kind of situation that will arise unless suitable safeguards are made during the passage of the Bill through the House? I am really asking the Lord Chancellor to explain his view and his interpretation of the Bill. Was there discussion with the Welsh Assembly—and with the Secretary of State for Wales, for example—before the Bill was introduced? How does he intend to interpret his powers under the Bill?
6.25 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I appreciate that flattery will get me nowhere, in particular with this Lord Chancellor. But I should like to express my gratitude for the great deal of preparatory work done in providing the explanatory material, which I found very time-consuming, but, on the other hand, very helpful.
At the outset perhaps I may indicate my support for the reform of the courts system with the goal of creating a more unified structure able to serve court users and the public. That is also the view of the Bar Council, to which I am indebted for some of the material that I shall place before your Lordships.
I have heard in the past that the Lord Chancellor's Department manages to maintain its stranglehold on the administration of justice by providing the Lord Chancellor with such an excess of work that it can tie him down on matters that may be of some importance while it gets on, behind his back, with achieving whatever it has in mind. That was perhaps particularly indicated by the position of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who was totally unaware that behind his back an enormous amount of work was going on preparatory to the product ion of the Green Papers of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is of course a workaholic. It would be difficult to tie him down in particular. The same no doubt applies to his shadow, for whom I have particular affection. But, on the other hand, neither is immortal and politics being what it is they will have successors in the near future, or further in the future. Therefore, I am concerned at the extent to which matters are left entirely to the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, which in many ways means the Lord Chancellor's Department, for which I do not have quite the respect that perhaps I should have.
I shall refer to one or two clauses, but will try to avoid repetition. As to Clauses 4 and 5, we believe that it is a good idea to have area court administration councils, providing they have power to act. They should be required to publish annual reports, or the Lord Chancellor should publish them along with his own, as provided for in Clause 1(4).

63
Clause 4(5) speaks of guidance to the councils from the Lord Chancellor about the way the councils "discharge their functions". Where are those functions defined? Clause 4(5) would suggest that that is all to be set out in a statutory instrument. That is objectionable. Why not define those functions on the face of the Bill? They are certainly germane to the Bill.
With regard to justices of the peace, a great deal has been said in critical observations. I shall not repeat them, but I substantially agree with them. In relation to Clause 8, which concerns local justice areas, I suggest that the areas under Clause 8(2) be defined now. Clause 8(4) allows the Lord Chancellor to do as he pleases at a later stage.
Clause 23, which deals with functions, is objectionable in one respect. Why cannot the Lord Chancellor define on the face of the Bill what functions currently done by JPs he wants to be done by clerks in the future? This provision, as it now stands, would allow for civil-servant-driven justice and is undesirable.
Clause 25 deals with places, dates and times of sittings. I wish to ensure that under Clause 25(1) the courts are locally accessible by all communities in England and Wales. The Bill should provide for that as a statutory objective.
Clause 29 concerns costs in legal proceedings. I would query whether it is right that a person who brings successful proceedings against a JP for acting outside his jurisdiction cannot recover his costs. Clause 29(4) allows the court to order the Lord Chancellor to pay. That is appropriate, but Clause 29(5) allows the Lord Chancellor to define when he will or will not pay costs. That suggests that he is acting as a judge in his own cause. That measure should be removed from the Bill and substituted by something more equitable.
Clause 31 deals with fines officers. It gives the Lord Chancellor the power to activate Schedule 2 and, indeed, to modify it. In Schedule 2 a civil servant—that is, the fines officer—may increase or decrease the fine. In paragraph 17 there is a power but not a duty to refer collection orders to the magistrates' court. Is the Lord Chancellor prepared to give an assurance that the "magistrates' court" referred to in paragraph 16(2) will not be only a magistrate's clerk? In paragraph 23, which does not properly define a "magistrates' court" as one presided over by JPs or a district judge, it could mean a justice's clerk. Clause 32(2) bears that out.
The next matter to which I want to refer is Clause 69, which provides for the Lord Chancellor, a government Minister, to involve himself in substantive law where the state will always be a party. Does that not run the risk of coming into conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights?
Clause 73 deals with family procedure rules and practice directions. It gives the Lord Chancellor power to rewrite Clause 72(2), which concerns who sits on the family procedure rule committee, and, indeed, the rest
64
of Clause 72, without coming back to Parliament. It provides the Lord Chancellor with a blank cheque and is clearly undesirable.
In Clause 79, which concerns the civil procedure rules, the same change is proposed as in Clause 73, and that should be opposed. The Lord Chancellor cannot be given the power to act as he pleases. The rules have a major impact upon the practice and cost of litigation. It is thought that those who decide what the rules are should be defined in primary legislation.
I turn to Clause 87, which deals with the subject of fees. This is what we have often referred to as making provision for the cream for the office cat to be paid for by the unfortunate litigant. It is obviously having a thoroughly undesirable effect on litigation. The amount of litigation in county courts is decreasing and that is due not only to the very wise provisions made by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf but also to the prohibitive cost of proceedings. There is an absence of proper financing by the Government, and the result is a degree of incompetence that, in some quarters, is quite frightening.
Reference has been made to the Central London County Court. One cannot make contact with that court by telephone—it is impossible, and I speak with first-hand knowledge. I found myself a defendant in that court. I counter-claimed, which I am happy to tell your Lordships had a satisfactory conclusion. But I had to go physically to the central court to get the case transferred to Wandsworth in order to make contact with a court in circumstances that enabled the litigation to go forward.
The quality of clerks is going down because the job is not satisfying. That quality is being maintained in the country because of country connections and because many clerks in the country enjoy that job in their area. But the same is not happening in London. In many ways, the county court system there is grinding to a very unattractive conclusion. I ask your Lordships to join in emphasising that it is vitally important that any new legislation is properly funded. If it is not, then we are better off without the law being changed.
6.38 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I begin by broadly welcoming the reformist zeal of this Government in seeking to implement Sir Robin Auld's invaluable report. Of course, one would not wish to imply blanket support for all the proposals. I believe that some of the more controversial ones now beginning their journey through the less perilous waters of the other place are guaranteed a rougher ride here. But the Government's desire to think the unthinkable, open the windows of the legal establishment and let in a little fresh air are to be welcomed.
In broad terms, this Bill deserves the House's support. I suspect that some of the anxieties which have been, and will be, aired today can be ironed out during its passage. I detect—I hope not too naively—a genuine desire on the part of the Government to get it right in their restructuring of the lower courts and in bringing together the court system under one roof.

65
I propose to talk about only three areas this evening: one of major importance; one in the middle order of concern; and one peripheral. Perhaps I may be permitted, in the time-honoured practice pioneered by the Miss World competition, to deal with the last item first; namely, the proposal to do away with the Supplemental List. Though not earth-shattering in its implication, like the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson, I am sad about this, and declare an interest as a current member of the said list.
The attraction, as it were, of having to provide one's vicar with a moral reference, to sign, say, the application of a General for a shotgun certificate or to authorise the issuing of a passport to one of the better known peripatetic foreign correspondents seems to me to he a relatively harmless diversion within the scheme of things, though no doubt anathema to the tidy minds of Whitehall, despite the fact that it costs nothing. Those of us with little to do except make nuisances of ourselves one way or another in this place will mourn the passing of one of life's little pleasures.
Next, I turn to the proposals relating to the measures aimed at improving the present abysmal rate of fines collection. The recent report of the Public Accounts Committee in another places makes sombre reading: upwards of 40 per cent of fines not collected; recipients of those awarded compensation still not in receipt of the money years after the offence; and a lack of joined-up co-operation between the various agencies years after this particular problem had been identified. Only time prevents me from carrying on this shameful list.
I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the establishment of fines officers, but I should like to tease out from the Minister, if she is able at this stage, the answer to some questions. What will be the status of such officers, and from whose ranks are they likely to be drawn? After all, despite the welcome assurance from t he noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today, they will be exercising quasi-judicial powers in that they will be able to vary fine orders up or down, presumably issue an attachment of earnings order or, indeed, even a clamping order, as we have heard, in respect of an offender's vehicle. I add at this juncture how pleased I am to note that the full range of penalties will now be used against the recalcitrant offenders.
I remember when I was on the Bench that there was extreme reluctance to use the range of sequestration options on the perfectly understandable view, which has been echoed today from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that innocent parties—namely, members of the family—might suffer thereby. However, noble Lords might feel that it is about time that persistent offenders were forced to come face to face with the consequences of their actions even if they affect their nearest and dearest.
It is absolutely essential that we get right the collection of fines as the overwhelming number of disposals are by that method. As we have heard, some 75 per cent has been estimated. If non-compliance persists on a large scale two factors will result: first, the
66
law will be brought into disrepute and more and more offenders will accordingly try to evade payment; secondly—this is perhaps even more important—magistrates will inevitably be tempted to impose less appropriate sentences. I am not talking of community penalties, which we all support, but which are inevitably governed by the resources available at any given time, but the awarding of custodial sentences by magistrates when they are entitled to do so.
My second question is in general terms. How many fines officers is it envisaged will be appointed: one to each court, or will they he allotted to areas? Where will the extra resources come from to fund them?
Thirdly, although there is provision for a Bench to "take back" from a fines officer a case for re-sentencing, how would that work in practice? Is it realistic to think of it as anything other than a highly unusual exception to what is the norm?
Lastly, I come to the more sensitive but critical areas of local justice and the relationship between local justice areas and the to-be-appointed courts administration councils. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has shot my bird, I shall not use the acronym. If I were to make a plea for maintaining the status quo in one respect, I think it would be with regard to the 42 geographical areas currently served by magistrates' courts committees. Those have been recast comparatively recently and there is evidence to show that the various agencies within them—the CPS, probation, police, local authorities and so on—are working together effectively. So, please, no change just for change's sake.
Pursuing that theme, what will happen, as a result of the Bill, to the justices' chief executives? The current system has been up and running for only a few years, and another upheaval among experienced staff may have really serious consequences from both an administrative and morale point of view. I know that there is much disquiet at the abolition of magistrates' courts committees and whether local input will be diminished as a result, but we shall just have to see how effective the consultation process, and particularly the so-called "red card" system, will be between the new councils and the local chief officers, particularly in relation to court closures, on the subject of which so many noble Lords—one particularly thinks of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, in that context—are rightly concerned.
It is fatal to say this, but it may be that I am the only Member of this House who, as chairman, has presided over the amalgamation of two old and well-established courts: not a bundle of laughs, to put it mildly, but I think it is fair to say—subsequent experience bears this out—that the world did not come to an abrupt stop because of it.
We are all conscious of the fundamental importance of local justice, but I have to say that to take a stand now on court closures, however reprehensible some may be, brings to mind a stable door and a bolting horse, especially when one recalls that some 90 courts—I think it is 90—have closed in the past three

67
years. Indeed, in my own county of Hampshire, the number of courts have been reduced in the past 12 years by two-thirds.
What one can surely legitimately call for is an investigation into the hardship involved in defendants getting to court, where the distances involved are high and the public transport system inadequate. In that context one invariably thinks of Suffolk and even more so of Powys. I would beg that suitable resources be allocated to alleviate the worst examples.
Surely, the whole point about bringing all courts under one roof nationally would be to improve interagency co-operation dramatically and to use the estate—no one has mentioned this today—as fully as possible. Indeed, in one small area I would be tempted to go further. At present, only each way and indictable offences can be moved to a more appropriate court; one, perhaps, with better video links or facilities for the disabled. Why should not that elasticity and freedom be accorded to summary cases as well? I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate whether that would be sympathetically considered.
It seems to me that one of the fundamental weaknesses of the law at present—this is true of the lower courts as much as the others—is the confusion which has been allowed to build up in the minds of the public about who does what. I think that the Bill, with its unified national structure, will help to put that right. It is simply not good enough blindly hanging on to the past. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might even consider calling them justice boards instead of local justice boards, but perhaps that is a step too far. I do not think I shall try my luck on that.
There are those who see in all these and other proposals the demise of the lay magistracy. I do not agree. To begin with, in a way Auld has provided a firm framework for the continuation of the lay magistracy and a magistracy with an even bigger role to play. Successive Lord Chancellors have endorsed that view, none more so than the present noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who, if I may say so, is not given to going back on undertakings freely given on a number of occasions.
It is up to all of us to ensure that we have as efficient a system of justice as possible, and one that enjoys the confidence and understanding of the people it seeks to serve. I believe that the Bill, appropriately amended, will provide a suitable launching pad for this essential objective.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for long. I hope to better even my usual minimal standard of length of Second Reading speech. I do not intend, nor am I qualified, to make a Second Reading speech as such. I shall try to put down a marker of some areas where the Green Party is unhappy with the Bill and wants to try to amend it in Committee. Judging by the speeches we have heard, there will be plenty of opportunity for that.
68
We have two areas of particular concern. The first is the whole business of centralisation, to which we are opposed in general principle unless a real case can be made for it. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us that it is not a centralising Bill. But nothing that I have heard since has supported that. The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, was an important piece of evidence in arguing the case that we should be careful before over-centralising.
The second area that I, and, I think, your Lordships House, will want to consider is Schedule 2 and the powers given to the enforcement officer. It is obvious from what has been said that the non-payment of fines and various other moneys decided on by the courts is a real and utter scandal that should not be tolerated in a civilised country. Some of the Bill's provisions will help. I was interested in the remarks made about the increasing use of distraint of property. However, we must be careful about the powers we give to enforcement officers to make judgments that are almost semi-judicial. There is much detailed work to be done on Schedule 2.
Meanwhile, I congratulate the Government on trying to pull together a disparate system into something that makes rather more sense, but that must not be done at the expense of either individual liberty or local responsibility. It is in local responsibility that the help or otherwise of the judicial system will best be seen.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Seccombe I begin by declaring my interests as a layman. I sat as a magistrate for 13 years before entering your Lordships' House. Indeed, I was grateful to receive from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a polite letter explaining why, because I had not sat for 15 years, I therefore could not join the Supplemental List, to which my noble friend Lady Seccombe referred.
I have been married to a practising barrister for 30 years and I have been both the victim of crime and a witness in court. On other occasions I am also spokesman for these Benches on home affairs. All those experiences have taught me that the Bill is certainly necessary and important, and I welcome it. But it must not only improve the efficiency by which the courts work but do so in such a way that we do not lose the system's fairness to all involved.
I welcome the Bill, but I have concerns about its detail. That is where the real problems begin. As noble Lords have asked: where do we find the Bill's detail? So often it is missing. The measure relies heavily on order-making powers. Some important matters are simply not written into the Bill at all.
I find it intriguing that a government who so often wax lyrical about the importance of devolving government to the regions have introduced a Bill that so comprehensively centralises power in the hands of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. We are told that a new courts agency will replace

69
magistrates' courts committees and the Court Service. Last week, as the noble and learned Lord said in his opening remarks, the Government published a statement about the principles that will form the basis of the agency's framework document. In that document they gave a commitment to publish both the framework document and the guidance to be issued to the court administration councils about how they should perform their role. That is just as it should be. But the question is: when will they be published? It is important that they are published in time to be fully considered by the House in Committee and beyond. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, nods her head. I hope t hat she can tell us when we shall receive those two documents.
My noble friend Lady Seccombe referred to the fact that magistrates' courts committees are to be abolished. Many noble Lords have taken up that theme, concerned about the Government's apparent U-turn in changing management councils into something that will be within the remit of the Lord Chancellor. I do not propose to go into detail. The issue has been covered admirably by other noble Lords. But it should not be assumed that I do not feel as strongly as they do on the matter.
I am also concerned about what appears to be the transfer of judicial functions to officials—or the potential for that to happen. The Government assure us that no such thing will occur. However, in two respects, the Bill allows for a transfer of judicial functions to officials. I refer to justices' clerks and fines. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, mentioned Clause 23(1), which appears to give the green light for the Lord Chancellor to transfer functions currently carried out by magistrates to justices' clerks. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that that is not the case, perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm that the Bill as drafted maintains the status quo with regard to the dividing line between the functions of the magistrate and of the justices' clerk and that no further transfer of functions will take place. I bear the scars of a previous fight over Section 40 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.
I turn to fines. Again, other noble Lords have dealt with the matter in great detail, so I shall just mention one or two issues they did not raise. I endorse all of the concerns that have been expresssed. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was reported as saying on BBC Online on the 29th of last month that,
"it is absolutely essential, for public confidence to remain in the tine, that it is not seen as a synonym for getting off".
He is absolutely right; no noble Lord has said anything to contradict that. We want him to have every opportunity to achieve just the result that he wants through the Bill. The question is whether the Bill's measures fairly give effect to what we believe to be the right way to enforce fines.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, referred to the drafting of Schedule 2. I am concerned that as drafted it appears to give fines officials the right to increase fines without reference back to the court. The noble and learned Lord the
70
Lord Chancellor was careful to tell us that that will not be the case. As I read the Bill, the right to decide appears to go to the fines official.
I remind your Lordships that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave his press conference on the provisions, he was challenged by members of the fourth estate about whether the provisions would be in breach of the human rights convention, which requires punishments to be imposed by an independent and impartial tribunal after a fair and public hearing. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that the noble and learned Lord gave the sort of robust response for which he is somewhat famed. He is reported as saying:
"Instead of taking fancy points about the Human Rights Act, tell me what's wrong with these powers".
We may try to give one or two of those answers in Committee; I look forward to trying to do so. I promise the noble and learned Lord that I shall not take fancy points; I am not a lawyer and cannot compete.
I turn to one or two issues that have not as yet been covered. In the same interview, the noble and learned Lord said:
"I have complete confidence that these"—
the fines officials—
"will be officials who will exercise their powers responsibly ".
I am grateful for his confidence. The difficulty is that, when noble Lords come to scrutinise the Bill, they will need to be sure that they are also confident. At the moment, we have no idea how the fines officials will operate. We need the framework, and we need the guidelines.
One noble Lord has already referred to the fact that Crown Court fines are not included in the system. However, I notice that the Public Accounts Committee, in its report, recommended that the enforcement of civil penalties should be combined with the system for enforcing criminal penalties. Did the Government consider that recommendation? What were their reasons for not taking the opportunity to implement those recommendations in the Bill, which does not, as I understand it, cover county court fines? Do the Government have plans to do that?
I was pleased to see the report of the speech given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the magistrates' annual general meeting, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, referred. The noble and learned Lord stated that the White Paper,
"banishes the myth of a few years ago, when many press articles claimed the lay magistracy was an endangered species … nothing could be further from the truth and … the Government remain fully committed to our unique system of lay justice".
The noble and learned Lord nods his head. I appreciate that, in such matters, he has a genuine commitment. Therefore, I hope that., when we come to the Committee stage and beyond, the noble and learned Lord will clear up some of the question marks over the drafting of the Bill, which could be used by a future Lord Chancellor, who did not have the same honourable commitment, to bypass or supersede the lay magistracy.

71
The matters to which I refer are in Clause 61, which proposes that High Court judges, circuit judges and recorders should be able to sit as magistrates when exercising their criminal, youth and family jurisdictions. The reasons given in paragraphs 179 and 180 of the Explanatory Notes are admirably practical. I agree with them. However, I have sat as a chairman of a family proceedings court. I have a little experience of its role. I am puzzled as to why the Government want to provide for High Court judges and other judges, including county court judges, to sit in a family proceedings court. I wonder whether it is so that county courts can take over disputes about maintenance payments when they are considering disputes about contact. It is puzzling. Overall, the provisions of Clause 61 could, in the hands of a future Lord Chancellor, provide an opportunity to transfer action and authority away from lay magistrates to the judiciary.
The Government must have decided already that the Bill is less than perfect. They have presented us with yet another objectionable catch-all clause. Clause 98 is entitled, "Minor and consequential amendments, repeals etc.". The Secretary of State can do just about anything he likes to amend other enactments and can do so by order subject only to negative resolution. That is not good enough. I was concerned about such matters when I tabled an amendment to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Initially, noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches were not particularly concerned. However, having had the opportunity to consider the matter more carefully, they joined me in my deep concern. I welcome the remarks made today by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on that issue.
I am grateful for the fact that the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform will shortly put to the House a report on its experience of the clauses. Last week, I tabled amendments to a similar clause of the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. I give notice that I shall table amendments to Clause 98 of this Bill.
I look forward to the Committee stage when I hope we can ensure that the objectives and outcomes of the Bill are made plain and that necessary improvements will be made. There is no doubt that the court system is ripe for reform and improvement, but we must always remember that efficiency must never be sought at the expense of the most vulnerable in the justice system.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the major theme of the speech made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—incidentally, unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, I do not see why we should not have a Lady Chancellor, and soon, under the terms of Clause 59—was that modern, efficient courts should be provided and that they should be free from avoidable delay and more in touch with the communities that they serve. That is the benchmark by which the provisions are to be judged.
72
According to the Explanatory Notes, the provisions are cost neutral. On these Benches, we will need some persuading that that is so. We could take for an example the pension provisions. The Explanatory Notes tell us that 10,100 instant civil servants will be made, when the magistrates' courts staff are transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department. Presumably, that means a transfer from the local government pension scheme to the Civil Service pension scheme. That happened in Greater London not so long ago. Some 800 magistrates' court staff transferred from one scheme to the other at a cost of £8 million. If 10,000 staff are to be transferred, the pensions alone will cost us about £80 million. When one considers that and the crying need for money in other areas of the justice system, one wonders where the priorities are.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, referred to the cost of maintaining buildings, which has been thrust upon litigants. My noble friend Lord Hooson referred to the fact that a new magistrates' court cannot be opened in mid-Wales because the money is not available. In Chester Crown Court, which was recently refurbished at a cost of millions, the water comes through the roof of two of the five courts. In the Mold Crown Court, built in the 1970s, there are buckets in the foyer and in the corridors. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, talked about using the estate as much as possible. In Knutsford, it is impossible to use the major court because the roof is liable to fall in. One wonders where the priorities are, when other costs are hidden in the provisions.
Delay and efficiency were recurrent themes for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He did not refer—nor does the Bill—to what I and many others regard as the present scandal of delay caused by the failure of the privatised Prison Service to provide enough staff and vehicles to get prisoners to court on time. The problem has been studied in north Wales and Chester. In the past six months, in the three courts covered, there were 21 occasions on which the Prison Service completely failed to deliver the prisoner, never mind any delay. I was present recently when the court was told that the arrival of the prison van at eleven o'clock was due to a blockage on the motorway. The defendant said that he had been to Birkenhead magistrates' court, Birkenhead police station and Neston magistrates' court. The Crown Court was the last place of call. One of the judges in that area is keeping a file and demands an explanation for each delay. He has a thick file, which he hopes to present to the Lord Chancellor's Department, when the question of the renewal of those services comes up.
There is also the question of court provision. I was in Wolverhampton recently. There were 28 prisoners in custody and three interview rooms. For half an hour, I queued with other counsel and solicitors to see a client charged with homicide, because the rooms were not available. In Birmingham, there are nine interview rooms, but only five are manned by the Prison Service. I am told that, in the past fortnight, queues have formed at the Old Bailey. Now that the problem has got to London, it may get through to the

73
Lord Chancellor's Department that such things are the major cause of delay in the justice service. Every practitioner and every judge knows it. For that reason, I am somewhat dismayed that court services are likely to be privatised, in particular, court security, under Clause 2(4).
The Lord Chancellor's Department is in the grip of the insurance companies of those privatised services. One of the problems is that in order to see someone in an interview room in the enclosed cell area, that person must he handcuffed by a member of staff and brought to the cell. Recently, both prosecution and defence wanted to demonstrate to the jury an alleged stabbing in the enclosed cell area. The privatised Prison Service refused to allow that unless the defendant was not merely handcuffed, but shackled by the legs. Consequently, the demonstration was not held. Applications are made to judges day in, day out, for defendants to be handcuffed in the dock, and that is always refused. That is where the delay is happening at present. The Lord Chancellor's Department has no grip on it.
I follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in his consideration of the delay in civil cases. Perhaps I may make a short point. The crucial issue in civil cases is the listing. The most important person in the court is the listing officer who, in the provinces, is paid between £16,000 and £18,000 per year—significantly less than, for example, a fireman. Yet, the whole efficiency of the civil courts rests on that particular person. Delay in family matters can be crucial. It can make the difference between whether a person has custody or access to his children. Delay is hitting at the heart of the civil justice system and I do not know that the Bill does anything to tackle that.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor also said that the purpose of the Bill is to decentralise management and bring about local accountability in a strong national framework. Perhaps we may consider the question of local accountability. At present, under magistrates' courts committees, the local magistrates and councillors have a contact with the community from which they spring. It is they who set the policy for the locality. The magistrates' courts committees are open to direct input from local authorities, interested bodies in the locality and individual people. They are concerned with the appointment of justices' clerks and their staff. They set the terms and conditions and directly supervise the way in which duties are carried out. That is what I would call "local accountability". They are also concerned, of course, with which courts stay open and which courts are closed. They are deeply concerned in decisions of that sort.
What of the court administration councils that are being set up? According to Clause 4(3) of the Bill the Lord Chancellor will appoint the members of the council. He will give them guidance on their functions which, as many noble Lords have said, are completely undefined and can be added to or removed as the Lord or Lady Chancellor of the day thinks fit. He will receive recommendations from the court administration councils to which he has to give due consideration.
74
Where is the local accountability there? We look further. We look for the principles in the document that has been produced and placed in the Library—again not part of the Bill and again reversible, as my noble friend Lord Goodhart said. It appears that the court administration councils have no voice in the appointment of chief officers. Indeed, the chief officers will not be implementing local policy; they will implement national policy. That is why they are there; they are part of the structure; the strong national framework.
The chief officers must seek agreement of the court administration councils. It does not say in the Bill that they must obtain the agreement of those councils, but just that they must seek it. If there is a difference, it is to be referred to the chief executive and, in important matters, to the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, we go all the way round in a circle. I ask your Lordships to consider where on that circle there is any local input whatever. Local accountability does not exist under the Bill.
Therefore, in whose hands are the provision of services for victims, witnesses, defendants, and those who use the courts to be placed? Are they to be placed in the hands of those who know something about local conditions or back in London in the Lord Chancellor's Department? I was most amused to hear my noble friend Lord Hooson refer to the Welsh Assembly. I am pleased to see that by a side wind we are to have increased devolution. I hope that that is conveyed to the appropriate commission which is sitting at the moment.
Using the benchmark of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the Bill sets up modern, efficient courts free from avoidable delay and which are more in touch with the communities from which they come, in my respectful submission to your Lordships, it fails on every count.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, this has been a comprehensive and good natured debate. We have had 16 speeches of the highest quality about a Bill which has 101 clauses, seven schedules and 113 pages. Many of the speeches have raised important questions. I extend my warm support to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, because I counted altogether 34 questions that she was invited to answer. Many of the points are ones which will be taken further in Committee. I do not believe that we are anticipating a full and comprehensive answer to each point.
First, perhaps I may say that although I am not in agreement with some of the statistics that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor used, I pay tribute to his work as a reforming and progressive Lord Chancellor. We have seen evidence of that in civil justice; we now see evidence of it in criminal justice.
As regards his statistics, the one overlaying the whole debate was that used by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford—the fact that 72,000 people are in prison. There must be a better way than that to proceed. I know that "modernization" may not

75
be a word greeted warmly by the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall. I believe that the way he said "modernisation" conveyed something. It is sad that Hansard does not contain any onomatopoeic references—
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I must say that what the noble Lord has just said is totally in his imagination.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I greatly regret that Hansard will not contain the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, pronounced the word. However, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has put his finger on something important. It has been echoed throughout the debate; namely, the whole question of resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, have referred to the shadow of the Chancellor of the Exchequer overhanging the debate. There is little point in having fundamental reform of criminal justice if there are not the resources to accompany that reform.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, will know from his experience in reforming civil justice that there was a debate in 1999 in which both he and I participated. We stressed how important it was that the information technology improvements promised at that time should be forthcoming. I was sad to see the noble and learned Lord's successor as head of civil justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the Master of the Rolls, giving a warning earlier this year that without a multi-million pound cash injection for new technology the reforms begun three years ago without IT back-up will not work. That is a very serious situation. It is a cause for concern that we are now embarked on a fundamental reform of civil justice again without the necessary resources being earmarked.
If only there was some way in which we could assist the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. When I held a number of posts in government, I recall that the successive Permanent Secretaries adjudicated on my efficiency as a Secretary of State on the basis of the extent to which I was able to obtain resources from the Treasury. I am sure that that must now be in the pages of history, but if it is still a fact, will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accept from the House its solid support for his determination to ensure the necessary resources?
I have here the very creditable report of Lord Justice Auld. Sadly, it does not look as earmarked as it should be, but this is one I borrowed earlier; my earmarked copy is at home. It consists of 686 pages. Like the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I pay tribute to what is now a reference work on criminal justice. As the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said, it is an immensely valuable document.
From the document we gather—it is a fact—that magistrates' courts deal with 95 per cent of all prosecuted crime and that lay magistrates handle 91 per cent of that work.
76
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the criminal justice system is not working as well as it should. In all the speeches made in the debate there has been strong support of the need for reform. But before I go into the detail of some of the proposals, perhaps I may echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who said that the lay magistracy should be "cherished and not spurned", and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden stressed its importance. In a particularly moving account, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, paid tribute to his late father's service to the community. I pay tribute from these Benches to the marvellous work carried out by generations of lay magistrates. They have served our communities well, often at great expense and inconvenience to themselves— unpaid servants giving a lifetime of service. I join my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith in paying tribute to them.
As against that inherently local service, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, pointed out, we are presented with an enormous degree of centralisation. Clause 1 states very clearly that the general duty on the Lord Chancellor is to produce an efficient and effective system. There are some concerns about that. The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, referred to the power given to the Lord Chancellor under Clause 2(4). I agree that it appears to be a very wide clause and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, can give some reassurance as to the extent of that power.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden said that we were faced with something that is a little bit of a muddle with ample scope for rationalisation, but noble Lords on all sides of the House believe that in the Bill there is an unjustified emphasis on centralisation. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor started the debate by saying clearly and resoundingly that this is not a centralising measure. I hope that he will forgive us if we put that to the test in Committee. As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith inquired, what has happened between the Auld report, the Government's White Paper, Justice for All, and the Bill? Each of those documents represents a different stage in the journey. How have we ended up where we are today?
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, expressed concern about centralisation and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, stressed on several occasions the importance of local responsibility. But we are now faced with the abolition of magistrates' courts committees and their replacement by court administration councils. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, will be remembered for his phrase that it is a "cackhanded approach".
CACs—court administration councils—will have no executive authority. That is to lie with another agency which, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, is not mentioned in the Bill. As my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns said, may we please have the framework documents in order that we may adjudicate on exactly what the powers of this agency will be?

77
My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden said that we are turning magistrates' clerks into civil servants and he instanced the fact that, as civil servants, officials will be given financial targets against which their performance will be judged. That gives rise to all kinds of worries and concerns.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, referred to resignations and diluted citizen ownership. I hope that that will not continue. He instanced examples of it in the past.
As to the supplemental list, I join my noble friend Lady Seccombe in asking why abolish it? We have two distinguished members of the supplemental list in the House. My noble friend Lady Seccombe was too modest to mention that she joins the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, as a member of the supplemental list, a roll of honour which they thoroughly deserve.
A number of noble Lords referred to the issue of court closures, which is a cause of considerable concern. Since 1997, 96 magistrates' courthouses have closed in England and Wales, whereas only 14 have opened. What effect that will have is an area of concern. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, quite rightly referred to the situation in Powys with the PPP. I do not know to what extent the Welsh Assembly or the Secretary of State for Wales have been consulted. I hope that we shall hear more about that in a few moments time.
As to fines, there is general support for the proposals of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, it cannot be right that the recovery rate in urban areas is 34 per cent and in rural areas 89 per cent. Those are telling statistics on fines enforcement. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that we must address poor performance, and he has very strong support in that respect.
But giving fines officers powers to increase fines, as my noble friend Lady Seccombe said, is a cause for worry The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that we should not worry, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, pointed out that there are considerable worries about the power in Schedule 2, Part 2, paragraph 9(4) at page 61 of the Bill. All these issues will have to be considered later.
As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, it is the poor and vulnerable members of society and the community who suffer from the inefficient administration of justice. I join with him in the tribute he paid to citizens advice bureaux; I am proud to be president of my local CAB. I was a little worried that the right reverend Prelate felt that Surrey was God-fearing whereas Bedford was not. Perhaps he should issue a personal statement on that. The noble Lord, Lord Lea, pointed out the dangers of the least cost option, with which I strongly agree.
The most powerful speech came from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. As a mere modest solicitor, perhaps I may pay tribute to him. His unique position in being able to address this Chamber on these issues is greatly to our advantage. We were very concerned to hear his comments on Clause 87, which he described in
78
various terms: he said that it was "totally misconceived" that full costs should have to be recovered; he referred to the "grave danger" of Access to Justice gains being lost; he described the accommodation of the commercial court as "a disgrace"; he referred to technology ''repeatedly promised" but not delivered; and he said that resources were urgently required. That is a resounding message to which I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, will respond.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, went quite Shakespearian. I join him in worrying about the Henry VIII clauses and about seeking reform of an approach dating back to the time of Henry II; namely, the circuits.
Questions were raised about what will happen to the Duchy of Lancaster. Speaking as a former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I am very worried about the statement in paragraph 51 on page 13 of the Explanatory Notes that the current responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be transferred to the Lord Chancellor. We need a response on that point. Previous Chancellors of the Duchy of Lancaster whom I have consulted seemed completely unaware of this massive change in what were our responsibilities. I hope that we can hear more on the subject.
I turn finally to Clauses 92 and 93 dealing with periodical payments—which I think have caught a few people by surprise. I never criticise the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for finding a primary legislative opportunity of introducing such provisions. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, in its present form with provision for variation this will provide serious problems for insurers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, welcomed structured settlements, as many of us do, but there is a danger under the present provisions, if enacted by statutory instrument—namely, a review—that no cases will ever close. Perhaps, as Senior Partner in a firm of solicitors, Beachcroft Wansbroughs, I should welcome this provision. The thought of no case ever being able to close is a prospect which lawyers might support, but which no sensible lawyers would want. We must not allow anxiety to return over the awards of damages through a threat of variation on either side. Perhaps the answer is to move in that direction only in the most exceptional cases and only after careful assessment of the impact on the insurance and financial sector.
We have instanced previously in this House the danger of retrospective legislation. The opening up of awards for review in the future must not be allowed to apply to any existing claims for which premiums have been collected and for which reserves have already been set. There is a danger of the shadow of uncertainty remaining over civil litigation for some time. While I welcome the opportunity for the courts to order structured settlements, there must be a finality to the process.

79
We have had an interesting debate. I now look forward to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. We on this side of the Chamber await the Committee stage, when we shall seek to improve the Bill.
7.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I say straightaway how much I welcome the opportunity to respond to what—as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said—has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. But as he indicated, there have been in excess of 34 questions. The noble Lord asked a further four. I have in front of me sufficient paper to do a creditable job but I shall not seek to answer each and every question now. However, just to reassure my officials, I should inform your Lordships that I do have an answer in full to each and every question that has been asked. I pay tribute to all those who have made such high-quality contributions. In this debate, we have heard the "gems" of the House. As I look round the Chamber, I think that we need to celebrate the fact that this evening the Lords have shown their worth.
I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity to do what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has done on so many occasions; namely, to applaud the lay magistracy for the sterling work that its members do. That has been echoed by a number of speakers. There can have been no stronger advocate for the lay magistracy than the present Lord Chancellor, who, over the past five or six years, has made his support known and felt universally.
Typically, magistrates' courts are community courts, and the Government have demonstrated their faith in the lay magistracy by doubling magistrates' sentencing powers in the Criminal Justice Bill. The 30,000 magistrates represent one of the most significant commitments to volunteering in this country and they have this Government's every confidence.
It has been a pleasure to listen to the Bill being welcomed on all sides of the House. I thank in particular the right reverend Prelate for giving us his blessing in this regard; and it was sweet indeed to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—for whom we have great respect—give it his rare and much treasured endorsement. I for one shall savour that for a long time to come.
As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor reminded us in his opening remarks, reform of the criminal justice system is key to achieving the balance of rights and responsibilities that were at the heart of this year's gracious Speech. The Government have committed themselves to a long-term strategy of reform and modernisation of the criminal justice system. Although we have achieved a great deal already in this direction—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his compliments in that regard—we
80
have to do better still to make the criminal justice system more "joined up", fit for this century and capable of delivering justice for all.
The tenor of the debate was well summed up by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, when he spoke of his optimism. I do not think that that optimism is misplaced. This is a carefully crafted Bill. The stakeholders have been fully engaged. I thank again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for his compliments on the care with which officials have kept the judiciary informed.
We have had extensive consultation with the magistracy and with all those who are engaged in the delivery of justice. It must be stressed that the Government are not blindly following an agenda of modernisation. In the Bill, we are preserving carefully that which exists and has been proven to work well. But at the same time, we are improving on those areas which no longer work as effectively as they should. The provisions in the Bill are the result of an independent evidence-based assessment of what is needed for thoroughgoing and systematic improvement of the courts. It finds its basis in pragmatism and good sense, and many of its proposed changes are entirely demand led. The Bill modernises the courts system in such a way that it better serves the system—members of the public, victim or defendant—in order that we can remain rightfully proud of our traditions of criminal justice.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with his usual acuity, went straight to the detail of the provision. I shall answer his points in similar detail in due course, although not this evening; but many of the provisions upon which he alighted are re-enactments of provisions which are already in being. I hope that in due course the noble and learned Lord will be comforted to know that, for instance, the provision in Clause 29 is currently set out in Section 53A of the Justices of the Peace Act. In many cases we are not doing much that is new; we are reintroducing that which has already been found to work well.
I appreciate that tonight we have concentrated, rightly, on the changes to the structure of magistrates' courts committees. But that is not the only change. We are also doing something very new. For the first time, we are giving an element of local accountability to county courts and Crown Courts. We are asking for work to be done in partnership so that local needs can be better met. We should all be proud about that. It is important that we remember that this is not simply a reform of the administration of magistrates' courts.
The agencies are not creatures of primary legislation—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of the Wirral, raised that issue. The Court Service, which administers the county court, the Crown Court and the higher courts, is not in primary legislation. Framework documents are placed before Parliament. We have already committed to working in partnership with stakeholders in its drafting. The agency will be accountable to Parliament, directly through the Ministers of the Lord Chancellor's Department, unlike magistrates' courts committees.

81
I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that the guidelines must be published as swiftly as possible. I cannot give the noble Baroness a date. I agree that the documents are important. My only caveat is that it is important that the stakeholders are involved in those documents so that what is produced is sound. We will undertake to ensure that they are published as soon as is reasonably practicable. When I have a date, I will apprise the noble Baroness of it.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated that the Courts Bill will be crucial in delivering modern, efficient courts that are free from unnecessary and avoidable delay, in touch with the communities they serve and responsive to the needs of their users. A new unified administration is the key building block in our strategy to overhaul the criminal justice system. It will simplify court structures. Instead of 43 separate administrative systems, we will have only one, ensuring greater uniformity and consistency. Unification provides the structure for greater integration of the criminal courts and will allow for easier implementation of the other important reforms in the Bill.
I wish to lay to rest some misconceptions that may be developing in noble Lords' minds. I will do so as quickly as possible. I reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, that he correctly assessed the future position. It will be possible to allow a more efficient use of the courts estate through the unified administration. Sharing accommodation can lead to the provision of better facilities and services to customers and staff. We have already identified some hearing centres that will be saved from closure through unified administration, thus improving access to justice locally. Co-location of county courts in magistrates' court buildings already exists in some places; for example, in Rotherham, Kendal and Ashford. Altrincham County Court has recently moved into the improved accommodation in Trafford Magistrates' Court. We will be able to do that much more systematically.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Further to the point that she has just made, is it conceivable that, with joint use, county courts in some parts of the country might reopen?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it would be possible to assess local needs. On occasion, magistrates' courts committees have looked simply at the estate needed to serve as a magistrates' court, not the broader estate. As a result, courts have been rationalised and closed. At the same time, sometimes in the same locality there has been a need—sometimes pressing—for county, or other, court space. That space could be used very creatively if there were a unified system. Unification enables that rationalisation and proper use to be undertaken to the advantage of the local community. That must be a very good thing.
82
The Association of Justices' Chief Executives has supported the Bill. It has been, and will continue to be, fully consulted on all the proposals so far. It sits on the steering group that is managing the work, so its interests are fully represented.
Some noble Lords expressed anxiety about the 42 criminal justice areas. I can confirm that they will be a building block of the new organisation. We have an opportunity to do much good work. Cases can, therefore, be moveable. Clauses 25 and 39 provide for the sharing of estate that the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, sought.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised passionately the concern about court administration councils. They will not replace magistrates' courts committees. They are one element in a new system, not only for magistrates' courts, but for all the courts about which I have spoken, including county courts and Crown Courts. The new system is based on an executive agency, but the CACs have an important partnership role.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked why there was no detail about court administration councils in the Bill. As the statement of principle makes clear, the CACs will not act alone but with the civil servant chief officers. The whole point is that they will work in partnership. The Bill cannot deal with arrangements in a departmental agency. It simply sets out, therefore, the fundamental aspects of the councils, which will have to be finely honed.
The noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Goodhart, shared several anxieties. Both said that the role of the council should be set out in a statutory instrument, not in guidance. I reassure noble Lords that we do not believe it will be easy to override councils' recommendations. As well as guidance to councils, the agency's framework document aims and objectives will require working in partnership. The independent inspectorate will review whether it is working. An annual report, which will be laid before Parliament, will report on that.
We want to unify the courts, not to replicate the organisational boundaries of the current system, which Sir Robin Auld rightly criticised, nor to break up the civil and family courts system. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in his usual passionate way, said that local Benches were going. No, they are not. They are not going anywhere. Lay justices will be allocated to a local justice area. One of the provisions, in Clauses 14 and 16, that will prevail is the arrangement for electing Bench chairmen and deputy chairmen. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, also raised concerns about court closures. As I said, unification wall allow more efficient use.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, raised a number of concerns about whether the role of the magistrates' court clerk was going to change and whether we would be creating a different creature, which might have some aberrant effects. I assure the noble and learned Lord that that is not our intention. He said that the justices' clerks would he brought under the control of the Lord Chancellor. The short

83
answer to that is, "no". Clause 24(1) makes clear that a justices' clerk exercising advisory or judicial functions is not subject to the direction of the Lord Chancellor—or of anyone else. No material changes are proposed to the current powers of justices' clerks.
The noble and learned Lord also asked about Benches being able to remove justices' clerks. Clearly, a clerk's functions include satisfying his Bench. If he or she does not do that, the magistrates will be able to communicate that to the local chief officer, who makes decisions within the court administrative council. There will be very close consultation with the Justices' Clerks' Society and the Magistrates' Association on the general role of the justices' clerks. The CCMCC represents those who manage magistrates' courts, not magistrates themselves. The powers of the justices' clerk in the Bill are a re-enactment of existing powers. I fully appreciate the importance of going through that in detail. We shall do so in Committee, but I assure the noble and learned Lord that it is not our intention to create a different creature. We intend the justices' clerks to continue with the independence of role that has been so valuable in years gone by. We also intend them to have similar responsibilities.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said with such care. If it is not inconvenient, will she say a word about the criteria that will apply to the appointment—and by whom—of justices' clerks under the Bill?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I understand it, the appointment system for justices' clerks will not be greatly changed. We are looking carefully at what changes, if any, the new structure will create. I can write to the noble and learned Lord with greater detail on how we propose to do that. I assure him that we take that seriously, particularly now that it has been highlighted. We did not believe that it would be a problem, because we felt that we were simply echoing what was already there. I assure the noble and learned Lord that we shall wish to address any matters that have been highlighted, because we do not want there to be a difficulty on this issue.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice raised a number of issues about how the costs of the Bill will be met. There will be costs associated with setting up the new agency and some costs for the new inspectorate and criminal procedure rule committee. These costs will be met from within the spending limits of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, using appropriate phasing and piloting as necessary. The noble and learned Lord, with his usual precision, has highlighted a number of issues that I am sure will excite our interest for some time.
I dare not go further. My noble friend Lord Lea made a telling point about what will happen to the workers. Under an order made last November, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor agreed an authorised contract for staff to be appointed on a temporary basis. There are no plans to privatise the courts. This power is useful so that my noble and
84
learned friend can arrange for agency typists or clerical officers and for IT-based services, for example for civil processing.
I now see that I have been speaking for 21 minutes. I have an answer to each and every noble Lord. I am sorry that I shall not be able to give them all. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked a number of questions about how the magistrates' courts committees in Wales will be rearranged and the role of the Welsh Assembly. I shall write to noble Lords on those issues that I have not been able to deal with tonight. On behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and myself, I should like to say that this has been a very interesting debate. We shall consider every suggestion that has been made before Committee stage. If we feel that changes are necessary, we shall certainly seek to consider them properly so that we shall be able to give a proper answer when the Bill comes back in Committee. I thank noble Lords for their support. It is unusual to get wholehearted, if critical, support from all sides of the House. I very much welcome it.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Recycling
7.56 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the way that recycling targets for local authorities are set and administered.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not want to stray too far this evening. We have a fascinating Bill before the House that will enable us to be fairly wide-ranging in talking rubbish, which is always their Lordships' pleasure. I suppose I may stray a little into the question of whether we sometimes seek to recycle merely because it is possible rather than because it is in some way advantageous to the environment. I want to concentrate narrowly on the subject at hand, which is the recycling targets set for local authorities and how that system is administered.
There are some interesting figures on the subject. The Government have set general targets. I think I am right in saying that we recycle about 11 per cent at the moment and that that is to be raised to 25 per cent in 2005–06. That is still well below the figures set by some of our continental competitors. Even within the current performance there is an extraordinary diversity between local authorities. The list of the worst performing authorities features Amber Valley and Broxtowe both at 3 per cent, a number of authorities around 4 or 5 per cent, which are quite common figures, and Sunderland coming in at 1 per cent. There is quite an interesting quote from the leader of Sunderland council, who said that he could not be bothered with recycling. It was cheaper to stuff it all into landfill. He is clearly an unregenerate free market advocate. It is a pleasure to see that from a Labour council, but it is not exactly what the Government are aiming for.
At the other end we have councils achieving nearly 30 per cent. Bath and North East Somerset come in at 24 per cent, Buckinghamshire at 23 per cent, Chiltern at 27 per cent, Dorset at 27 per cent and Hampshire at 25 per cent. Interestingly, all of those stellar performances that I have noticed come from Liberal or Conservative councils and the ones at the bottom come from Labour councils. That balance says something about the parties' commitment to recycling when it comes down to deciding whether that is what they arc going to spend their money on.
One effect of that enormous diversity is the choice facing the Government of whether to concentrate on those local authorities at the bottom of the pile or on those at the top of the pile in order the improve the overall performance in the years running up to 2005–06. The answer seems to be that the Government: are entirely impartial in this. They will impose the same sort of level of increase on all of them. So if you are running around at 1 per cent at the moment, you will be asked to get up to 10 per cent by 2005–06. And if you are running around at 25 per cent, you will be asked to get to 40 per cent by 2005–06.
But those achievements are entirely different in their nature. If you are being asked to get from 1 per cent to 10 per cent, it is rather in the nature of falling off a log. All you have to do is improve the level of recycling you are achieving at your central waste depots. You should be able to get 50 or 60 per cent recycling efficiency out of a central waste depot. If that is a reasonable proportion of the waste you are collecting—say, 30 percent of a council's waste—simple mathematics show that you can probably get up to 15 or 20 per cent overall recycling just by dealing with what is happening at your central depots.
If, on the other hand, you are being asked to get from 25 to 40 per cent, you are essentially being asked to improve performance at the kerbside. That is a much more expensive business and involves dealing with all sorts of problems in getting people to play t heir part in recycling. It also involves long journey times and having to build facilities to handle all the separated waste once it arrives at its destination. That is a much more expensive business.
It seems strange that the Government announced that of the support that is to be made available for this matter, 20 per cent of it is to be made available to high performing authorities and 80 per cent to low performing authorities. In other words, the authorities that need the money are not to get it and the authorities that do not need the money are to get it. Of course, that has nothing to do with the high performing authorities being opposition authorities and the low performing authorities being Labour-led authorities. That seems to me entirely the wrong way of going about it.
The Government have produced a very interesting strategy paper from the Strategy Unit entitled, Waste not, Want not, which sets out clearly what a successful waste strategy will require. The paper refers to,
"a robust long term economic and regulatory framework … significant increases in the landfill tax and new incentives for households to reduce and recycle waste; a package of short to
86
medium term measures to put England on the path to more sustainable waste management including measures to slow the growth in the amount of waste; investment in recycling infrastructure; and support for new alternative waste management technologies; and additional funding accompanied by radical reform of delivery structures to ensure the overall aim is realised".
I think that that is quite clear, accurate and reasonable.
What the paper is saying, if I understand it correctly, is that to achieve the sort of levels we are aiming at—the 25 to 40 per cent range—we need a government-led structure. We need government support for the sort of changes that have to take place in order to make that level of recycling possible, economical and sensible. We need "incentivisation". If you are going to build a centralised facility for separating rubbish or for recycling organic waste or for incineration, you need local support. At the moment the structures do not exist to enable a council to give something back to those people who will suffer as a result of having such a centralised facility built next to them. It may not be so much a case of pollution, although pollution certainly comes into it, but a great deal of transport pollution arises from a lot of heavy, smelly lorries travelling to and from these facilities. It would be helpful, for instance, if a local council could arrange reduced cost electricity for those living next to an incineration plant generating electricity. That sort of thing is not possible without government support. It is the sort of measure that needs to be put in place before you ask a council to move from a target of 25 to 40 per cent in this regard.
Situations can arise where there is no market for the product that is due to be recycled. Some councils have had to abandon cardboard because the market is flooded by German imports. If councils are to move from a 25 per cent to a 40 per cent target, and if they are to be asked to undertake difficult tasks, the Government must ensure that markets exist for the products that councils must recycle to achieve that target. To move from 1 to 10 per cent is easy, but to move from 25 to 40 per cent requires a council to undertake difficult tasks. To do that well requires government support. Councils are likely to have to build central facilities and to experience planning difficulties in doing so.
Improved planning regulations do not yet exist to enable these matters to be dealt with in a sensible time-scale and on a sensible basis. We do not have the system of personal incentives and rules—the sort of carrot and stick approach—that the Germans have in place in order to reach their 40 per cent targets. Therefore, if you are dealing with kerbside recycling, you are faced with great difficulties in doing better than the sort of good average of 60 per cent compliance, which is what we get in this country. You are already hobbling yourself if you are trying to reach German targets, which are around 40 per cent, but they are doing that with near 100 per cent compliance because of the way their government have set out the structures, incentives and sticks that surround recycling in that country. If we are to push councils at the top end of the range, we need the Government to be there first and to work in partnership alongside them.
There is an emphasis on centralisation in the Government's approach. Centralisation is enormously expensive for a rural authority as there are long runs involved in collecting rubbish. It may have to be collected in three or four different cycles in order to keep its components separate. That adds greatly to costs. A great deal of extra traffic is created travelling to some central location and one concentrates the pollution which arises from that. In some circumstances perverse incentives arise. Some councils are now having to dissuade their residents from operating compost heaps as they do not count towards recycling. You would not guess that from reading the strategy paper which positively encourages composting. It states:
"Over 50% of the household waste sent to landfill sites or incinerated in England could be diverted from incineration and landfill through home composting and recycling on the basis of current best practice".
If 20 per cent of a council's householders compost their organic rubbish, that 20 per cent does not count towards recycling targets. A council almost has to send dustmen in to raid compost heaps; it certainly has to send circulars around saying, "Please give us your lawn cuttings, please give us your hedge clippings. Please create more organic waste so that we can meet our targets". That is a ridiculous and perverse incentive. The structures ought to be in place so that the ambitions set out on page 4 of Waste not, Want not can be achieved. Currently, the regulations point in the other direction. One cannot count builders' rubble towards recycling, for example—it just does not feature. It is one of the major items that is tipped into landfill and one of the main items that is fly-tipped, but that does not count towards recycling targets. Many perverse incentives come into play when a council is asked to go from 25 per cent to 40 per cent.
There is a lot of potential for the Government to say to councils, "Look, we will come down on you if you are running below our targets. If you are running above our targets, think of us as partners—think of this as the golden uplands that you should reach towards. When you arrive, you can expect not to be kicked any more and not to face financial disincentives. You will not be asked to put up your council tax by immense amounts every year, way in excess of the tax collected by councils such as Sunderland, just because we are pushing you to do far better than other people are being asked to do." Recycling should be something that is praised and that people are supported for doing.
There are problems even with organic waste, on which the Government are putting much emphasis and which is one of the most important aspects of recycling for councils at the top end of the range. Kerbside recycling of organic waste means that people bring it to some central composting facility. By doing that, they do not please the National Rivers Authority because it is likely to create a great deal of pollution. Finally, a large quantity of compost is left that is unusable, because the animal by-products order prevents people from doing so. There are likely to be
88
animal by-products in organic waste, and we cannot spread on fields or use as domestic compost products that may be so polluted. Councils are being forced to recycle something that cannot be recycled.
My plea to the Government is that councils that are doing well should feel rewarded. A council may manage to get from the government target for 2005–06, which has already been achieved, to the government target for 2015 some 10 years early. That should be a process of walking happily, hand in hand with the Government, like the two children in the Startrite advertisement who walk into the golden future. People should not be made to feel that those who have done well be punished more, while those who have done extremely badly or have done nothing are given an easy time and a great deal of government money.
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for introducing this important and timely topic. We on these Benches believe that the Government's targets are not ambitious enough, especially for household recycling. The target for 2010 is 30 per cent plus, but we believe that it should be more like 60 per cent. That target has already been reached in Austria, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, some local authorities here are very near to the 30 per cent.
Governments have been slow to act on this matter over the years. People who have travelled or lived abroad know that, even going back 20 or 30 years, other countries have been way ahead of us. In this country, there has been increased use of landfill and incineration, which concerns these Benches. Britain is very near the bottom of EU recycling league tables but, at the same time, the number of incinerators is set to become quite large if people get permission for them. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, we currently recycle something like 11 per cent. I have read 9 per cent and 10 per cent, but our rate is something like one-tenth. That is one of the lowest rates in Europe.
Landfill has continued apace, despite the introduction of the landfill tax credits scheme. The Government seem happy to propose increasing incineration, although many people are concerned and believe that it poses unacceptable health hazards.
More research is needed into the environmental and health impacts of incineration. I should be interested to learn whether the Government are considering that. Large sections of the public are opposed to it, and it causes great problems when planning applications come through. That must be recognised. We on these Benches want a moratorium on the new incinerators until there has been proper research into the environmental and health impacts of incineration. We must know that it is safe and the best environmental option. Many believe that using incineration encourages people to create more rubbish in order to feed the incinerator; that has been found to be the case.
If we are to reach the 60 per cent target of doorstep recycling, much needs to change. That could be done through a national recycling programme in five years

89
if money was available and channelled to local authorities by reforming the landfill tax credits scheme. We currently raise about £500 million a year through the landfill tax levy but very little of it is redirected to support recycling schemes. Currently, about 20 per cent can be claimed back by waste companies for environmental projects, which have been managed by a body called ENTRUST. There has been much criticism of that body.
Normally, my noble friend Lord Greaves would have spoken in this debate but unfortunately he is not well. As it happens, today I found on my computer upstairs that "What is New in the Library" had a rather interesting paper on the landfill tax credits scheme and the various associated problems, but I have not had enough time as I should like to digest it. I understand that the Government recognise that there have been problems.
I turn to the sequence of events. In March 2001, at the time of the Budget, the Government were attracted to replacing all or part of the landfill tax credits scheme with a public spending programme to direct resources towards government priorities on sustainable waste management. There was not a consultation paper until April 2002. It was issued to seek views on the priorities for funding from revenue currently spent through the landfill tax credits scheme and to examine the merits of different funding mechanisms and other arrangements. In the Pre-Budget Report of November 2002, the Government announced that the scheme would be reformed from April 2003. They announced that the tax credits scheme will continue to make grants for local community environmental projects with approximately one-third of the funding of the current scheme but that the remainder will be allocated to public spending to encourage sustainable waste management. I hope that the Minister will clarify further the Government's intentions regarding reform of the system and how much extra they believe might be used to help local authorities with recycling.
The Local Government Association has commented on the issue, particularly in light of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill. I draw the attention of noble Lords to its concerns. It recognises that the targets from the EU landfill directive are very challenging and it is pleading for more resources to be made available to allow councils to recycle more and to develop other programmes so that they do not have to put so much into landfill. However, it recognises, as we all do, that moving away from a traditional reliance on landfill cannot be achieved overnight. Our problem is that we in this country have been rather slow even getting started. If waste disposal authorities are to comply with landfill targets, they may end up diverting funds away from the real challenges of providing alternatives to landfill.
Local authorities are very clear that the Government need to play a big part in changing public attitudes to household waste. We in Britain have failed to do that. If we are to get higher rates of recycling and composting, and reduce public opposition to the building of incinerators and so on, the Government need to play a greater national role. One of the real
90
problems with waste management is that one authority—the lower tier—collects the waste and is responsible for recycling but another authority disposes of the waste. That is the real problem that the Government must tackle when considering reforms of the landfill tax credit. The current arrangements do not provide incentives for the authorities that are not recycling very well because those authorities are not responsible for getting rid of the waste. That is one of the key issues. The Government could be taking a bigger leadership role in trying to change the public's attitude to waste disposal, recycling and re-use.
I should like to raise another issue that, although not about recycling, affects the amount of material to be recycled. We are lagging behind also in reducing the amount of waste produced in daily life, as evidenced by the amount of packaging on supermarket products. Someone suggested that everyone should remove waste packaging from such products and leave it behind, and I understand that one or two people have been doing so and asking the supermarkets to dispose of it. Such action might change things. However, that point is perhaps wide of this debate.
As I said, it is regrettable that we lag so far behind the rest of Europe. A nation as advanced and economically prosperous as we are should be doing better. I believe that four simple steps would go a long way in bringing waste removal into harmony with the environment. We should have a national recycling programme, which could, as I said, enable us to achieve the 60 per cent target by 2010. We also need tougher action on reducing the amount of waste produced. If we could also reform the landfill tax and call a moratorium on new incinerators, I believe that Britain would be well on the way to joining the ranks of green European nations. Those steps would enable us to do far better in reaching our recycling targets.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing this debate, even though it is being held while the House is considering the Government's Waste and Emissions Trading Bill. Recycling is a very serious subject. England currently has a growing waste mountain. The way in which England currently manages its waste both harms the environment and squanders resources. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, pointed out very strongly, we are also miles behind the pack. As one of the world's most advanced technical nations, we should certainly not be in that position. We need to act now to reduce waste growth and to recycle more.
As I said, the Government have introduced a Bill to start to tackle the problem. However, we on this side of the House believe that the Government's management of the country's waste and emissions strategy can be summed up as too little and too late. Let us hope that it is not too late. The Government's strategy, however, certainly needs to be considerably more aggressive. We believe that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, the Government have

91
set their targets in the Bill too low. Not only are the targets the bare minimum required to meet the EU requirements; they send out the wrong message.
The Conservative Party would propose the target that 50 per cent of household waste should be recycled or composted by 2020, compared with Labour's lower target of 30 per cent by 2010. We believe that every home in the country should have their recyclables collected separately from their other waste. Local residents should be able to drop larger items of recyclable waste off at collection points, recycling centres and so on. There should be a nation-wide scheme to provide subsidised compost bins and water butts.
However, we support the Government's introduction of a tradable permit system for the disposal of household waste by landfill. We would increase councils' resources for recycling and composting by reforming the landfill tax credit scheme. That has also been touched on today. There is clearly a significant financial gap in how local authorities will achieve these targets.
Recently, there have been a number of EU regulations for which the Government were ill-prepared—for example, the regulation relating to fridges. In 2001, it was brought to the attention of the UK Government that the regulation would also include the insulating foam in the doors and the walls of fridges. Her Majesty's Government complained of the late finding of information passed on by the European Union. Nevertheless, this deadline caught the Government unaware.
While the European Commission must accept some blame for lack of clarity, the overwhelming responsibility for mishandling the implementation lies with Her Majesty's Government. We find it deeply disturbing that the Government signed up to the regulation while still suffering knowledge gaps about its full impact.
We then had the WEEE directive. The directive does not place obligations on local authorities but on producers and retailers. It is a technical directive. Again it was not very well prepared for and has caused some embarrassment.
Ahead of us we have the End of Life Vehicles Directive. From 2007 onwards motorists will be able to hand back their cars free of charge. But from now until when the directive becomes law, motorists will have to pay for disposal. The British Metals Recycling Association, representing scrap metal merchants, predicts that the number of illegally dumped cars will triple to about 750,000 per year as a result of this new legislation. Peter Mathews, a BMRA executive committee member, said:
"Car dumping is going to be a much bigger problem than dumped fridges".
That is quite a salutary statement because the Government, and certainly the local authorities, know what the situation was like with dumped fridges. Incompetence and dilatoriness will lead to even more fly-tipping and illegal dumping.
92
Currently, local authorities do not have the powers to deal with the situation and the Environment Agency does not have the will. The Environment Agency alone has the power to check or inspect the performance of organisations in the waste disposal business. It does not appear to be prepared to attack the cowboy end of the business—those people who start the job, do the part they want, find easy or are set up for, and then leave the rest dumped illegally, probably on someone else's land.
I ask Her Majesty's Government and the Minister to give a commitment that all extra moneys raised from landfill tax will go to local authorities in order to allow them to make the necessary investment for doorstep collections of source separated waste, and, probably equally importantly, for the capital equipment needed to treat waste.
The other day the industry informed me that in order to meet the Government's targets—not ours—which are less than ours would have been, the industry needs to invest £1.5 billion per annum for 10 years. I ask the Government: under the present strategy, where are the incentives coming from to motivate the private sector? Where is the investment capital coming from? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that to charge per item for household rubbish in the street will just compound the problem and lead to more illegal tipping and more cowboy operators while doing nothing to encourage investment?
I should not touch on the Bill in this debate but, from what I have seen and from our current position, it seems that there is no clear financial plan. We do not know where the money will come from to make investments in order to allow local authorities to get ahead of the game and to allow the country as a whole to catch up, let alone to get ahead.
We are all suffering from another complication in this issue and I ask the Government whether they will help us out. It concerns definitions. There are no universally understood definitions of "municipal waste", of "biodegradable" or of "recycling". Everyone has different ideas. When it comes to biodegradable matter, when is something fully degraded? Several scientific issues arise here and straightforward definitions are required. In order to make sense of the Government's strategy and the structures which, it is hoped, will be set up under the Bill, those definitions need to be clarified.
Having said that, we as a party totally support the Government's Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, although I realise that it does not form part of this debate. However, my noble friend Lord Lucas made some pertinent points about the balancing of the structures—the geographical balances—and I very much look forward to hearing the Minister's response to some of the points raised.
8.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for initiating the debate. This is a very

93
important subject and one of the most important issues on which my department has to deliver. As noble Lords have said, there is before the House a Bill related to the subject matter of the debate. Therefore, much is going on but, from the Government's point of view, much of it stems from the waste strategy that we published more than two years ago. That strategy set out a vision for achieving more sustainable waste management and it put in place a number of steps to achieve that. The strategy is based, first, on waste minimisation wherever possible and, thereafter, on maximising the re-use and recycling of the waste that is produced.
In order to achieve that, the Government have set certain targets. They have set demanding targets for local authorities in England so that, compared with the 1998–99 levels, the amount of household waste recycled or composted will double by 2003–04 and treble by 2005–06. That target is fairly demanding. Likewise, in order to encourage business further to reduce waste and to put to better use the waste that is produced, in Waste Strategy 2000 the Government set a target to reduce by 2005 the amount of industrial and commercial waste sent to landfill to 85 per cent of the 1998 level.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that the targets for recycling and for the reduction of landfill are ambitious. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also implied that. It is true that, as noble Lords have said, we are behind certain other countries. We are clear that we want to increase the amount of recycling over the coming years to 40 per cent and more. From the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Baroness set a higher target, and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, set a slightly lower target than the Liberal Democrats but slightly higher than ours. That is an interesting juxtaposition of the parties.
We are setting targets for the relatively short term, although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, indicated, the problem may stretch over the next 25 years or so. However, we want to set targets which are demanding but achievable. They must be deliverable by those responsible—that is, mainly the local authorities.
The general aim of minimising waste and recycling what is left is true of all waste streams, but particular issues arise in relation to the waste handled by local authorities. The strategy is conducted largely in order to reduce the amount of waste that local authorities put into landfill, as required under the landfill directive. As your Lordships will be aware, the Bill will give effect to the international obligations by setting councils individual limits for how much biodegradable waste they can send to landfill.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked for definitions. Without wanting to pre-empt the Committee stage of the Bill, there is a definition of biodegradable waste in Clause 20 and a definition of municipal waste. I shall not go into that at present. We shall return to these matters in a few days' time.
94
Nevertheless, I re-emphasise that the Bill also brings in a scheme of tradable allowances as well as the stick of requirements to implement targets. That will mean that economic levers are being used to ensure that local government meets the targets as set out in that Bill.
As regards recycling targets, we issued guidance to all local authorities on municipal waste management strategies, including joint municipal waste management strategies, both horizontally and vertically. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, is right; there is a particular problem in two-tier authorities where one authority is a collection authority and another a disposal authority. It is important that they act together but it is also important, particularly with smaller authorities, that they act in concert in order to deliver their own strategies and targets. Our Waste and Resources Action Programme helps to establish and create markets for recycled materials. That will help not only industrial producers of waste but also local authorities in offsetting their costs.
The report of the Prime Minister' Strategy Unit published with the Pre-Budget Review a couple of weeks ago set out what is needed to deliver the waste strategy. In particular it concentrated on how to meet the landfill directive and produced a wide-ranging analysis and set of recommendations which need to be taken into account by the Government. We shall publish a full response to that in the spring. Work will start immediately through the new ministerial group.
The main point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was that setting recycling targets on the basis of current performance was not a fair way of dealing with the matter. It is important to ensure that all authorities raise their performance. The very poorest need to attain a reasonable level. However, it is also important that those authorities at average or above average level also improve. If we are to move from a low level of performance now to a minimum achievement of 18 per cent in 2005–06, all local authorities will rapidly have to improve their performance. That means that we have to take account of where they are at present. If we are to set targets for collection authorities as well as for disposal authorities, the requirement to improve performance must rest at disposal authority level. In some cases, those disposal authorities are constrained by the way in which the collection authorities conduct their task.
The noble Lord implied—I thought this was something of a side swipe—that there was some political influence on how the authorities were being challenged with these targets. It is right to say that all political parties have good performers and bad performers in terms of who runs the council at any given time. Although there may be greater priorities in some parts of the country than others, that is riot entirely identifiable with political parties, although there is some difference in the way in which the number of relatively small county authorities have performed rather better than some urban and other remoter rural authorities.

95
There are inherent difficulties, but the bids for government funding and the assessment of what needs to be done was made by an independent panel of experts from local government with NGOs and community sector representatives as well as the experts from the waste profession. Therefore, it was not conducted in any sense on a political bias basis. I am sure that the noble Lord was not pushing that too far. Nevertheless, I thought that I should put on record how that was done.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, raised a number of questions about incineration. The Strategy Unit recommended that there should be a review—this is based on the earlier recommendations already announced in the Pre-Budget Report the other week—of the health impacts of all waste options. It is important to mention that the level of health hazard represented by modern incineration is generally recognised to be pretty low. It is also true that many of the European states whom the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, cite as being well ahead of us in waste management performance are also heavily dependent on modern incineration methods.
For example, the recycling performance of Denmark or the Netherlands is frequently cited. Denmark has 39 per cent recycling and the Netherlands 47 per cent, but they also have 50 per cent and 41 per cent respectively dealt with by modern incineration. The uniqueness of the United Kingdom lies in the way in which in a crowded island we have relied on landfill to a much greater extent than the rest of our European partners. Incineration can be part of the necessary strategy. It is therefore wrong to oppose incineration per se, and I regret that the Liberal Democrats are engaging in that degree of nimbyism. I thought that I might wake up the noble Baroness at that point.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I have been listening intently to the Minister, and I am grateful to him for giving way. My point was that there should be a moratorium until we have discovered that there are no health hazards and that incineration is environmentally the best way to deal with waste. The moratorium will not last forever if we can prove that.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is certainly necessary to consider the health hazards arising from all methods of incineration, but it also true that emissions of dioxins from modern incinerator plants are very low. The exaggerated fears that are often portrayed during planning decisions and other assessments of incineration proposals are rather misplaced and based on older technologies and memories of different forms of incineration that are certainly not proposed in this country to deal with future waste.
The noble Baroness also asked a few questions about the landfill tax credit scheme. The ministerial group announced in the Pre-Budget Report Statement that we would consider how to deploy that scheme more effectively and what money should go to local authorities and others. The objectives of that scheme
96
will clearly include the need to ensure that landfill tax increases are revenue-neutral so that all the money will be recycled either to industry or local authorities. That reform of the scheme was announced in the PBR along with the increase in landfill tax to £35 a tonne.
We continue to develop our approach to supporting councils, helping them to improve their performance. In the past two or three years, most local authorities appear to be taking their responsibilities much more seriously. Rather than being a relatively ghettoised area for local authorities, waste management has become a mainstream, top-priority area. We have tried to increase pressure to ensure that that occurs by writing to the leaders of local authorities whose recycling targets do not appear to be improving at a rate consistent with achieving our targets for 2003–04. We want those local authorities to be clear how they will achieve the targets and be accountable for their performance. We will need to intervene if they continue to appear to be failing to meet the targets.
Several other issues were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked about what was included in the recycling targets. In particular, he referred to the recycling of rubble. Rubble is excluded because the focus is on household waste. Some rubble may be household waste, but most of it is commercial waste. It can be distorting, if it is included in the total target, because it is extremely heavy. The noble Lord also mentioned home composting. It is also excluded because it is difficult to measure. Many see it as a waste minimisation measure, rather than an issue relating to how waste is dealt with.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred to the need to raise public awareness. The Strategy Unit has recommended two education programmes to be taken forward under WRAP. We are certainly taking that up. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred to the problems that arose when formal measures of waste disposal failed and people engaged in fly-tipping. The noble Lord implied that the powers of the Environment Agency and the local authorities were insufficient. The Environment Act 1995 does not mean that they have those powers, but we are amending the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 to enable local authorities to do more to tackle the problem. They will enable local authorities to check business waste transfer notes and to check the origin of the fly-tipping. That should lead to better enforcement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, also referred to the need to reduce the generation of waste. That is certainly high in everyone's consciousness. We look to several measures, such as the packaging and packaging waste directive to reduce the amount of waste created in the first place.
The point is to set up incentives, targets and support mechanisms that deliver the right results. We need a suite of indicators for local authorities and a suite of support measures for local authorities, so that we have a measure of growth, on the one hand, and a measure of the management of waste, through recycling,

97
composting, incineration and so on, on the other. We need all local authorities to develop an effective strategy to meet their recycling targets and minimise their use of landfill. We will develop targets that will measure all those things and will require local authorities to take some strong measures to meet them.
I welcome this important debate. I commend to noble Lords the report of the Strategy Unit and the recommendations contained therein. The Government
98
will respond in full to the report in the new year. We will also take into account the points made in the debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and am grateful that the voice of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, lasted—mine almost did. I send my best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his recovery, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for her contribution in his stead.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before nine o'clock.

  Belfast Agreement: Food Safety Promotion Board
  Belfast Agreement: Food Safety Promotion Board
  Belfast Agreement: Cross-Border Bodies
  Belfast Agreement: Cross-Border Bodies
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Security
  Northern Ireland Civil Service: Security
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: Linguistic Diversity Branch
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: Linguistic Diversity Branch
  Northern Ireland Policing Board: Members' Remuneration
  Northern Ireland Policing Board: Members' Remuneration
  North/South Ministerial Council
  North/South Ministerial Council
  Tourism Ireland Limited
  Tourism Ireland Limited
  North/South Ministerial Council Secretariat
  North/South Ministerial Council Secretariat
  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service
  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service
  Northern Ireland: Boarding Pupils
  Northern Ireland: Boarding Pupils
  Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission
  Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission
  Crown Prosecution Service: Damilola Taylor Murder Trial
  Crown Prosecution Service: Damilola Taylor Murder Trial
  Mark 1 Rolling Stock
  Mark 1 Rolling Stock
  Senior Civil Servants: Parliamentary Training
  Senior Civil Servants: Parliamentary Training
  Cyclists
  Cyclists
  London Underground: Public/Private Partnership
  London Underground: Public/Private Partnership
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Science Budget
  Science Budget
  Morley College
  Morley College
  NHS: Delayed Discharges
  NHS: Delayed Discharges
  Passive Smoking
  Passive Smoking
  NHS Professionals
  NHS Professionals
  Hospital Consultants under Suspension
  Hospital Consultants under Suspension
  Hospices
  Hospices
  Cancer Services
  Cancer Services
  Foot and Mouth: Local Roles and Recovery Responsibilities
  Foot and Mouth: Local Roles and Recovery Responsibilities
  Rural Proofing
  Rural Proofing
  Defra: Spending
  Defra: Spending
  Pet Travel Scheme
  Pet Travel Scheme