Sitting of 21 January 2002

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

  NEW WRIT
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Ogmore in the room of Sir Raymond Powell, deceased.—[Ms Armstrong.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    English Heritage
    Mr. David Crausby: What recent meetings she has had with English Heritage about giving children free access to its sites. [26164]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The Government's statement on the historic environment, "A Force for Our Future", which I launched on 13 December last year, made clear our wish to encourage the widest possible access to the country's heritage. We proposed in the statement to consider at the earliest opportunity—and in consultation with the relevant key organisations, which include English Heritage—how the principle of free access for children, which has been such an enormous success in our national museums and galleries, might be extended to the historic environment.
    Mr. Crausby: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. After the enormous success of free access to museums, does she agree that completely free admission for children to sites such as Stonehenge will not only have a similar effect on numbers, but, most importantly, encourage more visits with the Family?
    Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issue links our twin objectives of opening access and promoting excellence. There are Families throughout the country who have seen for the first time the treasures that we share as a nation, and it is our aim to extend that opportunity to our historic environment.

    Regional Theatre (Leicester)
    Mr. Jim Marshall: What steps the Government are taking to support regional theatre in Leicester. [26165]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): This is a matter for the Arts Council of England and the regional arts boards. The Arts Council last year announced an additional £25 million funding for theatre by 2003–04—an increase of 56 per cent. on current levels, taking the total budget for theatre to £70 million. Over the next two financial years, funding for the Haymarket theatre in Leicester will increase from £992,000 today to £1.36 million in 2003–04—an increase of 37 per cent.
    Mr. Marshall: Perhaps my hon. Friend will realise that, with the events that have unfolded in Leicester in the past days, there are other questions that I should like to address to the Government, but I do not think that he is the relevant Minister to answer them. I thank him for his reply, but is he aware that the replacement theatre for the Haymarket, which is due to be built in the St. George's area of the city over the next five years, is to be the centrepiece of a cultural centre in Leicester? Will he give an indication as to the Arts Council's contribution towards the cost of that new theatre? Will he give an undertaking to impress upon the Arts Council the need to ensure funding beyond 2005, so that the cultural centre can be fully developed? Is he also aware of the county council's decision to reduce its annual grant to the theatre by £100,000 per annum—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is Far too long.
    Dr. Howells: I do not know what the Arts Council's projected contribution to the new theatre is likely to be, but I shall impress on it the many points that my hon. Friend made.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the Minister bear in mind that Leicester is not the only place in Leicestershire that has a theatre? The Concordia theatre in Hinckley has been hugely successful, and is supported by private subscriptions. Will he look Favourably on its applications and have a word with the funding organisations? Will he confirm that the Secretary of State has had to call in or write to all the distribution agencies because they have Failed to distribute billions of pounds of lottery money? He should deal with that urgently because we believe that we are losing out in the midlands.
    Dr. Howells: I congratulate the theatre in the hon. Gentleman's constituency on surviving and flourishing through private subscription, of which I am in Favour because it is an important way to fund the arts. I hope that the theatre continues to flourish. However, I am reliably informed that the premise of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is not true. There has been no crisis meeting, but we need to monitor matters closely.
    Mr. Andy Reed: While we are plugging our theatres, will the Minister acknowledge the valuable work of Loughborough town hall in promoting

    599
    the excellent pantomime that I saw only a few weeks ago? People in Loughborough travel to the Haymarket in Leicester; there is a pantomime there at the moment. Does he agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who was unfortunately unable to finish his question, that Leicestershire county council should also make a contribution to theatres in the county? Will he join me in condemning it for cutting £100,000 of funding for the future?
    Dr. Howells: It is important that the sort of gesture that the Government have made in providing £25 million of investment is echoed throughout the country. Investment in theatre must be good for many reasons. It not only continues one of the great creative traditions of this country but deals with many issues in troubled environments. Theatre does that in a way that nothing else can. We should support it at all levels.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Is not theatre in Leicester exactly the sort of good cause that should receive help from lottery funds? Will the Minister confirm that £3.5 billion of lottery funds is designed for good causes but not yet spent? Will he confirm that the figure is increasing by £30 million every week and that it exceeds the total of the Department's spending for the next three years? When will the Secretary of State sack some of those responsible for that bureaucratic bungling?
    Dr. Howells: I do not believe that bureaucratic bungling has occurred. Any unspent money is an effect of the success of the lottery and the hugely imaginative way in which the money has been distributed. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will succeed where others have perhaps not succeeded so well in ensuring that the money is spent and that the underspend is halved by this time next year.

    Commonwealth Games
    Helen Jones: If she will make a statement on the assistance the Government are giving to the preparations for Manchester's hosting of the Commonwealth games. [26166]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government announced on 2 July 2001 £30 million in support for the games, in addition to the £10.5 million they had already given towards the costs of the opening and closing ceremonies. Together with Sport England and Manchester city council's funding, that has removed the obstacles to Manchester's delivering a successful games. The strategy is now paying dividends. Planning and preparations are proceeding apace and a real and growing appetite for the games is developing across the country.
    Almost 400,000 tickets have already been sold. The games volunteer programme has also been heavily oversubscribed in quality and quantity. We are on course for a good Commonwealth games. That is underlined by the appearance of new sponsors. The latest was Interbrew, which signed last week.
    Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that he agrees that the success of the games is vital not only to Manchester but to the north-west region. Will he take steps to ensure that
    600
    the whole region benefits from the presence of the Commonwealth games by encouraging people who come to Manchester to visit other parts of the north-west? What support will he give the tourism board and local authorities to publicise the attractions of the north-west and draw them to the attention of those visiting the Commonwealth games?
    Mr. Caborn: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. A marketing group has already been set up and consists of the major agencies in the north-west—the development agency, the North-West tourist board and the games committee. I am sure that it will examine the issues that my hon. Friend raised. The Queen's jubilee baton relay will pass through Warrington and the whole north-west as it goes round the country. My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I shall refer to the group that has been established to consider such issues.
    Mr. James Gray: I hope that private investors will invest in the Commonwealth games; they did when Manchester last bid for the games. However, why should I be encouraged by the examples of the dome, Wembley or Picketts Lock? Why should I believe that the Government would make less of a foul-up of the Commonwealth games than of those three projects?
    Mr. Caborn: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the number of sponsors who are backing the Commonwealth games. If he speaks to some of them, he will find enthusiasm and confidence that the games will be successful and credible, and the biggest multi-sporting event this year.
    Paul Goggins: There is a growing sense of enthusiasm for the games in Manchester, illustrated by the Fact that 10,000 people have now offered their services as volunteers to help to look after the athletes and make sure that the games run smoothly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in July and August in Manchester, we shall have not only a sparkling international event, but one that is rooted in the pride of local people?
    Mr. Caborn: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The figure that he has just given to the House illustrates that the quality and the quantity of volunteers are there now. Even the British media are now getting behind the Commonwealth games; the latest reports have been very encouraging. The only thing that we have to do now is to get the official Opposition on the side of the games, and we shall have a full house. [Interruption.] I meant the whole of the official Opposition. Their Front-Bench Members are already behind the games, but some of their hon. Friends on the Back Benches have not been as supportive as they ought to be. I am sure that we shall see them all wearing the badge at the next question time, so that we can show our support for the Commonwealth games in Manchester, which will be a great success.
    Pete Wishart: The Minister will be aware that, as well as the proposed bid for the Commonwealth games, Scotland is considering bidding for the European championships in 2008. If that bid goes ahead, will his Department support it? What assistance, if any, has he offered in relation to it so Far?
    Mr. Caborn: The UK Sports Council is discussing that issue. Like all such issues, it will come to the sports cabinet, where all the devolved Administrations and UK Sport get together. The next meeting is in four or five weeks' time.

    Athletics
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: If he will make a statement on Government support for athletics in the United Kingdom. [26168]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): UK Athletics is working with Sport England, UK Sport and my Department to create a development plan for the sport, to ensure that resources are provided to get more people involved, to improve the identification and development of talented athletes and to provide better support for our top performers.
    Mr. Blunt: What is the Minister's estimate of the forgone economic benefits of the cancelled bid for the 2005 athletics championships? What was the cost of the Sheffield diversion, which the International Amateur Athletics Federation regarded as laughable?
    Mr. Caborn: If the hon. Member looks at the Carter report on Picketts Lock, and at the reports produced by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, he will get a good estimate of the cost involved. If one takes into account the cost of the infrastructure and of the stadium, it was about £230 million. Even with that investment, we could not guarantee the type of Facilities that had been requested by the IAAF. It is unfortunate that the IAAF did not come and visit the Sheffield site which was offered instead. At the moment, UK Sport and Sport England are investing about £40 million there, as part of the English institute for sport, which will probably give athletics one of the best centres in Europe. Unfortunately, the IAAF turned down the proposal regarding the Sheffield site without even going to look at it.
    Regarding the economic benefit, the answer is clear. We did not believe that a £250 million investment from the sports portfolio would have been right, and that is why we made our decision. This is all laid out in Patrick Carter's report.
    Kevin Brennan: While acknowledging the importance of putting money into grass-roots athletics, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important, in the long term, to think about having a venue in which to hold major international athletics events? Will he and the Secretary of State reconsider the option of having a multi-use stadium with retractable seating, along the lines of the Stade de France?
    Mr. Caborn: So Far as the national stadium is concerned, my hon. Friend will know that the Football Association is dealing with that matter, and will be reporting back to the Government and Sport England. In terms of having another national stadium for athletics, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked for a performance and innovation unit report, which we believe will be started in the not-too-distant future, to look at the question of sports Facilities in the round. My hon. Friend
    602
    knows that such projects are extremely expensive, and we ought to have all parties on board before we embark on any major venture, be it a national stadium, Picketts Lock, the Commonwealth games or anything else. That is the right way forward, and I hope that, when the PIU report comes out, it will be debated here and that we shall find a saner way of moving forward on these major investments.
    Nick Harvey: When Picketts Lock was cancelled, the Secretary of State said that she would want the money not being spent on it to be diverted to grass-roots athletics. What help can be given to that vital body of volunteers who go to athletics matches around the country as marshals, stewards and judges, usually at their own expense, which runs to uniforms and even starting pistols? What influence can the Minister bring to bear on Sport England to divert some of that money to those vital volunteers?
    Mr. Caborn: We are discussing the legacy for athletics with UK Athletics and the hon. Gentleman is right: we hope that that plan will ensure that there is investment at the grass roots. Only yesterday, I had discussions with officials at the north of England Amateur Athletic Association indoor athletics. They are excited about the extra investment in athletics and no doubt they will discuss with UK Athletics a proper investment package that will benefit the grass roots and the officials to whom the hon. Gentleman refers as well as the elite athletes. There is a buzz in British athletics, because this Government are prepared to invest in the whole structure.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: My right hon. Friend has referred to the new stadium at Manchester. Could there be a renegotiation so that it might be used for athletics?
    Mr. Caborn: Unfortunately, that could not be, as the agreement is between Manchester City football club and Manchester city council. If we could turn the clock back a number of years, we would probably approach those matters differently. That applies to all parties because mistakes have been made across the board, which is why the performance and innovation unit study is important. If we are to bid confidently for major international events, we must ensure that all parties are signed up before going ahead.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will Ministers make clear to the new members whom they approve for appointment to the Wembley National Stadium board Sport England's recommendation that the revised Wembley plans are for a stadium capable of hosting athletics? Does he agree with that advice? Given the revelation that unspent lottery funds still exceed £3.5 billion and in the light of what he has said this afternoon, can he assure all our leading athletes of the continued funding of the world-class performance programme?
    Mr. Caborn: On the first point, we have no responsibility for the Wembley company. That is a matter for the Football Association, as has been made clear from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. We will not have blurring at the edges and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear in her statement that it is for the FA to decide who is put on the board. On the

    603
    £3.4 billion of undistributed lottery funds, my right hon. Friend is meeting officials of all the major distributors and we intend to start bringing that down to a more manageable figure. Those moneys are held against commitments that have already been made. With the National Audit Office and the Treasury, we are trying to find a better solution and we hope that the money can be spent on the good causes, which is where it ought to be going.

    CowParade 2002
    Mr. Chris Pond: What discussions she has had with the organisers of CowParade 2002. 26169]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): My hon. Friend deserves a big pat on the back for asking that question. [Laughter.] I shall meet the organisers of CowParade at the earliest opportunity. CowParade will give artists of all ages and abilities the chance to submit designs for decorating life-sized fibreglass cows, the best of which, I am told, will be displayed around London streets.
    Mr. Pond: As long as the Minister does not accuse me of cows for questions. He is aware that more than 800 artists have already submitted their designs for those full-sized fibreglass works of art, which will soon decorate the streets of London and Gravesend. Is he also aware that the project has won the enthusiastic support of the British Tourist Authority and organisations such as London Underground, the national gallery and Marks and Spencer and that they realise that similar events in Chicago and New York were a major boost to the tourism economy? is he further aware that, as the project could raise several hundred thousand pounds for the charity Childline, I shall continue to lobby for his support until the cows come home?
    Dr. Howells: I welcome the good news that charities will benefit from this event. There is no question about that. I certainly welcome my hon. Friend's promise of lobbying until the cows come home. I assure him that I shall keep the matter udder review.

    BBC
    Mr. Richard Bacon: What plans the Government have to change the statutory framework for the BBC relating to the provision of digital services. [26170]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The provision of new BBC services is governed by the BBC charter and agreement. Any such services require the approval of the Secretary of State. That arrangement will continue under the proposed new regulatory regime, but the Secretary of State, in considering public service applications from the BBC, will seek formal advice on the market impact from the Office of Communications.
    Mr. Bacon: Given the potential impact of the BBC's new digital services on the rest of the broadcasting industry, would not it make more sense for approval for BBC applications to rest with Ofcom, as it is for others
    604
    players in the industry? The Secretary of State will be aware that many commentators think that that would make more sense. Is she minded to introduce such a change when the main Bill is published?
    Tessa Jowell: No, I am not minded to introduce such a change when the main Bill is published. New BBC services are important in giving licence payers value for money, and they act as an incentive to drive the take-up of digital television. In making judgments about those new services, it is important to ensure that proposals are distinctive and do not gratuitously undermine the competition and the growth in the commercial market that we want.
    Towards the end of last year, the BBC submitted an application for a range of new services. I approved the new BBC4, the mixed genre arts channel, and two new children's channels because they were evidently distinctive and different from what was available in the commercial market. I rejected its application to establish a young people's channel, because I was not persuaded that it was sufficiently distinctive. It is important to maintain competition and to secure value for the licence payer. In order to oversee value for the licence payer, the Secretary of State should approve new services with advice on the competition effect.
    Miss Anne Begg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that most people who get digital television receive it through a platform where they pay for other services. One of the strengths of the BBC's digital output is that it is free to view, and it is important that it remains so. Reception via satellite platforms or cable is good, but the main platform for people who want free-to-view digital television is the aerial, and reception via the aerial is still poor and the picture crackles quite a bit. What plans have the Government or the industry to ensure that when people want to access digital television, they do not have to sign up to a package and pay for a load of other channels, and that they can get the BBC free-to-view channels on their own?
    Tessa Jowell: The issues that my hon. Friend raises are taken very seriously by the industry, the Department and the broadcasters. It is important that the attractiveness of DTV is improved by securing greater consistency of signal and better quality of picture. As part of the digital action plan, which brings together the Government, broadcasters and the industry, we are testing the limit to which the signal can be increased to improve reception. My hon. Friend makes the important point that people will decide to switch to digital if they can improve their choice of viewing and if the picture quality and services that they can receive are improved. There is still a long way to go, but we have set out a clear framework of Government policy, in partnership with industry.
    Mr. David Heath: Has not the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) raised an important point of principle? The BBC is making a substantial investment in digital services—up to £84 million in the first year. That money comes from each and every licence payer in the country. Is it not incumbent on both the Government and the BBC to ensure that all

    605
    licence payers—irrespective of where they live, and including those in rural areas—gain the benefit of the investment for which they are paying?
    Tessa Jowell: Yes, that is important. Government policy—I do not think there is any great controversy about this—is described as "platform-neutral", because we think that people should be able to choose the platforms from which they obtain their digital signals. The BBC's investment in new digital services is important in encouraging people to go digital, and giving them a reason to do so.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: I thank my right hon. Friend for mentioning the importance of ensuring that digital services from the BBC, and from other broadcasters for that matter, are available to all; but how can we ensure in the regulation that free, open, non-discriminatory access to audiences is guaranteed for broadcasters? If that is not done, a powerful gateway will be created through which it will be difficult for broadcasters and audiences to make their way.
    My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that every sixth-former at Porth junior school claimed this morning to have a personal computer at home, and to enjoy using BBC online digital services.
    Tessa Jowell: As I have said, it is important to promote take-up of digital services, and to maximise choice of free-to-air channels. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) could maintain his interest in the question that he asked.
    It is important for free-to-air channels to have non-discriminatory access to platforms. As two of my hon. Friends have said, that will ensure that viewers are given maximum choice of free services, and need not subscribe to pay-TV services that they do not want.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Now that an affordable set-top box enabling analogue televisions to receive digital services should soon be available, will the Secretary of State stop dithering and announce that the switchover to digital will take place on a single date, 1 January 2006?
    Tessa Jowell: I welcomed the announcement at the end of last week of new technology that will deal with one of the obstacles to the switchover. We have made it absolutely clear, however, that the process needs to be possible in terms of technology, desirable in terms of programme choice, and what people actually want. So Far, one in three households has access to digital services. A job of persuasion and conversion must be done, but it is not something that Government can do; people must decide that they want this for their own and their Families' viewing entertainment. That is why our policy remains that, subject to three rather than five tests, the switchover should take place between 2006 and 2010. That is still our intention.

    Independent Television Commission
    Michael Fabricant: If she will make a statement on the recent work of the Independent Television Commission. [26171]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): The Independent Television Commission, as an independent regulator, continues to fulfil its regulatory duties of licensing and monitoring commercial television services under the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996.
    Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister join me in praising the ITC's work, and hoping that it will play an active role in the formation of Ofcom?
    The Minister knows as well as I do that, at times of economic uncertainty, the first thing to happen is a Fall in advertising revenues. He will also know that ITV's net advertising receipts have Fallen by about 12 per cent. this year, and that, if ITV is to maintain and improve the quality of its programming, the ITC must be given freedom to allow Carlton and Granada to combine. What consideration has he given to that?
    Dr. Howells: We have given every consideration to that. I have discussed the matter with the hon. Gentleman on previous occasions. We should not tackle this matter piecemeal—it should be part of a properly structured communications Bill that we put before the House—but I understand what he is saying. The ITC does a very good job in all respects. Some special difficulties have hit the independent television companies, especially over the past 12 months. However, they made some very large profits in the 24 months or so that preceded that. They are pretty tough companies which have been in the business a long time and know that there are some downs as well as a lot of ups.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: Why is it the policy of the Department so Far to insist that the ITV companies offer their programmes to the satellite sector, without insisting on a must-carry policy for the satellite sector, which clearly creates difficulties in bargaining power between the two sectors? Can the Minister explain the Department's policy and whether he has a mind to change it?
    Dr. Howells: I know that the Conservative party has become very hands on and statist in the past week or so, but it is not my business to tell the ITV companies, still less Sky, what the nature of essentially commercial contracts between those two organisations should be.

    Tourism
    Mr. Mark Hoban: If she will make a statement on the impact of the events of 11 September on tourism. [26174]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The terrorist attacks of 11 September have had a damaging impact on many tourism businesses, particularly businesses in London that rely on high-spending north American visitors, but some parts of the country have reported a very good autumn. There are signs that we are now in the very early stages of a recovery.
    Mr. Hoban: Given that those problems come hard on the heels of the crisis in the tourism sector following foot and mouth disease, is it not time for the English Tourism

    607
    Council to be given the permanent marketing role that its counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have?
    Tessa Jowell: Certainly, we want more marketing of Britain, and more professional marketing of Britain. We are working closely with the British Tourist Authority. On Wednesday, we will join it at the launch of its marketing campaign targeted at the seven top markets, north American and European. There is a joint initiative between my Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to promote tourism in the countryside, and there is the initiative of the London tourism action group to promote London as a tourism destination.
    We have asked the English Tourism Council to look at diverting resources in the short term to marketing England. That builds on the excellent work that is already being done by the regional tourism authorities. In relation to the key part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we are discussing with the English Tourism Council whether a marketing role will be given to it in the longer run.
    Dr. Jack Cunningham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in respect of damage to tourism, few counties were more adversely affected than Cumbria following the atrocities in the United States of America and the disaster of foot and mouth disease? Is she aware that 2002 is the international year of mountains: a celebration of mountains, their ecology and environment and the communities that have to work and earn their livings in mountainous areas? Is she aware that the Cumbrian mountain festival will be launched in spring this year—a serious attempt to bring a resurgence of support for tourism in all its aspects in the Lake District national park and surrounding areas in Cumbria? Will she ask her officials to engage with those planning the festival to ensure that her Department maximises its support for those important and exciting proposals for Cumbria, and that, in addition to what I am sure will be words of encouragement, we get some tangible financial support too?
    Tessa Jowell: We will certainly ensure that the Department provides all possible support to the international year of mountains. My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, himself a distinguished mountaineer, will be present at the launch.
    I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's advocacy for Cumbria in what have been terribly difficult times for the tourism and Farming industries there. We will provide all possible help to get tourists back to one of the most beautiful parts of our country. As 2002 is not only the year of mountains but the Queen's golden jubilee, we hope that that will be a tremendous draw for visitors from north America and other parts of the world who have simply been too afraid to travel in the intervening months.
    Mr. Charles Hendry: The Secretary of State will be aware that tourism is vital to my constituency, the location of Ashdown forest and the homes of A. A. Milne, Conan Doyle and, nearby, Rudyard Kipling. Is she also aware that the recovery of tourism is seriously hampered by the Fact that we have no Sunday rail service, so people trying to come down for the weekend cannot get home until Monday morning? Will
    608
    she ask her officials to deal directly with Go Via, to encourage it to offer a Sunday service, making her worthy words about tourism become reality?
    Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting is meeting the relevant Ministers from other Departments to ensure that investment and policy work in concert towards the objective of promoting tourism, advertising what Britain has to offer and ensuring that one of the most successful sectors of our economy thrives after what has been a very difficult 18 months. The short answer is yes: those discussions will take place with other Departments to ensure that we work as one Government to promote tourism.
    Ms Claire Ward: What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the financial packages that the Chancellor made available in the aftermath of both foot and mouth and 11 September to hotels and businesses in the rural economy and those who rely on tourism? Has she compared the figures against the increased number of flights abroad from certain airports such as Stansted? How do we ensure that more people remain in this country and benefit from our tourist attractions rather than going abroad?
    Tessa Jowell: The investment that the Chancellor made in increasing the British Tourist Authority's marketing budget has been successful in bringing back some tourists, especially from western Europe. There is still, however, a major problem with north America. Our aim must be to encourage more people to come here from abroad and more people to stay here for their holidays, not out of patriotism alone but because there are so many good places to see, and to ensure that the tourism on offer is of consistently high quality. The Government have a part to play in that.
    The industry is well aware of the aspects that need reform. It is important to get rid of outdated practices and raise standards. We are working with the industry on that. That will be the long haul, but we must also seize the short-term opportunities, such as the international year of mountains and the Queen's golden jubilee, in a very focused campaign to get north American tourists back to Britain.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I remind the House of my previous declarations.
    The Secretary of State's reply makes it clear that she accepts that there are higher costs, in particular for security, for passengers coming into this country, but is she aware that the air passenger fund set up in 1975 has now run out of money and that the Civil Aviation Authority is anxious, and wants primary legislation, to introduce a levy to be charged to passengers to insure against the collapse of any travel companies, package holiday firms, tour operators or charter companies, and to enable passengers stranded abroad to be brought home? Will she stop the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions dithering by putting pressure on him to legislate before the peak summer holiday period, to enable those passengers to be brought home?
    Tessa Jowell: The hon. Lady's question is one for the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—but of course, in the spirit of the

    609
    commitment that I gave earlier, we are concerned about the impact of a range of Government policies on tourism. Where there is clearly a detrimental impact on tourism, we shall raise that with the relevant Secretary of State.
    Glenda Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite the excellent work done by the London tourism council and the whole of the tourism industry within London, much more still needs to be done to link up with other tourist authorities throughout the United Kingdom, not only so that visitors are attracted to London, but so that London is genuinely perceived as the gateway to the whole United Kingdom?
    Tessa Jowell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; that is a weakness that the industry itself now recognises. Under the leadership of the CBI, the Tourism Alliance, which brings together many of the key industry players, has now been established. Fragmentation, leading to low levels of skill, poor value for money and lack of adequate data, has been a fundamental weakness in the tourism industry. If anything beneficial is to come from the awful circumstances created for that industry by foot and mouth and the terrorist attacks of 11 September, it will be the focus on Modernisation and building the capacity to be a profitable tourism industry sustainable in the long term, with Modern technology and Modern working practices. That is what will bring the visitors back and keep them here.

    Gaming Review
    Mr. Nick Gibb: If she will make a statement on the gaming review. [26175]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): We published the report of the independent gambling review body—the Budd report—in July last year. We are now considering all the comments that we have received on it; there have been about 2,200, the vast majority of which have come from the voluntary clubs about jackpot and gaming machines. We are now considering those responses, and we will make an announcement in the near future.
    Mr. Gibb: Is the Minister aware that the gaming review's recommendation that local authorities should ensure that gambling is the primary purpose of premises licensed for gambling, would effectively wipe out amusement parks in small seaside towns such as Littlehampton and Bognor? Will he overrule that recommendation?
    Mr. Caborn: We have not given any decisions on any of the recommendations, but the hon. Gentleman knows that I have met a number of representatives from the seaside resorts and have listened to them carefully. We have also received their written submissions. We shall give those due consideration, and will announce our conclusions when we make the full announcement on the Budd report.

    Festivals (Bristol)
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: What plans she has to visit festivals taking place in Bristol this year. [26176]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): I would be happy to consider invitations to visit Bristol in the near future. My hon. Friend knows that I recently attended the "Brief Encounters" film festival in that fine city—and that I was subsequently serenaded into another great cultural event by those invaluable chroniclers of contemporary west of England life, the Wurzels.
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply; I am not sure whether the Wurzels see things exactly as he does, but it has all calmed down now. My hon. Friend knows that he will receive a warm welcome in Bristol when he comes. Having seen a list of the cultural events that will take place in Bristol this year, does he agree that it provides a good platform for our bid to become European city of culture in 2008?
    Dr. Howells: The list of 18 festivals in Bristol is mighty, and I look forward to seeing the "Animated Encounters" short film festival, which promises to be good. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can of course make no statement that would jeopardise the bid of any city to be the European city of culture. As Cardiff is within sight of Bristol, we would be entering dangerous territory there. That said, Bristol has many high-quality festivals. It can certainly make a serious bid, and I am sure that it will.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Internet Voting
    . Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the commission's plans for internet voting. [26154]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): The Electoral Commission is an independent body and the remit of the Speaker's Committee is to approve its estimates and five-year plan, not to take decisions that Fall within the commission's statutory responsibilities. I understand from the chairman, however, that the commission is co-funding research to evaluate the feasibility of introducing electronic voting, including internet voting. The commission will also evaluate electronic voting pilot schemes for use at local elections in May. Any such schemes will be laid before Parliament.
    Mr. Chapman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that online voting is commensurate with Modern lifestyles and that its use might enfranchise those, especially the young, who have felt disengaged from the process? How does he intend the pilots to be evaluated and measured so that appropriate lessons may be learned?
    Mr. Beith: As I have said, that Falls to the Electoral Commission, not the Speaker's Committee. In order properly to evaluate the schemes, the commission intends not to co-pilot them. It will be involved in evaluation, and

    611
    it is clear that a lot of technical and other issues will be raised. The commission has not yet formed a view on whether electronic voting schemes of various schemes will work well; that is the purpose of the pilots.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: At present, it is difficult to vote. One must go to a polling station or receive a vote through the postal system. Even for the latter, verification by an independent person is required to show that the right person has voted. What verification will there be in electronic systems?
    Mr. Beith: That is precisely the type of issue that the commission is considering in order to establish whether electronic voting can make it easier to vote while still giving those who take part in the electoral process the assurance that the process is safe and sound. When the pilots are laid before Parliament, hon. Members will be able to judge them for themselves.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: It is even more difficult to vote by internet or any other method if a person is not on the electoral register. If the commission is to consider voting through the internet, will it consider whether it might be possible to get more people on to the register through the internet?
    Mr. Beith: That is certainly the type of issue that the commission is considering.

    Postal Voting
    Mr. Robert Syms: What review the Commission plans to carry out of the operation of postal voting in general elections. [26155]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): The commission stated in its statutory report on the 2001 general election that it intended to assess the impact of extending the availability of postal voting, including any implications for electoral fraud. I understand from the chairman of the commission that that review is expected to report by the autumn. A statistical paper providing data, constituency by constituency, on postal voting at the general election was published last week. A copy has been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Syms: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that encouraging response. We were all happy that it was easier to obtain postal votes at the general election, but there was some concern, because the date was so late, that many people did not receive their ballots in time to return them. There was also concern about fraud in the system. When the right hon. Gentleman reviews the budget for the commission, will he give that area more consideration?
    Mr. Beith: I am sure that the commission will be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's encouragement, particularly as regards its budget. The Speaker's Committee will certainly take that into account. I know from experience that the issue of late ballots is a difficult
    612
    one, although I was surprised, while preparing for today's Questions, to read evidence that some postal votes were posted to Australia and returned in time for the poll.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, although the decision to extend postal voting last year was a very welcome simplification of the system, it was announced very late and many of the applications were submitted very late for the councils to deal with and the returning officers to send out the forms? Will the Fact that people can apply for postal votes now be made much clearer on the registration forms? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we are watching very carefully to ensure that the abuses that have taken place in the past with very much increased postal voting are not repeated in the future?
    Mr. Beith: I well remember the problem of last-minute arrangements and the commission is consulting acting returning officers on many of the things that happened at the last general election, including the extent and nature of any fraud that took place, so those issues are well under consideration.
    Simon Hughes: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new, additional responsibilities. Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), first, will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues consider telling people all the options available, with all the dates, on the paperwork that is put through their doors when an election is called, so that they can leave it as late as they wish to use their votes? Secondly, will he consider having a pilot scheme which involves going back to the people—possibly in urban and rural constituencies won by each party—who did not vote at the last general election to ask them why they did not vote and what would have made them more likely to do so?
    Mr. Beith: Establishing why people, particularly young people, did not vote at previous elections and what their attitude to voting is certainly an issue that the commission takes seriously. Going back to those who were recorded as not having voted would raise some rather difficult questions, as my hon. Friend would understand. His suggestion about what information can be made available when the information is first sent out and the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) are useful, and I shall certainly pass them on to the commission.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Church Repairs
    Miss Anne McIntosh: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church

    613
    Commissioners, what recent representations he has received on the reduction of VAT on church repairs through a grants equivalent. [26156]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I have not received any particular representations following the successful launch of the listed places of worship grant scheme.
    Miss McIntosh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that English Heritage is planning to reduce its grant by the amount that the recipient of those grants receives from the Treasury? Is he not alarmed, as I am, by that development? Will he make representations to the Treasury to ensure that that unwelcome development does not continue and become an accepted practice? Will he continue to make representations stating that we should seek to reduce VAT for church repairs under the directive?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support, and may I say how pleased I was to see her on the Front Bench a few moments ago? As she knows, the scheme provides a grant that equates to part of the VAT paid, rather than being a reduction in the VAT rate. She mentions the on-going discussions in the European Union, and the European directive on a formal reduction in the rate. Those discussions are continuing. I will ensure that the Treasury is made aware that English Heritage is withdrawing or reducing some of its grant.
    Mr. Andy Reed: I welcome the scheme. Any way that we can reduce Church costs in that
    614
    way is welcome. Will my hon. Friend estimate what sort of expenditure is likely to occur in the foreseeable future? Is there any evidence that repair work has been held back, awaiting that decision, so that there may well be a quick rush in the first year or two? If so, is the scheme likely to be cash-limited, in which case a number of applications may well be turned down because there is a closed list?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no real indication that schemes to repair churches have been held back or withdrawn, given the Fact that, of course, the VAT directive is some way off and is being modified, but the total cost of repair work in the Church of England amounts to £120 million and the VAT on the listed building work is about £10 million, so bringing the Government scheme into action as quickly as possible will avoid the problem to which my hon. Friend refers and help us to get a move on with church repairs.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Given the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentions—the VAT on repairs cost the Church £10 million—will he or the Church Commissioners strongly press the Treasury to obtain a derogation from the sixth directive on VAT on the basis that a reduced or zero rate of VAT should be applied to the repair of community buildings?
    Mr. Bell: Many of those representations have already been made in the European Union, but, as the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), will know, they did not receive an echo back. That is why the directive is being considered with a view to its being overhauled and brought into line more with the hon. Gentleman's request.

Volcanic Eruptions (Democratic Republic of Congo)
3.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the volcanic eruptions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Last Thursday at about 10 o'clock in the morning, the Nyiragongo volcano near Goma in the DRC erupted. That evening the quantity and rate of lava flow from the volcano increased, and further fissures opened up in Goma itself. Much of the town was engulfed and destroyed.
Early reports suggest that about 100 people have lost their lives, but the death toll may rise further. Hundreds of thousands of people have had to flee their homes. Many crossed to Rwanda in the east to seek shelter in and around the town of Gisenyi. Others fled west in the direction of Sake inside the DRC. Some who were trapped in the town and under threat from the heat and from noxious gasses have been helped to safety.
The volcano continues to erupt and the whole area, including Gisenyi, is subject to continuing earth tremors. There are also concerns that the gasses disturbed—especially deep in Lake Kivu—could threaten the lives of civilians who remain in or return to the area.
In spite of these dangers, many of those displaced are now moving back into Goma itself. Those affected naturally want to find out the extent of the destruction of their homes and property and to see what the chances of returning may be. It also appears that many would rather be in the DRC than seek refuge in Rwanda. Irrespective of where people choose to locate themselves, there is an urgent need for water and sanitation, health care, shelter and food. Cholera is a particularly serious threat.
The response of the international community and of the Rwandan Government has been as follows. The Rwandan Government have already provided assistance to civilians trapped by the lava flows. The United Nations has redeployed resources from the DRC and staff from Geneva to lead the relief operation. MONUC, the United Nations peacekeeping operation in DRC, has made its logistical capacity available. The International Committee of the Red Cross and major international nongovernmental organisations based in the area are already working to help those affected. The major relief agencies have a presence and a capacity on both sides of the Rwanda-DRC border, and will be able to offer support where it is most needed, although the challenge is and will remain considerable.
Appeals have been made to donors for help. The Department for International Development has set aside £2 million to help fund the relief operation through Oxfam and Merlin, a UK emergency medical response agency. The British Red Cross will also respond to the UN appeal. Oxfam has been asked by the UN to take on the role of providing water and sanitation, and a flight with equipment and supplies left RAF Manston on Saturday evening. This was paid for by DFID funding. Merlin will provide health care to those affected. The organisation has considerable experience in the DRC and a large team of Congolese professionals already present on the ground. The Red Cross will continue to deliver emergency help in Goma and Gisenyi.
616
As the situation changes, DFID will continue to provide support to agencies already on the ground and we stand ready to consider further help as necessary. Earlier this year, the International Committee of the Red Cross received £5.5 million from DFID for its programme in the DRC, including a significant element for humanitarian assistance.
The two countries involved have already suffered a great deal from the conflict that has affected the region. This human catastrophe is another burden for the people of Goma to bear and I am sure that the whole House will wish to express its sympathies to all who have been affected and who have lost loved ones.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I thank the Minister for Faxing a copy of the statement to my office. That was extremely helpful.
I express our condolences to the many Families who have lost loved ones in this natural disaster and welcome the £2 million announced in immediate aid to the victims of the volcano. There is a question, however, about the flow of refugees. If they are now returning to Goma, as reports suggest, will the aid be in the right place at the right time?
The return of people to Goma makes us ask about the state of the refugee camps in Rwanda and people's experiences of them. Can the Minister comment on the number of people who have arrived in refugee camps and on the standards within them? As many people have decided to return home, what is being done to provide aid to them in their homes, if they still have them, given the lack of water or electricity in Goma? We commend Oxfam on being asked by the United Nations to help with water sanitisation, but is the Minister satisfied that adequate measures are in hand to improve water sanitisation, given that both water treatment plants in Goma have been destroyed?
The redeployment of the peacekeeping staff, to whom the Minister referred, to logistical support prompts the question of how best to uphold the rule of law. Can he confirm the reports of Congolese troops taking part in the looting? Does he agree that the compounded disaster of the petrol station shows that more measures need to be taken to protect the population who have decided to remain in Goma?
Lessons learned from previous humanitarian intervention in these areas show the need for better co-ordination between donors and the numerous agencies, especially in the areas of civil conflict. It was not totally clear from the statement who is responsible for co-ordinating that and what role, if any, the Government of the DRC will have, given that that is a rebel-controlled area.
The volcanic eruption was, to a certain extent, predictable. Is the new technology for measuring long episodes of seismic activity feasible in the long term, to improve our response to such disasters? Volcanologists warn of the very real danger of carbon dioxide poisoning where the pockets of gas are released by lava flows into the lakes. Has any measurement of that risk taken place? Finally, it is reported that the Foreign Secretary will visit the country later this week. What role will he have in the humanitarian effort?
The region around Goma has suffered so many manmade problems that this natural disaster must be particularly hard to bear. An effective humanitarian

617
response can at least prevent the preventable aspects of the disaster, and we should refine our model for working in volcanic regions from the experiences of those who work to mitigate the impact today.
Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Lady for her response and I shall try to deal with her points.
I understand that long-term monitoring has been undertaken on the volcano and that a team was due in the area just after the time when it exploded. It is obviously difficult to predict volcanic eruptions with great certainty. However, a team of vulcanologists, a geochemist and a seismologist is in the area. The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the concern about the rapid release of CO2 and methane gas and the threat that that poses for the population, especially those at the lowest levels along the side of Lake Kivu.
On the conditions of camps in Rwanda, the hon. Lady will be aware that the Government of Rwanda announced their intention to establish a number of camps to accommodate those who at that stage had moved into Rwanda in the direction of Gisenyi. Given the substantial movement of people that appears to be taking place back into Goma, clearly the overwhelming priority is to ensure that relief and support and provided in the places where people now find themselves.
I share the hon. Lady's concern about the need to do more on the provision of water. According to an initial assessment in the latest situation report by the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the water intake stations on Lake Kivu and for the Goma power plant were undamaged by the eruption. However, the distribution systems, pipes and wires have suffered extensive damage, and more will have to be done to provide for people's water needs, wherever they happen to be.
I am afraid that I cannot confirm the reports about those who may have been involved in looting, but clearly there is concern about security. In the midst of such a catastrophe one would be concerned about security anyway, but the history of conflict in the region adds to that concern. It is important that all who have been party to that conflict pay attention to the need to support those who are suffering in the current emergency.
Overall co-ordination of the relief effort is the responsibility of the UN assistant emergency co-ordinator, who arrived in Kigali the afternoon of 20 January. The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the Fact that the Government of the DRC are not in control of the area; it falls under the control of the Rassemblement Congolais Democratique, or RCD. It was questionable whether there was an authority in the town before the catastrophe, and that is much more difficult to determine now, but every effort is being made to ensure that those who can contribute to the relief effort are working together as effectively as possible. As I said in my statement, however, the situation is extremely difficult, and there is a large scale of need to be responded to.
As the hon. Lady will be aware, the Foreign Secretary is visiting the region. I am certain that he will take the opportunity to discuss with all those who are assisting in the relief effort ways in which we might be able to help further to relieve the suffering of those who have been affected.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the leader of, I think, the only Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to
618
Zaire, as it then was, may I ask a rather pointed question? Is the money going to the agencies? It was the experience of that delegation that many of the provincial governors whom we met were people of great quality, but heaven help us if the money is simply sent to Kinshasa or elsewhere. Can the Minister confirm that it will go straight where it is needed?
Secondly, will the Minister pursue the question of the pipes? The carbon situation of Lake Kivu is obviously crucial, and we can do something about it. Do we have the expertise, which is available in this country, to make an assessment of what is happening to the Kivu gases, particularly CO2?
It may be inappropriate, but may I ask a third question? At the Edinburgh international book festival I chaired the meeting for Jane Goodall. The area affected by the catastrophe is one with important world-class wildlife, including not only chimpanzees but much other Fauna. Human casualties obviously take precedence, but what is being done, if anything, about the environment?
Hilary Benn: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that aid is going directly to the agencies, because it is most important that we should assist those on the ground. In Goma, Merlin and Médecins sans Frontières already have two clinics operating. One was opened at the weekend, when there were about 6,000 people waiting for assistance. The Save the Children Fund is already distributing non-food relief. The World Food Programme has delivered two trucks of food today and plans more—six trucks are on their way. That is an incomplete account of what is happening because information is coming through slowly, but it demonstrates that work is already under way to help people in Goma. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is most important to send aid direct to the agencies.
Secondly, further assessment will need to be undertaken of the geology and chemistry of the interaction between the lava flows, the lake, CO2 and the other issues to which my hon. Friend referred. I will consider his suggestion that we investigate whether any expertise available in the UK might be of assistance. I can tell him that the results of a Lake Kivu water sample are expected later today.
Finally, my hon. Friend is right to raise the impact on wildlife. There is concern about the broader impact of the volcanic flow on the countryside surrounding Goma as well as the disruption in Goma itself. Estimates suggest that 30 to 40 per cent. of the town has been destroyed. However, we need to deal with things in order of priority; I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that the first priority must be to help people who are currently living in the most difficult circumstances.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I too welcome the statement and thank the Minister for allowing a copy of it to be made available to me. I join the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) in sending sympathy to the people of that area; I know a little bit about it, having been to Rwanda. Considering the civil war that has been raging in the area for many years, I cannot think of a greater hell than the one that those people are experiencing. It is difficult to believe what they must be going through and what they have gone through.
I congratulate the Minister and the Department on their incredibly swift response. Before I had even put pen to paper myself, the Government seemed to be making a

619
response. I congratulate them on that and on making supplies available to non-governmental organisations to get to Rwanda, apparently within about 48 hours of the news breaking. I particularly welcome the emphasis on water purification, because cholera is a danger in that situation.
With people fleeing from Gisenyi back into Goma, how will the aid flow? Will our Government provide more money to the rebel-held territory of Goma and the NGOs operating there to help the refugees coming back, or will we rely on some sort of transfer from Rwanda? I am unclear about how that aid will flow. Will the Minister give a little more detail about disaster preparedness, which we are all keen to talk about in the House? Does he feel that we were prepared for this disaster, and what effect will the whole thing have on the course of the civil war in that area?
Finally, as a veteran of the disaster in Montserrat, following the eruption of the Soufriere volcano and the lessons learned then, could the Minister comment on the scientists' ability to detect what will happen in future in that region? Many hundreds of thousands of people in the area are in danger from further eruptions, ground splits and all sorts of natural events that could happen in the next few weeks. Is the Minister satisfied that we are investing enough in vulcanology? Is the appropriate equipment available to send to that area, and is the security available to protect it so that, hopefully, we can prevent lives from being lost?
Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words about the speed of the DFID response; I will make sure that they are passed on to the officials responsible. As she and the whole House will be aware, sadly we have had a lot of experience of having to respond to emergencies. My first experience, when there was an earthquake in Peru shortly after I was appointed Minister, demonstrated clearly to me that well organised systems are in place to ensure that we respond in the most practical way by directing money at people with resources on the ground; they can deliver help to those who need it as quickly as possible.
We will, of course, give help to those agencies which can offer support in the places where people find themselves; we clearly need to do that. As we have seen in the past two or three days, the great movement of population one way now appears to have become a movement of the population back into Goma, which creates considerable challenges for the aid agencies. I am confident that in time they will be able to respond, but that movement makes circumstances more difficult, for reasons that the hon. Lady will well understand.
As for whether I am satisfied that everything was in place, the honest truth is that in such circumstances there are always lessons to be learned. To some extent, these eruptions are unpredictable. As I said, I understand that monitoring was occurring, but I am advised that one can never entirely predict when a volcano may erupt. I am sure that those with responsibility for that monitoring will reflect on the experience of the past few days and see what more can and might be done.
As I said with regard to the impact on the civil war, I hope that those involved will focus their attention on helping the people who have been affected by this terrible
620
catastrophe. The concerns expressed by the hon. Lady and other hon. Members about the added impact of security worries on the ability to deliver aid effectively merely demonstrate the force of the argument that the region needs stability above all else, so it is in everybody's interests—not least those currently affected by the catastrophe—that the Lusaka peace process should be taken forward.
Glenda Jackson: I add my congratulations to those of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on the speed with which the Department responded to the disaster. I believe that the first aeroplane took off at the weekend.
Is not the situation in Goma perilous not only because of the potential for further eruptions or splits in the side of the mountain, but equally because of toxic gases? Are people attempting to return because they do not know of the dangers that may await them, as they do not trust the information that is being delivered to them? Is not there a case for suggesting that the international aid effort should address the issue? In the light of the terrible use to which radio was put in Rwanda in the past, could the BBC World Service be incorporated in the effort, to ensure that up-to-the-minute, reliable and trustworthy information is delivered to the refugees?.
Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. In these circumstances, people are torn between concern about what they may find if they return to their homes and a great desire to see what has happened, especially after one group has begun to return and word has been spread saying, "We managed to make it back, others may follow." With the best will in the world, while I entirely accept her point about the need for proper information on the risks and dangers to be made available, I point out that it is not always easy to persuade people that they should stay where they are.
Today's situation report from OCHA suggests that the seismic situation may be improving, as the last major tremor was reported early on 20 January. However, as I said earlier, there is serious concern about the possibility of the gases having a toxic effect, especially for those on the lowest lying land down by the lake. I shall take away my hon. Friend's point about whether it would be possible to do more to persuade people to have regard to the genuine concern about those dangers, while recognising that if people choose to move in very large numbers, as we have seen them do over the past couple of days, it can be very difficult to persuade them to do otherwise.
Mr. Gary Streeter: I too pay tribute to the rapid response of the Department for International Development and to the Fact that it is making use of experienced NGOs in the region, which is clearly the right way forward. Although we all agree that this has been a spectacular natural disaster that has again focused the world's attention on the region, does the Minister not agree that the real disasters Faced by the people of the DRC and that region have been the years, decades and generations of civil conflict, insecurity and corruption? Will he do all that he can, especially in view of the Prime Minister's personal passion and the Foreign Secretary's presence in the region, to ensure that our Government seek to use the events as a catalyst to give further momentum to the peace process going on there? Is it not

621
right that while natural disasters come and go, we must strive to ensure that peace and good governance are established for these lovely people? It is no more than they deserve.
Hilary Benn: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the DRC towards the end of the summer. Britain has been actively involved in trying to get precisely the message that he articulates across to those who have been parties to the conflict. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we are contributing in several practical ways through supporting the national dialogue and providing a radio infrastructure to enable the Congolese people to have information about both the peace process and the dialogue. That links with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) made. We are also giving various other forms of support, to provide humanitarian assistance to those who have suffered through the conflict.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman completely that, in the longer term, the greatest contribution to helping the people of the DRC and Rwanda will be finding a resolution to the conflict that has scarred the region for so long.
Miss Anne Begg: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments about the difficulty of getting aid into an area where there are vast population movements one way and then the other. Are not people going back to Goma more quickly than they might otherwise do through genuine fear of the way in which they might be treated in Rwanda? Have any contingency plans been drawn up in the case of reports from Rwanda of human rights abuses? Action should be taken quickly so that no further destabilisation occurs.
Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to anxieties that have clearly played a part in leading the people who initially moved to Rwanda to return to the DRC. We have received no reports of the sort about which she expressed anxiety. I suspect that we would first hear about them when people moved back to the DRC in even larger numbers—that would be the quickest response to such anxieties.
As I said in answer to earlier questions, we need to be guided by people's decisions, notwithstanding advice, about where they choose to locate. They will move to a place where they feel safest even when an objective assessment does not confirm its safety. In those circumstances, the overwhelming priority is to ensure that the aid agencies that are active on the ground and gearing up are able to support people wherever they choose to go.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Having visited Goma some years ago and climbed the volcano when it
622
was dormant, I want to make two suggestions. First, it would be unwise to concentrate the aid effort on the side of the Congo that is close to Burundi because of the terrific problems of ethnic strife to which other hon. Members have referred.
Secondly, I want to take up the point that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made about animals. Does the Minister know that one of the most important, world-famous gorilla colonies is located on the slopes of the volcano? Many wildlife specialists have tried to save it over the years. It is likely that some disruption has occurred there, that poachers may move in or that many animals have been killed. Will he bear that in mind? Will he also bear in mind the fact that Twycross zoo, in my constituency, has offered to take any orphan gorillas if they are flown to Leicestershire?
Hilary Benn: I am grateful for those two points. The hon. Gentleman is right about the need to ensure that the aid is provided on both sides of the border so that those who suffer in the emergency do not feel that they have to move to one place or another to get access to it.
I am grateful for the information about the potential impact on the gorillas that live on the south side of the volcano. An assessment of the full impact of the catastrophe will clearly take time. However, I shall ensure that the offer that the hon. Gentleman has conveyed is passed on to those who are looking into the matter.
Mr. David Cameron: Like others, I welcome the statement. Will the Minister tell us a little more about the precise use of the £2 million of aid? Is it all for short-term use? Further to the question of the hon. Member for Linlithgow, will he confirm that all the money will go the aid agencies and none of it to the central or regional governments of the Congo or Rwanda?
Hilary Benn: I am happy to confirm that DFID money is going directly to NGOs or through the United Nations appeal. As the hon. Gentleman will know from the statement, Oxfam has a specific responsibility for water and sanitation. Relief supplies went out on the plane on Saturday night. Merlin plans to establish several clinics, and, with Médecins sans Frontières, has already done that in Goma. Save the Children is providing food relief, as is the World Food Programme.
The money is intended to support agencies in establishing a presence on the ground as quickly as possible to meet immediate emergency needs: water, first of all; sanitation, because we are concerned about the potential impact of disease; and food and shelter. In the medium term, all those involved will need to consider how they can help in the reconstruction of Goma, if that is possible. Clearly, that will depend on the outcome of further assessments that will need to be made in due course, when we know the full impact of this terrible catastrophe.

British Detainees (Guantanamo Bay)
4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I should like to make a statement on the British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay; my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
A team of British officials visited Guantanamo between 17 and 20 January and saw the three British detainees. We received a full report this morning. The team asked the detainees questions about their identity, nationality and welfare. The officials' report confirms that the three are British and that they are all in good physical health. During lengthy discussions, they spoke without inhibition. None complained of any ill treatment. None said that they had any medical condition requiring treatment. Medical Facilities are available in the compound. All three asked for messages to be passed to their next of kin, which we have undertaken to do. The identity of one of the men, Feroz Abbasi, is already in the public domain. It is not our intention to reveal the identities of the other men, pending contact with their families.
The International Committee of the Red Cross now has a permanent presence at Guantanamo Bay, and ICRC officials have access to the detainees at any time. The detainees are free to conduct religious observances. They have prayer mats, and calls to prayer are broadcast over the Camp X-Ray public address system. They are given as much drinking water as they want, three meals a day and food that complies with their religious practice if they require it.
During the visit, our officials received full co-operation from the camp's commander, who said that the more lurid allegations about torture and sensory deprivation were completely False. The recent pictures of detainees featured in the media were taken on their arrival at the base, when security needs were paramount. The House should not forget that we are talking about some of the most dangerous men in the world, who have in the past displayed murderous and suicidal tendencies—often both together.
Our officials report that, as the number of detainees grows, there will be a need for more scope for exercise, and every effort is being made to provide all inmates who want one with a copy of the Koran.
Conditions at Guantanamo Bay have attracted a great deal of parliamentary and media interest. On the basis of the detailed report that I have seen today, I am satisfied that the accusations were premature and that the detainees are being treated in line with international humanitarian norms, in conditions in which security is paramount.
We are fully satisfied with the co-operation that we have had from the United States authorities on this issue. We and the Americans are well aware that we will be judged by a higher standard than the Taliban and al-Qaeda. On the basis of the report that I have seen today, I can confirm that these standards are being met
Mr. Alan Duncan: Given the unusually short notice that we received of this statement, may I ask the House to accept the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) for not being here to respond?
624
We—and, I am sure, the entire House—expect the highest standards of treatment to be accorded to the prisoners. The current interest in them as they are held by the US military in Cuba has largely been provoked by photographs that perhaps represent a PR setback, but that, it seems, do not reflect the full truth. We are pleased to learn that the prisoners—in particular, those from the United Kingdom—have no serious complaints about their treatment. They are not suffering the abuse of their human rights that many commentators have asserted; that assertion now appears to have been unfounded. Indeed, in considering that issue we must remember that the very Fact that our free press can publish the pictures, ask questions and express opinions is an enduring testimony to the free, democratic society in which we live and which we are fighting to defend.
As the Minister said, we should be under no illusions. The people who have been transported to Cuba are, more likely than not, highly dangerous terrorists who are part of a network that has shown utter contempt for human life and who have raped and tortured women and innocent civilians, subjugated their own people and even denied those whom they pretended to govern access to life-saving humanitarian aid.
The prisoners probably have information about their organisation and they could have information on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. We must remember that, by extracting it, we could prevent terrorist outrages and the loss of more innocent lives. If all their human rights had been removed, and if they had been brutally treated when coalition forces captured them in Afghanistan, they probably would not be in Cuba now. There is no reason to suspect that they are likely to receive any worse or harsher treatment than that which they received on capture.
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, but I would welcome clarification of a number of areas. Does he have any indication of the circumstances in which the British prisoners were apprehended? What jurisdiction do they Fall under? Is there any case for bringing them back to this country for trial? What charges are likely to be filed against them?
Does the Minister have any specific information on whether the detained Britons are al-Qaeda or Taliban members? During questioning over the past two or three days, what indications have any of them given about the nature of their involvement or activities in Afghanistan? I respect the Government's decision not to reveal names until the next of kin have been contacted, but can the Minister offer any indication of where in the United Kingdom the prisoners are from?
Does the Minister share our view that there must be firmness and Fairness in this matter? We want the highest standards without risky naivety, which is what we look for in his answers to our questions.
Mr. Bradshaw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's supportive comments. He asks about the circumstances of the arrests of the three men, but I am afraid that I cannot give any more details. Even if we had them or if I had seen them, military activity is still going on in Afghanistan and any details that I revealed could jeopardise other people's security. I simply stress to him and to the House that at no stage during their long interviews with British officials did they complain about their treatment, from their arrest to their transfer to Guantanamo and since.

625
In terms of a trial, we should not get ahead of ourselves. One problem of the public debate in this country over recent days is that people have assumed things that we are not yet sure about. Until we have had a chance to interview all those concerned, and until we have more details about exactly what went on and the prisoners' circumstances, we should not speculate about their status or where their trial might take place.
The hon. Gentleman also asks whether I can give some idea of where in the United Kingdom the prisoners come from, but I am afraid that I do not intend to give any more details that might reveal their identities until we have spoken to their families
David Winnick: If some reports on the treatment of prisoners are exaggeration, that is welcome, but is my hon. Friend aware that disquiet will undoubtedly remain in this country over the British and other prisoners being held? I fully supported the campaign in Afghanistan and believed that it had to be waged, but is he aware that the democracies must accept at all times the necessity of civilised values, which are the opposite of the values of the terrorists and the Taliban? I have no illusions—these are very dangerous people—but, as in 1945, prisoners must be apprehended, questioned and interrogated in accord with civilised values and norms.
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that, by our statement and by giving details of the interviews that British officials conducted, some of the disquiet to which he rightly referred will be dispelled.
Mr. Michael Moore: As other hon. Members have said, there is great concern in the United Kingdom and elsewhere because of the pictures and reports of the treatment of prisoners in Camp X-Ray. There are continuing worries about how the United States should treat the prisoners. The Minister says that the Red Cross will have a permanent presence at the prison, but will he give an assurance that some form of reporting—independent of the Governments—on the prisoners' conditions will be given to those outside the camp? Is he able to place extracts from the report in the Library of the House of Commons, and make it his habit to do so while the prisoners are kept in detention?
Although the Minister says that it is too soon to determine the legal status of the prisoners, does he acknowledge the great concern about whether they are being held under the Geneva convention and under what international law they will be tried? Does he accept that there is a damaging contrast between the treatment of John Walker, the United States citizen, who will be tried in a federal court, and the others, including British citizens, who are likely to be tried in a secretive, military tribunal? Does he agree that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done in these circumstances?
The United States, along with the United Kingdom, made much of the moral case for the war against terrorism. Will the Minister tell us what assessment he has made of the impact of the prisoners' treatment on coalition opinion? Is not there a danger that America's treatment of the prisoners at best sends out the wrong signals, and at worst undermines the moral authority of the coalition against terrorism?
Mr. Bradshaw: I should have thought that the Red Cross was an eminently independent enough organisation
626
to be able to make its own judgment. It will report to the United States Government in the usual way. The hon. Gentleman asks for more details of the report. We will release as many details as we can, and I have done so today, but I shall not give a running commentary. Much of the detail of the report is confidential material that we cannot put in the public domain, not least because it contains details of the identities and backgrounds of the people involved.
We have had assurances from the United States that the detainees will be treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. Like me, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the definition of a prisoner of war is an extremely complicated matter on which it is not easy to make a judgment. What is important, and what matters, is that detainees are treated humanely in accordance with international norms, which is the case, and that if they are brought to trial, they are given a Fair trial.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asks about the impact on coalition opinion. I suspect that the impact has been Far greater on some elements of the press in this country than it has been on our coalition allies. As Minister with responsibility for the whole of the Muslim and Arab world, I have not had a single representation on this issue. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as well aware as I am that public opinion in the Muslim world changed dramatically on the day of the liberation of Kabul, when ordinary people in the Muslim world saw the Taliban in their true colours.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: The Minister painted a Far rosier picture of the situation in the camps than the American Secretary of Defence did, and for that I suppose we should be grateful.
What will happen to the British citizens who have been captured? Unless they can be directly connected with September's events, under the Geneva convention they are, surely, prisoners of war or the equivalent. In that case, should not they be tried in this country for offences under our legislation? Have the British Government made representations to the United States that British subjects not accused of crimes in the United States should be tried in the United Kingdom, and that if tried in the United States they should not be subject to the death penalty or to a military tribunal?
Mr. Bradshaw: My statement was based not on any opinions expressed by politicians from other countries, but on an account given by reputable British officials after a detailed visit and interview.
I am afraid it is too early to speculate on what will happen next. That depends on the outcome of the interviews with those in captivity. It is certainly too early to speculate on what might happen to them—on whether they will be tried in the United States, or deported.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Should we not be careful to avoid confusion over the status of the detainees? Some—for example, members of the Afghan forces—may well be entitled to prisoner of war status; others, for example, members of the bin Laden organisation, are persons against whom criminal offences have been alleged. It is difficult to see on what basis those persons could be entitled to prisoner of war status. They are, however, entitled to the kind of protection that would be afforded to any citizen charged with criminal offences before any civilised court.

627
Should not our message to the American Government be that no one being held should receive treatment worse than that afforded to those charged with criminal offences before an American court, but that some—probably a minority—are entitled to the higher status of prisoners of war?.
Mr. Bradshaw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely correct about the difficulty of arriving at a definition of "prisoner of war". We have made exactly the representations that he suggests to the United States, as well as the representation on the death penalty suggested by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
Ann Clwyd: I was in Geneva last week, talking to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the president of the Red Cross. There was no doubt that they felt the detainees should be designated prisoners of war. If there is any dispute about the issue, however, it should be determined by a court of law—an independent tribunal—and certainly not by any one man: not by Donald Rumsfeld, Ben Bradshaw, or any other single person.
Can my hon. Friend say how many other British prisoners are on their way to Cuba? Why can British prisoners be taken out of Afghanistan without, apparently, any consultation with the British, who did not seem even to know that there were British prisoners until they arrived in Cuba? Can we be assured that that will not happen again?
As Kofi Annan said last week, human rights cannot be cherry-picked. For 50 years we have fought for a definition of human rights, and I thought that we had arrived at one. I supported the war. I hope that we can persist in our dealings with the United States, and say that—although we support that country—we have standards in Britain, and we do not want them to be dropped.
Mr. Bradshaw: First, let me congratulate my hon. Friend and say how much I admire her work on human rights and similar issues. Secondly, let me repeat what I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg): it is not possible to make a blanket declaration that the detainees are prisoners of war, whatever some organisations may want, because under international law the status of any detainee must be considered in the light of the individual case. That is why this is such a complicated issue. What matters is that all the detainees, regardless of whether they are prisoners of war, are entitled to humane treatment and, if prosecuted, to a Fair trial.
I also cannot speculate on whether more British detainees are likely to be on their way, or soon to be on their way, to the base at Guantanamo Bay; but we have good channels of communication with the Americans, and they will continue to operate if that turns out to be the case.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Minister be kind enough to send a copy of his robust, sensible statement to the editors of all those newspapers who published such scurrilous stories yesterday? Will he
628
remind them that the United States and Great Britain yield to no one in their defence of truth and observance of the highest possible standards in these matters?
Mr. Bradshaw: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, which the Foreign Office news department may like to take up, particularly as I wrote the statement myself.
Geraint Davies: You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that my constituent, Mr. Abbasi, is one of the detainees in Camp X-Ray. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his reassurance that Mr. Abbasi should be treated both humanely and in accordance with international law. He will know that Mr. Abbasi' s mother, Mrs. Juma, fears that her son will Face the ultimate breach of human rights: the death penalty. With that in mind, has any progress been made in respect of extradition, particularly given that American detainees will Face a federal court? Does he agree that that underlines the case for the establishment of an international criminal court, where these things can be sorted out even-handedly?
Mr. Bradshaw: I can give most of the assurances that my hon. Friend has asked for, but it is too soon to speculate about what charges his constituent may Face. We regularly, not just on these issues, make plain our views on the death penalty to our friends in the United States. Although the Government and I fully support the idea of an international criminal court, he will know that the jurisdiction of an international criminal court cannot be retrospective. Some people call for these people to be tried in international criminal courts or ad hoc courts, but those are not supposed to replace national jurisdictions. They are used only when national jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to prosecute.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: The Minister should be warmly commended by the House for coming at the first possible opportunity to report and to put the minds of many of us at rest after we had read what now appear to be singularly ill informed comments in Sunday's newspapers.
I ask two specific questions. First, will the Minister confirm that many of the prisoners held in Cuba were among the prisoners who murdered 300 Afghan guards before Christmas; and, secondly, that many of them have openly and publicly said that they wish to do the same to their American guards?
Mr. Bradshaw: I do not want to give too many details about those who are in Guantanamo Bay but I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support. I can confirm, however, that those who are held there are in the highest category of seriousness in terms of what they have done and the responsibilities that they have had. Some are the most senior foreign al-Qaeda fighters.
Donald Anderson: May I also congratulate my hon. Friend on volunteering the statement so early? I well understand why he says that we should not speculate about where the prisoners will be tried. Wherever they are tried, however, the British subjects should have proper legal safeguards, including access to lawyers, knowing the nature of the case against them and

629
having an appropriate appeal procedure. Can he give the House the undertaking that, whatever the forum in which they are tried, those basic legal safeguards will be upheld?
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, I can. Again, it is too early to speculate about what charges the prisoners may Face, but if the detainees Face prosecution, under international norms they will be entitled to legal representation.
Mr. Robert Key: Is the Minister aware that, if the prisoners had been held under the Geneva convention, none of the intrusive media and press photography and comment would have been allowed? Under article 13,
"POWs must at all times be protected particularly against … public curiosity".
The last prisoner of war camp in the United Kingdom was at Roll stone camp in my constituency during the Gulf war. The press and media were forbidden from taking any photographs or approaching the camp to take photographs, which could indeed be taken to humiliate those prisoners.
Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point for those who think that this is an issue of definition rather than of how the detainees are actually treated. He is absolutely right: there are some ways in which, if they had prisoner of war status, their conditions would be seriously worse. He spoke about press intrusion, and the other aspect is that it would be allowable to hold them indefinitely, until the end of hostilities in Afghanistan.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my hon. Friend aware that we in the House always expect that all prisoners should be treated according to the highest standards expected of western parliamentary democracies, Far beyond what these people would have experienced if they had been prisoners of al-Qaeda or the Taliban? Will he confirm that these men are where they are because they were where they were? They were in Afghanistan, and if the charges against the British prisoners are proven, they were there to fight against their own country and its interests, and if possible to kill many of their own fellow citizens.
It is extremely important to abide by our own standards, but will my hon. Friend take into account the Fact that there are already reports that one of the prisoners has attacked a guard at the camp? In view of the Fact that such people have attacked and killed guards in Afghanistan and tried to hijack planes, should not we take a very measured approach indeed?
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. While we should of course insist on treatment that is in accord with international norms, we should never forget who these men are, what they are responsible for, and what many of them have done while in captivity in Afghanistan, including exploding grenades on their bodies to kill themselves, their captors and others. An ITN journalist was killed in one incident. These are highly dangerous Fanatics who have absolutely no regard for their own safety or that of others.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I note what the Minister said about the three Britons having no
630
complaints about their treatment. Is he in a position to tell us whether their treatment differs from that of the other detainees?
Mr. Bradshaw: We have absolutely no reason to believe that that is the case, but our officials, quite rightly, were involved in detailed discussions only with the British detainees.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: We have got to remember that not so long ago these al-Qaeda people were shooting our soldiers in Afghanistan. Anyone who goes abroad to fight for another country is nothing more than a mercenary, and we know what mercenaries were like in Africa. When we talk about these people's human rights, we should remember the people on the planes in America. They were not accorded any human rights.
Mr. Bradshaw: I completely agree. Some of the first tranche of Royal Marines returned to my constituency of Exeter last night, having been away from their Families and loved ones over Christmas, bearing the brunt of these people's aggression.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I congratulate the Minister on his statement and on the answers that he has given. Does he accept that al-Qaeda is still out there, plotting further outrages? If so, does he accept that information gleaned from the interrogation of al-Qaeda prisoners will be essential for the prevention of such outrages? If so, does he further accept that it would be absolute madness to accord the protection of the Geneva convention to people who are not regular forces, allowing them to answer only name, rank and number? Finally, does he accept that when these people are brought to trial, we must avoid what happened after the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre, when important secrets were revealed in a civilian court that led bin Laden to know that his telephones were being listened to and may well have contributed to the success of the attacks on 11 September?
Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is right to make the point that if too much information is revealed, there is always a danger that other people's lives and security will be put at risk. He is also right to say that many of the people currently detained may have a great deal of useful information that could prevent horrific events such as those of 11 September from being perpetrated again. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, through the information that we have gathered in Afghanistan, we already know much more about the nature of al-Qaeda and its intentions than we did two or three months ago. We have every reason to believe that we have already foiled a number of potentially Fatal operations, including one in Singapore recently, as a result of that information.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: We shall soon be commemorating the holocaust, whose horrors surpassed in scale and cruelty even those of 11 September. After the second world war, our US allies played an honourable role in persuading the international community that we should demonstrate civilised values in our treatment of prisoners, and in submitting them to proper judicial process. Would the Government commend that example to our US allies now?
Mr. Bradshaw: Yes I would, and I reiterate to my hon. Friend that we are satisfied that the Americans are

631
working in accordance with those international norms—which, as several right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, was never the case with the Taliban, who did not recognise a single international law.
Mr. David Cameron: I welcome the Minister's statement and the replies that he has given. May I tempt him to go further? The Government are content to allow suspects to be taken to Guantanamo Bay, where they may be subject to US military tribunal process, possibly including the death penalty. Is it not odd, therefore, that they do nothing about article 3 of the European convention on human rights, the interpretation of which now stops us deporting anyone who may threaten this countr—Abu Qatada, Abu Hamza or anyone else—to a jurisdiction where they may be wanted?
Mr. Bradshaw: That is an irrelevant point. The Government would consider every request from the United States for the extradition of any such person on its merits and according to the individual case.
Mr. Graham Allen: Does my hon. Friend accept that we have fought a long, difficult and risky war against terrorism and have emerged victorious, but that one staggeringly incompetent misjudgment by the American authorities may throw that gain and that victory away and give incredible propaganda value to the enemies of the free world? Will he make every effort to inform our American friends that the treatment of even the most vile human being must meet the standards for which we fought?
Mr. Bradshaw: No, I would not agree with that. I am afraid that my hon. Friend has come here with a pre-written question based on rushing to judgment. He does not seem to have listened to a thing that I have said, or to what I have reported from the interviews conducted by the British officials in Guantanamo Bay. I would also caution him about his claim that we have already been victorious against terrorism: the campaign against terrorism will be very long, and will continue well after peace and security have returned to Afghanistan. I would be extremely cautious about jumping to premature victory.
Glenda Jackson: From which Department of State did British officials go to speak to the British prisoners in Guantanamo Bay? When the representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross meet British citizens there, will their findings be made public, as I understand that the ICRC does not publish its findings? Are there representatives of the Red Crescent within the group representing the Red Cross? May I remind my hon. Friends that the photographs of what has been dubbed torture were taken, and released, by the American authorities? What was happening may not have constituted torture, but it certainly constituted a gross infringement of human rights. If we are indeed committed to tackling international terrorism and
632
defeating it, examples of western powers not taking Muslim religion, or Muslim lives and human rights, as seriously as others will work against success.
Mr. Bradshaw: The officials came from my Department. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that Red Cross reports are always confidential. That is the whole point of them; they are not publicised, and they are not used for grandstanding, but are taken extremely seriously by those Governments to whom they report. It is not up to us to publish them. If the Red Cross wishes to do so, it may. The American Administration are under the same constraints as we are in that respect. I have no doubt that, as usually happens, details of such reports will come into the public domain in some way.
My hon. Friend asked about Red Crescent representatives, and I must confess that I do not know the answer. I shall write to her on that as soon as I can.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would it not be wise to be a little cautious about the assertion in the statement that no complaints were made by any of the British prisoners? If the Under-Secretary had been a prisoner, given human nature—particularly American Marine human nature—would he have thought it prudent to complain? Did the prisoners assert in private that there were no complaints?
Mr. Bradshaw: As I said in my statement, for which I chose my words extremely carefully, none complained of any ill treatment. There is an important difference there. Points were made about exercise Facilities, and I made it clear later in my statement that those Facilities would not be adequate if the number of detainees in Guantanamo Bay increased dramatically.
I am not prepared to give my hon. Friend details of exactly who was present, but our officials spoke to detainees for a long time and were quite satisfied that the detainees spoke without inhibition.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Should we not openly recognise that we are dealing with two important and conflicting sets of principles? First, security is imperative, and that may lead to people being treated toughly. Secondly, there are humanitarian considerations, and we are supposed to have standards that differ from those of the people we have been in conflict with. We must try to reconcile those two different sets of principles.
Should we not say that the people who are being detained are prisoners of war? President Bush himself began the argument about war by declaring a war on terrorism. The prisoners are the consequence of the action taken to defeat terrorism, and that is one ground on which we could be clear about humanitarian considerations.
Mr. Bradshaw: I think that I have already answered that question in several of my earlier replies. The definition of "prisoner of war" is complex. What matters most is that detainees should be treated humanely and in accordance with international norms, and that if they are brought to trial, the trials should be Fair.

Orders of the Day

  Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.38 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill represents the biggest overhaul of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland for at least 30 years. Despite all our difficulties, the real progress that we have seen in Northern Ireland society during the past few years deserves to be matched by a Modern, progressive, forward-looking system of justice. The criminal justice review proposed how that should be done, and the Bill realises the key aims of the review—the delivery of a criminal justice system that is Fair, impartial, effective and joined up. It occurs, of course, in the context of the Belfast agreement. That agreement was the catalyst, but such a review was needed in any case. The real test of a criminal justice system is whether it makes people feel safer in their own localities; the real test of the Bill is whether it will improve the system's ability to do that.
  I am satisfied that the review's measures will help to foster public trust in the system, to enhance transparency and openness and to promote more effective ways to reduce crime and the fear of crime. They will do that through reform of the prosecution process, the creation of a chief inspector of criminal justice and the Modernisation of the juvenile justice system.
  The Bill will safeguard the independence and impartiality of the system, while maintaining a focus on the real issues and concerns of the community that it serves. The new arrangements will increase public understanding of the system and public confidence in it. They will retain the best of the old system and integrate international best practice to ensure that services are delivered in a more effective, transparent and accountable way in the future.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State. I also apologise for not being present at the beginning of his remarks, but that has come about because the debate in Committee on a statutory instrument on a Fairly important issue relating to police evidence in Northern Ireland was scheduled for precisely the same time as this business, and I have had to interrupt my remarks in replying for the Opposition in that debate to get here. It was not possible to sort things out, despite attempts on our side to do so in the ordinary way, so could you let it be known that that is unacceptable and a discourtesy not only to my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois)—who have also just come into the Chamber, having served on the Statutory Instrument Committee—but to the other representatives of the Opposition parties who want to take part in both debates?
  Lembit Öpik: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for
  634
  Reigate (Mr. Blunt) is right to raise this issue. May I ask you to find out whether, in future, such things can be organised so that those of us who have understandably stretched resources can make the full contribution that we want to make to two very important subjects? Surely it would have been possible to organise our proceedings so that those who care about and are actively involved in those subjects could have contributed to both debates without having to prioritise one above the other?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I very much understand the concern that hon. Members are expressing, but it is not a matter for the Chair; it should be taken up through the usual channels, and I suggest that hon. Members do so. I trust that the usual channels will have heard the points made in the Chamber this afternoon.
  Dr. Reid: I merely respond by saying that I note and understand the difficulties that have been caused. I can assure the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) that if things have ended this way, it is not because any discourtesy was intended, as I am sure he will realise. I understand that these things were discussed through the usual channels. However, business in the Chamber is extremely flexible—correctly so—and it causes inconvenience not only for those with limited resources, but for those of us in government, with all the Government's resources. This afternoon, I had to cancel an engagement in Belfast, and then unexpectedly found that I could have carried it out. I note what the hon. Gentleman says; these things are not very satisfactory, but I hope that he accepts that there was no intention of discourtesy, and we shall try to ensure that there is not such a chronological coincidence in future. I extend those remarks to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
  The Bill also occurs, of course, in the context not only of Modernising our justice system in Northern Ireland in the wake of the Belfast agreement, but of devolution. The changes in the criminal justice system for which the Bill provides are important in their own right, but they will also help to pave the way for the ultimate devolution of those functions to the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland.
  The Government believe that devolution throughout the United Kingdom has been one of our greatest achievements—certainly, it is one of our most historic achievements—and nowhere more so than in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive have already been able to take great strides in bringing politics home to Northern Ireland. We are not complacent at all about the challenges that Face us in that direction, but we are committed to seeing that process and the process of devolution of power, as well as responsibility, continue.
  Policing and criminal justice are currently reserved to Westminster but, in the Belfast agreement, the Government signalled their willingness in principle to devolve responsibility for policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. We remain committed to that aim. Our target is to devolve policing and justice after the Assembly elections scheduled for May 2003. Obviously that decision to devolve can only be taken at the time, taking account of security and other

  635
  relevant considerations. It is thus a target, not a deadline. I make that clear just in case anyone at a future stage should misinterpret anything that I have said.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I am not worried about the deadlines, but am more concerned about the principle in the light of the Fact that the Justice Minister in the Dail, John O'Donoghue, has made it abundantly plain that Sinn Fein cannot share in the responsibility for such affairs of government because of its inextricable links with an active terrorist organisation. However, in Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein will be put into a position into which it is privy to security issues. Is the Secretary of State therefore saying that the measure will not be implemented in Northern Ireland until things change and there has been a complete break from terrorism and decommissioning has been completed?
  Dr. Reid: First, the hon. Gentleman will realise that certain parties in the Republic of Ireland and the spokesman for the Government in the Republic of Ireland have made it plain that there is no question of Sinn Fein taking part in government there in any area—security or otherwise—as long as it is linked to a private army. That is worth saying, and it is my understanding of the statements that have been made over the past few weeks.
  Secondly, people recognise that the problems that we are dealing with in Northern Ireland are unique and not exactly comparable with those in the Republic of Ireland. That is precisely why the Belfast agreement allowed for inclusive politics that includes the republican movement. That was done under the premise, of course, that the imperfections in the democratic system—namely the link with a paramilitary organisation that was holding on to weapons—were related to a transitional tolerance and to the assumption that the process of decommissioning would run parallel to the process of changing the democratic structures and social conditions in Northern Ireland.
  Thirdly, although I have given a target date for the devolution of power to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, that will be subject to satisfactory progress being made in a whole number of directions. One of them is the carrying through of the reforms that are currently being carried through for policing.
  That is as full an answer as I can give to the hon. Gentleman. My view is quite plain and I will place it on the record again. Sinn Fein should participate in support and responsibility for policing. That is worth saying at a time when Sinn Fein spokesmen continually tell us how much more the police should be doing to safeguard the citizenry of Northern Ireland—Catholic and Protestant. It is not difficult for anyone to see the inconsistency between demanding that the police be more effective in what they are doing and the people who demand that withholding their support from policing. Indeed, in some cases people in the community have attacked the police both physically and verbally. People will notice the inconsistency in what they say.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I think that the Secretary of State is asking why Sinn Fein-IRA do not take up their places on the Policing Board and support the new police service, and I thoroughly agree
  636
  with the sentiments that he expresses. However, as he keeps making concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA—one every week at the moment, some of which we shall discuss later—why does he not use that opportunity to say to them, "Look, if you want all these special arrangements for yourself, the quid pro quo is that you come out of the closet and accept the new Police Service for Northern Ireland and join the Policing Board"? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not have that negotiating relationship with them? Why does he not take advantage of all the concessions that he keeps giving them?
  Dr. Reid: First, if the hon. Gentleman does not know that I have been pressing Sinn Fein to join the Policing Board, he has not been listening carefully to what I have been saying for the past nine or 10 months not only privately, but very publicly. Secondly, if he persists—I make this as a general comment—in trying to square the circle of saying that he supports the Belfast agreement as a whole but opposes every element of it on the basis that it is a concession to republicanism, the inconsistencies of his position will become even more apparent than the inconsistencies of Sinn Fein's position of demanding a more effective police force at the same time as it withholds support for that force.
  Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Reid: I will give way but, after that, I want to make progress. My speech is longer than I should have liked because I want to go into detail. I also have to do the hon. Gentleman the discourtesy of leaving soon afterwards because of today's statements.
  Mr. Davies: I must set the record straight. We are serious in our support for the Belfast agreement, and that is why we support the new police service. We also want to urge all parties to take up their seats on the Policing Board and actively support the service, which shows our support for the agreement. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, however, we are prepared to use some linkage. Instead of just expressing the vague hope that others might fulfil their commitments under the Belfast agreement, we link that to the concessions that Sinn Fein-IRA are seeking. He seems to shy away from the essential element of linkage.
  Dr. Reid: I am glad for the clarification that the hon. Gentleman supports the practical implications of the Belfast agreement. Presumably he also supports the Patten review of policing on the grounds not only that it is an integral part of the agreement, but that it was carried out by a former Conservative Minister. So I look forward to the time when he and his colleagues stop referring to the changes arising from the Patten recommendations as concessions or the destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Depending on what he and his colleagues say in future, we will, no doubt, discover whether that is the case or whether the inconsistencies will continue to be laid before us.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman explained how Sinn Fein-IRA can join the Policing Board. He made it plain to my party and the

  637
  other parties that if they did not join by a certain time and abide by it, they would not be able to join until later on, after the next election.
  Dr. Reid: The answer, as the hon. Gentleman says, is that Sinn Fein-IRA could join the Policing Board by applying to join it. They did not do that when we sent out the original invitations, so the opportunity was missed. At the moment, as he knows, a process is under way in which local councils will nominate people for the district policing partnerships. It remains to be seen whether Sinn Fein, while demanding more effective policing, again refuses to take up that opportunity at the level of councillor. The hon. Gentleman is right: the vacancies on the Policing Board have been filled and, unless there is a change in legislation, the opportunity to serve on it will not occur for some time.
  However, it is not just a case of joining the main Policing Board or even the DPPs. Joining the Policing Board is the public and practical symbol that a party is committed to making the police in Northern Ireland effective.
  My main point—on this occasion, perhaps unusually, the hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement—is that it is inconsistency bordering on hypocrisy to demand more effective policing, continually to upbraid the police for not getting the results that they should be getting and, at the same time, not only to withhold support from but to oppose the policing service. Those who do so are not only eschewing their responsibility but attacking the police at every opportunity. I hope that that obvious inconsistency can be overcome, and we all look forward to the day when not only the nationalists and Unionists but the broader community, including republicans, take the responsibility for supporting the implementation of the means of law and order in a society to which they now say they are committed.
  David Burnside: The Secretary of State is sending to my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) the mixed message that he sent to the Ulster Unionist party. It appears from what he just said that if Sinn Fein wanted to participate in the Policing Board, he would consider making the opportunity available, and that would include passing legislation to allow it on to the board before the date that has been laid down. He is sending a mixed message to the House.
  Dr. Reid: I am saying no such thing. The hon. Member for North Antrim asked me what was the position in law, and I told him the position—it is as simple as that. I also told him that under existing legislation Sinn Fein councillors could, if they wished, be nominated for the district policing partnerships. Both of those are the case. That is not a mixed message; it is a Factual statement of the present position.
  I thought that it might be possible, just for once, for hon. Members to concentrate on the main message. I should have thought that the main message on which Members from both sides of the House have a common view is that when people demand rights, they have to be matched by responsibilities. There is therefore a gross inconsistency in demanding the right to have an effective police force and complaining that the police are failing, through incompetence or conspiracy, to achieve an extremely difficult task while saying, "We will neither
  638
  support the police force nor succour it. Indeed, we will go out of our way, in every way—verbally and in other ways—to impede its effectiveness."
  Mr. Gregory Campbell rose—
  Dr. Reid: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I will try to make some progress.
  Mr. Campbell: For the avoidance of doubt, my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim asked the Secretary of State about the date by which Sinn Fein and other parties had to nominate people to sit on the Policing Board. That issue has been raised with my party and other parties. The Secretary of State replied to us, as he did to others, that if Sinn Fein had not made nominations by a certain time, we would move on. Is he saying that that is still the case or that if Sinn Fein wanted to make nominations now, next week or next month, legislation would be introduced to allow it to do so? Has it missed the boat?
  Dr. Reid: The position in law has not changed. People have not made nominations. If the hon. Gentleman has any indication that Sinn Fein is about to join the Policing Board in return for anything, I hope that he will share it with the House. I stated that, unless the law is changed, there is no way in which Sinn Fein can join the Policing Board at present, and that is a fact.
  The hon. Gentleman may be aware that a review of the implementation of Patten and ancillary aspects, which will run for several months, is about to start. That review was discussed with the hon. Gentleman and his party and the Ulster Unionist party. That is public knowledge. It is public knowledge that we have said that if legislative changes are required as a result of that review, they would be put through. The position has not changed, nor has my view that Sinn Fein should join the Policing Board. I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is implying. I hope that he is not saying that he does not want republicans on the Policing Board; I am sure that that is not his intention. If it is, I should be obliged if he would let us know, because it changes the complexion. I thought that we all wanted Sinn Fein to take up responsibilities on the Policing Board; I certainly do. I want it to play a full part in meeting the responsibilities that naturally go along with rights in a Modern, civilised democratic society.
  Lembit Öpik: rose—
  Dr. Reid: I shall give way once more, then have a long run, I hope, without interventions.
  Lembit Öpik: I am sorry to detain the Secretary of State and am grateful for his forbearance.
  Will the Secretary of State provide clarification? Am I right in understanding that at the moment there is no opportunity for Sinn Fein to take up places, even if it wanted to do so? Is the Secretary of State therefore saying that the issue is about focusing the next time that members of the board are appointed?
  Dr. Reid: That is the case in law. Everyone is keen on hypothetical scenarios and conspiracies, so let me put it to the hon. Gentleman that if the republican movement

  639
  turned around tomorrow and said, "We made a mistake, we would like to join the Policing Board," I would feel duty-bound to go to the parties on the board, including those of hon. Gentlemen who have spoken today, and say, "Sinn Fein wishes to join the Policing Board. Is there a way in which we can allow that through common consent?" What I would not do—but an objective observer of comments that have been made would feel that hon. Gentlemen are forcing me to do so—is say to Sinn Fein, "That's very nice and historic. Would you mind going away for two years, and perhaps then we will consider allowing you the privilege of joining the Policing Board."
  Mr. Gregory Campbell: Quite right.
  Dr. Reid: That is not an entirely constructive way forward. If anyone wants reassurance that there is no conspiracy and that I have no inkling about whether those events are likely to take place over the next couple of weeks, I should be obliged if they would accept my assurance.
  Perhaps we can now proceed with the reform of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, although I have a funny feeling that I am not going to be allowed to do so. However, while I have a window of opportunity, I shall proceed. Policing and criminal justice, as I was saying, are currently reserved to Westminster, but in the Belfast agreement the Government signalled their willingness in principle to devolve responsibility for policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly.
  I was saying that we remain committed to that aim; I think that I was about distinguish between a target and a deadline. A target for devolving policing and justice would be after the Assembly elections, scheduled for May 2003. For our part, we recognise that that is undoubtedly a challenging target, but we are committed to doing everything that we can to meet it. We want to ensure that good progress is made in implementing the review before then, so we have a formidable programme of work ahead of us.
  The terms of reference of the criminal justice review and the composition of the review group were set out in the Belfast agreement. Implementation of the review therefore represents continued progress in implementing the agreement. Indeed, it is true to say that it was the last element of the agreement that had to be started; that has now been accomplished. On the implementation plan, the Bill gives effect to many of the recommendations of the review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland which was published in March last year. Other recommendations do not require legislation and are being implemented separately. Details of all the steps being taken are set out in the criminal justice review implementation plan, which is the Government's formal response to the review.
  The implementation plan was published for consultation, along with a draft version of the Bill on 12 November 2001.
  We intend to continue consulting on the proposals in the plan in the coming months.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara rose—
  Dr. Reid: An updated version of the plan will be published after the Bill receives Royal Assent, by which
  640
  time we will be in a position to give further details on how we intend to implement the review recommendations and more precise time scales in that regard. I shall now give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend has answered my question.
  Dr. Reid: If other hon. Members could signal to me in the same way, we might avoid interventions.
  In publishing the draft Bill, the Government have done their best to ensure fullest scrutiny of the key proposals. I know that some would have preferred a longer consultation period. Indeed, we, too, would have welcomed that, but we needed to ensure that the proposals were well developed before publication. We are not claiming to have got everything right, which is why we have committed ourselves to consultation with politicians, practitioners and others. In any case, it is questionable whether we could have increased scrutiny by publishing the draft Bill earlier this year, when the parties were rather preoccupied with the future of the institutions. We now have revitalised local institutions. With the Good Friday agreement back on track, we can now turn our attention fully to these important proposals.
  Mr. Bill Tynan: The Government's first 16 recommendations regarding the criminal justice review are concerned with human rights. Is my right hon. Friend aware that concern has been expressed by certain parties about the fact that the Bill does not include human rights in full? Is he content that the Bill as it stands covers human rights in full?
  Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend has shown impeccable and choreographed timing, as that is precisely the matter with which I was about to deal. I hope that I shall answer his question.
  The review group recommended that human rights be made central to the justice system. In formulating its recommendations, the group considered not only the European convention on human rights, but 15 other international human rights standards and instruments. The entire review is drafted with those principles in mind, just as the Government's Human Rights Act 1998 puts human rights at the heart of policy making and operations for all public authorities. The lessons that we drew from study not only of our own procedures, but of international procedures and standards, permeate our whole approach. The issue will arise again to some extent during consideration of the detail of the Bill, to which I should now like to turn.
  The Bill has six parts and 13 schedules. Part 1 covers the courts and judiciary and reinforces the primacy of the merit principle and the continuing independence of the judiciary. It makes provision for a Judicial Appointments Commission, which, in the new context of devolution, will help to ensure the transparency of the judicial appointments system. Part 1 also amends the eligibility criteria for judicial office and requires all new appointees to the offices listed in schedule 6 to take the new oath proposed in the review. Clause 13 provides for the Lord Chief Justice to replace the Lord Chancellor as head of the Northern Ireland judiciary following devolution. Schedule 5 transfers to the Lord Chief Justice some of the

  641
  Lord Chancellor's administrative functions in relation to the courts. In addition, part 1 contains provisions for the creation of the office of lay magistrate, which may be brought into force either before or after devolution.
  Part 2 covers Law Officers and the new Public Prosecution Service. It provides for the appointment of a local Attorney-General for Northern Ireland and the creation of a Westminster-based Advocate-General for Northern Ireland. Both posts are to be commenced on or after the devolution of justice functions to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Attorney-General for Northern Ireland will become a figure responsible to the Northern Ireland Assembly and will carry out many of the existing functions of the post and some new ones, but not all the functions of the current Attorney-General fall within the devolved field. That is why we will create the new post of Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, mirroring arrangements in Scotland. The Advocate-General will be responsible to Parliament for those of the Attorney-General's current functions that are within the reserved and excepted fields in Northern Ireland.
  The Bill provides for establishing a chief inspector of criminal justice in Northern Ireland and a Northern Ireland Law Commission. Those new institutions will ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the agencies and legal framework of the criminal justice system. They will facilitate its evolution into a more clearly defined, Modern and joined-up system of justice.
  Part 4 deals with youth and restorative justice. It sets out the principal aim of the youth justice system as the prevention of crime committed by children. It also provides for two new youth justice orders: a community responsibility order and a reparation order to broaden the number of measures at the court's disposal for dealing with young offenders, and for custody care orders when detention is appropriate for children under 14.
  The Bill provides for dealing with persons under 18 as children in the criminal justice system in line with international practice and the internationally accepted definition of a child. Part 4 also allows for a youth conference system as a diversionary measure or a court-based disposal. Youth conferencing is a model that has a notable international pedigree. It is already being used in a pilot form in England and Wales as part of referral orders under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
  The youth conference system for which the Bill provides tries to repair the damage to social values and relationships that crime causes. It does that by giving the victim, the offender and the community a stake in the official response to crime. The young person is given an opportunity to learn the way in which his behaviour affected the life of the victim and to make reparation for his crime.
  Part 5 contains a range of provisions, which include giving victims enhanced rights to be informed about the release of offenders. It provides for the Secretary of State to devise a community safety strategy and paves the way for the establishment of new local structures to take the matter forward in future.
  Part 5 regulates the use of the royal coat of arms in courtrooms and outside courthouses. It empowers the Lord Chancellor to direct that exceptional legal aid may be made available in specific circumstances, including for inquests. It also empowers the Lord Chancellor to transfer
  642
  the functions of the Northern Ireland Court Service after devolution and requires that service to provide security in courts.
  The Bill has comprehensive and far-reaching provisions to Modernise the landscape of criminal justice in Northern Ireland and to help ensure that impartiality and respect for all remain central to its ethos, aims and processes.
  Part 6 covers the commencement arrangements for the Bill and its extent.
  The Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General are responsible for several provisions. It is only right that I express appreciation for their work. We have worked closely together on preparing the Bill. We continue to do that in driving forward implementation.
  Hon. Members will know about the review of the criminal courts in England and Wales—the Auld report—which is currently subject to public comment. The Auld report and the criminal justice review undertook a fundamental examination of parts of the criminal justice system. However, overlap is relatively limited. We shall keep a close eye on the decisions that were made in the light of public comments in England and Wales, especially given the similarities between the two legal systems.
  It is too early to ascertain the final decisions on implementing the Auld report in England and Wales. That is even more true of deciding whether it would be appropriate to extend any changes to Northern Ireland. Consequently, the Bill is unlikely to be the appropriate vehicle for change. If legislation is required to extend reforms into Northern Ireland, we will consider the best way forward with colleagues in England and Wales.
  Let me say a word about the extent of the Bill. With some technical exceptions, it applies only to Northern Ireland. The only substantive point is the creation of the new Westminster office of the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, who, as I said earlier, will carry out the functions of the current Attorney-General for Northern Ireland which are excepted matters. The Bill deals with reserved or excepted matters as defined by schedules 2 and 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
  The prospect of the devolution of justice functions means that we will need to consider the way in which the relationships between Westminster and the devolved Administration will operate in practice. We shall work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive on the arrangements for future administrative co-operation in this field.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I take it that the Secretary of State is now dealing with part 2—clause 23 and so forth—which deals with the appointment of the Law Officers for Northern Ireland. Am I right in thinking that the intended holder of the office of Attorney-General for Northern Ireland need not necessarily be a Member of the Assembly, and will be an extra-parliamentary officer? Is that right?
  Dr. Reid: If I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman's question correctly, I can say yes, not only will that officer not be a Member of the Assembly, he will be independent of it. Does that answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's question?
  Mr. Garnier: Clearly, the Attorney-General of England is independent of Parliament.
  Dr. Reid: He is independent of Parliament, but accountable to it.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Under the old system, when Stormont was in existence, did not the Attorney-General

  643
  from here look after those matters that were not devolved to the Stormont Administration? Why must we have an Advocate-General? Can the Attorney-General here not continue with his duties of dealing with matters that are not devolved?
  Dr. Reid: A number of things have happened since the days to which the hon. Gentleman refers—I would not question his memory on those former arrangements—one of which is devolution to other parts of the United Kingdom such as Scotland and Wales. Nevertheless, the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland could be the Attorney-General, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I hope that that answers his question.
  I want to say a few words on the outcome of the consultation process. There has been pretty extensive consultation on these proposals, before and after the review group's report was produced. In addition, there has been a consultation process on the Bill. We have taken the outcome of that consultation carefully into account when shaping the legislation. We have consulted the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly on the policy areas in the draft legislation that have implications for the devolved Administration, and we will continue to consult and co-operate with them as we make our preparations for devolution.
  Mr. Blunt rose—
  Dr. Reid: I am grateful to all those who submitted responses to the consultation, and I shall now give way for further consultation with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to whether Members of the Assembly thought that the period of consultation was acceptable?
  Dr. Reid: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman missed my earlier remark that we, too, would have liked a longer consultation period. Nor will he have missed my making the point that there will be further consultation as the Bill goes through the House, some of which will no doubt take the form of contributions from him and his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. Yes, there could always be more consultation, but I am trying to make the point that there has been a genuine degree of consultation, both before and after the publication of the report. I would also like to point out that the review group's recommendations were in the public domain for a prolonged period before they were formally put out to consultation.
  Mr. Blunt: An important principle is involved here. The early part of the consultation on the review process was perhaps a model for how this business should be carried out. However, the latter part, with the rush from the review stage to the draft Bill, and the very short opportunity for the Assembly and for the Opposition to consult the officials taking the Bill through Parliament, has not been a model. The most deleterious part of this process is that, although we have the chance to have consultations through debate on the detail of the Bill in Committee, we face a programme motion that will limit those consultations to 12 sittings. That is short of what
  644
  the officials believe in necessary, and well short of my assessment of what is needed, particularly as there are four other Opposition parties, which I hope will be represented in Committee if the House chooses to send the Bill into Committee having given it approval on Second Reading. I implore the Secretary of State—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This intervention is becoming a speech. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to contribute later.
  Dr. Reid: Emollient as I always am, I must say that the hon. Gentleman has a damn cheek. First, the review recommendations have been in the public domain for almost two years. Secondly, he and his Opposition Front-Bench colleagues have had unparalleled access to our officials and to information, which I cannot recall being given when we were in opposition, even under a bipartisan approach. Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary met the Chairman of the relevant Assembly Committee and, specifically at his request, yet again extended the consultation period. Finally, we are still in the consultation process in that judgments and changes can be made, and we are sensitive to that.
  I am now well aware that the hon. Gentleman seems to think that my officials report to him rather than to me. I am aware of his views and those of everyone else, including my officials, but our efforts to make available information and consultation facilities have been such that it is churlish to say that this is hardly a model process. He has no experience of trying to take such a Northern Ireland measure through the House. The situation is in flux and there are deadlines, some of which he helps to create, with which we have to cope in the general ebb and flow of events. Given all the circumstances, we have done damn well to extend the consultation as we have.
  Mr. Blunt: I do not want the Secretary of State to be under any misapprehension. I commended him and the Northern Ireland Office for the way in which they handled the early part of the process—indeed, I said that that was a model—but it is an enormous pity that the final stages, which are taking place in the House, face a programme motion that will seriously shorten consultation in Committee. That is a great problem. Otherwise, this would be virtually a model process. I implore the Secretary of State, even at this stage, to consider withdrawing the programme motion so that we can finish consideration in Committee in a way that is acceptable all round.
  Dr. Reid: I accept the hon. Gentleman's accolade that this has been a model process, at least up to this point. I did not interpret the burden of his remarks in that way, but I accept that that is what he is saying.
  Mr. John McFall: May I put it on record that the Secretary of State's gratitude is overwhelming? Like me, he was a shadow spokesman for years and years, working on the Floor of the House and considering many Bills in Committee. I did not have access to civil servants in opposition, so the very fact that access has been

  645
  provided during the consultation is a compliment to the Government. Not once as Opposition Members were we given such access.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I must tell the House that the matter has been well aired. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will return to the Bill.
  Mr. McNamara rose—
  Dr. Reid: I shall do so with great zeal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but first I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. McNamara: I risk straining my right hon. Friend's emollience, but will the Government itemise the Northern Ireland Assembly's recommendations—I think that they number between 13 and 17; I have not seen the full list, although I have read the Assembly debate—and give their decision on its more or less unanimous request? It would help matters considerably if the Government responded to that request, and the only real bone of contention was the question of symbols.
  Dr. Reid: We will consider those recommendations in some detail. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, although the consultation has been going on for some time in an informal capacity, we have had this document for only a few days. We shall certainly give serious consideration to what my hon. Friend has said.
  We have consulted the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly on those policy areas of the draft legislation that have implications for the devolved Administration. We will continue to consult and co-operate with the Executive and Assembly. The spirit in which that has taken place has been unusually constructive compared with our discussions on some items. There has been a degree of common support for the proposals, which has not always been apparent in everything the Government have tried to do in Northern Ireland.
  I am grateful to all those who submitted responses during the consultation exercise, which were, on the whole, positive and came from a wide range of interests. There now appears to be a broad consensus that the policies in the Bill represent the best way forward. Some helpful suggestions have been made during the consultation on the detailed operation of these policies. We shall take a number of comments on board by making the necessary amendments in Committee.
  The great bulk of the comments that we have received thus far have been constructive. There is a great deal in the review on which the parties in Northern Ireland can agree, although I recognise that some issues are more difficult than others.
  Inevitably, perhaps, the part of the Bill that has aroused most concern has been the provisions on symbols. The Bill proposes a number of changes in the light of the review's recommendations. This is obviously a highly sensitive area, and the review would probably have been criticised whatever outcome it came up with.
  We fully endorse the review's recognition of the need to strike a balance between recognising the sensitivities of the various communities in Northern Ireland and confirming the courts' position within the agreed constitutional framework.
  646
  We are considering all the representations we have received, including a number expressing concern on heritage grounds about the removal of certain symbols. We will consider whether any changes are needed in the light of the responses to the consultation exercise, and the views expressed in the House. We are open to any constructive suggestions, particularly those capable of attracting cross-community support.
  Another subject on which we have received a number of submissions is community safety. There was widespread support in the local government sector for a provision in the Bill to give councils clear statutory authority to undertake community safety work. I very much welcome the councils' intention to play an active role in community safety, which will contribute to reducing crime and the fear of crime in their localities. In order to facilitate that, I am minded, subject to consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive, to bring forward an amendment on those lines.
  The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 sets out the crucial role of the Policing Board in the development of district policing partnerships. It will have an important role to play in ensuring that the police contribute effectively to the partnerships necessary to deliver community safety.
  We do not envisage that the district policing partnerships will have the lead role in community safety, as that is not an issue for the police alone, and the other organisations which contribute to the delivery of community safety, such as housing and social services, are not included in the membership of those partnerships.
  I am also conscious that the Executive have announced in their "Programme for Government" a review of public administration. They are also developing an important resource in the new local strategic partnerships. Both those initiatives could have major implications for the longer-term structures that we adopt for taking forward work on community safety, and I look forward to discussing those with the Executive.
  Many of our proposals are dependent on having legislation in place before they can be fully implemented. However, that will still allow us to make early progress on areas that can be taken forward administratively, or for which we can usefully undertake some preparatory work. We have already published a document setting out the purpose and aims for the criminal justice system, as recommended by the review. We have appointed a Judicial Appointments Commissioner for Northern Ireland. We will shortly be publishing for consultation a community safety strategy, so as to stimulate further public debate on this important area of work.
  Work has already begun to prepare the department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the handling of the new responsibilities envisaged by the review.
  I have tried to explain the burden of the Bill, discussing some aspects in broad terms and others in more detail. The Bill, and the other steps that we are taking as a result of our decisions on the review, are designed to create a justice system for the 21st century. We are combining best practice in the United Kingdom and the rest of the world with innovative approaches to old problems.
  In many areas, such as that of prosecution, the steps that we are taking will bring practice in Northern Ireland more closely into line with that in England, Scotland and Wales. In other areas, such as youth conferencing, we will

  647
  develop UK practice by learning from other countries. I believe that if others have experience that is worth taking on board, we have a duty to take the opportunity presented by the review and use it to best effect.
  We will of course ensure that we incorporate appropriate safeguards. The justice system is too important for us to take a leap of faith. We will use pilots and evaluation to build up our own experience of how the measures fit the particular needs of Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland, however, deserve the opportunity to match their criminal justice systems with the best in the world. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill because it infringes the principle that justice flows from the Crown throughout the realm; because it introduces aspects to the judicial system which depart from the principle that Northern Ireland is fully a part of the United Kingdom for judicial as well as other purposes; and because it represents a further stage in the policy of unilateral and unbalanced concession to republicanism in Northern Ireland."
  Let me begin by saying something about consultation, as there seemed to be some confusion about it a moment ago. The issue of consultation between Government and Opposition is very important to the way in which our parliamentary system works, although it is not always understood outside.
  Although other Members may not believe it, I am an optimist. I think that half a loaf is a good deal better than no bread, and I am grateful for the partial consultation that took place. Once the Bill had been published, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), kindly gave me an opportunity to go through it with his civil servants and put our points to them. The civil servants were very able, and took us through the Bill clearly and thoroughly. We expressed our views candidly, for what they were worth; so if the Bill is given a Second Reading, which I rather hope it is not, a number of the detailed amendments that we may table in Committee will not be unfamiliar to the Under-Secretary of State.
  To some extent, then, we put our cards on the table as well. We played fairly. What we did not have was consultation of any kind before the Bill's publication. The Government did not suggest taking us into their confidence in regard to measures that might or might not be in the Bill, or the rationale for its presentation—or its presentation at this particular time. Had such an invitation been issued I would have accepted it on the Opposition's behalf, on the same basis. If the discussion was to be confidential, we would have respected that confidentiality; if not, we would have played by whatever rules of the game the Government proposed. What we had, however, was "half-consultation"—although, as I have said, we are extremely grateful for that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) made a reasonable point when he said that the process had been rushed. During an extraordinarily long period—about 20 months, between March 2000 and November last
  648
  year—the Government did nothing following the report's publication; then they suddenly produced the Bill. The Secretary of State must be a bit sensitive about the delay, because he mentioned it in his speech, no doubt pre-emptively. He said that it had happened because of distraction with the building of institutions. I do not think that that should have interrupted progress on something involving justice, and the Secretary of State's remarks may have been more in the nature of an excuse.
  Suddenly the Bill was produced, following a consultation process that was far too rapid. To give him his due, the Under-Secretary of State recognised that and extended the consultation over Christmas. I pay tribute to him for that, but the process was still rather rushed. By contrast, for 20 months nothing apparently happened. We could have had some pre-publication consultation during that time.
  I wholeheartedly endorse the complaint about the timetable motion. The whole House will be aware of our objections in principle to that system. The imposition of a timetable motion is particularly damaging when fundamental constitutional issues are raised.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has put on record the level of co-operation that he has had from civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office, from me and from my fellow Ministers. I say unequivocally that in my experience, although it is limited, the degree of access to civil servants that he and his colleagues were given was unprecedented, but before March 2000, when the review was published, there was a period of consultation by the review itself. The Conservative party took part in that consultation and submitted an extensive memorandum. Following the consultation on the review, my predecessor engaged on a consultation, which I know the Conservative party took part in for a period. Given that there have been effectively 20 months of consultation since the review was published, and given how consistent the Bill and the implementation plan are with the provisions of the review, which part of the Bill came as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the Minister to make a very long intervention. I think that the matter has been thoroughly aired. I will allow the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) to respond to the point, but we should then get on to the content of the Bill.
  Mr. Davies: I am grateful to the Minister. In fact, we did not know what the Government were going to do about restorative justice and about some of the more technical penal aspects. We hoped that they would not take on board the recommendations relating to the royal coat of arms and the oath of allegiance. I will come to those matters in a second.
  Today has been a memorably bad day for Parliament and for Northern Ireland. Not content with the dubious initiative by the Government before Christmas, using their majority to introduce a motion in the House to create a

  649
  special status for certain types of Member of Parliament that was designed to accommodate the demands of Sinn Fein-IRA—
  Mike Gapes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to raise matters that are not included in the Bill during this debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must leave these matters to the occupant of the Chair.
  Mr. Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Not content with that, the Prime Minister decided today to make a great display of it, to roll out the red carpet and to provide the unprecedented platform—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should now come to the content of the Bill. He must not pursue lines that are outside the limits of the Bill; otherwise, he may have seriously to curtail his speech.
  Mr. Davies: I hope to persuade the House that the Bill and the concessions in it are part and parcel of a general policy that has been pursued by the Government with increasing intensity over the past few months. Today's rather disreputable charade in Downing street was part and parcel of that.
  May I be permitted to comment on the fact that no one will be taken in by the theory, which I gather has been put about by the Government, that the press conference in Downing street and meeting with the Prime Minister have nothing to do with Sinn Fein-IRA Members arriving here for the first time to claim their new privileges? It is claimed that it was just a routine meeting. One talent that all of us would concede to the Government is that of great sophistication in manipulating the media. The idea that it had never occurred to them that, if they had a meeting in Downing street, there would be a press conference, and if they had that on the day when those Members were coming to claim new privileges, that would greatly enhance the propaganda victory of Sinn Fein-IRA, seems so naive—
  Dr. John Reid rose—
  Mr. Davies: I hope that the Secretary of State is not about to ask the House to swallow that.
  Dr. Reid: I would have thought that reforming the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland was an important enough subject not to have to spend a lot of time on what is a bit of a cheap soundbite, but since it has been brought up to catch the news, let me make it absolutely plain that the Prime Minister's meeting with Sinn Fein today was arranged weeks ago and is a normal meeting exactly like our meetings with the leaders of the Ulster Unionist party or other parties at their request. This may not have struck the hon. Gentleman, but it is not beyond the capabilities of any political party, when it has a meeting with the Prime Minister, to choreograph other events to maximum advantage. That would have been done had the meeting been last week, next week, next month or whenever.
  650
  If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should not meet Sinn Fein in case the press might be interested, I suggest that he is unable to distinguish between the great project of trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland and his own petty assessment of what is real politics. I assure him that the meeting was arranged weeks ago. On the decision itself—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State's intervention is now too long and I must insist that we get on with the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Davies: It seems to me that the Secretary of State, in pleading innocence, is saying that the Government were outmanoeuvred by Sinn Fein this afternoon, which is a very revealing admission.
  Kevin Brennan: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise how disappointing it is to listen to his statement? I know that he has abandoned the bipartisan approach, but when we are debating a Bill that contains more than 200 measures to improve the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, it is sad that he confines himself to partisan issues. Does he not have anything to say about the Bill's actual content?
  Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will find that I have quite a lot to say about it, and not least about the agenda, hidden or otherwise, under which the Bill has been introduced. It is extremely important that the House should focus on that.
  Lembit Öpik: Just out of interest, I have tended to assume, for all the differences in the House, that all three main parties have the primary agenda of securing peace in Northern Ireland. If it does not digress too much from tonight's discussion, I would be interested to know what the hon. Gentleman thinks other parties' agenda is.
  Mr. Davies: We have been through this before. We all have the objective of peace and I have paid tribute many times to the sincerity of all parties in the House in wanting peace in Northern Ireland, but we differ strongly as to the methods that are likely to produce it. The Government have made some very peculiar errors of judgment, already with disastrous consequences on the ground. It is absolutely clear that it is not we who have abandoned the bipartisan approach. The Government did that, by moving away from the strict lines of the Belfast agreement and making all sorts of new concessions before it had been implemented. That was extremely irresponsible and dangerous.
  Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished Member of the House to whom I always listen with great attention on Irish matters, but I must first make some progress, as he will otherwise have every justification for saying that I have not grappled with the substance of the Bill.
  Two very obnoxious provisions are buried in the mass of technical detail in the Bill, but 90 per cent. of it or more, by length, covers matters to which we have no fundamental objection of principle, although we have a lot of questions and there are some problematic issues

  651
  If the Bill were limited to the provisions covering the arrangements for devolving justice to Northern Ireland and the new measures in youth justice, for people up to and including the age of 17, we would give it its Second Reading and discuss our detailed reservations and proposals in Committee.
  Let me go through those two aspects relatively briefly. We do not merely accept, but are, of course, very much in favour of, devolving justice to Stormont—and police affairs as well, but those are not covered in the Bill. However, so far as I know there has never been any suggestion from any party, or any other source, that such devolution should take place before the elections in May 2003. It has always been thought a good idea for the new Stormont Executive and Assembly to have one term of office and experience before we contemplate devolving more power to them.
  There is therefore no need to legislate for these provisions in this Session. The subject could be covered next year, which would clearly be of some advantage, not least because it might then be possible to be more precise about some of the matters that have been left rather vague and open to the Secretary of State's decision by edict or instrument. In my view that has always been an undesirable state of affairs. There is Far too much Henry VIII legislation going through under this Government, and it is often justified on the ground that it is impossible to predict the circumstances that will arise in two or three years' time, when the provisions need to be implemented. The nearer we are to the enactment of the provisions, the less weight that excuse has, so we see some advantage in waiting until next year.
  We also have a general concern, because it is important that before we carry out the devolution we should have an opportunity to discuss matters with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and to consider the matter even more fully than has been possible over the past six weeks since the Bill appeared.
  In my view, the consultation process that we have mentioned should be triangular, involving the Government and the Opposition in this House, and the parties at Stormont. As we have had the Christmas holidays in between, I do not think that there has been enough time since November for that process to take place to the extent that might have been desirable.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that in the first part of the consultation, which the hon. Gentleman described as a long period, the Northern Ireland Office issued statements from time to time commenting on what Northern Ireland politicians had said? For example, there was the idea of taking away the Queen's crest and insignia, which we were told was only a proposal, not something to be seriously considered. All such matters were brushed aside during that period of so many months, so how can it be said that it was really consultation?
  Mr. Davies: The House will be grateful for that intervention. I was not around at the time—at least, not in my present role with responsibility towards Northern Ireland—whereas the hon. Gentleman was intimately involved in the discussions. The Secretary of State has left the Chamber, but I trust that he will be back shortly;
  652
  in the meantime, if the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) does not feel that the consultation process was adequate, I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will have taken that on board.
  The second major area covered by the Bill consists of new provisions for child and youth justice, especially reparation orders, community responsibility orders, youth conferences, and increasing the age for those regimes to 17.
  Those are interesting ideas, and as I have already said, the Conservative party is interested in imaginative new ideas for youth justice—indeed, we are interested in imaginative new penal ideas in general. One of the questions that arises is why we are starting by applying those concepts to child justice rather than starting with adults and rolling the process back to children. There is no logic behind doing that—at least, none has been made clear to me—and the change might more sensibly take place the other way round.
  We have some reservations about making Northern Ireland the locus for an experiment of that kind. Some of the review's provisions require "community leaders" or "appropriate adults" to take part in the youth conferences and other forums to be established by the Bill. There is legitimate concern about the real danger in many areas of Northern Ireland, particularly in the inner cities, that such leaders will themselves be, or will be the nominee of, the local gang or paramilitary boss, be he republican or loyalist. Those responsible for administering the process will no doubt take great care to avoid that corruption of the process, but there might be more confidence in the proposals if they were piloted elsewhere in the country—perhaps in England—before being rolled out more widely. They should not necessarily be started in Northern Ireland.
  It is extraordinary to be told in the review that the system has already operated in New Zealand and that one or two members of the review committee visited New Zealand. They did not produce a report on their visit, or if they did, it has not been thought worthy of publication or inclusion in appendix B of the review. Apart from a few jejune paragraphs describing the position in New Zealand, the review contains nothing on which we can base a judgment about whether we should simply apply to our country an experiment operated there. The complete lack of assessment of results is extraordinary. The review contains no quantitative data, making it impossible to find out from the document how long the regime in New Zealand has been in place or how many children have passed through it, let alone what the results have been or the recidivism rate or any of the other obvious questions.
  The Government's decision to introduce the Bill in the absence of any serious preparation is highly suspect. Is the Bill really intended to provide for the devolution of justice to Northern Ireland? Very probably, the answer is no. It might not be necessary this year, and there might be great advantages in waiting until next year. Is the purpose of the Bill really to provide a new regime for child justice in Northern Ireland? Again, the answer is very possibly no. The system has not been piloted and will be applied in Northern Ireland although there is no particular rationale for adopting that part of the country for the pilot.
  Clearly, there has been none of the fundamental preparatory work that the House of Commons should demand before beginning to take seriously any suggestion

  653
  that we should alter our system of child justice in any part of the country and adopt wholesale an experiment undertaken at the other end of the world. No proper assessment has been made for the public or for Parliament before asking us to take that decision.
  Mr. Browne: Before the hon. Gentleman suggests too seriously that we are taking a leap in the dark, may I point out that he will be aware from his reading of the implementation plan and other documents published by the Government that we intend to pilot the system of restorative justice in the greater Belfast area, to assess the pilot and to go forward from there? He urges us to pilot the system, and that is what we intend to do.
  Mr. Davies: The Minister provides me with a good soundbite: the phrase "a leap in the dark" sums up the Bill very well, and I thank him for it. He has no defence against the charge that I have just made. His intention is to pilot the scheme, but in Northern Ireland. We think it bizarre, given the troubles in Belfast, to pilot a system of restorative justice in Belfast that will involve members of the community.
  Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman has outlined two motives that he claims the Government do not have for introducing the Bill. What does he believe is the Government's motive for doing so?
  Mr. Davies: I am glad that I have the hon. Gentleman's attention and to know that he will listen carefully to the rest of my speech. An audience of at least one Member will wait in suspense for that important part of my speech. I shall come to that point, but I shall not quite yet be driven off the issue of the preparatory work for the new proposals for youth conferences, restorative justice, community responsibility orders and so forth.
  The hon. Gentleman's intervention has confirmed my feeling that the Government have been thoroughly unbusinesslike about the Bill. One does not decide to change the system of criminal justice for anyone, and least of all for children, without thorough preparatory work. We cannot pass a Bill that takes lots of new powers and sets up many new systems, and then say that we will merely pilot it in Northern Ireland.
  Before we take a decision, we need a thorough evaluation of the New Zealand experiment. The Government appear to have spent a lot of public money on that, even sending people to New Zealand, but we have had no proper analysis of the working of the system in New Zealand. That is surely elementary. What did those people do in New Zealand? I am sure that they had a lovely time—I gather that it is a beautiful country—but there was a time when people who had a jaunt at the taxpayer's expense were expected to produce some sort of report. If their report was detailed, thorough and convincing enough to make a respectable contribution to our debate, I should have expected it to be published. It has not been published, either in the review or, as Far as I know, anywhere else. The fact that the Minister, who is usually quick to intervene, is sitting tight confirms me in my fears.
  Mr. Tynan: The hon. Gentleman obviously opposes pilot schemes. Did he oppose or comment on the pilot scheme in Scotland when the poll tax was introduced?
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman will not lead me back to the controversies of the 1980s, and particularly not to
  654
  a controversy that occurred even before I was a Member of the House. Far from being against piloting, I believe that it should be done systematically and thoroughly. We should not take a decision on rolling out a system until it has been properly piloted.
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that, during one of his meetings with my officials, he was given a copy of international research into restorative justice, including in New Zealand. Has he read it?
  Mr. Davies: I do not recall seeing the report to which the Minister refers. I should be interested to see it. I have no idea whether it was produced by his officials who went to New Zealand or by others. If that report was germane to the decision to roll this system out in Northern Ireland and to change the law in the way that the Bill proposes, I cannot understand why it was not included in the review or at least referred to in appendix B so that we might have known that it was one of the documents on which the Bill was based.
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the supporting documents was the paper I have in my hand—"Restorative Justice Options for Northern Ireland: A Comparative Review". It includes references to the very matters that he says are absent from the review.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has not given me that report; I have not seen it. It is certainly not listed in appendix B. Perhaps he will point to precisely where it appears in appendix B, to show that we might have known that it existed and been able to ask for it. Page 445 of the review contains no reference to the assessment of New Zealand that he now claims exists. If the Minister wants some time to look at that page, he is welcome to it.
  I have said enough to make it clear that I do not think that the Government can rest their case for the Bill on the provisions relating to either restorative justice or devolution of justice to Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I know that the point may be becoming tedious to some of his hon. Friends, but I should put the record straight. On page 445 of the review report—the page to which the hon. Gentleman himself referred—item 10 is the report to which I referred: "Restorative Justice Options for Northern Ireland: A Comparative Review". I cannot be responsible for the hon. Gentleman's copy of the review report, but if it is missing page 445, he can have mine.
  Mr. Davies: What I have asked for and what the hon. Gentleman has not provided—he does not even suggest that it exists—is an assessment of the position in New Zealand. I have not seen such an assessment—nor, as far as I know, has any other hon. Member. We ought to read it, and we ought to have a chance to discuss it, before we change the law. My point is made.
  The Fact remains, however, that the Government would not have introduced the Bill this year if it were not necessary to camouflage two rather nasty and extremely significant provisions. Many parts of the Bill—restorative justice, merits, demerits and what happens around the world—may be discussed academically, which would be absolutely fascinating, but it represents a Trojan horse for

  655
  two very nasty provisions: the abolition of the Oath of Allegiance in Northern Ireland and the removal of the royal coat of arms from courtrooms and new courthouses in Northern Ireland.
  The Minister does not like my placing the focus on those two provisions, which is not surprising because they are very momentous provisions. I think that I am right to say—I hope that someone will correct me if I am wrong—that they must be the most overtly, explicitly republican provisions introduced in the House since the time of Oliver Cromwell. Someone cannot be much more republican than to suggest that we break the link between the judiciary and the Crown, that we no longer have the Crown at the apex of our constitution, legislative system, Executive and judiciary and that the doctrine on which the common law has always been based—that the administration of justice flows from the Crown—should be breached in part of our country: Northern Ireland.
  Mr. McNamara: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on two matters? First, the police in Scotland take no oath of allegiance to the Crown, and, under legislation that flowed from the Good Friday agreement, with which he agreed, neither do new recruits in Northern Ireland. Secondly, the Conservative Government supported Britain's joining and subscribing to the European convention on human rights, under which legal decisions come from the Strasbourg court and do not flow from the Crown, and from the Luxembourg court—which Mr. Heath took us into, as well as the European Community—which do not emanate from the Crown either.
  Mr. Davies: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is just thrashing around, desperately trying to find some shield to protect the Government, and his desperation shows. First, he knows perfectly well that I referred to the judiciary. I am not talking about the police, but he tries to switch the discussion to the police. Secondly, he talks about courts set up under international agreements to which we are party. Clearly, that has gone on for a long time. We set up the International Court of Justice at The Hague some time before the first world war. It is obvious that if we set up an international court and are part of the convention, the international court is not subject to the Crown, but under all the systems of law in the United Kingdom—Scottish law, English law and so forth—the principle has always been that justice flows from the Crown, and the hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. He also knows perfectly well that the Bill will cut that umbilical cord in respect of Northern Ireland, which raises enormous constitutional and juridical questions that he wants to shield the Government from facing up to.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the position of the Strasbourg and Luxembourg courts in this country's judicial system flows entirely from a decision of this Parliament?
  Mr. Davies: Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and what Parliament grants, it can take away. Parliament
  656
  is sovereign—another principle that, like justice flowing from the Crown, most of us thought immutable. It is now under attack, at least in Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way. Earlier, I was almost tempted to say:
  "Be sure your sin will find you out."
  Things come back to haunt us, as we have already discovered from previous interventions, but is not it a fact that, instead of respecting mutual traditions, things have moved further and some people no longer respect the fact Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom under the sovereign?
  Mr. Davies: Indeed, that is absolutely true. I am afraid to say that the Government appear to be so embarrassed that the Secretary of State has done something unprecedented—to have absented himself from the Chamber during a debate on a fundamental constitutional issue. Absenting himself from the Chamber and not waiting to hear the Opposition's response in any context, let alone a debate on Second Reading, is pretty unprecedented. I have several questions to ask him, but they will have to be answered by the Minister, if he is prepared to do so.
  I place on record the fact that that is not only an extraordinary discourtesy to the House—I am certainly not worried about discourtesy to me personally—but it reflects the slighting way in which Government regard Parliament these days. They regard it as something of a burden, a nuisance and less important than other things that they might prefer to do. There could be no more graphic example of that than the Secretary of State's conduct this afternoon.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) is right to say that those provisions raise fundamental constitutional issues. Do the Government glory in making this concession? Are they closet republicans? Do they feel that this would be a wonderful thing to do if only it could be rolled out across the whole United Kingdom and that it is absolutely splendid that they have an opportunity to do so in Northern Ireland, they hope? Are they introducing the provisions more in sorrow, thinking that they reluctantly have to do so in Northern Ireland? To use the Secretary of State's phrase, is this a concession; or are the Government introducing it on its own merits? Perhaps we could have some answers. I should be happy to give way to the Minister, who normally likes to jump to his feet to interrupt, if he has an answer.
  Mr. Garnier: While my hon. Friend is waiting, may I give him a little reassurance? I broadly agree about the motives behind clause 20(2) and (3), but I have absolutely no doubt that the judges who take the oath in Northern Ireland will deliver justice as dispassionately and with as much sense of justice as any holder of judicial office who has taken the existing oath. We need not worry about the quality of justice that will be provided by judges or holders of judicial office in Northern Ireland, but I wholeheartedly accept the point that my hon. Friend makes about the symbolism of the original oath and the message that the Government are trying to send by removing it.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. and learned Friend jumps to his feet to defend the integrity of the legal profession. I hasten

  657
  to add that I had no intention of impugning its integrity, and I am certain that judges will indeed try to administer justice impartially. Nevertheless, as he will concede, some serious constitutional questions have been raised.
  Let me put those questions to the Minister, who sits on the Government Front Bench in default of the Secretary of State, who ought to answer. The Secretary of State bears the responsibility for introducing the Bill, but he made a long speech, lasting more than 50 minutes, and then walked out of the Chamber, so he is no longer able to answer any question that the House may have. Hon. Members could not have a clearer example of the way in which the Government are treating Parliament. It is absolutely monstrous and absolutely scandalous, and if that is what happens when a party achieves a majority of 200 over the other parties, it is a wonderful example of the working of the Acton principle that power corrupts and greater power corrupts further.
  I shall still ask those questions. If the Queen is no longer to be the apex of our justice system, who is? No one is substituted under the Bill. Will it be the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Will it be the Prime Minister in a new regal role? Will it be the legal profession itself, enjoying some sort of platonic hegemony by virtue of its own specialised knowledge? Will the Minister resort to the mantra of Marxism-Leninism and say that justice will be done in the people's name? That is remarkable. We are removing the Crown from the apex of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, but the Minister will not tell me what the Government are putting in its place. How can Parliament possibly pass the Bill, which removes the relationship between the Crown and the judicial system in part of our country, without the Secretary of State being here to answer questions and without the Government being prepared to tell us what they are putting in its place?
  Mr. Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: There is no point my giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I want the Government to give me an answer. I do not want them to be saved from answering a necessary question by interventions from their Back Benchers. The Government must respond, because there is simply no way that the House can vote for the Bill tonight unless we have an answer to that elementary question.
  Will the Minister intervene? Does he want me to count up to five? He has no answer; the House can draw a clear conclusion from that.
  Mr. Harris rose—
  Mr. Davies: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He wants to act as a foil to save the Government from complete and utter embarrassment. They do not want to answer the questions, or they do want to tell the House that they have no answers. Ministers are simply sitting on the Front Bench and are not answering the most fundamental question that is raised by the Bill.
  Mr. Harris rose—
  Mr. Davies Mr. Davies: No, I have said that I will not give way. I have said that I will not allow anyone to speak for the
  658
  Government on this particular matter. I will take an intervention from the Minister or from the Secretary of State should he return to the House and fulfil his duties by defending his Bill.
  Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: No, I am very consistent. You have known me a long time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you know that when I say that I will not give way, I will not give way. Normally, I enjoy giving way on such occasions and the hon. Gentleman knows that I often enjoy giving way to him. However, I will not give way to anyone on the Government Benches who simply wishes to obfuscate. The issue cannot and will not be obfuscated. We require an answer from the Government. Who or what will replace the Crown, which is being removed from the apex of the judicial system in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: Exactly the same goes for the hon. Gentleman. I will take no further interventions from Labour Back Benchers until I get an answer to the most fundamental and pertinent question raised by the Bill.
  Mr. Browne rose—
  Mr. Davies: Ah!
  Mr. Browne: To spare hon. Members a repetition of this ill-informed contribution to the debate, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he will find the answer to his question in proposed new section 12 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. The words appear in clause 4 of the Bill, which states:
  "Whenever the office of Lord Chief Justice is vacant, Her Majesty may … appoint a qualified person".
  It is perfectly clear that there is no change to the structure of the judiciary in Northern Ireland or to its relationship with Her Majesty the Queen. She will remain at the apex of the judiciary in Northern Ireland. In the same way as the hon. Gentleman did not get to the appendices in the review, he may not have reached clause 4, but that is the answer.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has, in Fact, said that the Bill is complete nonsense. If the oath of allegiance is removed, judges will no longer have to accept that the Crown stands above justice in Northern Ireland. Their allegiance to the Crown will be abolished and they will apparently be beholden to no one. However, the Minister tells us that, for certain purposes, the role of the Crown is being emasculated but retained. What is the logic of that?
  If the Minister wanted to introduce a purely republican measure, he would presumably have cut all the links with the Crown. However, he does not have the courage to do that or does not want to that, so he cuts some links and removes the oath of allegiance that is absolutely key to the relationship between judges and the Crown and that sets it out clearly in a way that no other procedure could.
  Mr. Tom Harris rose—
  Mr. McNamara rose—
  Mr. Davies: I may give way in a moment, but the hon. Gentlemen have to be a little patient. They are trying to do a good job of defending the Minister from my strictures.

  659
  If the Minister is suggesting that the Crown still has a role in Northern Ireland as an overarching authority for the judicial system, why is the oath of allegiance being abolished? Why is the symbol of that relationship—the royal coat of arms in courthouses—being taken down only in Northern Ireland? If he thinks that is desirable, I return to the question that he refused to answer earlier. Why does he not roll out the measure in the rest of the Kingdom?
  Mr. Browne: I am sure that hon. Members will be relieved to be relieved from the tedium of the hon. Gentleman's repeated assertions, none of which has any basis in Fact, in the review or in the Bill.
  In the time that the hon. Gentleman had to prepare for the Bill—however long that was—I take it that he read the review. The arguments for the changes to the oath in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland are set out in the review and they are accepted by the Government. The arguments and discussion about the symbols in courtrooms and outside courts are set out in the review, and they are accepted by the Government. That is the raison d'être for the Bill. It has nothing to do with republicanism or non-republicanism, and the hon. Gentleman does not know which it is anyway.
  Mr. Davies: The Minister has now betrayed himself completely. He is essentially saying that the arguments for the proposals are contained in the review. However, it is not an independent review. It was set up by the Government, packed by the Government and run by the Government. It is the Government speaking to themselves.
  I refer the Minister and the House to the constitution of the review and to paragraph 1.5 on the composition of the review group. The chairman of the group is Jim Daniell. Who is he? He is the director of criminal justice at the Northern Ireland Office and chairman of the review group. The chairman is a civil servant who works for the Secretary of State and is on the payroll of the Northern Ireland Office. The next member is Glenn Thompson, director of the Northern Ireland Court Service, and another, Brian White, is the head of the criminal justice policy division at the Northern Ireland Office. In no sense is this an independent review.
  Mr. Browne rose—
  Mr. Davies: I will finish my comments before I give way to the Minister—then he can answer.
  The whole structure has been an expensive charade that has been pursued at the cost of the taxpayer and has been designed to bamboozle the public. The Government decided what they wanted to do.
  Mr. Browne rose—
  Mr. Davies: I will give way to the Minister only when I have finished my argument.
  The Government clearly decided what they wanted to do. They produced and packed the review, and its chairman reported directly to them. Other members of the review group are directly on their payroll. The second half of the charade is that they then produced a response to
  660
  their review. Who drafted the response? Perhaps the Minister would like to tell us. I suppose it might well have been the director of criminal justice at the Northern Ireland Office—he is the chairman of the review group—or one of the other civil servants on the body. It would be very odd if the director of criminal justice at the Northern Ireland Office had nothing to do with the drafting of a document that admittedly goes out in the name of the Secretary of State. It is a thoroughly incestuous procedure, and it will fool no one.
  Mr. Browne: It is now clear how Far the hon. Gentleman read into the review document: he read to the bottom of page 2. If he reads the top of page 3, he will see that there were another five members of the review group, all of whom were independent of Government. The majority of the group were independent, so why did he stop reading the names at the bottom of page 2 and not continue to read those of the five independent people on page 3?
  Mr. Davies: Simply because I was reading out the names of the people who report directly to the Minister or to his boss, the Secretary of State. They packed the review group with their civil servants and they nominated the chairman. Of course, they can have one or two outside members—as, indeed, they do—to provide the fig leaf, but that is simply part of the charade.
  Another part of the charade relates to a serious abuse. The Government tend to justify the Bill and the particularly obnoxious provisions about the oath of allegiance and about the presence of the royal coat of arms in courtrooms and on new courthouses by saying that they have something to do with the Belfast agreement. I am sure that, like me, the Minister has read the Belfast agreement; I have read it several times. Therefore, he should know that there is nothing in the agreement about these two provisions. It provides for a review of the justice system in Northern Ireland. It also sets up the terms of reference for the criminal justice review in one of the appendices, and I can tell the Minister where that is if he wants to know. Nothing is included about the oath of allegiance or the royal coat of arms. The beginning—the fons et origo—and the end of the proposal lie with the Government. They came up with the idea and are responsible for establishing the review group and packing it with their people. They got the proposal from the review group; it has nothing to do with the Belfast agreement. They responded in the review document and put the provisions in the Bill, and they alone can take responsibility for them.
  David Burnside: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's track record on independent reviews since the Belfast agreement is not particularly impartial? Will he comment on the track record of the Patten report, which, under the Belfast agreement, was meant to recommend changes that would receive widespread community support? Instead, however, the Government recommended removing the "Royal" from the title of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There is a republican tendency within the Government.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman's last point is all too evident, and it is a cause of concern. The Patten report at least had a greater pretension of being independent.

  661
  As the Secretary of State said, Chris Patten was not on the Government payroll and not a member of the Government party. He was in a key position as chairman, as indeed is the chairman of this review group, although he is also part of the hierarchy of the Northern Ireland Office.
  The hon. Gentleman's comment on republicanism brings me back to the question that I asked, which has not been answered. If it is desirable to remove the oath of allegiance and take away the royal coat of arms from courtrooms, why is that not being done in the rest of the United Kingdom? Why do the Government not have the courage of their convictions—if, indeed, they are convictions?
  Lembit Öpik: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's conspiracy theory on republicans in the Government. In that context, who will appoint the Advocate-General in the new system, and what will his continuing responsibilities be for Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Davies: We had an interesting revelation on that when it was suggested that the Advocate-General might be the same person as the Attorney-General in this country.
  Mr. McNamara: May I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the oath, over which he has taken such grave exception? It states:
  "I … do swear that I will well and Faithfully serve in the office of"
  whatever it is
  "and that I will do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or according to the laws and usages"—
  I stress the final part—
  "of this realm."
  Mr. Davies: I noticed that, and it shows how mealy-mouthed the Government are. They do not have the courage of their convictions. They have been incapable of explaining the logic of leaving the reference to realm but removing the reference to oath of allegiance. I ask again: what is the logic in that? There is no logic. We have established that clearly.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is no such thing as a United Kingdom legal system? The Fact that Scotland has had her own legal system for 300 years has not contributed to any great wish for Scotland to become independent.
  Mr. Davies: Of course I realise that; indeed, I think that I referred to that earlier. We all know that Scotland has a different legal system. It is based on Roman law and was in place at the time of the Act of Union 1707.
  Mr. Mark Francois: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Davies: I will give way, but I cannot take any more interventions because I must make progress.
  Mr. Francois: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way; I shall be brief.
  662
  My hon. Friend initially put his question to the Minister five or six times, but the Minister sat in his seat looking blank until inspiration arrived from elsewhere. The Government cannot hide behind the review. It is their Bill that is before the House and they must stand or Fall by what is in it. They cannot palm responsibility off on others.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend scores a bull's eye, as he would know if he had seen the Minister shift in his seat as he spoke. As he says, the Government are responsible for the anomalous mess and the disreputable concessions. They might go three quarters or even 90 per cent. of the way towards republicanism, but they do not have the courage of their convictions and go the full 100 per cent. The Government cooked up the Bill. They were responsible for the review, which they dominated. They packed the review committee with their people and produced their own response. The procedure has been incestuous and I do not believe that it will confuse anyone.
  Why have the Government gone in for this particular exercise? We have established that, and the debate has been a good one. The Government's decision is not based on a conviction, because if the measures were so virtuous and desirable in themselves they would be extended to the whole of the UK. We all know the answer. The Bill has been introduced for no other reason than to provide one more set of concessions to one of the parties in Northern Ireland. Every time we have a Northern Ireland debate, at least one new concession is made and it is always tailored to the same beneficiary—Irish republicanism. It is impossible to get more republican than the Bill. It cannot be a coincidence—or, if it is, it is a revealing one—that the Bill comes before the House on the day when Sinn Fein-IRA MPs are claiming their privileges for the first time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been over that course before and been reproved from the Chair.
  Mr. Davies: It was a passing reference, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I remind the Minister, and he does need reminding, why we believe that the course of offering endless concessions in one direction in Northern Ireland is inept, irresponsible and dangerous. First, the concessions are not linked to a counter move by the other side. The Government give away their negotiating currency and, when they run out of that, they try to raise more at the expense of the integrity of our institutions—Parliament, the system of justice and the Crown. They then throw away the new concessions without getting a quid pro quo. That is a hopeless way to conduct a negotiation.
  The second problem with the tactic is that, Far from speeding up the implementation of the Belfast agreement, which is an objective that we all sincerely share, it can only do the reverse. Sinn Fein-IRA have every incentive to spin out the agony on decommissioning because the longer it is spun out, the more concessions they get from the British Government. That is a lamentable state of affairs.
  The third problem is that by making the concessions all in one direction, the Government are destroying the essential balance that is fundamental to a successful peace

  663
  process. We will have permanent peace in Northern Ireland only if all communities believe that there is something in it for them. In the case of the Belfast agreement, everyone made concessions and everyone legitimately believed that it contained something that was important and positive for them. That is why the Opposition supported and continue to support the Belfast agreement.
  By moving beyond the Belfast agreement and making a stream of concessions to Sinn Fein-IRA without waiting for it to be implemented, or even insisting on its implementation, other parties are increasingly feeling that they are being made fools of in some way because it is a one-way street. It is not just the Unionist community that is affected, although it is the majority group. What about the Social Democratic and Labour party? After all, the SDLP and its predecessors have for generations persistently and bravely fought for human rights and equal opportunities in Northern Ireland and, quite legitimately, for their ideal of a united Ireland. In doing so they have always stuck to constitutional principles and adopted peaceful methods. The SDLP has acted in the finest traditions of its predecessors—O'Connell, Parnell and Redmond.
  What has the SDLP got? It has not received any great bouquets from the Government. It has not been given a specially crafted concession or a special status here at Westminster. It has not had the Government rolling out the red carpet and allowing it to hold press conferences in Downing street. It is entitled to feel as aggrieved by the Government's handling of the matter as are the Unionist parties. Ultimately, the Government's policy is not only inept but extremely dangerous. They must change course before it is too late.
  Sometimes the Government like to ask me what I would do in their place. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), did so the other day. It is quite simple. First, we would state that there would be no unilateral concessions at all. Nobody would receive concessions without making some effort in return. Concessions might be related to decommissioning. They ought to be related to decommissioning in present circumstances because it is running over a year and a half late, which is a serious matter.
  Concessions might, however, be related to other matters. When the Secretary of State was still here, we discussed policing. I put the question again: why, when the Government are to give bouquets to Sinn Fein-IRA, did they not take the opportunity to say, "You can't have this unless you do your part on policing"? I am extremely worried about the summer parades season in Northern Ireland. No progress is being made in negotiations, so perhaps the Government could ask for concessions on parades. It is essential that when the Government have something to offer they do not throw it away. They must make sure that it is bargained for concrete progress in the peace process.
  Secondly, we would try to have a programmed process involving all parties, so that everybody knew exactly what needed to be done, when it needed to be done and what the end of the line was. The desperate situation in Northern Ireland today is that nobody knows where the end of the line is. Nobody knows how many more
  664
  concessions the British Government might have to make before there is further progress on decommissioning. Nobody knows where this process will end, and that is extremely demoralising and worrying.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: No, I cannot take any more interventions at this stage. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye later in the debate.
  Mr. Browne rose—
  Mr. Davies: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He would not answer my key questions, and he had plenty of opportunities to do so. I asked him questions five or six times and he would not answer them. Now it is too late for him to intervene because I am about to wind up my speech.
  Finally, we recognise that there may be occasions on which it is a good idea to consider symbolism. Clearly, in this case there is an important issue concerning the royal coat of arms in courtrooms. Our approach would be not to take away an existing symbol but, where it seemed a good idea, to add another. A wonderful example of how that can be done has been set, no thanks to the Government, by the Policing Board, which has decided on a new cap badge and uniform for the new police service. As we know, the Government's contribution was to try to screw that up that by including the wrong photographs in the order put before the House of Commons.
  That is a good example of how it is possible to make progress in accommodating groups and making them feel a sense of ownership of institutions in Northern Ireland without at the same time insulting or humiliating other groups. That is the way forward, but it does not seem even to have occurred to the Government to try to solve the issue of the royal coat of arms in courtrooms on that basis. If it had occurred to them, I trust that we would have heard about it because they would have pursued the suggestion and had discussions. They never even thought of it because their instinct, which is purely destructive and unbalanced, is to get rid of the royal coat of arms. I do not know whether that is because they are closet republicans or whether it is because they just did not think beyond their noses.
  Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: No, Ministers have had many opportunities to intervene on me.
  I particularly resent, as will the whole House, the Fact that the Secretary of State has absented himself from this debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That must be the third or fourth time that the hon. Gentleman has made that point. He has said enough about that.
  Mr. Davies: The Government have no answer to the key questions that I have asked. Why, if these measures are so desirable, are they not being rolled out in the United Kingdom as a whole? Why are the Government continuing to give away concessions without getting anything in

  665
  return? The Secretary of State is not in a position to answer those questions; the Minister declined to do so when I put them to him, and the House can judge from that whether or not it is right to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman has moved the Opposition amendment?
  Mr. Davies: My first remarks, which were made before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were that I moved the amendment in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. That was not picked up by my predecessor in the Chair. I am glad that we have clarified the point.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Despite my reputation, I welcome today's debate and the Bill as a further demonstration of the Government's commitment to the Good Friday agreement and a further stage in its implementation.
  We are having this debate against a background of considerable violence in north Belfast: the fire-bombing of a pensioner, the abiding cruelty towards the girls and Families of the Holy Cross school and the casual murder of a young Father, Daniel McColgan. All that reminds us that the road on which we travel is beset with risk and danger, as it has been over the years, but I believe that we have come a long way and that we are making progress.
  The second paragraph in the declaration of support for the Good Friday agreement reads:
  "The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering. We must never forget those who have died or been injured. But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust, and to protect the human rights of all."
  At the outset, it has to be said that the Bill begs the question of the continued existence of emergency legislation, the Failure to reform the inquest system and the persistence of no-jury courts. It begs the question of the past, and in important respects, particularly on the all-Ireland dimension, it begs the question of the future.
  The past runs like a cancer through the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. One can try, like Lord Widgery, to paper over the cracks after Bloody Sunday, but the truth has to be addressed eventually. The cost of 30 years of delay can be counted in bodies on the streets. It is no use now complaining about the cost of Lord Saville's inquiry.
  The roots of the Failure to bring to justice the murderers of Pat Finucane, Robert Hamill and Rosemary Nelson lie in the corruption of the police and the criminal justice system by what nationalists believe was a fundamentally flawed and self-defeating practice of counterinsurgency—of pursuing a clandestine war against terrorism through the institutions of the state. It is for historians and politicians to argue about whether that was successful or necessary. One thing we all have to understand is that confidence in the rule of law and the institutions for upholding the law were critically undermined in the process.
  666
  We need a fresh Act and a new beginning. That is the reality that we have to address, and the Government are partly doing so today. The Good Friday agreement envisaged that, following the establishment of the new institutions, within a relatively short time it would be possible to create a new police service, reform the criminal justice system and transfer responsibility for law and order to the Northern Ireland Assembly. In that scenario the promotion of rights would be balanced with the nurturing of a new sense of collective responsibility. There would be no winners and no losers. The process would move on.
  We can argue about who was to blame for delay, but delay has occurred. The Bill is clearly only a half-way house. It introduces a number of important reforms that prepare the ground for devolution, but it does not take that step. Consequently, it is more difficult to establish the balance between rights and responsibilities. I wish to underline at the outset the Fact that balance will not be achieved by taking half measures in reform. It should have been introduced sooner, but I welcome the Government's target for devolving policing and justice as quickly as possible after May 2003.
  The legislation that we have now got must create confidence in the justice system across the whole community. For that reason, I question why the Government in their publication on the purpose and aims of the criminal justice system have dramatically departed from the aims of the criminal justice system set out in the Good Friday agreement. The aims, in the agreement, of being
  "responsive to the community's concerns and encouraging community involvement where appropriate"
  and having
  "the confidence of all parts of the community"
  do not appear in the text of the Government publication. I have no great disagreement with the aims as published, but regret to say that I can see no reason to jettison the aims that appeared in the Good Friday agreement, which have been voted on by the House and by the people of Ireland, north and south.
  The Good Friday agreement and the criminal justice review that was established as a result both set great store by recognising the centrality of human rights and the framework provided by international human rights standards. However, they have no place in the Government's exposition of the aims of the criminal justice system, although my right hon. Friend partly dealt with that in his speech. It is a major defect that that recognition is not implicit on the Face of the Bill. I share that position with the Northern Ireland Assembly, which adopted it by unanimous agreement.
  The Bill should have regard to rights highlighted by the Good Friday agreement, particularly given the recent history of communal conflict, as they address parity of esteem. The right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations and the right to seek constitutional change by peaceful and legitimate means should be given legal expression; consequently, those parts of the Treason Felony Act 1848 that still prescribe that activities such as felony should be punishable by life imprisonment should be repealed.
  I welcome what the Bill says about the rights of the child, which are increasingly important in the international framework for the protection of human

  667
  rights. I welcome the clauses that deal with youth justice and am pleased that the Government are moving into line with international best practice by bringing 17-year-olds into the orbit of the youth justice system. The United Nations convention on the rights of the child provides that in all actions concerning children undertaken by
  "courts of law, administrative authorities of legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."
  In that light, I am surprised that the aims of the youth justice system set out in the Bill are drawn even narrower than the aims of the criminal justice system as a whole. The Government are right to set out the aims of the youth justice system, but it cannot be right that clause 53(1) states:
  "The principal aim of the youth justice system is to protect the public by preventing offending by children."
  There is no reference, despite the three subsequent subsections, to rehabilitating youth and child offenders; that should have been addressed, as its importance parallels that of the principal aim. At a minimum, the Bill should require all persons and bodies within the system to have regard to the UN convention on the rights of the child.
  The Bill must pass three critical tests if it is to meet the challenge of creating a fresh start for the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. Will the structures of the system make it accountable to the community that it serves? Will its composition make it representative of the community that it serves? Will its ethos make it sensitive to the need for tolerance and reconciliation in a divided society?
  On accountability, the Director of Public Prosecutions is no less controversial, albeit less public, than the Chief Constable, formerly of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but now of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I should prefer greater accountability and a new name, especially in light of the Finucane fiasco, in which murderers walked free in the interests of national security; Stobie was originally acquitted 10 years ago and Herard, allegedly the man who pulled the trigger on Pat Finucane, was recruited to the security services. I certainly want to ensure greater transparency in decision making when it is decided not to prosecute, especially bearing in mind the decision of the Attorney-General not to prosecute the policemen involved in shootings in South Armagh—the alleged shoot-to-kill policy—who were to have been charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I believe that, as a general principle, although not necessarily in those particular cases, that is the attitude of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  On the composition of the new institutions, I am disappointed that the Government have so far failed to bring the component parts of the criminal justice system into the purview of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which would place on them a statutory duty to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say that that is the Government's intention when he makes his winding-up speech. I Fail to understand why it is not important to ensure that the recruitment and promotion practices of the court service or the prison service should not comply fully with the law on providing equality of opportunity. I fail to see why the composition of the work
  668
  force should not be monitored to protect against discrimination on the grounds of gender, community origin or any other prescribed basis. I Fail to see why a programme of affirmative action with goals and timetables should not be put in place.
  The process of change and renewal requires the bringing-in of new people and influences. There is much greater scope for lay involvement in the proposed Law Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission. It should be possible to create neutral symbols for the Northern Ireland Court Service that represent the system's aim of providing justice for all. The issue of members of oath-bound organisations came up in relation to the new police service, and it is no less important for those appointed to judicial offices and other positions where trust is all-important. The judicial oath is incompatible with that taken by the Orange Order; we must deal with that. The judicial oath is improved beyond measure by removing the sovereign from the equation, but for some reason, the proposed text retains "the realm" where "the jurisdiction" would serve as well. However, I am sure that we can address that in Committee.
  I find the galloping republicanism, of which my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench are accused, rather startling. It would be helpful if, in his reply, my hon. Friend the Minister would explain how many new courthouses will spring up round Northern Ireland, perhaps like a rash of measles, none having a coat of arms outside. Members of the legal service, such as solicitors and barristers, and other people may find it difficult to have a coat of arms in court. The suggestion that justice comes from the sovereign is a rather quaint idea—a leftover of mediaeval and legal history—which bears no resemblance to considerations in other Modern states, but we retain it.
  Mr. David Trimble: What the hon. Gentleman regards as something that has survived does one important thing. If justice flows from the Crown, which is at the apex of the justice system, it is divorced from party politics. The Crown stands above party politics. If we wish to indicate that the arrangements that are put in place are not influenced by party politics, as the legal system should not be, we can do that by putting them under the Crown. That is important symbolically in ensuring the independence of the judiciary of political influence. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to see that.
  Mr. McNamara: I very much want the judiciary to be independent of political influence. For example, I wish that there had been independence at the time of the Widgery inquiry into Bloody Sunday, but the Lord Chief Justice, with all his powers emanating from the Crown, took his orders from the Prime Minister, as the revealed minute showed. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the Crown may or may not be useful for the purpose that he describes. There are other systems that manage to make the distinction without using the Crown. For people in Northern Ireland who have found the concept of accepting allegiance to the Crown difficult, as well as dispensation of justice under the Crown, it was proper to remove the coat of arms.
  I should like now to deal with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who spoke about concessions being made

  669
  to Sinn Fein. The people who spearheaded the reforms that are being introduced in terms of the nationalist community were the SDLP and my hon. Friends the Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady). The people who demanded the reforms at the height of the unrest, killings, bombings and shootings and asked for the impartial delivery of justice were my friends in the SDLP. Other people may come on board, but my friends in the SDLP were asking not for concessions, but basic rights that should be given to every person. By regarding those rights as concessions, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford is not only lifting the position of Sinn Fein in the eyes of the community, but, more importantly, doing a base disservice to the SDLP and to the people who have stuck to the constitutional issues throughout the troubles. I say to him that the more he makes a bogey man out of the provisions and uses the word "concessions" to describe the basic rights for which the SDLP and others have worked so hard and long while Facing such great difficulties, the more he is defeating his own purposes.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the important thing is to make an effort, achieve some mental clarity and distinguish between concessions, which are made reluctantly as the price for achieving something else, and things that are done for their own sake. We have had some discussion about that distinction in recent Northern Ireland debates, as it is very important that people make it. He is trying to manoeuvre me into a position in which I appear to have criticised the SDLP. Far from it. I accept exactly what he said: the aims for which the SDLP campaigned for so many years largely—there may be small exceptions that I cannot think of—rightly qualified as rights. However, the concessions are being made to somebody else: Sinn Fein-IRA. Concessions such as amnesties for terrorists who are on the run or special status for their Members of Parliament do not, by definition, apply to the SDLP, so he cannot possibly distort my position to the extent of supposing that I criticise the SDLP in the way that he describes.
  Mr. McNamara: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, in his speech, he referred to the provisions as concessions to Sinn Fein. I am pointing out that they were being demanded as basic rights by the SDLP even before we had the policy of the Armalite and the ballot box. The SDLP, as Irish nationalists, wanted these rights. The Bill contains the right for people to go into a court and to accept that the justice done there is administered to them as citizens, and not on the basis of dispensation by—as they see it—a foreign country's monarch.
  Mr. Tynan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Northern Ireland are no different from the people of Scotland, England and Wales with regard to their need for justice and a system that will create equal opportunity in Northern Ireland for all people? Does he agree that we do Northern Ireland and the Bill a disservice when we speak of concessions to Sinn Fein and the IRA?
  Mr. McNamara: I thank my hon. Friend for the promotion that he gave me. I agree with him thoroughly. It is very sad that so much of the speech of the Opposition spokesman was taken up on these matters. This is a big Bill; indeed, it is a great reforming Bill. It does not go as Far as I want it to, but it is a fresh step and should be
  670
  received in that light. I hope that, on mature consideration, the Opposition will seek to withdraw their ill-conceived reasoned amendment and give the Government the Fair wind that they deserve on the Bill, which can then be improved in Committee.
  6.55 pm
  Lembit Öpik: On balance, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, as it implements reasonably Faithfully the recommendations of the review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. Let those of us who have consistently claimed to support the Northern Ireland agreement remember that this debate has arisen directly as a result of that agreement. One of the most important aspects of the debate must be the Fact that the Bill finally introduces international standards of human rights in legislation for Northern Ireland. I intend to concentrate on parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and have the opportunity to deal with the other parts.
  I should like to deal first with the extremely interesting speech of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), who made some serious criticisms. For example, he criticised the degree to which we had all been consulted and suggested that there had been only partial consultation. In my view, in politics, actions speak rather louder than words. Although, thankfully, I was not in the House to endure the years of the former Conservative Government, my predecessors with the Northern Ireland portfolio have assured me—indeed, I have checked this point tonight—that they had almost no opportunity during that time to contribute to legislation before it appeared on the Floor of the House. It was almost a consultation dark age, during which my hon. Friends saw the lights going on and off as the Bills were drafted, but simply felt impotent because the Government refused to consult.
  In that context, any criticisms made by the Liberal Democrats about consultation may have some currency. However, I am very dubious about the hidden agenda—to use a Familiar phrase from the debate—of the Conservative party in seeking to find Fault with almost every detail of a Bill that one should support in principle, if one steps back from it, in the context of the Good Friday agreement. It is slightly disappointing that the Conservative spokesperson can at the very least be interpreted as having made a party political speech rather than one that sought to contribute constructively to our debate.
  Mr. Francois: In Fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, he said that he agreed with many aspects of the Bill. He sought to take issue not with a lot of detail but with specific aspects. I listened carefully to what he said and I am pretty sure that that was his approach.
  Lembit Öpik: I am grateful for that intervention; we are now slowly flushing out the shields protecting the official Opposition's Front Bench. In Fairness to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a high regard, I recognise that he makes a degree of sense on that point. None the less, the tone of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford could be interpreted by the casual onlooker—if any casual onlookers follow these debates of ours—as an unequivocally negative attack on the Bill. My worry is that perception is tremendously important in respect of

  671
  Northern Ireland matters. In assessing the effectiveness of the measures and of what we are doing, a number of individuals will take their lead from what is being said, which will affect the mood music of the process.
  I have a great deal of personal affection and respect for the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford because he is genuinely trying to drive the Conservative party back towards a more consensual position. I therefore counsel him to consider the message that Conservative Members wish to convey about what needs to happen in Northern Ireland, and the way in which they want to be portrayed in the context of such an important Bill.
  The Liberal Democrats believe that, in time, policing and justice should be devolved to Northern Ireland and the Assembly and that a department of justice should be created roughly along the lines of that in Scotland. We also believe that that should happen in Wales, not because we are rabid republicans but because we are keen on devolution, which is the right way forward. At heart, we believe that, although local politicians should not interfere with police operational matters, local and correctly formed structures could enhance accountability and introduce a sense of cross-community and democratic ownership of the criminal justice system. That is the great strength of devolution and it can work as well in Wales as in Northern Ireland. However, we are discussing the Province tonight.
  When devolution occurs is primarily a matter of debate between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Government. However, I believe that we should adopt the strategy that I have outlined after a substantial period of stability. To be Fair to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, he correctly stated that maintaining the independence of the judiciary is of paramount importance in that context. For obvious reasons, Northern Ireland is a highly politicised society and we must be careful to ensure that any measure that we pass here cannot be blown off course by the especially sectoral nature of politics in Northern Ireland. We cannot allow political creep to enter the judiciary.
  Chapter 6 of the report of the review covers the recent development of the role of the judiciary, especially in relation to judicial review and the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law. The report rightly states:
  "All of this reinforces the need to ensure judicial independence from the executive and to enable the judiciary to act, and be seen to act, in a dispassionate way, free from any sectoral influence, real or perceived."
  If the Bill did not provide for that, I should be worried that the Government had missed the point. However, I am glad that clause 1 states:
  "Those with responsibility for the administration of justice must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary."
  I shall not go into detail now—I am sure that we shall revert to the matter in Committee—but the Bill appears to provide for safeguarding against the danger that I described.
  How appropriate is it to legislate for devolving judicial appointments before devolving responsibility for all aspects of the justice system to the Assembly? How reasonable is it to do that in stages? Again, hon. Members may have different views on the matter, although the hon.
  672
  Member for Grantham and Stamford did not specifically comment on that point. I therefore assume that Conservative Members are not especially anxious about staged devolution. It makes sense because we can manage the process without changing too many aspects at once. There is great danger in moving too Fast. Furthermore, we might create monsters that we cannot destroy without a great deal of work.
  I welcome the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission for Northern Ireland. The recommendation for creating such a commission goes a long way towards ensuring a more transparent appointments process. I agree with the parts of the review that call for that. A staged, responsible approach can coherently change the judiciary and the legal system in Northern Ireland without causing too many problems. Furthermore, because transparency is heavily emphasised in the Bill, I believe that we are starting in the right place.
  Paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 3(5) provide that the five judicial members of the commission are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice and that the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland and the Law Society of Northern Ireland must each appoint one member of the legal profession to the commission. That shows that representation will be Fairly wide.
  However, will the Minister explain why the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are to appoint the lay members of the commission? That contravenes the recommendation in the report to which I have already drawn attention. It suggests a mechanism that is similar to that prescribed in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 for appointing the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Why has not such a provision been included to ensure the same independence for the Judicial Appointments Commission? If we took that approach, we could ensure that the lay members reflected the community. The Secretary of State appoints the independent members of the Northern Ireland Policing Board so that they reflect the community. Again, we may wish to consider the matter in Committee.
  The lay members of the Judicial Appointments Commission cannot afford to be seen to be political appointees. The Bill contains no guidance for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister about the way in which they should appoint lay members. Who is allowed in and who is not? Assembly Members and Members of Parliament are excluded, but what about councillors or members of the police? What about district policing partnership members and those involved in community safety organisations? How will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister ensure that lay members do not suffer a conflict of interest? That is a potential weakness in the Bill, although I am ready to stand corrected.
  Without providing for the guidance to which I referred or for consideration of gender and representation from ethnic minorities, which the report suggests, the Bill lays itself open to a difficulty that is easy to avoid, and perhaps to an element of sectarianism, which has been institutionalised in the Assembly by, for example, the voting system for First Minister. Furthermore, appointments to the Judicial Appointments Commission do not appear to be in line with the suggestions of the Good Friday agreement.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I do in this case.

  673
  Does he recall that the review stated clearly that the lay appointees should reflect the community? How can five people reflect a community?
  Lembit Öpik: I am stunned and delighted by the good news that the hon. Gentleman and I agree.
  Mr. Browne: On a point of information, the review recommended four or five lay members.
  Lembit Öpik: I had been about to say that, although I was stunned and delighted that the hon. Gentleman agreed with me, I do not necessarily agree with everything that he said. I escape on a technicality.
  The list of questions, excluding the question about numbers, is salient and requires a reply. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) correctly suggested that one method of ensuring the perception of the independence of the Judicial Appointments Commission was to allow the Crown to make the appointments. I do not entirely agree, not least because I support devolution. However, it is understandable that those who are uncomfortable say that, in the absence of a convincing response, the Crown should continue to be in charge. The Government are obliged to provide an assurance, especially to those who are worried about bias.
  Appointment for five years is perhaps too long because, even if we solve the problems in Committee, we need to review the matter sooner. Does the Minister believe that we should have an interim review, perhaps after one or two years, to ascertain how matters are settling down?
  Moving on to clause 5, I agree that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should have the ability to refer an initial recommendation of an appointment back to the Judicial Appointments Commission. Paragraph 6.107 of the criminal justice review makes it explicit that if the same name were resubmitted to the First Minister or Deputy First Minister, it would have to be accepted. However, that is not made clear in the Bill. As it stands, we do not know whether the commission can reconsider an application only once, or whether the First Minister and Deputy First Minister can refer a recommendation back a number of times. I am pleased with the thrust of the provision, but that point needs clarification. I am also pleased that the officers are to be appointed entirely on the basis of merit, but that does not take away this slight confusion, and we should not leave the matter to be decided by precedent.
  Mr. Browne: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I want to reassure him that the Bill is clear in its recommendation that, the first recommendation having been refused, and following reconsideration, the provisions of the review are to be followed and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be required to accept the second recommendation, even if it relates to the same person.
  Lembit Öpik: Okay. In that case, I was in error and I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point.
  Clause 20 specifies a new oath. It is right to Modernise that practice, and this is a good time to do it. I also welcome the appointment of a local Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, as set out in clause 23. Again, though, the Bill provides little guidance on how that person should
  674
  be appointed, other than to state that they should have been a barrister or solicitor for at least 10 years. Should the First Minister and Deputy First Minister be able to consult the Law Society, for example, or the General Council of the Bar before the appointment is made? Should they be mandated to carry out that kind of consultation? Or should those bodies be making recommendations to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister? This, too, requires clarification and I would welcome the Minister's perspective on it. If we leave things as they are, this will be established by precedent, and we need to be clear that that is a positive decision with which the First Minister would be comfortable.
  Clause 28 establishes that the Attorney-General for England and Wales should be the Advocate-General for Northern Ireland. It is right that someone should adjudicate on whether a piece of legislation is within the competence of the Assembly. Although that is not mentioned in the report of the criminal justice review, it is implied, in terms of what the Bill is expected to achieve. Have the Government given any thought to the working relationship between the Attorney-General and the Advocate-General? Are there precedents involved, or are we—and the Government—happy to leave that question to be determined by the appointees?
  We also welcome the establishment of a public prosecution service for Northern Ireland. That is essential to maintain consistency through the Bill. I agree with the arguments in the criminal justice review for the need to separate the prosecution function carried out by the police from the organisation responsible for carrying out investigations. Indeed, the report states:
  "Securing the independence of the prosecution process for cases at all levels of seriousness should assure the public that decisions on whether to proceed"—
  with a prosecution—
  "are made against consistently applied criteria by legally qualified staff."
  All of us will have heard of cases in which the independence of the process between police and prosecution has been brought into question. The overwhelming majority of officers always conduct themselves with probity, but if there is doubt as to whether there is a conflict of interest, or an opportunity for actions that might compromise the justice of the system, that issue will need to be resolved. We have found ourselves in terrible messes in the past, in which individuals have argued that the system itself prosecuted them for a crime that they had not committed.
  We further welcome the establishment of the office of a chief inspector of criminal justice in Northern Ireland with a view to carrying out inspections of key organisations in the criminal justice sphere, such as the police, the public prosecution service and the probation board. There is a lack of clarity, however, as to what the chief inspector's role should be. That is highlighted in clause 46(2) and clause 47(6). His or her role should be either to investigate all the organisations mentioned and take an overview of the situation, or to investigate specific problems within an organisation that are likely to have to come to his or her attention through an individual case.
  I am curious about clause 49(3)(b). Why should the Secretary of State be able to exclude parts of the chief inspector's report on the ground that it
  "might jeopardise the safety of any person"

  675
  if the chief inspector is unable to investigate or review individual cases? That can probably be explained, and the Government's thinking on the matter should be expressed and placed on the record of the House. As it stands, confusion exists and the matter needs to be clarified. I see the Minister nodding, and I look forward to hearing his clarification later.
  I turn to some of the very interesting comments by the Opposition spokesperson that I have not already covered. I was confused by what seemed to be a number of inconsistencies in what he said. He referred to the Government's hidden agenda. When I intervened on him to ask him to clarify that, he said that there was not a hidden agenda but a difference of view with regard to methods. Later on, however, he returned to the theme of the hidden agenda, and I was horrified to learn that, in his view, there was little short of a republican conspiracy going right up to the top on the Labour Back Benches—in the form of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—that is trying to throw away all that is noble and wonderful about the monarchy, and to provide us with the freedom to change the world as we know it.
  I have to make a confession. Well, it is not a confession; it is a boast. I am a true monarchist, and I have always been a monarchist.
  Mr. Tom Harris: Shame!
  Lembit Öpik: I hear calls of "Shame!" coming from the Labour Benches. I shall goad the closet republicans over there by saying that I believe that we have a fine Queen who conducts herself in an honourable fashion, and that the Prince of Wales will one day make an honourable and fine King and I look forward to being one of his subjects.
  Mr. Harris rose—
  Lembit Öpik: At this point, I shall give way to the closet republican who, I have spotted on the Labour Benches.
  Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson' s comments. Would he care to comment on the failure of the Conservative spokesperson to explain the hidden agenda to which I referred, regarding the youth criminal system and the pilot project to be undertaken in Northern Ireland? The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford mentioned that he was coming to that, but he never got to it and would not take any more interventions. Does the hon. Gentleman have any views on the matter?
  Lembit Öpik: That shows just how easily youth passes us by. Of course the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford was entitled to focus on his primary concerns, and it is not for me to question his omission. Perhaps he was saving that point for his colleague to make, just as I am saving points for my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle to make. Should she catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she will expand more on that question.
  The considerations in the Bill are genuinely interesting and stimulating, and it is perfectly appropriate to try them out in Northern Ireland. The honourable republican on the
  676
  Labour Benches does not distract me from the important point that I am making. I look across at the hon. Members who sit opposite me tonight and I know that there are republicans lurking there who would rob people such as me of my royal birthright, my right to be a citizen and subject of the Queen. On that, I stand four square with Unionism in its simplest and most traditional form and, for once, I feel that I do not have to watch my back.
  Mr. McNamara rose—
  Lembit Öpik: I say to the hon. Member for Hull, North that I will fight, fight and fight again to save the monarchy that I love. I give way to him.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not on this point. We have heard enough on this.
  Mr. McNamara: I do not wish to intervene on that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely going to say that the hon. Gentleman should look not to the fourth row of the Opposition Benches, when worrying about watching his back, but to the second row.
  Lembit Öpik: I note the hon. Gentleman's fifth columnist point and it will be dealt with appropriately, but not in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have fears regarding the hon. Gentleman's anti-monarchist principles and I have sought to satanise him, but the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford accused him of being a shield for Ministers. I have often regarded the hon. Member for Hull, North as little short of a Cromwell, bringing his roundhead supporters—
  Mr. McNamara: Not a Cromwell!
  Lembit Öpik: Okay. The hon. Gentleman, to use his own phrase, is a fifth columnist, but the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford sees such a republican and Front-Bench conspiracy that he chooses to offend the hon. Member for Hull, North, as we can see from the rage seething within him.
  I have raised concerns, but in no sense can the Bill be regarded as a conspiracy to pander to the republicans. Any objective analysis surely shows that, even if aspects need to be improved and amendments need to be made, the Bill is a genuinely progressive effort to create independent, free-standing, transparent and effective human rights oriented legislation in terms of justice for the citizens of Northern Ireland. That is why I am dubious about the claim made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford.
  We have heard a great deal about how the Bill represents giving up sovereignty and losing the Queen's right to own and run all that she surveys, but that shows deep misunderstanding of what it will do. I am not joking now: for the Bill to be republican oriented legislation that detaches Northern Ireland from Her Majesty's empire, it would have to detach the prosecution service, the inspectorate and the judiciary from Crown involvement. Let us consider the Bill. It does not do that, but instead ensures that the Queen will appoint the Advocate-General and the Advocate-General will still be in charge of the reserved matters involving international relations, defence, tax and national security.

  677
  Of course, Stormont will appoint the Attorney-General, but the Attorney-General and the Advocate-General—that is a royal appointment—will appoint the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. There will be devolution, but there will also be an intimate relationship between that appointment and the existing structures.
  Let us consider the inspectorate. The Secretary of State, acting for the House and, by implication, the Queen, will appoint the chief inspector with the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. The chief inspector will appoint the inspectors. Once again, the Secretary of State will be intimately involved in appointments. If I understand the procedures correctly, those appointments will not be devolved outside the existing system.
  Let us consider the Lord Chief Justice. The Prime Minister will consult the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, but, ultimately, the appointment will be made by the Queen. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister must advise the Queen of appointments to the judiciary. Perhaps that is a formality, but they must do so none the less. There is sufficient assurance for me, as a non-republican, that the Bill does not dismantle existing structures and will not send Northern Ireland sailing off into separate republican status, so I am comfortable that that should not be a key issue for tonight's debate. Of course, hon. Members may draw their own conclusions.
  I refer to the Opposition's reasoned amendment. Once again, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford confused me. He said that he is not opposed in principle to the legislation, yet the amendment, which carries his name, says:
  "This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill because it infringes the principle that justice flows from the Crown throughout the realm".
  If I understand that correctly, he opposes an element of his own amendment. Perhaps he is considering whether to vote for it or not.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood me, as he will discover if he reads Hansard tomorrow morning. I said that we do not oppose in principle 90 per cent. by length of the Bill, which covers devolution of justice to Northern Ireland and the establishment of the new restorative justice for child offenders. We are, of course, very much opposed in principle to the two pernicious points buried in all that, to which I drew particular attention: the provisions relating to the oath of allegiance and the royal coat of arms in courtrooms.
  Lembit Öpik: Okay. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for misrepresenting him and thank him for his clarification, because it is indeed important clarification. It shows that the Conservatives oppose the Bill in only two key areas of 294, which is a much better hit rate than 90 per cent. Were I even 90 per cent. satisfied with legislation, I would probably vote for it. Were I 98 or 99 per cent. in favour, as it seems the Conservatives are, I would not table a reasoned amendment saying that the legislation is wrong and encourage hon. Members to vote against it.
  Mr. Davies: Now I am able to correct the hon. Gentleman. I did not bother to interrupt his point about a hidden agenda, but I said that those two pernicious
  678
  provisions are the hidden agenda in a large Bill that deals with other matters. Therefore, we are right to focus on that unacceptable double kernel.
  Lembit Öpik: I am even more confused. I may have a rogue copy of the reasoned amendment, but all hon. Members can see that it says, in black and white:
  "This House declines to give a Second Reading to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill because it infringes the principle that justice flows from the Crown throughout the realm".
  If the hon. Gentleman expects us to accept that those two key points are sufficient grounds for us to believe that Northern Ireland's justice system is genuinely, not theoretically, being detached from the existing structures in the rest of the UK, he must also explain why he does not believe that Scotland is already a republic. Scotland has far greater autonomy and is far more detached from the Crown than Northern Ireland will be following any conceivable change under the Bill, even if it is implemented by a Fanatic. The hon. Gentleman may still think that he can vote for the reasoned amendment, but I ask other hon. Members to read it for themselves and think about what message the Conservatives are putting out.
  My other concern about the reasoned amendment involves the words
  "and because it represents a further stage in the policy of unilateral and unbalanced concession to republicanism in Northern Ireland."
  I have made the body of my points perhaps slightly lightheartedly, but I make a serious point here: the Conservative party is increasingly unclear about where it stands on devolution. Very recently, a Conservative Member of the Welsh Assembly said that there should be more devolution to the Assembly and other Conservatives believe that more rights should be given to devolved Assemblies. Is it now Conservative policy to support devolution for Wales, and perhaps more so for Scotland, or to oppose it?
  If the Conservatives accept that at least a proportion of them support Scottish and Welsh devolution, why are they so afraid of it for Northern Ireland? I suggest that they want to imply a conspiracy that does not exist. The Conservative party needs to clarify its strategy on devolution and, if it does, it will be able to play a far more constructive role in debates such as this.
  Let me in all humility say that I am not here to lecture the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, who has more years of experience in the House than I do, nor do I cast any negative aspersions as to his intent. However, if the hon. Gentleman and his party are serious in their support for the Good Friday agreement, they should think about the messages that they are sending. He has said that the Conservatives were pulling out of the bipartisan agreement, and that was implicit in his remarks in this debate. With measures such as the Bill it is hard to see what that means. Does it mean that, de facto, the Conservatives will oppose every piece of legislation, even if it has merit? We have been told that, even if they agree with 90 per cent. of the legislation, they will oppose it.
  I can assure the House that the bipartisan arrangement continues, but it is between the Government and the Liberal Democrats. Not long ago, I was encouraged when the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and his hon. Friends were so persuaded by the Liberal Democrat arguments that they chose not to vote against the

  679
  extension of the amnesty for decommissioning weapons. It was to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he showed bipartisanship at least towards the Liberal Democrats. I ask him once again to show the reserve and judgment that he showed on that evening. Can he honestly look himself in the mirror and say that by voting against the Bill he is making Northern Ireland a more just place?
  The Bill has limitations and weaknesses, which I have asked the Minister to deal with, but it is fundamentally a good measure. I should be very surprised if anyone who, in the fullness of time, sees the intent of the Bill being implemented would disagree.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: My party has worked for many decades to have a review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, primarily because of its evident flaws and because it did not have the support of the entire community. It is not for me to go into the pros and cons of that, I merely to declare that this issue was on our agenda long before the Good Friday agreement and long before the review and the Bill were published. I would like to think that the substance of the part of the Good Friday agreement pertaining to criminal justice came from the papers, attitudes and arguments that we used at that time.
  The criminal justice review and the Bill are not a destroying mechanism, but rather a reviewing, Modernising mechanism that will bring our system into the 21st century. I hope that it will show many other jurisdictions that, out of the chaos in Northern Ireland and the horrors and injustices that we have witnessed, a judicial system can be produced that is the envy of all who observe it.
  It was with great sadness rather than anger that I heard the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) try to divert the debate from the reality of the situation by means of some cheap publicity and point scoring—I do not like saying that. The Conservatives have tabled an amendment, which says that the Bill represents
  "a further stage in the policy of unilateral and unbalanced concession to republicanism in Northern Ireland".
  That it definitely does not do.
  If the hon. Gentleman wants proof of that, he need not listen to me. He should examine the work of the Assembly's ad hoc committee on the review and the draft Bill. That committee contained members of the Ulster Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, Sinn Fein, the Democratic Unionist party and the other minor parties, none of whom said that this was a republican plot or a concession to republicanism. There was a great deal of consensus on the joint report, which contained valid, constructive criticism of the Bill and suggested how it could be improved so that the judicial system could be improved. At no time in any of the comments made at any of the meetings of that multi-party committee was there any implication or declaration that this was a republican agenda. We all know what the extreme republican agenda is in Northern Ireland—I describe myself as a republican, but that description has been besmirched by violence over the years to such an extent that I can no longer use it without paragraphs of clarification.
  680
  In our consideration of the Bill, my party wants to cover four major areas. We will deal with the Bill only in general points, because I took note of what the Secretary of State said, and it is on the record that this is an on-going review process. The Assembly's report will be part of the review that the Government are taking forward into Committee and out of it.
  The four points that highlight our attitude to the Bill could be summarised as a fully accountable judiciary, an independent prosecution service based on disclosure, the enshrinement of human rights in the justice service, which has been touched on by several hon. Members, and the establishment of a Judicial Appointments Commission, which we hope will have a majority of lay members, and we shall table an amend to that affect. We also hope that the chairman of the commission will be a lay person.
  We are committed to the principle of ownership of the administration of justice by the community that it is serving. Unless the community right across Northern Ireland has a sense of proprietorship of the judicial system, the process will remain flawed. We are looking for a more fundamental review.
  Many of the headings have already been touched on, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke at length on the youth provision, so that topic has been adequately covered. I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about my party and its history, and about me.
  I should like to comment on restorative justice. The Assembly's ad hoc committee gave much consideration to the innovative idea of restorative justice, to which everyone in the community can contribute, and which is important for the prevention and cure of juvenile crime. We felt that new approaches were required. There was agreement that the various provisions for restorative justice were not as clear as they could be, were sometimes vague, and certainly required clarification.
  We want to be assured that there is transparency in the appointments system, and that the judiciary reflects that. All aspects of the appointment system must be open, and must be seen to be just and caring. It should have some reference to broad representation of the community as a whole, although not through precise diktat.
  We would like to think that the Judicial Appointments Commission will not just advise, but will make appointments. Unlike the current system, the judicial and legal membership of such a commission should not have undue power and influence through their numbers, and should not impinge on the independence of the appointments.
  Mr. Trimble: I am sorry to be a little dilatory in making this point, but unless I misheard the hon. Gentleman, he said that the Assembly's ad hoc committee on the criminal justice review was favourable to the concept of restorative justice.
  The committee expressed concern about the whole area of restorative justice, considering that further work was required
  "to take on-board the experiences of existing restorative justice programmes … determined that the proposed Standing Committee on Criminal Justice could further investigate this crucial area of reform."

  681
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, the committee tried to operate on the basis of consensus. On that point, it was very cautious.
  Mr. McGrady: There was indeed a degree of caution, but there was no rejection. There was, in fact, a seeking of clarification, and of better ways of accomplishing it. Although, as several other passages in the report show, the ad hoc committee was not always unanimous—the parties indicated their separate differences—there was a consensus in favour of achieving a new beginning in the criminal justice system. Indeed, if I remember rightly, not one amendment was tabled when the report reached the Assembly, and not one vote was forced. That was the extent of what I will call co-operation, intended to achieve the best possible result.
  The Minister, and the Government, should take on board the concerns, differences, suggestions and criticisms presented by the divers parties constituting the ad hoc committee, and incorporate what was agreed in the Bill by way of Government amendments reflecting the wishes of the people whom the judicial system will serve. What better yardstick could there be than cross-party consensus?
  The question of symbolism is a thorny question, which distracted the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. For my party, the guiding principles are parity of esteem and parity of symbolism. At best that can, perhaps, be achieved through a degree of neutrality. Opposition Members may not know that the symbols of state, such as flags and emblems, have been so grossly abused in Northern Ireland—used not as symbols of the sovereign or the state, but as party political symbols—that they do not attract the esteem, respect and regard that they should attract, because they have been besmirched for decades by party connotations of the worst sort. We are trying to approach these delicate, sensitive issues by way of understanding; perhaps some neutrality could be introduced as well.
  A short time ago it was said that we would never be able to acquire a symbol for the new police force, and that that would be the most divisive aspect of the board of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It took precisely 10 days to achieve, with the agreement of the whole board and, to a vast extent, that of the public. Many of us do not like this little bit, many of us do not like that little bit, but I think it fair to say that this is now accepted as a reasonable symbol of the people of Northern Ireland. Perhaps we should be striving for the same objective to deal with the problems that emblems give us in the Northern Ireland Court Service.
  We are not entirely satisfied that the proposals for the prosecution service will involve full accountability. I think that we want a system rather similar to the Scottish procurator fiscal system. The Northern Ireland committee—I have referred to it constantly, but it serves as a useful baseline—says that
  "greater transparency should be a feature of the decision-making process of the new Public Prosecution Service."
  That does not suggest that the reasons why cases do not result in prosecutions should always be disclosed. We are arguing for a presumption that disclosure will be made, except when it could cause injustice and prevent the protection of victims and others.
  Much has been said about the future of the devolution of reserved matters after the elections of 2003. That represents a relatively short time in the political history
  682
  and experience of any country. I think that the amendments presented by the community of Northern Ireland—particularly through the Assembly's report, although my party will table amendments that we think will improve the Modernisation of criminal jurisdiction—will be presented with some justification, and with some clarity.
  Let me say this to Opposition Front Benchers, in the light of what was said by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and in the light of the amendment: if the House observed the exhortations of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford and rejected the Bill, it would send the very message that the hon. Gentleman wants not to send. How crazy can we get? I know that it is a lot for a Back Bencher to ask of the opposite side, whether Government or Opposition, but sanity dictates that the amendment be withdrawn.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I do not agree with the closing remarks of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and I hope he will bear with me if I explain why later. First, I ask him to accept that Opposition Members are not indulging in cheap publicity or political stunts. We object to the Bill on a point of principle so fundamentally important to us that—I understand—we will oppose its Second Reading, although some parts may have merit and others may deserve scrutiny in Committee. So serious is that point of principle that I feel it would be wholly wrong of us to support the Bill.
  As with a number of other developments in Northern Ireland, when it comes to criminal justice there is an official and an unofficial context and background. The official context and background of the Bill were explained by the Secretary of State: it is the policing and justice section of the Belfast agreement, particularly paragraphs 4 to 7, and the subsequent work of the review group. Those who accepted the agreement will therefore have accepted those paragraphs as well, and may not be over-surprised by what has emerged from them.
  Those of us who had reservations about the agreement held them for many reasons, just one of which arises from paragraphs 6 and 7 of the agreement. It was by no means our main objection; it was just one of them. Our argument was that national systems of justice are the responsibility of sovereign states and not automatically the business of neighbouring states. Obviously, the exercising of national sovereignty can extend to and include negotiating with neighbouring states, but it was arguably wrong in principle of the Government, in paragraph 6, to commit themselves in advance and unconditionally to discussing with the Irish Government the implementation of the recommendations of the Northern Ireland criminal justice review group. It was certainly wrong in principle of the Government, in paragraph 7, to commit themselves in advance and unconditionally to consulting the Irish Government before devolving within the United Kingdom responsibility for policing and justice issues. Those are rightly and properly matters for the United Kingdom Government.
  Mike Gapes: What the hon. Gentleman says confirms his long-standing opposition to the Belfast agreement. Paragraph 7 was agreed to by his party as an Opposition

  683
  party, by the Government, by the majority of the people in Northern Ireland and in the referendum in the Republic. He is just restating his long-standing position. The reality is that his side lost the referendum, and the Belfast agreement was passed by the House and supported by the people of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Hunter: I rather regret that I gave way for that somewhat meaningless intervention, which does not take the debate any further forward. My views of the Belfast agreement are known and irrelevant to this debate, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would no doubt advise if I were to embark upon announcing them.
  That then was the official context and background of the Bill. As for the unofficial context and background, at least of key parts of the Bill, they are perhaps best summed up in the words of Brian Cowen, the Irish Foreign Minister, in a leaked Northern Ireland Office document that was first printed in the British press in May 2000. Mr. Cowen was quoted as saying:
  "Beyond the constitutional acceptance that Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom, there should be no further evidence of Britishness in the governance of Northern Ireland."
  It was therefore only a matter of time before the Government made their formal move to neutralise constitutionally the institutions, structures and procedures of justice in the Province.
  The Bill should be seen in its wider context. When the Minister launched the draft Bill last November, he rightly spoke of the imperatives of fairness and impartiality. Those are, or should be, at the heart of any criminal justice system. Moreover, as qualities of justice, they are absolute and timeless, but he muddied the waters somewhat by also speaking about delivering a
  "Modern, progressive and forward-looking"
  system of justice. If he regards the Bill as progressive, we are entitled to ask in which direction he thinks it is progressing. If he thinks it forward-looking, we can likewise ask what it is looking forward to.
  The erosion of the cultural, historical and constitutional Britishness of Northern Ireland is a reality. Further manifestations of it are found in the Bill. Many people see it as another step in establishing a de facto united Ireland, so that a de jure united Ireland is not a quantum leap into the unknown but merely the formal acknowledgment of a reality that has already been created.
  There is no question of a hidden agenda: it is clear from Government words and writing. There are fears that the Bill plays its part in the Government's reform and harmonisation programme, which is central to their programme towards a united Ireland.
  On judicial appointments, hon. Members will know that the appointment processes in Northern Ireland are broadly similar to those in England and Wales at the more senior levels. The differences at less senior levels reflect the different court systems in the two jurisdictions.
  The Lord Chancellor has been responsible for making or advising on all judicial appointments since 1973. As the review group commented at paragraph 6.16:
  "The transfer of these responsibilities to the Lord Chancellor was driven mainly by a desire to secure and demonstrate the independence of judicial matters and courts administration from any political office".
  684
  The proposal now is that political responsibility and accountability for judicial appointments should lie with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. They will take over responsibility for making recommendations to the Queen for all appointments to the level of resident magistrate and for making appointments below that level.
  There will be a Judicial Appointments Commission, but the presence of lay people on that body, and their number, are a concern. It is legitimate to ask what pressures or influences they may be subject to, or what pressure they may bring to bear.
  The key test of any judiciary must be that people are appointed on merit. Leaving appointments largely in the hands of the judiciary and the two legal professions provides greater opportunity for ensuring that the key test is merit, rather than some form of political balance or correctness. Where a new department of justice is being created and where the role of the Lord Chancellor is being removed, important questions should be asked about who makes decisions about the legal profession. Independence from political interference must be preserved or, even better, enhanced and reinforced. I am far from convinced that in that respect the Bill has got it right.
  Much has been said already with regard to the royal coat of arms and the judicial oath. The Bill not only undermines the Britishness of Northern Ireland, but in its implementation, challenges the constitutional status of the Province. In the words of the amendment,
  "justice flows from the Crown throughout the realm".
  Constitutionally and traditionally, the monarch is the source and fountain of justice in the United Kingdom. That is unaffected by devolution in Wales and Scotland, and it should be unaffected by devolution in Northern Ireland.
  Throughout the United Kingdom, the sovereign's majesty is deemed always to be present in court. It was in recognition of that that the practice of displaying a royal coat of arms behind the judge's chair evolved. The royal coat of arms symbolises the monarch as the source and fountain of justice, and it symbolises the presence of the sovereign's majesty.
  The criminal justice review group rightly argued that the removal of all symbols from courthouses would be inconsistent with Northern Ireland's constitutional position, but it was wholly illogical of the group then to argue that removing the royal coat of arms from inside courthouses while maintaining them outside would be consistent with Northern Ireland's constitutional position within the United Kingdom. It is illogical because the significance of the royal coat of arms inside a courthouse is greater than its significance outside. Its removal from the inside of a courthouse is therefore a far greater challenge to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. The review group acknowledges the principle that removing the royal coat of arms would be inconsistent with Northern Ireland's constitutional position, but proposes a course of action that fundamentally challenges that constitutional position.
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman has revealed by his contribution to the debate so far a level of research and understanding of the position that is significantly greater than that revealed by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. To that extent, I congratulate him. The review

  685
  board took a lot of advice on the constitutional implications of its recommendations and was satisfied that the consequences are not as he says they are.
  Perhaps from his researches the hon. Gentleman can tell the House how long the constitutional position of putting symbols in courts has been established throughout the United Kingdom. When I started practising in courts in Scotland, by no means all of them displayed royal symbols on the walls.
  Mr. Hunter: On the Minister's first point, I was making the point that I disagree profoundly with the conclusion reached by the review board. He summarised the board's findings, and I am trying to explain why it was wrong.
  I do not know precisely when the practice of displaying the royal coat of arms started, but I know of courthouses dating from the end of the 17th century where, if I recall correctly, Charles II's coat of arms is to be found. I believe that the practice may have started with or after the restoration in 1660.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Perhaps Scots thriftiness is one reason why the royal coat of arms is not displayed in every court.
  One of my constituents, who has practised for 20 years, has never heard any objection from any side to the presence of the coat of arms in the Northern Ireland courts. Rather than doing away with it, should we not encourage people to recognise it and accept with respect what it stands for?
  Mr. Hunter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that informative intervention. I certainly agree with him.
  The Bill's proposals on this matter are indications not of Northern Ireland's legal and constitutional Britishness but of the fact that Northern Ireland is being moved by the Government, quite deliberately and in flagrant disregard of the wishes of the majority of its inhabitants, into some sort of constitutional neutrality. The Secretary of State said in a speech quite recently that he did not want a "cold house for Unionists" to be created. To allow the Bill to become law will create arctic conditions for Unionists.
  It is relevant to recall that political developments in nationalism in Scotland have not led to the removal of the current symbols of justice. The Scottish court system has its own distinctive characteristics but devolved government has brought about no such changes.
  Mr. Browne: When the hon. Gentleman draws Scottish comparisons, he should be complete about it, and two of them are very important to his argument: first, judges are appointed on the recommendation of the First Minister in Scotland, without any of the constitutional implications that he infers; and secondly, it is now proposed to appoint a judicial appointments commission there, without any of the constitutional implications that he says there will be for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Hunter: It is early days to draw such conclusions. If the political composition of the Scottish Parliament changes significantly, the Minister may find that the very problems that he says do not exist will emerge in some force.
  686
  If enacted, the Bill will politicise judicial procedures in Northern Ireland as never before. In attacking the symbols of Britishness, it undermines Northern Ireland's constitutional status within the United Kingdom. It harmonises the legal system of Northern Ireland with that of the Republic of Ireland on an unprecedented scale. It incorporates a restorative justice system that could fall into the hands of terrorist organisations or otherwise be influenced by them. And it creates a new layer of quango and bureaucracy.
  I have no doubt at all that the Bill should be resisted.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Tom Harris: Before the start of this debate, I read for the first time the exact wording of the amendment. The Conservative party is making a major mistake by continuing, or even accelerating, its break from the cross-party consensus that prevailed through Conservative and Labour Governments.
  The complaint is that the Government are making
  "unilateral and unbalanced concessions to republicanism".
  Such language is not only inflammatory and irresponsible: it is unworthy of any party that aspires to lead the Northern Ireland peace process in government one day, and I hope for the sake of all the people of Northern Ireland that that day is a long way off. Such language is more suited to student politics than to a debate in the House. I have little doubt that, had the Conservative party been in government at any point over the past five years, the peace process as we know it would already have been dead and buried.
  After berating the Secretary of State for not being in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has now left the Chamber.
  Lembit Öpik: The peace process might have been dead and buried, or a Conservative Government might have made exactly the same decisions as the Labour Government have made.
  Mr. Harris: I agree: being in government often concentrates the mind on a more responsible attitude, and I hope—no one can be sure—that that is what would have happened.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford spent some time describing what he would do as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland but neglected to mention two of the Government's achievements, which he clearly has no regard for and no ambition to emulate: a three-year IRA ceasefire and the decommissioning of a substantial quantity of illegally held arms. Make no mistake: the Conservatives may claim to support the Good Friday agreement—and God knows they mention it often enough—but they are most definitely opposed to the Northern Ireland peace process. I hope that they will reconsider their strategy on the issue in the very near future.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for introducing the Bill and for their wider efforts in pushing forward the peace process. The Bill represents yet another Labour party manifesto commitment honoured and another piece of the Good Friday agreement implemented.

  687
  I am disappointed that the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Michelle Gildernew) are not here in the Chamber—I understand that they are in the Palace of Westminster—to debate an issue that is of great importance to their constituents as well as those of the hon. Members who have chosen to be here to represent those who elected them.
  When almost everything we hear about developments in Northern Ireland revolves around terrorism, intimidation and weapons decommissioning, it is easy to forget that here is a part of the United Kingdom where normal life must go on and is going on, and that Government policy in Northern Ireland goes beyond the headlines to address the everyday concerns shared by people of all communities. The Bill is no less important to the people of Northern Ireland for the fact that it deals with measures that are not especially headline grabbing.
  I warmly welcome the Bill and I want to raise a few points—salient ones, I hope—about it. In England and Wales, and in Scotland, the development of the criminal justice system has been the subject of constant though often understated debate, and where change has been necessary, appropriate legislation has followed. The Bill is the first major criminal justice reform in Northern Ireland for more than 30 years. I accept that that is an illustration of what happens to a community that is thrown into chaos and violence, and political debate focuses almost exclusively on questions of security, nationality and religion. I hope that the House will welcome the Bill as a sign that normal politics in Northern Ireland has been, if not resumed, at least rescheduled for a date in the not-too-distant future.
  I especially welcome the establishment of the rights of the victims of crime, who will be kept informed, for example, of the time scale for the release of offenders. Such information, I understand, has been available to the victims of terrorist crimes, who are informed about the release of members of paramilitary groups, and I am sure that this reform is welcomed by the whole House.
  Most important of all, the Government have made known their desire for responsibility for criminal justice to be devolved to where it belongs—the Northern Ireland Assembly—within a definite time scale.
  The Bill makes it clear that the future development of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland must be seen as part of a politically neutral process. That is fundamental to many of the reforms that have taken place since the Good Friday agreement, and has been the cornerstone of the Government's policy. I have always believed that in Northern Ireland it is utterly impossible to please all the people all the time—but at the very least, if we are displeasing everyone at the same time, we must be doing something right.
  As for symbols and oaths, I accept that it is always difficult for those of us who do not live in Northern Ireland to make judgments on those who have lived with terrorism and violence in their communities for their whole lives. However, let me say in all sincerity that it is difficult to understand why the question of emblems has to take up so much of the debate, and why it took up so great a proportion of the speeches made earlier from the Conservative Benches.
  688
  I appreciate that, in Northern Ireland, history is just not a record of the past, but, although invisible, almost a living thing, which is at the table whenever any party, Government body or courthouse meets.
  Mr. Trimble: There is a very simple answer, and it has nothing to do with delving into the past; we only have to consider the past three years. The Belfast agreement recognised that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, but the problem is that since then the Government have not been implementing the agreement; they are failing to implement it. It is as simple as that. If the Government were keeping to the agreement in that respect, the Bill would have a much easier passage.
  Mr. Harris: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution, but I am afraid that I disagree with him. I believe that the Government are implementing the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, and have worked tirelessly to keep the peace process on track. They must be commended for that.
  Mr. Francois: If the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the Bill is implementing the Good Friday agreement, will he tell the House what paragraph of the agreement says that the royal arms will be removed from courthouses in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Harris: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a commitment in the Good Friday agreement to review the justice system—[Interruption.] That is exactly what the Bill is doing. There was also an understanding in the agreement that, following the positive votes in the referendums, there would continue to be as normal a process of governance as possible. Not everything to be produced before the House of Commons was to be specifically included in the Good Friday agreement. This, however, is specially provided for.
  We are here tonight to talk about yet another major step forward for the people of Northern Ireland. The Bill will have a profoundly positive impact on civil life there. I acknowledge that whether there are crowns or other such symbols inside or outside courts is important to some Opposition Members and their constituents, but we in the House would do the people of Northern Ireland a disservice if we dwelt on such a matter at length. It is not the most important issue facing us tonight. The Bill is about addressing the real fears and problems of real people. It is not about symbols, and although everything that happens in Northern Ireland is done within a historical context—I respect the history that has been referred to earlier—we cannot allow history to dictate our actions or debates.
  I completely condemn the wording of the amendment proposed by the Conservative party. It is nothing short of a disgrace, and I hope that the whole House will show its contempt for the amendment when it is put to the vote later.
  8.13 pm
  Lady Hermon: I apologise to hon. Members for not being here at the very beginning of the debate for the Secretary of State's opening words; it overlapped with a commitment that I had to a Committee, and I came here as quickly as possible afterwards.

  689
  Let me make it clear from the beginning—I am sure that the Minister will be relieved to know this—that the Ulster Unionist party broadly welcomes the efforts made in the Bill to make the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland more effective, transparent and accountable. As the Minister will no doubt know, there is great frustration about the inefficiencies of the present system, and we hope that the Modernisation proposed in the Bill will address such problems.
  We are also particularly pleased by the Government's commitment to devolve both policing and justice matters to the Northern Ireland Assembly after the next scheduled Assembly elections in May 2003. That reflects the Government's confidence both in the continued stability of the Assembly and in the calibre of its Members, both of which I welcome.
  We are therefore pleased at the prospect of the new Department of Justice being established under a Minister of Justice with responsibility for the Court Service, the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the probation service and the new juvenile justice agency.
  Before examining the Bill in more detail, I should like to endorse the sentiments in paragraph 12.2 of the review group's report and pay tribute not only to those who have served in the Northern Ireland Prison Service but to those who have served in the wider criminal justice review system and have given such dedicated service over 30 years, despite threats and attacks by paramilitaries.
  There are many positive elements in the Bill. First and foremost, given our party's commitment to human rights, equality and freedom from all forms of discrimination, including positive discrimination, we are pleased to see that the Government have agreed that those themes should be central to the criminal justice system.
  It is also pleasing to see that the opening clause gives a guarantee that
  "Those with responsibility for the administration of justice must uphold the continued independence of the judiciary."
  It is that emphasis in clause 1 on the "continued" independence of the judiciary that I particularly welcome, as it rightly recognises their independence to date.
  Of the other positive aspects of the Bill, I draw particular attention to the progressive approach to juvenile justice. We should all agree that, where possible, we should endeavour to avoid processing and reprocessing young people within the criminal justice cycle, without providing them with the opportunities to escape from criminal activity.
  Attached to the sphere of juvenile justice is the idea of restorative justice, as outlined in the criminal justice review. The genuine concerns of many people in Northern Ireland about how and where restorative justice schemes would operate in practice, and their interaction with the criminal justice system, will be allayed to some extent by the commitment to accredited systems of restorative justice.
  That would tie those schemes and initiatives into the mainstream criminal justice and juvenile justice systems. We also welcome giving victims a voice and involving them in that respect. Concerns would be further eased if the Minister could tell us tonight what the Government intend to do to stop unaccredited "community justice" systems operating, and to prevent them from attempting to involve themselves in the punishment of young offenders.
  690
  The Minister will know that recent figures for punishment attacks showed an alarming increase last year, compared with 2000. The Government cannot afford to be complacent about the 25 per cent. increase in such attacks, or about the fact that it is loyalist paramilitaries, particular the Ulster Defence Association, who have been responsible for two thirds of the overall total.
  We agree that it is accepted practice nowadays for investigatory and prosecution functions to be conducted by separate organisations. On the plane to London today, I was pleased to read in the Minister's article in the Irish News—good article, terrible photograph—that the new Director of Public Prosecutions will operate regionally, with offices open throughout Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government, in embarking on such a large expansion, will take on board the logistical and funding lessons to be learned from a similar transition in England and Wales.
  The creation of a chief inspectorate of criminal justice for Northern Ireland is particularly welcome. It is essential that the inspector should be able to consider all aspects of the criminal justice system and all organisations that perform functions within it. It is to be regretted, therefore, that the list of organisations in clause 41 is not comprehensive. Even with the creation of the Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland, prosecution functions will continue to be carried out by a variety of other bodies, including—this will come as news to some hon. Members—Consignia, the Financial Services Authority and, last but certainly not least, the office of the police ombudsman. Will the Minister undertake to review that point and to consider expanding the list in clause 41 to ensure that the inspectorate has a truly comprehensive remit?
  Mr. Browne: That issue has exercised the hon. Lady for some time and she and I have discussed it previously. I can give an assurance that the organisations that will be subject to inspection by the inspectorate will be kept constantly under review. That is why the clause has been drafted as it has. The list reflects the list contained in the review, but we have included a provision to add others to it by order. All organisations that have criminal investigatory powers and powers to prosecute in Northern Ireland are being considered for incorporation in the list. We are also considering whether the courts themselves ought to be included.
  Lady Hermon: I thank the Minister for that helpful and useful intervention. As he has responded so positively, I shall try him on another issue.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I did not catch what the Minister said. Did he imply that he would see that the ombudsman's office would be on the list, or did he just say that it could be on the list?
  Lady Hermon: The Minister indicated that he would keep the list actively under review and that it would become more comprehensive.
  I want to draw the Minister's attention to the dramatic fall in the number of police officers. The figure has fallen below the 7,500 recommended by Patten over 10 years, and has done so in under three years. We should prefer to see police officers out on the streets instead of being tied up in the prosecution of minor offences in magistrates courts. For that reason, we are happy with the separation of investigatory and prosecution functions.

  691
  That said, will the Minister address low morale among police officers in Northern Ireland? Will he, in the context of a criminal justice Bill, consider introducing a fixed and heavy penalty for the murder of police officers, including Gardai officers on secondment to the new policing service in Northern Ireland and those who join it through lateral entry?
  I congratulate the review body on not following Patten's recommendation of using discrimination to redress imbalances in the composition of the police service. It is none the less disappointing that female and ethnic minority under-representation in the judiciary seems to have been largely overlooked in the Bill. That is one of many problems with the proposed reform of judicial appointments. The Ulster Unionists strongly support appointments based solely on merit.
  There is, however, an impression of politicisation in the new proposals, with the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister involved in the appointments procedures in many different forms and at all levels. That impression seems to be justified when one considers clause 3(7), under which the new Judicial Appointments Commission will be established. In paragraph 6.87 of the review, its members were at pains to point out the difference between the words "reflective" and "representative":
  "Individual judges and magistrates, in carrying out their functions, do not 'represent' any particular section of society".
  Nevertheless, the Bill contains the proposal that a representative commission be appointed. With the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister appointing five lay members, we have an appearance at least and a fear that political appointees might be inclined to make political appointments. I understand that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister might prefer not to have that power, but if my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) would like to intervene, perhaps we could clarify that issue here and now.
  Mr. Browne: Let me take advantage of the point that the hon. Lady makes to make a point that I have been meaning to make publicly for some time. Whereas it is appropriate for bodies that operate in a collegiate fashion to be either reflective or representative, individual appointments, such as judges, cannot possibly be seen to be representative; otherwise, it would be impossible for them to reflect society. In the context of what the Government are trying to achieve in Northern Ireland, it is important to say that it may be appropriate for some bodies that operate in a collegiate fashion to be seen to be either reflective or representative, but that that is entirely inappropriate for people such as judges, who are appointed to operate individually.
  Lady Hermon: I thank the Minister for that intervention.
  I sincerely congratulate the Government—the Minister will be pleased that we have so much on which to congratulate him—on resisting the temptation to enhance in any real sense lay involvement in the judiciary. Experience in England and Wales shows that many lay benches can be costly, inefficient and fail to command the respect of others who work in the criminal justice system,
  692
  so I appreciate the fact that the Government resisted the temptation to follow suit and repeat the pattern found in Great Britain.
  Despite the fact that we welcome so many positive aspects of the Bill, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that there are matters about which we are greatly disappointed. I am disappointed with recommendation 138, in which the Irish language is specifically singled out for consideration for use in courts. Such a recommendation offends other minority groups in Northern Ireland, not least the large Hong Kong Chinese community. I declare an interest in that I am the chairman, on a voluntary basis, of the fundraising committee for the Chinese Welfare Association.
  In fairness to our ethnic minority groups, all minority groups should be considered fairly, so perhaps the Minister will kindly give equal attention to the language of other minority groups. Perhaps he will explain at the end of the debate what is meant by the phrase "consideration of the use of the Irish language", as used in that recommendation.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The constituency that I represent, South Belfast, contains a high percentage of people who speak other languages, so I support my hon. Friend on that issue. Surely translators could be present to help those whose main language is Irish, especially as English is spoken even in the Dail.
  Lady Hermon: I thank my hon. Friend. I am reminded of the cost, which the Northern Ireland Assembly considered, of providing simultaneous translation into Irish, and such costs should also be borne in mind.
  The section of the review entitled "Community Safety" contains rather odd proposals for local community safety partnerships, which will require much greater scrutiny in Committee. The proposals are odd in two respects. The first relates to the lack of detail about the composition of the partnerships. I would have liked more information on who will be encouraged to serve on them. Secondly, I am discouraged by the recommendation's similarity to the proposal in the Patten report for district policing partnership boards, as they were originally described.
  Clause 71(4)(d) will give the local community safety partnerships the power to buy in additional resources. I hope that point will be clarified, because I do not want us to resurrect the original power in the Patten report that would have allowed policing to be bought in by the partnerships.
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Lady can be reassured that our intention is made clear in the implementation plan. Local rates are and should remain a matter for the devolved institutions to determine.
  Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Minister's clarification.
  I have supported the Belfast agreement from the beginning and continue to do so. It is the benchmark against which the many changes to be introduced by the Bill must be measured. As hon. Members have said, the agreement was endorsed by a substantial majority in a referendum in Northern Ireland and in a separate referendum in the Republic of Ireland. The Government must not therefore cast aside the wishes of the majority of the people on the island of Ireland and substitute them with their own as they have done in the recent past.

  693
  I want the Government to abide by the Belfast agreement for a change and to build on it, so that it works for the benefit of everyone in Northern Ireland and not just a section of the population. Given the express provisions in the agreement, there can be absolutely no justification for clause 66 as drafted. It recommends that the royal coat of arms must not be displayed in any courtroom. The Minister will know that there is an express provision in the Bill not only about Northern Ireland's constitutional position in the agreement unless and until people wish otherwise, but about the use of symbols.
  The paragraph dedicated to symbols and emblems states that all the participants—the British Government, the Irish Government, Sinn Fein and the rest—
  "acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division."
  I particularly draw attention to the words in the agreement—which the vast majority of the people in the island of Ireland agreed to in two referendums—that say that symbols and emblems are to be used
  "in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division."
  It was not part of the agreement—and, therefore, not a wish of the people of the island of Ireland—that symbols should be taken down. On the contrary, they are to be used in the manner to which I have drawn attention. So the hacking out of the royal coat of arms from existing courtrooms and the exterior of courthouses where they are fixtures is wholly unacceptable. We reject outright such a recommendation. Such acts of vandalism inside and outside courthouses would provoke intense division rather than avoid it. It would certainly add to the steady seeping away of Unionist support for the agreement, which I bitterly regret, and the Government must address that problem.
  I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State allude to heritage considerations. I hope that when it comes to listed buildings that have the royal coat of arms embossed in wood or sculpted in, either in the courtroom or on the exterior of the courthouse, a sensible cross-party consensus will emerge that the vandalism of those symbols will not promote mutual respect, but cause division instead.
  Provisions in clause 62 also make us concerned about new courthouses. The recommendation suggests that they should be neutral on the outside, the inside and the roof. However, the agreement is not neutral about symbols, and I specifically read out the relevant paragraph. It urges all participants to use symbols in a way that shows mutual respect rather than causing division. So I cannot accept the neutrality of new courthouses and new courtrooms. Neutral is not what we voted for. I voted for mutual respect.
  Mr. Trimble: With regard to arguments in favour of neutrality, which appear to have influenced the Northern Ireland Office's review group and consequently the legislation, would it not be appropriate for the Northern Ireland Office to reconsider its position? My hon. Friend argues that the agreement was not about neutrality, but about the appropriate use of symbols. In addition, the neutrality argument was rejected in the High Court of Northern Ireland by Mr. Justice Kerr in his judgment on
  694
  the flag regulations. He said that those arguments based on the agreement that there should be neutrality in the use of symbols were wrong. So the few arguments that have been put to that effect by various Labour Members have been ruled wrong in the High Court of Northern Ireland.
  Lady Hermon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment, especially as it means that I can delete a whole paragraph of my speech because he has just covered my remarks.
  Instead of having blank walls inside and outside, I passionately hope that in consultation with other parties we can make the agreement work and reach a consensus on mutually agreed symbols for new courtrooms. That is what we and the people of Ireland voted for.
  My right hon. Friend urges me not to exclude my comments on flag flying regulations, so I shall draw the attention of the House to a serious omission. The regulations were, as he reminded us, recently tested in the High Court. In the Murphy case, Mr. Justice Kerr had to consider whether they were compatible with the agreement. He concluded that there was no particular case to be made for the flag flying regulations to favour one tradition over another. He decided that the symbolism of the flag merely reflected Northern Ireland's constitutional position as part of the UK. The flag flying regulations reduced the number of days and they treat Northern Ireland on the same basis as the rest of the UK. That is guaranteed in the agreement, and the people of Northern Ireland should be pleased with that. The regulations exclude 12 July, but the situation is the same as in Great Britain, and if we want to be treated as part of the United Kingdom we should have agreed to the regulations on flags. I should like the Minister to address the serious issue of future courthouses because there appears to be a gap in the flags regulations on that matter.
  In conclusion, the Bill represents a genuine opportunity for the Government to claw back Unionist confidence lost during the implementation of the Patten reforms. The Government can begin to repair that damage if they start to listen to Unionist concerns with open ears and show themselves to be responsive to those concerns. Mistakes were made in implementing Patten and there was insensitivity in the handling of those reforms. I urge the Government not to repeat those mistakes in reforming the criminal justice system.
  8.40 pm
  Mike Gapes: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). I agreed with much of what she said and particularly with the tone of her contribution, which was constructive, considered and intelligent.
  It is a pity that the Opposition's contribution was made in such a different tone. Unfortunately, that reflects what I fear is a shift away from their earlier support for the Good Friday agreement. At one point when I was listening to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) expressing full synthetic outrage, I almost wished that we had the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) back. The Conservative party claims to support the Belfast agreement, but in all its actions, its rhetoric and its language it consistently works to assist the opponents of the agreement both in Northern Ireland and on its own Back Benches.

  695
  The Bill is very welcome. It is a further step towards the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. As hon. Members have said, it has been subject, in different forms including a draft Bill, to wide and on-going consultation. I had the privilege of being a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Northern Ireland Office for two years, from just after the 1997 election until the end of July 1999. I pay tribute to the work done in that period by the Ministers with whom I worked, including the former Secretary of State and Member for Redcar and my right hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), for whom I worked directly during the negotiations that secured the Good Friday agreement.
  Those two weeks in March 1998 were among the most tiring and exhilarating times in my 35 years in active politics. It was not certain that we would get the agreement. On many occasions there were difficult issues to be dealt with. Books have been written about that, and no doubt there will be many more when people write their memoirs. All the parties present, including the two Governments, had to compromise and come together to secure the agreement. Its wording is very clear. It has been quoted already, so I will not quote it at length. Pages 22 and 23 of the Belfast agreement set out the approach to be followed on policing and justice. There is clear recognition that a complete review of the system was needed; the Bill is the product of that review. All the participants agreed that the principal aims of the criminal justice system were to
  "deliver a fair and impartial system of justice to the community;
  be responsive to the community's concerns, and encouraging community involvement where appropriate;
  have the confidence of all parts of the community; and
  deliver justice efficiently and effectively."
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has already talked about the concept of parity of esteem. I agree strongly that we should deal with the realities, but we must also recognise that in Northern Ireland—but not just there, as we have the problem in other parts of the UK, but perhaps in less extreme forms—symbolism is, unfortunately, often far more important than reality. There has been talk in our debate about the role of the Queen. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford kept going on about it. He is an interesting man because he is a pro-European who supported the Maastricht treaty; I have shared platforms with him, when he argued in favour of Europe against Eurosceptic Conservatives and others. When he signed up to the Maastricht treaty, he supported the concept of European Union citizenship.
  The people of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England and the Irish Republic are all European Union citizens, which did not seem to present a problem to the hon. Gentleman in his previous incarnation. Now, however, he has become obsessed, to the point of going over the top, with the language of the review and the report. I recognise, and recent events in north Belfast bring it home to all of us, the need to be careful and make sure that we do not encourage alienation among the Protestant working class communities of Northern Ireland. There is a danger that irresponsible demagogues and people with a criminal agenda will be able to use symbolic
  696
  issues to build support, with the consequence that postal workers will be murdered and other criminal terrorist activity will take place.
  We all know that that is not representative of the bulk of society or the bulk of people who call themselves loyalists. Nevertheless, there will be a dangerous situation if gangs of misguided young men carry out attacks because they believe that their identity has been destroyed or will be taken away. Those issues are politically important and account must be taken of them. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister and other Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office will take careful note of the words of the hon. Member for North Down and others who are in favour of the agreement and want it to succeed. It is crucial that those of us throughout the United Kingdom who want harmony, parity of esteem, unity and an end to violence, both strengthen the forces on the ground in Northern Ireland that are in favour of that aim and stand up and undermine the demagogues, whether in the House or in Northern Ireland.
  I agree very strongly with the remarks made by a number of hon. Members about the importance of the Policing Board having Sinn Fein members. I also believe that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) suggested, Sinn Fein Members should not be elsewhere in the building, but here in the Chamber to tell us why they refuse to support the reformed police organisations in Northern Ireland. The proposals were set out in the Belfast agreement, to which they signed up and on which they campaigned for a yes vote. It would be good if they were present, so that we could subject them to such questioning. Until the bulk of the Catholic community in all areas in Northern Ireland supports, joins and assists the police, they will not be able to do their job with maximum effectiveness.
  The Bill is not about those matters—it relates to other issues—but it is crucial that it is understood in the context of the wider policing and justice aspects of the Belfast agreement. It contains important provisions about youth justice—clauses 57 to 61—and it is welcome that information about discharge of prisoners is to be given to victims in a wider sense. Community safety partnerships at a local level are also important. We have had them throughout England and their quality was variable, but I believe that they are very significant.
  Those are all welcome steps forward. I believe that, in time, the Bill will make a big contribution in terms of making life better for ordinary people in all parts of Northern Ireland. I hope that, by building on this process, as well as on the other measures implemented in the past couple of years and the new political processes initiated by the very wise activities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team, support will strengthen during the next year for the pro-agreement, pro-co-operation and pro-consensual approach that is favoured by at least some Ulster Unionist Members and also by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down. I hope that, in time, more aspects of normal life will be devolved to the Assembly and to the people of Northern Ireland.
  In conclusion, it is important that those of us who live in the rest of the United Kingdom understand that the reality of Northern Ireland and of the issues that are being discussed is not what will feature in the headlines in tomorrow's papers, as it is not about whether certain people have offices—or about the furniture, plants and

  697
  number of filing cabinets in those offices—but about what the ordinary people of Northern Ireland will gain in their day-to-day life from measures taken by this House and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Gregory Campbell: In rising to speak in the debate, I fear that I have to say things that hon. Members may not find palatable. None the less, I feel that they must be said. As the Secretary of State said at the outset, the Bill is being brought forward in the context of the Belfast agreement. The right hon. Gentleman also said that it was the biggest overhaul of criminal justice in 30 years.
  It sometimes appears to people in Northern Ireland that there is an underlying premise on which Her Majesty's Government and the political institutions in Northern Ireland tackle all issues, whether criminal justice and the improvements to it that we all want, political institutions such as the devolved Assembly, cultural manifestations or parades.
  The premise is that there is an inherent imbalance, almost a genetic imbalance, that must be rectified. There is a false, inaccurate and implausible belief that Northern Ireland's inherent Unionism must be diluted to accommodate or satisfy nationalist opinion. That appears to be the case in the Bill, as it was in the Belfast agreement, and in decisions about cultural manifestations and parades. Every major or significant move, for example on emblems and the royal arms outside courthouses, has to be a signal to the nationalist community of a form of neutrality and openness. It has to be an attempt by the Government to bring the nationalist community from the cold into the warm sunshine of an all-embracing Northern Ireland under the agreement.
  Before Christmas, the Secretary of State made a comment that my colleagues and I have been making, not for a few weeks or months, not even since the Belfast agreement, but for decades. The only thing that he got wrong was the tense. Northern Ireland is not in danger of becoming a cold place for Unionists; it is and has been a cold place for Unionists for many years because of the underlying premise on which the Bill is based. There is a false belief that nationalism can be accommodated by the removal of symbols.
  Although I bow to the Minister's greater experience of the Scottish legal system, I raised in the ad hoc committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly the question of royal symbols outside Scottish courthouses. Nationalist opinion rises and falls in Scotland, and I asked many witnesses whether there was evidence of an attempt by those who represent the nationalist community there to remove the royal symbols from outside courthouses. Every witness said that there was no such move and that they knew of no demand from nationalists in Scotland to remove the insignia from courthouses. Why should there be such a demand in Northern Ireland? Before the criminal justice review was mooted, did any evidence exist to show that there was such a demand?
  I saw a false and inaccurate programme last night on national television about the day known as Bloody Sunday. I watched to see if it would refer to a demand for changes to the criminal justice system. There was no such reference. Why? I defy any hon. Member, past or present, to recollect demands by civil rights demonstrators at the
  698
  beginning of the civil disturbances in Northern Ireland for changes to the criminal justice system. I do not recall there being any and, until the review, there was no evidence that the removal of the insignia or the royal coat of arms was a demand being voiced by campaigners.
  I take issue with some of the points made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). He referred to the ad hoc committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, of which I was a member. I attended most of its hearings, put questions to many of the witnesses and spoke at the Northern Ireland Assembly when we were debating these issues. I made the point on every occasion I could that the hard issues that might divide members of the committee, and Members of the Assembly, had not been addressed. We did not grapple with the thorny question of the royal coat of arms outside courthouses. That is why there was a degree of unanimity. I do not mind if people agree to set aside for a time the hard issues that are likely to divide them, to achieve some form of consensus. I do mind, however, if they try to present that course of action as a solution to the many difficult decisions that they face.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: As a member of the committee, I must point out that the chairman, Mr. Shipley Dalton, an Official Unionist, stated in the committee's report:
  "It is true to say that there is no complete consensus"
  in this report. Hon. Members have tried to paint a picture of almost complete unanimity in the committee. There was no such unanimity, because these issues, which are contentious for Unionists, were not dealt with. They could not be dealt with because there was no coming together of minds.
  Mr. Campbell: That is indeed the case, and it was alluded to in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I shall have to ask the hon. Member for South Down to explain that omission from his speech at some point, but I shall now move on.
  The Secretary of State's earlier contribution on the Policing Board will cause concern in Northern Ireland. We attempted on several occasions to ascertain from the right hon. Gentleman the precise nature of the Government's position. It appeared that, when he met the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party and, I assume, other parties several months ago, the issue of the deadline for the nominations to the Policing Board was put to him. We were given the clear and precise response that a deadline would be adhered to and that, once it had passed, that would be it for any changes to the board until a subsequent point beyond the next Assembly elections, which are scheduled for 2003.
  The Secretary of State appeared today to admit of the possibility that the boat might not have left the harbour, if Sinn Fein-IRA were to suggest, in the immediate future, either privately or publicly, that they had reviewed their position. We were told many months ago that the boat was to set sail, and that if Sinn Fein was not on it, it would be left behind. The implication tonight, however, was that if a change was in the offing from Sinn Fein-IRA, there could perhaps be a review of the legislation by Her Majesty's Government. It would be preferable if we could clarify that point tonight. Has the boat left the harbour? Is there any possibility that if Sinn Fein-IRA were to hint at a change of mind—despite their previously stated position, their adherence to and support

  699
  for violence, and their continued campaign of punishment beatings in Northern Ireland—their position would be reconsidered via a change in legislation in the House?
  Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify one point? Does he agree that it would be preferable to have Sinn Fein on the Policing Board at the earliest opportunity and thereby encourage young republicans to join the police service? Would not that be a better way forward for all of us in Northern Ireland and a clear indication that the war is indeed over?
  Mr. Campbell: If Sinn Fein were committed to the political process and if its members were democrats, I would unreservedly and unequivocally say yes, but the point is that they are not. They would corrupt the system just as they are corrupting the system in Northern Ireland now. That is the point and that is why the hon. Lady has alluded over the past few days and weeks to the undermining of support for the Belfast agreement in the Unionist community. That community sees the corruption of civic and political life by Sinn Fein-IRA supporters across Northern Ireland, so it has no confidence in the agreement that delivered those people to the heart of government via the system that the hon. Lady supported and continues to support.
  I must refer to the possible appointments to the Judicial Appointments Commission. The Bill says that there will be
  "a body corporate known as the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission"
  consisting of a chairman and
  "twelve other members appointed by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly."
  My party would have serious reservations about that, not least because, just as the political institutions are causing controversy and attracting a distinct lack of support in the Unionist community, the offices of First and Deputy First Minister, as they claim themselves to be, equally have a reputation problem in the Unionist community in that Unionists have no confidence in them.
  I return to the possible introduction of community restorative justice, which has been raised several times. That issue again divided the Northern Ireland Assembly ad hoc committee, as it causes deep concern to many communities in Northern Ireland. For a number of years, a barbaric type of justice has been meted out by those who support Sinn Fein or loyalist paramilitaries and some have banded together in a pseudo-community restorative justice programme. Some people involved in some programmes are causing major concern to those of us with a genuine interest in a restorative justice system that can command support across the communities in Northern Ireland. It is vital that the Northern Ireland community—Protestants and Catholics; Unionists and nationalists—see that a community restorative justice programme can have no semblance of credibility within the terms of the Bill.
  Mr. Browne: That is a very bald assertion. The Bill sets out clearly the exact reassurances that the hon. Gentleman seeks on the proposed restorative justice agencies—they must be accredited and they must be prepared to work with the statutory agencies, including
  700
  the police—so I invite him to explain why they are not good enough. What reassurances on restorative justice, which he says could be good for the people of Northern Ireland, does he think he needs from the Government?
  Mr. Campbell: The Minister should not underestimate the capacity of Sinn Fein and the community groups with which it is associated to do whatever it takes to control the justice system in their areas. In the so-called ghetto areas of Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein has proved over and again that it is prepared to use whatever means it has at its disposal to try to control the justice system.
  Mr. Browne: The House needs to tease this matter out. The argument that the hon. Gentleman has just articulated is an argument for no restorative justice. Is that what he is arguing? He prefaced his critical remarks on the Bill by saying that, like the Government, he believes that restorative justice has a role to play in Northern Ireland. We should work together to ensure a restorative justice system that does not allow those elements to deny the people of Northern Ireland this opportunity. What is his position? Does he think that no system of restorative justice will ever work in Northern Ireland because of those elements, or can we work together to improve the provisions in the Bill?
  Mr. Campbell: Last week, the Minister told me and my colleagues that he wanted our comments on the Bill and suggestions for improvements. We relayed our comments, including our concerns on the community restorative justice aspects of the Bill. I am merely laying down a marker. The ability and capacity for Sinn Fein and the community groups with which it is associated should not be underestimated: they will go to the nth degree to try to ensure that they retain control in Northern Ireland.
  I do not think that the status of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland has been referred to in the debate. The ad hoc committee took evidence from the board. The board and the committee agreed that it would be a retrograde step to downgrade the board to the status of a next steps agency. I reiterate that view.
  9.12 pm
  Mr. Mark Francois: I want to speak against several aspects of the Bill, and to make specific criticisms of the proposals for restorative justice for young offenders in part 4. I also want to make some wider points about the nature of the Bill.
  The simplest explanation of the aims of restorative justice can be summarised as the three Rs: responsibility, restoration and reintegration. As I understand it, a number of countries around the world already use similar systems for encouraging offenders to confront the consequences of their behaviour, and to make amends via one method or another to those against whom they have transgressed.
  In Canada, the emphasis is on reconciliation, with victims given the opportunity to confront their offenders and to suggest ways in which offenders could make amends for what they have done. In New Zealand, they prefer a system of family or community conferencing, which involves people concerned about the victim and/or the offender in decisions about how amends can best be made.
  Mr. Browne: Even in his introductory remarks, the hon. Gentleman sounds as though he may know what he

  701
  is talking about, and may have come across the document that accompanied the review and the many hundreds of research documents that are referred to in the schedule to it. Why did he not tell his hon. Friends on the Front Bench about its existence?
  Mr. Francois: If it helps the Minister, I can confirm that my research was not undertaken for me in a great hurry by civil servants at two minutes' notice.
  The Australians use a similar system based on the New Zealand model but with a greater role for the police as part of the overall process. Closer to home, we have a slightly different system. In Scotland, offenders can be brought before panels of volunteer members of the public, who can discuss restorative justice options with them and their parents. In England, a non-criminal youth panel sees offenders who have been formally convicted by the youth court, and seeks to draw up a contract involving the offender and those seeking reparation.
  The proposed system of restorative justice for young offenders in Northern Ireland is based on an amalgam of those different approaches, with youth conferences and associated youth conference plans. The critical difference is that the systems in other countries were not designed to operate in an environment such as Northern Ireland, where special circumstances clearly apply.
  The proposals for Northern Ireland youth conferences allow the participation of a so-called appropriate adult. Under new article 3A, the appropriate adult could be a parent or guardian, a social worker or a legal representative. If no one in those categories was able or willing to serve, he or she could be replaced by
  "any responsible person who has attained the age of 18 and is neither a police officer nor a member of the police support staff."
  That definition is so broad that it could relate to just about anyone in practice. While it excludes police officers and members of the police support staff, presumably because the police are meant to be represented at the conference in their own right, it makes no reference to excluding members of paramilitary organisations, whether republican or loyalist. That means that, given the special circumstances in Northern Ireland, the system is open to abuse.
  For instance, what is to stop members of paramilitary organisations effectively using their muscle in the local community to insist that only they should be allowed to represent young offenders at youth conferences, as "appropriate adults"? They might then argue for a very light penalty—if any meaningful sanction is to be imposed at all. Youths who had been involved in criminal activity might look to the local paramilitary bosses for protection via the system. Not only does that offer the paramilitaries an avenue to subversion of the justice system; it threatens to turn young offenders towards them if they appear to have been successfully protected.
  I accept that the proposed system may be well intentioned, but I believe that it ignores the reality of life in Northern Ireland. All this needs to be thought through again very carefully, even before the system is piloted in the Province.
  I am also concerned about the proposed changes to the judicial oath. The current oath states
  "I … do swear that I will well and truly serve our sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of … and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God."
  702
  In stark contrast, the revised oath in clause 20 states simply:
  "I … do swear that I will well and faithfully serve in the office of … and that I will do right to all manner of people without fear or favour, affection or ill will, according to the laws and usages of this realm."
  The revised oath expunges any references to the Crown other than the word "realm", which it retains almost as an afterthought. That is of concern not just to Unionists in Northern Ireland, but to all constitutional monarchists—or, at least, it should be. I include the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), for whom I also have a high regard.
  As our amendment states, we oppose the Bill
  "because it infringes the principle that justice flows from the Crown throughout the realm".
  Once we interfere with that principle, there will be implications for other parts of the United Kingdom. We kid ourselves if we pretend otherwise.
  I also have worries about the removal of the Crown arms outside courthouses in the Province, for similar reasons. Clause 66 states:
  "The Royal Arms must not be displayed in any courtroom."
  It also states that the arms must not be displayed
  "on the exterior of a new courthouse".
  "New courthouse" is defined as
  "a courthouse first used after the coming into force of this section."
  We will therefore have the anomaly of some courthouses displaying the royal arms and some not, depending not on what they stand for but simply on when they opened.
  Mr. Browne: That is true.
  Mr. Francois: I agree with the Minister. The explanatory notes that accompany the Bill gloss over that important point.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Fifty per cent. of the courthouses will be new courthouses. They will have no royal arms.
  Mr. Francois: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. For the avoidance of doubt, when I said that I agreed with the Minister, I agreed with his admitting the point. I did not agree with what he is trying to do.
  If the Bill is passed in its current form, how long will it be before we hear siren voices suggesting that the royal arms may be removed from other courthouses in the United Kingdom in order to comply with the precedent that has been set in Northern Ireland? The explanatory notes that accompany the Bill gloss over that important point in a desultory three lines.
  These measures are an affront not just to Unionist opinion but to all loyal subjects in the United Kingdom, including those in England, Scotland and Wales.
  Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman has intimated that that practice will be an insult to people in Scotland, England and Wales as well as Northern Ireland, yet it has pertained in Scotland at least for part of its history. Was that also an insult to the people of the other regions of the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Francois: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I understand that royal arms are currently displayed in courthouses in Scotland and I do not believe that that should change.

  703
  These measures will undoubtedly give succour to republicans, but not just republicans in Northern Ireland. Here we come to the heart of the point that my party is opposing. They will also be welcomed by republicans on the British mainland, including those in the British Labour party, of whom there are many, some covert and some overt. A few have gone from covert to overt in the course of this debate.
  The ramifications of some clauses go well beyond Northern Ireland itself. They are the thin end of a wider republican wedge. Chiefly for those reasons, I oppose them.
  9.22 pm
  Mrs. Patsy Calton: I echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) in welcoming the Bill. I shall not repeat his arguments in regard to parts 1 to 3. Instead, I shall confine my remarks to parts 4 and 5 and endeavour to be relatively brief.
  I too was struck by the emphasis that the report of the criminal justice review placed on international human rights standards. Paragraph 10.64 suggests that in drawing up and agreeing the aims and principles of the juvenile justice system, there would be value in drawing in particular upon the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, the international covenant on civil and political rights, UN guidelines for the prevention of juvenile delinquency, the UN standard minimum for the administration of juvenile justice, and UN guidelines for the protection of juveniles deprived of their liberty.
  I am pleased that clause 53(3) states that all persons and bodies exercising functions in relation to the youth justice system must have regard to the welfare of children affected by the exercise of their functions, with a view to furthering the personal, social and educational development of the child. Will the Government consider a more detailed statement of aims and principles being drawn up, perhaps in consultation with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission?
  Paragraph 10.66 of the report of the criminal justice review suggests:
  "The Government should develop, agree and incorporate a clear statement of the aims of the juvenile justice system in Northern Ireland and a statement of the principles which should guide those who exercise the powers conferred by the legislation with due regard to the international human rights standards".
  I support the scheme of reparation orders that is introduced under clause 54. There is a need for a greater role for the principles of restorative justice, with offenders meeting their victims, discovering the consequences of their actions and planning to improve their behaviour. Reform should respond not only to the problems caused by child offenders but to the problems that they face.
  The reparation order is useful, in that it can show children the damage, both physical and emotional, that their actions have caused to the victim, and allow them to give something back to the victim and the community and make amends for their actions in a way that a custodial sentence could not achieve.
  I am a little curious, however, about the provision in the new article 36B(2)(a) that the clause inserts in the Criminal Justice (Children)(Northern Ireland) Order
  704
  1998—that a reparation order must not be made if the court proposes to pass a custodial sentence on the offender. Surely there are circumstances in which a reparation order would be of benefit in addition to a custodial sentence. Are there circumstances in which a custodial sentence could be reduced if such an order was made, or is it the intention that a youth conference should be offered or convened in every case in which a community responsibility order, a custody order or a custodial sentence is imposed? There is a possible element of reparation in community responsibility and community custody orders, but not, as they are written, involving the victim.
  I am also concerned about some aspects of the custody care orders mentioned in clause 56. They are specified as being for children under 14 and for offences that do not carry a term of life imprisonment for an adult. A period of six months to two years seems to me a very long time for someone so young. What is the reasoning behind the measure?
  Further, in new article 44F, which details breaches of supervision requirements under the custody care orders, paragraph (3) imposes on the child a £200 fine or placement in secure accommodation for a period not to exceed 30 days. If the child has reached the age of 14, the figure rises to £1,000. These seem like quite large sums for young people. There also seems to be no mention of parental or guardian involvement. What role does the Secretary of State envisage for guardians or parents?
  I am impressed by the provision for youth conferences and youth conference plans in clause 57, but I should like to see a greater commitment to the child's education expressed in the membership of youth conference panels, and greater clarity about the circumstances in which these will be convened.
  Under part 5, the assumption of full responsibility for security by the Court Service and the removal of all symbols in the interior of courtrooms will ensure that the courts are a more welcoming environment for people, regardless of their community or ethnic background, a fact which Liberal Democrats very much welcome. I am also pleased to see in the criminal justice review implementation plan that the Court Service has already been proactive in the provision of information to the public and in providing outreach opportunities to the wider community through court visits and work experience placements, and that work is on-going to simplify the language used in courts.
  I agree with the report of the criminal justice review in its adoption of the recommendations in "Speaking up for Justice". Under the current justice system, victims are failed, in that they often feel left out, unimportant and even non-existent. I agree with clause 67, which is designed to inform victims of the progress of their cases and of the release of prisoners back into the community. I am concerned, however, about subsection (4), which allows the Secretary of State to make available "other information" relating to the discharge and temporary release of imprisoned offenders. Will the Secretary of State publish any guidance on what "other information" might be? We have seen a rise in the incidence of vigilantism across the UK in recent years, and I seek reassurance from the Government on how they propose to minimise the risk of that.

  705
  I welcome clauses 70 and 71, on a community strategy and a local community safety partnership, but I would like to raise briefly one particular concern about the local community safety partnerships. Clause 71(3) states that membership of the partnerships is to be as specified by order made by the Secretary of State. Why are the guidelines on membership, if not the actual community groups, not written into the Bill? Could the Secretary of State at the very least make the order available in draft form to the House for its consideration?
  The Bill is certainly moving in the right direction and should help in making the criminal justice system on the whole more accessible and more understood by the general public, whether or not they are ever involved with its process. Such openness and transparency are very welcome, and I support the Bill in principle.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: The first thing that I want to talk about is consultation, and the way in which the Bill has been handled. Much has already been said about that in the debate, but I want to make it clear that, in general, the Opposition welcome the Government's approach to framing the legislation—up to a point.
  The beginning of the process, which was conducted by the Northern Ireland Office, set a good example for other Departments of how to go forward and seek consensus, and also perhaps, for the benefit of the Government, to identify areas of disagreement and find out whether they had the potential to be resolved.
  However, I have to tell the Under-Secretary that the moment the Bill got into his hands, that praiseworthy approach appeared to fall apart, because of the timetable. He did extend the timetable for consultation on the draft Bill over Christmas, but not to the satisfaction of the Northern Ireland Assembly, to which I shall return in a moment—and now we face the programme motion before the House, which we shall not be able to debate.
  The combination of those two elements has entirely negated the beneficial effects of what the Government did before they published the Bill in November. I congratulate the Minister on having united all shades of opinion in the Assembly—because, as he will be aware, it is united in its condemnation of the Government's handling of the Bill and their inability to give the Assembly, or anybody else, sufficient time to consult on the details of the Bill, as opposed to the details of the published review.
  The Assembly's conclusion is worth reading into the record. It states that Members noted that the Cabinet Office code of practice on written consultations states that
  "'sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from all groups with an interest.'"
  It provides that 12 weeks should be the standard minimum for consultation and that consultation should never have to be shortened below an acceptable minimum for reasons of departmental convenience, for example because a department has fallen behind its own implementation schedule.
  It is much to be regretted that the Government have not been able to meet that standard for the discussion of the Bill before this stage. It is wholly unacceptable that they have provided for only 12 sittings on the Bill in Committee, because it contains a vast amount of detail that deserves proper consideration by the people who will have to examine it.
  706
  In my 15-minute response to the debate, I should not be having to try to make up for what is lacking elsewhere because the Government have ensured that many of the hours that would be necessary in Committee will not be available. I do not believe that it will be possible to give the Bill proper consideration in Committee under the timetable that the Government have drawn up, so I urge them to withdraw it.
  Now I must move on and deal with the contributions to the debate. I heard the Secretary of State say that the composition of the review group was established under the agreement. However, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) made clear in his opening remarks, the review group was a creature of the Northern Ireland Office; its composition was not part of the Belfast agreement.
  The Secretary of State also said that there would continue to be consultation over the months ahead—but consultation in this place will end on 14 February, less than one month ahead, when the Committee stage will finish if the House passes the programme motion.
  Concerns have been expressed in the debate about community safety, not least in the contribution by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who seemed to welcome clauses 70 and 71 before the penny dropped with her that there was nothing in them. They are Henry VIII clauses, which give the Secretary of State the power to do anything he likes.
  Detail is woefully missing from clauses 70 and 71. That is not acceptable to Parliament; nor is giving the Secretary of State that much power when, because of the Government's behaviour to date, there is significant suspicion about exactly how they will use those powers if Parliament bestows them.
  The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), whose long-standing interest and expertise in Northern Ireland politics is on the record, began his speech with a complaint about the youth element of part 4 of the Bill. He complained that the Bill mentioned a first duty to protect the public by preventing offending rather than by rehabilitation. By implication, the hon. Member for Cheadle agreed with him.
  I wholly disagree and shall support the Government in Committee in sustaining the position as it stands. Like the hon. Gentleman, I believe in the merits of rehabilitation. It is implicit, however, that if we succeed in rehabilitating youth offenders through the youth justice system in the Bill—we have no problem in principle with much of it, but considerable reservations about points of detail—we will achieve the first aim of the Bill as well as achieving what the hon. Gentleman wants in terms of protecting the interests of the child by preventing the child from continuing as an offender.
  I agree, with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) about consultation, and I sincerely hope that he will join us in the Division Lobby when we oppose the programme motion. His party has traditionally done that, but tonight's motion is unacceptable not just in principle, but in practice. Good work can be done on the Bill in Committee as part of the Government's consultation process.
  I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's maladroit equation of the hon. Member for Hull, North with Cromwell, to which the hon. Gentleman quite properly took exception.
  Mr. McNamara: For the record, Cromwell exported 2,000 McNamaras as slaves to Jamaica. It is arguable that

  707
  he exported the wrong ones, but to call me Cromwell, or to suggest in any way that that man was a great parliamentarian, is to rubbish history.
  Mr. Blunt: That is why I made my point that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire had been somewhat maladroit in making such a remark. I shall go no further into that point because I should have no time to discuss the rest of the Bill if I did.
  It was a bit rich of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to say that the Conservative view of the merits of devolution appeared confused. Let us consider the messages put out by his party at present. A bipartisan arrangement between Government and Opposition continues to exist over the Belfast agreement. Our concern is about cases in which the agreement is not implemented, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made clear during the debate. Yet today, the leader of the Liberal Democrats has announced that the bipartisan arrangement that has prevailed for some time between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats is over.
  The party of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire also sent out a confused message in its votes on access to facilities of the House: 14 of its Members voted for, 14 voted against and 28 abstained. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should put his own house in order before seeking to criticise the Conservatives for confusion of messages.
  The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) was quite right about the consistency of the approach taken by the Social Democratic and Labour party over the years. He said that it sought to achieve neutrality in the criminal justice system. That goes to the heart of the difference between the hon. Gentleman and the official Opposition. We do not believe that there should be neutrality in how the criminal justice system is represented in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and the criminal justice system must flow from the Crown. Symbols should recognise that reality, and I shall return to symbols later. However, I appreciated the tone in which he suggested that we should withdraw our amendment, even though I fear that that request will not meet with success.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) made it clear in speaking immediately after the hon. Member for South Down that our opposition to that detail of the Bill is no cheap publicity stunt and that it arises from fundamental principles. He drew proper attention to the fact that the review group's conclusion on the issue was illogical, and I want to return to that in a few moments.
  The contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) was that of a self-confessed republican. That became clear during this debate.
  Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge the difference between a republican in Ireland and a republican in Britain—the latter simply believes that the hereditary principle is not the most appropriate way to select the Head of State.
  Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman is right to make that distinction. Of course, I am not suggesting that he is
  708
  associated with the violence that has been the distinction between the people who describe themselves as nationalists and republicans in Northern Ireland. Part of the problem in dealing with Northern Ireland issues is that one ends up talking in code and words such as "community" become enormously loaded.
  That is also part of the problem with the Bill, especially with regard to community safety partnerships. What is the word "community" supposed to mean in that context? The Secretary of State has introduced the Bill, but clauses 70 and 71 deal with community safety partnerships in absolutely no detail, so the House is entitled to be extremely suspicious about what will flow from that, which is why the Secretary of State should not have such powers.
  I compliment the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on the charming tone with which she delivered her speech; it completely deceived the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) by wholly disguising the steel in her remarks and the resolution with which she put them to the House. She referred to the role of the chief inspector, and we agree that it would be appropriate to include the ombudsman in the list of institutions to be subject to inspection by the chief inspector. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us that satisfaction, if not in replying to the debate, certainly in Committee—if the House is minded to debate the Bill in Committee.
  The hon. Lady also talked about the Irish language. Of course, an absurd position has now arisen in the new courts in Laganside. To accommodate verbal instructions to members of the public, they can ask for those instructions to be put on a board in three languages—English, Irish and Cantonese—because more people speak Cantonese on the island of Ireland than speak Irish. That is the rather bizarre result of attempting to accommodate everyone.
  I agree with some of the analysis of by the hon. Member for Ilford, South, especially when he said that the problem was with Unionists and loyalists and that people could abuse the debate about symbols. That has to be viewed in the context of the fact that there is now a cold house for Unionists in Northern Ireland. Almost every informed commentator now agrees that the issue that requires the greatest management is not reassuring the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, but what has happened to the Unionist community as a direct result of the way in which the Government have conducted themselves, going above and beyond the Belfast agreement.
  The issue of coats of arms in courthouses and the oaths taken by members of the judiciary goes right to the heart of that symbology. The hon. Lady quoted the agreement. I shall not repeat that quote now, but it made it clear that the measures are not part of the Belfast agreement. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart complained that there had been too much focus on the issue, so why is it in the Bill? Why is such a measure being introduced when it will cause such offence to the people who want the Union to be sustained?
  The provisions for the oath and the coat of arms will be foolish in practice because of the message that they send to the Unionists. They are unacceptable in principle to those of us who regard Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom and want it to remain so. That is why we shall press our reasoned amendment to the vote.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Desmond Browne): I fear that 15 minutes is not long enough to deal with all the points that have been raised in the debate. I am grateful to most Members for their contributions to what has, in the main, been a constructive debate on an important Bill. I say "most", because I was disappointed by the contribution of an hour and 15 minutes by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). He devoted about an hour and 10 minutes of that to form, not to substance. I suspect that the bluster and alleged passion of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen was a cover for their failure to prepare properly for the debate so that they could address the provisions of this complicated and difficult, but important Bill.
  Before the debate, the Bill had benefited from the significant consultation that has contributed to its final form. The issue of consultation has occupied far too much time in the debate, but it is instructive that not one party other than the Opposition referred to the amount of consultation and co-operation that it has received from me, my officials in the Northern Ireland Office or my predecessors since the review proposals were published.
  I had an extensive meeting with the chair of the ad hoc committee of the Assembly. His work has been mentioned and he clearly understood the circumstances and the background that led to the Bill having to be published when it was. It is a pity that the understanding that was apparent in that meeting was not reflected in the report that was subsequently published.
  I must deal with another point that is not of substance but has been raised at length by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. He referred to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland left the Chamber a short time after he had made his speech. My clear recollection—I have checked this with the official record—is that my right hon. Friend referred in his speech to the fact that he would have to leave, so it is a great pity and a great discourtesy to him that those who were present in the Chamber and who sought thereafter to malign him by making constant references to his absence did not seek to raise that issue when he was here to defend himself.
  As a matter of fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a significant programme of extensive meetings and many people in the Chamber will know the hours that he works for Northern Ireland, both in Belfast and in London. He would not have absented himself from the Chamber but for the fact that he had to go to Belfast this evening. He set out this evening, so it is a pity that those who sought to criticise him in his absence did not have the courage to raise the matter when he was here.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: The Secretary of State said in his speech that he would have to leave early but not for a moment did I imagine that that meant that he would not stay even to hear the remarks of the Opposition spokesman. I thought that he would leave at some point in the evening. As he left, he sent me a note as I was speaking. Clearly, I was not able to read that note.
  710
  On the most important point, the Secretary of State should so arrange his priorities that Parliament comes first whatever may need to be done in London, Belfast or elsewhere. The fact that he has not done so clearly shows what is wrong with the Government as a whole.
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue specifically. If he checks the official record tomorrow, he will see that, when he was present in the Chamber, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that, because of today's statements, he had to do the hon. Gentleman—my right hon. Friend was referring to and looking directly at him—the discourtesy of leaving soon afterwards. If the hon. Gentleman has the courage to malign my right hon. Friend in that way, he should have done him the courtesy of doing it when he was here.
  The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who is not in the Chamber, mentioned respect for Law Officers. We need to clarify that. He asked whether the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland is to be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The answer to that is no, he cannot be a Member of it, and I refer hon. Members to clause 24(7). The review envisaged that the Attorney-General would be an independent and impartial figure. That recommendation was accepted and has been included in legislation.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said that we were making a new provision in which the Advocate-General would hold the position of Attorney-General for England and Wales. I refer hon. Members to the specific provision in clause 28. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the local Attorney-General cannot legally carry out the functions in relation to excepted matters, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) suggested. That is why there must be a division between the two responsibilities.
  Opposition Members said that there was no need to legislate this Session. The Government's position on that is clear. It is necessary to pave the way to make devolution possible if there is to be any prospect of the legislative framework for criminal justice in Northern Ireland being ready for the target that the Secretary of State mentioned today and which has been made clear in public in Northern Ireland for some time. The timetable to reach that objective is tight. Many of the provisions have to be implemented before devolution, such as the creation of a new prosecution service similar to that in England and Wales.
  I shall comment fleetingly on the allegation that no report was made available to hon. Members on the New Zealand experience during either the review process or the consultation period. Apart from the research document that was handed to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford during a meeting with officials in the Northern Ireland Office on that matter, the document "Restorative Justice Options for Northern Ireland: A Comparative Review" is a companion of the review document itself, far from there being no academic consideration or review of the provisions in New Zealand, there are no less than eight references to it in the companion document, which I commend to him. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, "About New Zealand, not about Northern Ireland." There could hardly be a report on the ability of restorative justice to have an impact on the young people of Northern Ireland when it has not been implemented. Indeed, that is what the Bill is about.

  711
  The hon. Gentleman's argument was that there was no published research on the way in which restorative justice operates in New Zealand. There is, however, a significant amount of research on that. Indeed, a plethora of it—nine pages, I think—is in the back of the companion document. It covers research throughout the world on restorative justice and its operation in many different jurisdictions. I hope that between now and the next time—[Interruption.] I will give way in a moment; I do not need the hon. Gentleman to instruct me on when to give way, especially as he only reluctantly gave way to me.
  I hope that before we engage in debate in Committee, the Opposition spokesman will have an opportunity to read up on much of the interesting documentation that is available.
  Mr. Trimble: Although one may argue what documentation was available and what studies are in it, surely the point is that the experience in New Zealand, whatever it might be, is not relevant to the situation in Northern Ireland. The essential point about the situation in Northern Ireland is the existence of paramilitary gangs that seek to dominate certain neighbourhoods which means that the introduction of any community-based scheme carries with it enormous dangers. That has no parallel in New Zealand or elsewhere.
  Mr. Browne: The right hon. Gentleman makes a telling and important point. It was not made earlier, and I was trying to respond to the debate, but I shall respond to his point. The Government's position, which I understand to be shared by all the parties in Northern Ireland, is that the inability of the police and/or the judicial system to affect the behaviour of young people in some parts of Northern Ireland does not mean that those young people should be denied the opportunity to take advantage of restorative justice, if it can be made to work. I understand that to be the approach that has consistently been taken by all parties in Northern Ireland. Indeed, there is an argument that young people in Northern Ireland are more deserving of extra opportunities than those who live in societies with less trouble and conflict.
  The Bill's purpose is to create a framework in which restorative justice can be delivered without denying that there are serious challenges in doing so. The structure that has been created is designed to address those challenges. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) says that we have to ensure that nobody with a paramilitary background should be included. That might mean denying some young people access to their parents in a youth conference. If we are to deflect young people from taking the path that their parents have taken or prevent them from being dragged down that path by the parents of other children and other malign influences in the community, we must address these issues. We will do so not by saying that it is difficult but by engaging in constructive debate. We must try to address the difficulties and create an environment in which we can deliver the benefits of restorative justice to the people of Northern Ireland.
  We do not view the reform of the justice system as an issue that should divide the parties in this Chamber or in the community in Northern Ireland. It appears that the official Opposition are hell-bent on dividing the House
  712
  for the sake of two recommendations out of 294. In the absence of any serious work by them on these issues, they have elevated those two recommendations into issues of principle on which they will oppose the whole Bill while constantly telling us, without giving any detail, that they accept many of the recommendations in the review and in the Bill.
  The vast bulk of material covered by the review and the Bill concerns the practical workings of justice. Getting it right is in everyone's interests. The tone of the debate has, in large measure, matched that of the recent consultation exercise. There have been issues of division—symbols are the most obvious and predictable—but I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) was able to say that the Secretary of State's opening remarks were, to some degree, reassuring to her. We hope that we will be able to build on that in consultation with other parties in Northern Ireland.
  The fact that symbols are the most obvious and predictable issue on which there has been division should not hide the fact that on enormous parts of the Bill there is cross-community agreement in Northern Ireland. During consultation, we were struck by the real interest in and enthusiasm for the reform of criminal justice and by the steps that are necessary to bring the system closer to the people of Northern Ireland. We have taken note of that.
  In announcing the draft legislation and implementation plan, the Government set out their target for possible devolution of criminal justice functions after the Assembly elections in 2003. As the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, this is a challenging timetable. However, I sense in the House and more widely the commitment and good will that will make that possible. In many ways, today's debate reflected debate that we have had about the review's recommendations. The most encouraging feature is the support for the vast bulk of the Bill's key provisions.
  These reforms cannot happen overnight; it will be several years before they take full effect, but I am confident that once they have been fully implemented Northern Ireland will have a criminal justice system that can be measured against the best in the world.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 324.

  Division No. 137]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Chope, Christopher

  Amess, David

  Clappison, James

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bacon, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Barker, Gregory

  Collins, Tim

  Baron, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Bercow, John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Boswell, Tim

  Dodds, Nigel

  Brady, Graham

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Burns, Simon

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Burnside, David

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Burt, Alistair

  Evans, Nigel

  Cameron, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Fallon, Michael

  Cash, William

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  713

  Flight, Howard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Flook, Adrian

  Page, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paice, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Francois, Mark

  Paterson, Owen

  Gale, Roger

  Pickles, Eric

  Garnier, Edward

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gibb, Nick

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gray, James

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Grayling, Chris

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ruffley, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hammond, Philip

  Selous, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hayes, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Simmonds, Mark

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hendry, Charles

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hoban, Mark

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spink, Bob

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Streeter, Gary

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Swire, Hugo

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lensley, Andrew

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tredinnick, David

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Lidington, David

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Loughton, Tim

  Viggers, Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Watkinson, Angela

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wiggin, Bill

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wilshire, David

  Maples, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Yeo, Tim

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Moss, Malcolm

  Norman, Archie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Mr. Julian Brazier and

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Mr. John Randall.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Ainger, Nick

  Borrow, David

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Allan, Richard

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Allen, Graham

  Brake, Tom

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Breed, Colin

  Brennan, Kevin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Browne, Desmond

  Baird, Vera

  Bryant, Chris

  Barnes, Harry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Barrett, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Beard, Nigel

  Burnett, John

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Burnham, Andy

  Benn, Hilary

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Bennett, Andrew

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Benton, Joe

  Cairns, David

  Best, Harold

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Betts, Clive

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Blackman, Liz

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Blizzard, Bob

  714

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hanson, David

  Casale, Roger

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Caton, Martin

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Havard, Dai

  Challen, Colin

  Healey, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Heath, David

  Chaytor, David

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Heyes, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Holmes, Paul

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Cohen, Harry

  Hope, Phil

  Coleman, Iain

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cotter, Brian

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Crausby, David

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hurst, Alan

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Cummings, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Illsley, Eric

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jamieson, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  David, Wayne

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Davidson, Ian

  Joyce, Eric

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kidney, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Doran, Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Dowd, Jim

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lamb, Norman

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lammy, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Efford, Clive

  Laws, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Laxton, Bob

  Farrelly, Paul

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fisher, Mark

  Levitt, Tom

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Flint, Caroline

  Linton, Martin

  Follett, Barbara

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lucas, Ian

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Luke, Iain

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foulkes, George

  McCabe, Stephen

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gapes, Mike

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonnell, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  MacDougall, John

  Gidley, Sandra

  McFall, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  McGrady, Eddie

  Goggins, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Grogan, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWilliam, John

  715

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sawford, Phil

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marris, Rob

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Simon, Siôn

  Martlew, Eric

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Miliband, David

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Soley, Clive

  Mole, Chris

  Southworth, Helen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Moore, Michael

  Squire, Rachel

  Moran, Margaret

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morgan, Julie

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mudie, George

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mullin, Chris

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Tami, Mark

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Olner, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Timms, Stephen

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tipping, Paddy

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Todd, Mark

  Owen, Albert

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Pearson, Ian

  Touhig, Don

  Perham, Linda

  Truswell, Paul

  Picking, Anne

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pike Peter

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Plaskitt, James

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pollard Kerry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tyler, Paul

  Pond, Chris

  Tynan, Bill

  Pope, Greg

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Watson, Tom

  Price, Adam

  Watts, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  White, Brian

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pugh, Dr John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rapson, Syd

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Willis, Phil

  Winnick, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wood, Mike

  Rooney, Terry

  Woodward, Shaun

  Ross, Ernie

  Woolas, Phil

  Roy, Frank

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Ryan, Joan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Salter, Martin

  Mr. Ivor Caplin and

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mr. Graham Stringer.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time

  JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill:

  JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL (PROGRAMME)
    Committal
    (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
    Programming of proceedings
    (2) All proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) shall be programmed.

    Proceedings in Standing Committee
    (3) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 14th February 2002.
    (4) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    (5) Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Six o'clock on that day.
    (6) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced or, if that day is a Thursday, at Seven o'clock on that day.
    (7) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 136.

    Division No. 138]

    [10.14 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Brake, Tom

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Breed, Colin

    Ainger, Nick

    Brennan, Kevin

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L

    Alexander, Douglas

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Allan, Richard

    Allen, Graham

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Browne, Desmond

    Bryant, Chris

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Burgon, Colin

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Burnham, Andy

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cable, Dr Vincent

    Bailey, Adrian

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Baird, Vera

    Cairns, David

    Barnes, Harry

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Barrett, John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Beard, Nigel

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Benn, Hilary

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Bennett, Andrew

    Casale, Roger

    Benton, Joe

    Caton, Martin

    Best, Harold

    Cawsey, Ian

    Betts, Clive

    Challen, Colin

    Blackman, Liz

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Chaytor, David

    Borrow, David

    Clapham, Michael

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    717

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hill, Keith

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clelland, David

    Holmes, Paul

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hood, Jimmy

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Cohen, Harry

    Hope, Phil

    Coleman, Iain

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cotter, Brian

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Cranston, Ross

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Crausby, David

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cruddas, Jon

    Hurst, Alan

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Cummings, John

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Illsley, Eric

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Jamieson, David

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jenkins, Brian

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    David, Wayne

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Davidson, Ian

    Joyce, Eric

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dawson, Hilton

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Kemp, Fraser

    Dismore, Andrew

    Kidney, David

    Dobbin, Jim

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Doran, Frank

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Dowd, Jim

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Lamb, Norman

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Lammy, David

    Edwards, Huw

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Efford, Clive

    Laws, David

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Laxton, Bob

    Farrelly, Paul

    Leslie, Christopher

    Fisher, Mark

    Levitt, Tom

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Flint, Caroline

    Linton, Martin

    Follett, Barbara

    Lucas, Ian

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Luke, Iain

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Foulkes, George

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    MacDonald, Calum

    Gapes, Mike

    McDonnell, John

    Gerrard, Neil

    MacDougall, John

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McFall, John

    Gidley, Sandra

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Gilroy, Linda

    McIsaac, Shona

    Goggins, Paul

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Grogan, John

    McNulty, Tony

    Hain, Rt Hon Peter

    MacShane, Denis

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McWilliam, John

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hanson, David

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Marris, Rob

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Havard, Dai

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Healey, John

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Heath, David

    Martlew, Eric

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Merron, Gillian

    Hendrick, Mark

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Miliband, David

    Heppell, John

    Miller, Andrew

    Heyes, David

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    718

    Moffatt, Laura

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mole, Chris

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Moore, Michael

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Moran, Margaret

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Morgan, Julie

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Morley, Elliot

    Soley, Clive

    Mudie, George

    Southworth, Helen

    Mullin, Chris

    Spellar, Rt Hon John

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Squire, Rachel

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Steinberg, Gerry

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Olner, Bill

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    O'Neill, Martin

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Öpik, Lembit

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Owen, Albert

    Tami, Mark

    Pearson, Ian

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Perham, Linda

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Picking, Anne

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Timms, Stephen

    Pike, Peter

    Tipping, Paddy

    Plaskitt, James

    Todd, Mark

    Pollard, Kerry

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Pond, Chris

    Touhig, Don

    Pope, Greg

    Truswell, Paul

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Pugh, Dr John

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Purchase, Ken

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Tyler, Paul

    Rapson, Syd

    Tynan, Bill

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Watson, Tom

    Watts, David

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    White, Brian

    Rooney, Terry

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Ross, Ernie

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Roy, Frank

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Ruane, Chris

    Ruddock, Joan

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Willis, Phil

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Winnick, David

    Ryan, Joan

    Wood, Mike

    Salter, Martin

    Woodward, Shaun

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Woolas, Phil

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Sawford, Phil

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Sheridan, Jim

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Simon, Siôn

    Mr. Ivor Caplin and

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Mr. Graham Stringer.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Burnside, David

    Amess, David

    Burt, Alistair

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Cameron, David

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

    Bacon, Richard

    Cash, William

    Barker, Gregory

    Chope, Christopher

    Baron, John

    Clappison, James

    Bellingham, Henry

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Bercow, John

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Blunt, Crispin

    Collins, Tim

    Boswell, Tim

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Brady, Graham

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Brazier, Julian

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Burns, Simon

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    719

    Dodds, Nigel

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M

    Moss, Malcolm

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

    Norman, Archie

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Evans, Nigel

    Ottaway, Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Page, Richard

    Fallon, Michael

    Paice, James

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Flight, Howard

    Paterson, Owen

    Flook, Adrian

    Pickles, Eric

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Price, Adam

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Francois, Mark

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

    Gale, Roger

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Garnier, Edward

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Gibb, Nick

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Gray, James

    Ruffley, David

    Grayling, Chris

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Selous, Andrew

    Grieve, Dominic

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Shepherd, Richard

    Hammond, Philip

    Simmonds, Mark

    Hawkins, Nick

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Hayes, John

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Heald, Oliver

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Spink, Bob

    Hermon, Lady

    Spring, Richard

    Hoban, Mark

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Streeter, Gary

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Swire, Hugo

    Hunter, Andrew

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Trimble, Rt Hon David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Leigh, Edward

    Viggers, Peter

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Watkinson, Angela

    Lidington, David

    Whittingdale, John

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Wiggin, Bill

    Loughton, Tim

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Luff, Peter

    Wilshire, David

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Yeo, Tim

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Malins, Humfrey

    Maples, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Mr. Charles Hendry and

    Mercer, Patrick

    Mr. John Randall.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  JUSTICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) 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 Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

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

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—[Mr. Woolas.]

  Question agreed to

  EMPLOYMENT BILL (PROGRAMME) (No.2)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001],
  That the Order of 27th November 2001 (Employment Bill (Programme)) be amended by the substitution in paragraph 3 (time for conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee) of the words 'at 11.25 am. on 24th January' for the words 'on 22nd January'.—[Mr. Woolas.]
  Question agreed to

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Ordered,

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM
    That the Immigration and Asylum Appeals (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 4014), a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
    NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
    That the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 4043), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st December 2001, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Woolas.]
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    SIXTH ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROGRAMME
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5771/01, a Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Sixth Environmental Action Programme of the European Community: 'Europe 2010: Our future, Our choice', and a Proposal for a draft Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Community Environmental Action Programme 2001–2010; considers that co-ordinated action at a Community level is the most effective way of addressing the main environmental objectives of the programme; welcomes the strategic approach; agrees with the objectives, particularly the identification of the four priority areas; endorses the emphasis on climate change as an outstanding challenge of the next 10 years and beyond; supports the Government's efforts to ensure that policy is developed on the basis of full analysis of the issues with consideration of the full range of instruments; endorses the Government's position that the programme should be ambitious yet achievable, and that where analysis has not yet been completed detailed targets should be set out in thematic strategies to be developed later; and supports the Government's aim that the programme should give a clear steer on improved and consistent implementation and enforcement.—[Mr. Woolas.]
    Question agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 30th January, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall—

  (i) put the Question on any Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Blunkett relating to the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) no later than Seven o'clock; and

  (ii) put the Question on any Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Byers relating to Local Government Finance (England) 2002–03 no later than Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Woolas.]

  Ragwort
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Woolas.]
  10.32 pm
  Richard Younger-Ross: We discover many things when researching for debates that we hope to instigate, and I came across a couple of surprising facts when researching for this debate. I was surprised to find, for instance, that the word "quidditch" in the Harry Potter book—which I had assumed to be made up—clearly derives from the name of a place in Devon called Quoditch, where ragwort grows. I mention that because it allows me to give a plug. J. K. Rowling wrote a lot about places in Devon in her books, having studied at Exeter university. She referred to the Chudleigh Cannons, the premier quidditch team. Chudleigh is a town in my constituency, and we are proud to have the country's premier quidditch team.
  Our last debate on ragwort took place on 25 July 2000. It was initiated by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who pointed out that the debate was taking place on St James's day, and that St James's wort was another name for ragwort. It has other names—staggerwort and, less pleasing, stinking willie and mare's fart.
  This debate takes place somewhat earlier than the last, which began at 3.21 am. The Minister will get home to his night-time cocoa, put on his jim-jams and get to bed a little earlier than he did on that occasion. Before he does, however, let me tell him a story. It concerns Georgina Norton, a nine-year-old girl who, like many nine-year-old girls, was fairly horse mad. She was lucky enough to own a pony called Topic. One day her mother went to turn Topic loose, but he appeared to have had a good night out: he was unco-ordinated, perhaps even appearing slightly drunk. They sent for the vet, blood tests were carried out, and it emerged that Topic had acute liver damage caused by ragwort. Topic had to be put down. Georgina said:
  "Topic was my best friend, and I spent ages talking to him. When he died, it was the most awful time of my life and I still miss him."
  Topic was poisoned by ragwort.
  Ragwort is generally considered a biennial weed but in fact it is a facultative perennial. It grows to about 1 m in height. As most people will be aware, it is a yellow-flowered weed. As I am sure the Minister is aware, it will grow almost anywhere: on verges, embankments and waste land. It is highly toxic, particularly to horses. I understand that 2 lb of fresh ragwort is enough to kill a horse. It is also toxic to young stock, cattle, pigs and sheep. Of course, we do not tend to see the effects of ragwort on those animals because they are slaughtered early, whereas horses live to a ripe old age, so the effects of ragwort on them can be seen all too often.
  The symptoms are weight loss, poor coat, impaired vision, staggering and a changed gait. The horse will tend to circle, suffer blindness, and collide into other obstacles. It may be unable to swallow. Ultimately, the condition will lead to collapse and death.
  Ragwort weed is remarkable in other ways. It has unique wildlife which most people recognise: the cinnabar moth caterpillar with its rugby-top-like banding of black and gold and the cinnabar moth itself, with its dramatic

  723
  red and black. Both are poisonous because they feed off the plant. That pretty plant and its insects are all deadly. That is due to the pyrrolizidine alkaloids.
  It is a difficult weed to remove. Usually in the United Kingdom, one would spot-spray the young rosettes in April to May. One can dig it up, but that is harder and obviously difficult when there is a large number of weeds.
  The biological experiments elsewhere were well covered in the previous debate, so I will not go into those. It is a pernicious weed. It is hard to remove and it is becoming more common. The question is: what should be done?
  In 1959, Parliament thought that it had the answer. It passed the Weeds Act 1959. It named ragwort and four other weeds: spear thistle, creeping or field thistle, curled dock and the broad-leaved dock. However, common ragwort is the most pernicious and dangerous of those and causes the most problems.
  I quote from the Act:
  "Where the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food … is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this Act applies growing upon any land"
  I emphasise "any land"—
  "he may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him, within the time specified in the notice, to take such action as may be necessary to prevent the weeds from spreading."
  So why is ragwort invading virtually every pasture and meadow still?
  The previous debate took place a year after Topic died. The Government have good intentions. I note a lot of what the Minister said in that debate. Baroness Hayman has been an active supporter of the "root out ragwort week", but there are questions from that debate. I am pleased to see that the Minister present is the Minister who attended it, so he knows the topic well. He said:
  "we are determined to root out injurious weeds wherever they may be found."
  He went on to say that the 1959 Act applies to Great Britain and empowers Agriculture Ministers to take action against occupiers of any land to prevent the spread of the five species of weed. He explained the scope of the Act and said that it
  "empowers, but does not require".
  I take the point.
  The Minister also said:
  "Commercial equine activities are a business and one which we embrace as a legitimate form of agricultural diversification, so it is not unreasonable for us to treat them as an agricultural business."
  What measures has he taken? Why were other parts of the horse industry—livery—ruled out? Was there one rule for one and one rule for the other? The horse industry is worth well over £2.5 billion.
  We now have the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which is broader and more all-embracing than MAFF, and is meant to cover all the countryside. Should not DEFRA now say that it will look after the horse industry and take care of pernicious weeds?
  Has the Minister resolved the problem that he referred to when he said:
  "we ensure that all complaints from farmers who have diversified into equine enterprises and to whom ragwort poses a threat are fully investigated"?
  724
  How many cases have been investigated?
  The Minister said:
  "I urge those owners to follow the advice to ensure that any bought-in hay is warranted as free of ragwort before it is purchased".
  That is vital, but has the hon. Gentleman considered the plight of organic hay growers who cannot use spray? Imagine the difficulties of trying to remove the weed by hand from hundreds or thousands of acres. Surely it would be better if we could take more action to prevent the spread of the weed.
  The Minister said:
  "It is in only a few cases that we may be forced to use the powers that we have under the Act."—[Official Report, 25 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 1089–92.]
  In a later written answer, he said:
  "During 1998, staff at MAFF Regional Service Centres, acting on the Minister's behalf, served one notice under section 1 of the Weeds Act 1959; one notice was served in 1999; and one has been served so Far this year; default powers were exercised last year in respect of the 1998 notice."—[Official Report, 31 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 379W.]
  Why so few? That seems remarkably few, when the weed is so common.
  My securing this debate has raised a few eyebrows, as people have said to me, "Isn't ragwort a pretty weed that grows in the hedgerows?" It may be pretty, but it is dangerous. People do not realise that, apart from the risk to horses and livestock, there is a risk to human health. About 18 months ago, it was reported that a Tasmanian man who had been weeding ragwort by hand for about two weeks was taken seriously ill, and I am told that there is at least one other case of serious poisoning.
  Derek Knottenbelt, senior lecturer in veterinary science at the university of Liverpool, went out and removed ragwort by hand on the campus, then took a blood test two days later. He says that his liver enzymes were clearly elevated. I accept that that was not a scientific test, and there may have been other reasons for that, but it is indicative of the fact that ragwort has an effect on humans.
  That man went on to report that he had seen ragwort in a cornfield being harvested with the corn. May I remind the Minister that in 1995 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food carried out research that showed that where bees had been in a field containing a lot of ragwort, the honey would be polluted with the alkaloids? I hope that the Minister will sleep well after this debate, but perhaps he should be careful about the bread and honey that he may eat in the morning, because it, too, may contain those alkaloids. I do not say that there is an immediate risk and we should all stop eating honey and bread, because that would be nonsense; I am simply pointing out that there is a growing risk, and the more the plant invades, the greater the risk will be.
  Derek Knottenbelt has said:
  "It's a real killer and has got to be got rid of Fast: every plant should be pulled out roots, boots and all".
  That is what I am asking the Minister to ensure happens.
  I started by talking about Georgina and her horse, and Derek Knottenbelt advises that up to 500 horses a year may die of ragwort poisoning. I do not know—and I am sure that the Minister does not know either, because when I asked the Department how many horses were affected by ragwort it could not give me an answer. Perhaps the

  725
  hon. Gentleman will be able to enlighten us further in his response tonight. However, documents from the British Horse Society report tragic cases of horses dying from ingesting the weed.
  Many people who are concerned about ragwort have written to me. I cannot quote all of them, but I shall give the last word to the National Farmers Union, because it clearly states what we all hope will happen:
  "The NFU urges DEFRA to be more positive in its use of the Weeds Act so that effective action can be taken early, and over a number of seasons to control ragwort before it becomes an agricultural nuisance. This means the Highways Agency, highways authorities and Railtrack being particularly vigilant in relation to land in their responsibility. It means that each responsible public authority should have a specified contact point for weed problems that Farmers can contact. Finally it means that authorities need to take early and regular action to control 'weed hotspots' so that the young plants are removed or killed before they become a problem."
  I hope that the Minister will heed those words, and that we shall hear a positive response this evening.
  10.48 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on securing this debate about ragwort, which is indeed a serious issue, and one which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs takes seriously. He is right to say that at least we are having this debate at a more reasonable time than our previous debate on ragwort, which did indeed take place at 3 o'clock in the morning. My hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey)—the latter is here again this evening—sat through that debate too.
  We put great emphasis on animal Welfare in DEFRA. We are aware of the fatal consequences that may arise for animals as a result of eating ragwort, and we take seriously the powers available to the Secretary of State under the Weeds Act 1959.
  I would like to put on record my regret at hearing about the case of Topic, who was owned by the Norton Family, and I appreciate the distress that the loss of their horse will have caused them. That is one of the reasons why ragwort needs to be taken seriously by all concerned. We will continue to treat each case on its merits and investigate complaints about ragwort where it threatens farmland, farming activities and diversified equine enterprises on farmland.
  I must be absolutely honest with the hon. Gentleman: my Department does not have the resources to investigate every complaint about ragwort on every piece of land. The 1959 Act was designed to protect agricultural premises. We have extended its application to embrace diversified equine enterprises on farmland, and that is the distinction between those enterprises and the others that the hon. Gentleman asked about. We are trying to be flexible about the application of the Act in line with the way in which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was set up, to take a more integrated approach towards countryside activities and businesses. The vast majority of complaints are resolved satisfactorily through co-operation and persuasion, without the formal powers of the 1959 Act being invoked.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what we have done since last year. We have taken a range of actions to deal with ragwort. I do not underestimate the difficulties or the scale
  726
  of the problem because of the spread of the weed and the wide range of land on which it grows. In consultation with the Rural Development Service and the Rural Payments Agency, we have examined ways to improve the discharge of our responsibilities under the 1959 Act and to ensure an efficient and consistent approach.
  We recognise, as the hon. Gentleman said, that ragwort has environmental benefits. It supports a range of biodiversity, and that is important for the countryside in the right place—away from livestock and horses.
  I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman's points about human health. DEFRA and, I think, the Food Standards Agency have no evidence to suggest that there are dangers to human health either from direct exposure to ragwort or from consumption of meat or other products, including honey, from animals that have eaten ragwort.
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions last year produced a code of practice for verge maintenance which, following representations, specifically included control of ragwort. Railtrack has been made aware of the importance of the need to control ragwort. Last year, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—which has since become DEFRA—commissioned Agricultural Development Advisory Service research projects on ragwort and its control, with particular reference to horses. It also provided a schedule of control measures, which DEFRA has already made publicly available and will put on its website.
  DEFRA has also produced a useful colour leaflet on the identification of ragwort and other injurious weeds. That is useful for those who are not familiar with ragwort and who may not be aware of the serious consequences that it can have for livestock. Information on that can also be found on the DEFRA website, and we are revising our leaflet on the 1959 Act.
  It is important to stress that responsibility for ragwort control lies on landowners, including in the provision of such things as hay. People making hay must take into account the fact that ragwort can be dangerous, and it is their responsibility to ensure that it is not in the hay. It is also important for owners to check as Far as possible that hay is not contaminated. We recognise that the Government have some responsibility, but landowners and horse owners have responsibilities too.
  Richard Younger-Ross: Does the Minister agree that when silage and hay are brought in, it is difficult to pull out all the weeds, even though the hay is sifted? Where the weed becomes more endemic—almost epidemic—that will become a greater problem. It is difficult for organic farmers to eradicate ragwort, and greater prevention to stop it spreading would be greatly appreciated. I understand what the Minister has said about some of the measures taken, but I hope that more pressure can be brought on such organisations as Railtrack, particularly when it comes to clearing verges that pass through agricultural land.
  Mr. Morley: Yes, those are reasonable points, and I also accept that, of course, it is very difficult for horse owners to check through deliveries of hay to ensure that it has not been contaminated with ragwort, but it is important that those who are cropping hay or silage ensure that it is not contaminated in that way. I accept that there are challenges—for example, for organic farms—but as I

  727
  shall mention in moment, there are ways to deal with ragwort. We are trying to spread that information around by supporting the work of organisations—the British Horse Society, the Country Landowners Association and the National Equine Welfare Council—that have been active in promoting the awareness of ragwort contamination.
  I was pleased to give the opening speech at the National Equine Welfare Council seminar on ragwort in September last year. That useful forum brought together not only equine interests but countryside and environmental organisations, and a range of information was available on the various techniques to control ragwort in various ways and situations. It is important that such organisations spread that information around so that people are aware of best practice, and we are playing our part in DEFRA to make that information available.
  I accept that it is very difficult to deal with ragwort, and the Department finds doing so costly and time consuming. In the past year, the Department has been seriously distracted with the foot and mouth epidemic, which, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, has made it very difficult for us to give our full attention to such problems, but I assure him that we will continue to support bodies such as the National Equine Welfare Council, which does an excellent job in relation to this issue. Where appropriate, we will pursue complaints about ragwort, within our farmland and agricultural enterprise priorities, which can include equine activities. I also assure him that we shall continue, through our various agencies and Departments, to try to promote good practice in controlling the weed and, wherever possible, to try to disseminate that information.
  Richard Younger-Ross: I appreciate the Minister's comments. This question was asked in the previous debate on ragwort, but is DEFRA considering any research programme on ragwort? Two years ago, the answer was negative, but having moved on two years, I hope that DEFRA has considered funding some research, especially into the equine side of the issue. Will he consider funding research into the possible risks to humans? It is a worldwide problem, so other people may be working on it elsewhere—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. An intervention should be just that, and the Minister has very little time left to reply.
  Mr. Morley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I am not aware of any current research into the effects on human health, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will check with my Department and tell him in writing what we know about the situation. I repeat that the Department has commissioned an ADAS research project on ragwort and its control, with particular reference to horses. We are funding research into the most efficient ways to control the weed, and I very much hope that that helps the livestock sector.
  Although I would not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman about the difficulty, costs and resource implications to DEFRA in relation to ragwort control, I want to assure him that we take it seriously, that we will continue to work with interested organisations on research and development, and that we will do what we can to play an appropriate role, alongside the responsibility of landowners and livestock owners, to minimise the risk to livestock that the weed presents.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from her Department in each of the last four years. [28000]

  The Solicitor-General
  I am not aware of any departmental property being stolen from or lost by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers during the years 1998–2001.

  The details of the other Departments for which the Attorney-General is responsible are as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  1998–99
  One computer valued at £2,000 (stolen). One laptop computer valued at £800 (stolen).

  1999–2000
  Two computers valued at £4,000 (stolen). One laptop computer valued at £2,842 (stolen).

  2000–01
  One mobile telephone valued at £170 (stolen).

  2001–02
  One mobile telephone valued at £150 (stolen).

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  1998
  One mobile telephone valued at £95 (stolen). Three dictaphone machines valued at £196 (stolen).

  551999
  Nil

  2000
  Nil

  2001
  One mobile telephone valued at £174 (stolen). One laptop computer valued at £850 (stolen). Five mobile telephones valued at £870 (lost).

  Serious Fraud office

  1998
  One mobile telephone valued at £65 (lost)

  1999
  One dictation machine valued at £84 (lost).

  2000
  One mobile telephone valued at £65 (stolen). One mobile telephone valued at £65 (lost).

  2001
  Two mobile telephones valued at £130 (stolen). One laptop computer valued at £1,600 (stolen). One mobile telephone valued at £65 (lost).

DEFENCE

  Victoria Cross
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about(a) the criteria and (b) the procedure for awarding the Victoria Cross. [28214]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Victoria Cross is awarded for most conspicuous gallantry of the highest order during active operations1. As such it is the highest award available for operational gallantry. Lesser degrees of operational gallantry are recognised by awards of the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, Distinguished Service Cross, Military Cross, Distinguished Flying Cross and a Mention in Despatches. Recommendations for any of these awards are initiated by the service man's or service woman's Commanding Officer and considered by Committees at various levels in the Ministry of Defence. The Committees consist mainly of senior officers of all three services who will have had considerable operational experience. Successful recommendations are passed to the Queen for her approval. The awards are then published and recipients invited to a State Investiture where they are invested by the Queen or her representative.

  The Victoria Cross along with the other awards for operational gallantry may be awarded to all ranks of the naval, military and air forces of the United Kingdom, all members of the Merchant Navy and civilians serving under the orders of any of the above forces. All these awards may be made posthumously.

  1 This is expanded on in the Third Clause of the Royal Warrant for The Victoria Cross which reads: "It is ordained that the Cross shall only be awarded for most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy"

  Tanzania
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of benefits there are going to be to Tanzania from the deal to supply a military air traffic control system. [26045]

  Dr. Moonie
  Export licensing decisions are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Trade and Industry. The Ministry of Defence provides advice to the DTI, together with the other advisory Departments, as appropriate. Following the policy set out by previous Governments, the Government do not comment on individual export licence applications for reasons of commercial confidentiality. Details of export licensing decisions will continue to be published in the Government's annual report on strategic export controls and will be subject to retrospective scrutiny by the all-party Quadripartite Committee.

  A400M/C130J
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the projected noise footprint of the A400M; and what is the noise footprint of the Hercules C130J. [26346]

  Dr. Moonie
  The A400M aircraft will meet all current international noise regulations, but exact noise characteristics will not be known until the aircraft's development and flight tests have been completed. The C130J aircraft meets all relevant US Federal Aviation
  551W
  Authority civil noise regulations. The Ministry of Defence does not hold noise information on the C130J in the form requested. We expect the noise characteristics of the A400M and the C130J will be similar. But their overall noise impact should be less than that of the C130K aircraft they are replacing, because significantly greater usage of ground simulators for training will reduce the overall number of flights.

  A400M
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the RAF will take delivery of the A400M; and if he will make a statement. [27165]

  Dr. Moonie
  The in-service date of the A400M, defined as acceptance into service of the seventh aircraft, is 2010. We expect delivery of the final (25th) aircraft to be in 2014.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the use of British-built vehicles by the MOD Police. [27415]

  Dr. Moonie

  [holding answer 15 January 2002]Purchases of vehicle for the Ministry of Defence Police are made on the basis of best value for money. We are pleased to procure British-built vehicles where they meet our requirements and offer best value for money. We have no plans designed to increase the proportion of British-built vehicles at the expense of these key criteria.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the benefits are of operating one Toyota and one Mitsubishi for the MOD Police; and what competition there was for this requirement. [27501]

  Dr. Moonie

  [holding answer 15 January 2002]The Toyota and Mitsubishi are used for specialist police operation and were selected primarily on the basis of operational requirements. As such the requirement was not subject to competition.

  Territorial Army (Pay Awards)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what targets exist for settling arrears of pay for Territorial Army service men and women. [R] [28217]

  Dr. Moonie
  Arrears of pay claims for Territorial Army soldiers are actioned within a 10 day target of receipt of all supporting documentation.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about delays in paying Territorial Army soldiers. [R] [28216]

  Dr. Moonie
  I am unaware of any current delays existing with payments to Territorial Army soldiers.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army service men and women have arrears of pay outstanding in excess of(a) two months and (b) three months. [R] [28218]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently no cases recorded centrally for arrears of pay being outstanding in excess of two and three months.

  Operation Veritas
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the procedure for considering gallantry awards in Operation Veritas. [28213]

  Dr. Moonie
  The procedure for considering gallantry awards for Operation Veritas will be identical to that used for all other operations. Recommendations for awards, whether they be for gallantry or meritorious service, are initiated by an individual's commanding officer and passed to the Ministry of Defence where they are considered by various Committees. Successful recommendations are then submitted to the Queen for her approval prior to publication. Lists of operational awards are published biannually each spring and autumn and notified to the press. The names of certain recipients may have to be withheld in the interests of personal security.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the complement, gender and ethnic balance of the Operational Support Unit of the Ministry of Defence Police is; what the OSU' s annual running costs are for the current financial year; if he plans to increase the budget for running costs for 2002–03; if he will make a statement on the base of the OSU; and what changes are planned in these arrangements. [28587]

  Dr. Moonie
  The complement (as at 1 January 2002) of the Operational Support Unit was 50 and the strength 45, which included six female officers and one member of an ethnic minority. The budget allocated for the OSU, for the current financial year, is £2.651 million. While there are no plans to relocate the OSU based at MDP Wethersfield, approval has been given to form a second OSU (of 50 personnel) based at a location in the north of England.

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change his Department's normal retirement age policy; and when he will make an announcement. [28586]

  Dr. Moonie
  In the Ministry of Defence some 60,000 civilian employees, two thirds of the work force, have the option to retire at any time between age 60 and 65. The MOD has been reviewing the case for giving the remainder, who have a normal retirement age of 60, the same option. Our review is nearing completion and we expect to be able to announce its findings in the next few weeks.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had on changes to the Government's position on nuclear test veterans following the decision of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in the case of Tom Duggan. [28057]

  Dr. Moonie

  [holding answer 17 January 2002]No such discussions have taken place.

  Colchester Garrison
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the new living accommodation for soldiers at
  553W
  Colchester Garrison will be ready for occupation; if he plans to allow the public to view the new buildings; and if there will be an official opening ceremony. [28523]

  Dr. Moonie

  [holding answer 18 January 2002]We expect that the first of the new single living accommodation (SLA) will be ready for occupation by mid-2005, with the remainder, along with the rest of the garrison, completed two years later. There are no plans to invite the public to view either the SLA or the working accommodation. We intend to have an opening ceremony when phase 1 of the private finance initiative is completed.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures his Department has to ensure environmental appraisals are undertaken prior to(a) administrative and (b) policy decisions being made. [29045]

  Dr. Moonie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence signed a policy statement dated 7 July 2000 on the Management of Safety and Environmental Protection in the Ministry of Defence. That policy statement requires that, within the United Kingdom, the MOD will carry out environmental policy appraisals of all new and revised policies and equipment acquisition programmes and environmental impact assessments of all new projects and training activities.

  The policy statement, together with guidance on the conduct of environmental appraisal and environmental impact assessment, has been published recently as part of Amendment 4 to Joint Service Publication (JSP) 418, the MOD's Environmental Manual.

  Copies of JSP 418 are in the Library of the House, and arrangements are in hand for copies of Amendment 4 to that publication to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the last occasion was on which he requested an environmental appraisal before making a policy decision. [29044]

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

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officials from his Department have attended the environmental appraisal and integration into policy training course run by the Civil Service College. [29047]

  Dr. Moonie
  No officials from the Ministry of Defence attended the first environmental appraisal and integration into policy training course run by the Civil Service College in July 2001. Details of this course, and others provided by the Civil Service College to support the initiatives of sustainable development, have now been published as part of Amendment 4 to JSP 418, the MOD's Environmental Manual.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many environmental appraisals have been published by his Department since 1 January 2001; and if he will list the last four. [29043]
  554W
  Dr. Moonie
  None. The last environmental appraisal published by the Ministry of Defence was the Strategic Environmental Appraisal of the Strategic Defence Review. This document was published in June 2000.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to appraise the environmental implications of its Spending Review submission to the Treasury. [29046]

  Dr. Moonie
  Sustainable development has been identified as an overall theme for the Spending Review. In common with all other Government Departments with a Public Service Agreement, the Ministry of Defence will be reporting on the impact of its Spending Review proposals on sustainable development. That appraisal process will take an integrated approach to the environmental, social and economic elements of sustainable development.

  West Freugh Airfield
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what external consultants he(a) has engaged and (b) plans to engage to assess the commercial potential of West Freugh airfield in Wigtownshire. [28427]

  Dr. Moonie
  No external consultants have been engaged by the Ministry of Defence to assess the commercial potential of West Freugh airfield. QinetiQ, which conducts day-to-day operations at the airfield on behalf of MOD, has, with its contractors, studied the opportunities for diversification. This work concluded that there are few commercial opportunities for development of the airfield. MOD has no plans to engage external consultants to assess the commercial potential of the airfield.

  DERA (MOD Police)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's Police are employed at DERA establishments and facilities in the UK; and how many were employed in each year since the formation of DERA. [28431]

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

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on replacing MOD Police with private security at DERA establishments. [28426]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has received the following representations concerning the withdrawal of Ministry of Defence Police officers from the QinetiQ sites at Pendine, Schoeburyness and West Freugh:

  Two from the Defence Police Federation

  One from a member of the public

  Three in the form of MP's letters

  One in the form of a parliamentary question.

  Army Training Regiment Bases
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of Army Training Regiment bases in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland. [26014]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently five Army Training Regiments (ATRs) in England and Scotland; there are none in Northern Ireland although Depot Royal Irish conducts initial training for the Royal Irish Regiment and of very small numbers for other Irish Regiments. It is planned to transfer the training functions from the Glencorse site in Scotland to the School of Infantry at Catterick in north Yorkshire. There will be changes to the way in which training is conducted at the remaining four sites—Bassingbourn in Cambridgeshire, Pirbright in Surrey, Winchester in Hampshire and Lichfield in Staffordshire. ATR Bassingbourn will concentrate on junior entry training, and the others will conduct non-infantry adult entry training. These changes will take place during the course of this year.

  Whittington Barracks
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to move the Army Training Regiment from the Whittington barracks near Lichfield; [26015]

  f1(2) what plans he has to sell land occupied by the Whittington barracks near Lichfield. [26016].

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has no plans to either move the Army Training Regiment from Whittington barracks, near Lichfield, or to sell the land occupied by the barracks.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Wind Farm (Cefn Croes)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the reasons are for the decision not to hold a public inquiry into the proposed wind farm at Cefn Croes in Ceredigion. [28132]

  Ms Hewitt
  As with any planning decision Ministers have to weigh up all aspects of an application, consider all representations—both for and against— and come to a decision. In the case of the Cefn Croes application it was concluded that there was sufficient information to approve the application in principle without sending it to a public inquiry.

  Wind Turbines
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the criteria used by her Department for allowing the erection of wind turbines in upland areas, with particular reference to the importance she places on landscape and visual amenity. [28133]

  Ms Hewitt
  All relevant criteria set out in planning guidance and environmental assessment guidance are taken into account. I also have a duty under Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act 1989 to have regard to the extent to 556W
  which a person who formulates a proposal has complied with his duty of having regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty and do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect the proposal would have on the natural beauty of the countryside. In addition the views of the local planning authority which will be familiar with the local terrain are also taken into account.

  Local Post Office
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice she has received from the Postal Services Commission on transitional financial assistance to local post offices from 2003. [28372]

  Mr. Alexander
  The advice I received at the end of last year from the Postal Services Commission on transitional financial assistance to the rural network is currently under consideration.

  Energy Sources
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on renewable sources of energy and on the funding which has been made available for such projects since 1997. [28018]

  Mr. Wilson
  In the four-year period 1997–2001, the Department of Trade and Industry provided a total of £61.1 million for the support of research and development in renewable energy. Over the same period, total indirect support for renewable energy provided through the Fossil Fuel Levy was £374.8 million.

  For the three-year period 2001–04, provision for research and development in renewable energy is £80.6 million, and for the newly introduced capital grants for renewables projects, £191 million. It is estimated that indirect support to be provided through the renewables obligation, planned to come into effect on 1 April 2002, could total £687 million over its first two years of operation. Some continuing support through the Fossil Fuel Levy is also expected.

  Looking ahead, introducing the new renewables obligation, exempting renewables from the Climate Change Levy and protecting existing non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) contracts will together create a long-term market incentive for renewables expected to be worth over £1 billion per year by 2010.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of Britain's energy requirements are found in(a) renewable and (b) nonrenewable sources of energy. [28017]

  Ms Hewitt
  Renewable energy sources provided 1.3 per cent. of the United Kingdom's total primary energy requirements in 2000, and 2.8 per cent. of the electricity generated in the UK.

  Fireworks
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many injuries involving fireworks have been reported since 1 September 2001; and if she will make a statement. [29393]
  557W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Figures from accident and emergency departments for the 2001 firework period are not yet available. We will publish the figures as soon as possible.

  European Directive on Fixed Term Work
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her plans to implement the European Directive on Fixed Term Work. [29578]

  Alan Johnson
  I am today publishing a consultation on the draft Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of less favourable treatment) Regulations 2002. The consultation period will last for 12 weeks, until 15 April, and I look forward to receiving views from as many interested parties as possible by this date. A Government response to the consultation on the fixed term directive that took place from 9 March to 31 May 2001 is also being published today. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library. The regulations will be made under clause 45 of the Employment Bill. They will prevent fixed term employees from being less favourably treated than comparable permanent employees and transpose the EC Fixed Term Work Directive.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions the Chief Executive of the Small Business Service has met the Prime Minister since 1997. [27634]

  Ms Hewitt
  He has met him six times: 16 December 1999; 30 March 2000; 11 May 2000; 27 November 2000; 17 July 2001; 6 November 2001.

  He also has regular contact with No.10 via Private Office and No.10 Policy Unit.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will introduce measures to require the manufacturers of mobile phones to provide stronger deterrents to theft in their products. [27485]

  Mr. Alexander
  Mandating anti-theft measures in the short-term would be disproportionately expensive. In the longer term, the operators and manufacturers are working with the Home Office and the DTI to investigate ways in which mobile phone handset security might be improved.

  Galileo Project
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has made to the European Commission concerning the Galileo project. [27483]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have made no representations to the Commission. The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions leads for the UK in discussions with the European Commission on the Galileo project. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport attended the most recent Transport Council meeting on 7 December and I would refer my hon. Friend to his report on 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 875W.
  558W
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the concerns expressed to her by the United States Government on the Galileo global positioning system. [27888]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK Government are aware of the US Government's concerns over technical, trade and security aspects of the Galileo project. Galileo is a European Union (EU) project, on which the European Commission leads in negotiations with the US. The UK participates fully in these and will continue to seek an acceptable way forward.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 27 November 2001 with regard to Mr. J. McHugh. [27321]

  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. Friend's letter of 27 November on behalf of his constituent Mr. J. McHugh has been transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the reply, as the subject falls within her responsibilities.

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate her Department has made of the cost to its budget since 1 May 1997 of fraud; and if she will make a statement. [27291]

  Ms Hewitt
  Cases of fraud and irregularity involving staff and direct contractors are reported annually to the Treasury for inclusion in the Treasury Fraud report which is laid before Parliament. From April 1997 to date the total value of losses reported as due to fraud and irregularities is £197,445. When taken as a proportion of DTI expenditure for the same period this represents a loss of less than 0.002 per cent.

  No large organisation is totally free of fraud but we continue to promote an environment of zero tolerance and to act promptly in all suspected cases of impropriety.

  Public Relations Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent by(a) her Department and (b) bodies for which it is responsible on external public relations consultants in each of the last five years. [27386]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information on expenditure of this kind is not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Consignia
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the occasions in the last six months when(a) she, (b) her ministerial colleagues and (c) their private offices have had (i) meetings, (ii) telephone conversations and (iii) correspondence with executives of Consignia. [27718]

  Ms Hewitt
  Our records show that my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness and I have had five meetings with executives of Consignia in the last
  559W
  six months. In addition, supporting these meetings, there have been a number of telephone conversations and 12 items of correspondence with Consignia executives.

  Export Licence Applications
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list, for each of the last five years, the number of export licence applications that have been(a) approved and (b) rejected in respect of products that have a potential military end use. [28250]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The number of export licence applications in respect of items controlled for strategic reasons that have been approved and rejected since 1997 are published in the Government's annual reports on Strategic Export Controls. Copies of the 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 annual reports are available in the Libraries of the House.

  The 2001 annual report on Strategic Export Controls will be published as soon as possible.

  Scientific Research Budget
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has for the Department's scientific research budget; and what impact this will have on(a) continuing research projects funded by her Department and (b) future schemes (i) earmarked for and (ii) hoping to receive departmental funding for scientific research and development. [27850]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Spending Review 2000 set the Science Budget provision for the years 2001–02 to 2003–04. My Department published an account of how the budget was to be allocated—principally among the research councils over that period in November 2000 "Science Budget 2001–02 to 2003–04", Department of Trade and Industry. A copy was placed in the Libraries of the House and the document is available on my Department's website at http:// www2.dti.gov.uk/ost/whatsnew/index.htm.

  Like all Government Departments, my Department is at present planning its input to the next spending review which covers the period 2003–04 to 2005–06 and it is too soon to say what the level of provision for the science budget will be in those years.

  Some of the funding allocated to the research councils in the last spending review was earmarked at a high level for specific areas of research: genomics, e-science and basic technology. However, decisions about funding of individual science research projects—whether in these earmarked areas or not—are, by long-established convention, matters for the research councils, not for my Department.

  Distance Selling
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the regulation of distance selling. [27930]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Consumer protection laws, such as the Sale of Goods legislation, apply equally to distance selling as when shopping on the high street.
  560W
  In addition, the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations came into force on 31 October 2000 and cover all forms of distance selling, including shopping over the internet, telephone or catalogue.

  The main provisions of the regulations are:

  The right to receive clear information about the goods or services before deciding to purchase;

  Confirmation of this information in writing;

  A cooling off period of seven working days during which the consumer can cancel the contract;

  Unless agreed otherwise with the supplier, the right to receive goods or services within 30 days;

  Protection against payment card fraud;

  Protection against cold calling.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what expenditure has been incurred by her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if she will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [27951]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department does not centrally collect the information sought at the required level of detail, and to provide it would entail disproportionate cost. Where surveys are conducted which may be considered to contain an element relating to opinion polling; focus groups; or other forms of market research, it is not possible to identify separately the costs of that element.

  Assisted Area Status
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will commence planning for the review of assisted area status due in 2006. [28650]

  Alan Johnson
  The assisted areas map is constrained by European Commission rules and guidelines which, based on past experience, are likely to change before the next review. If the timetable for the next map were to repeat that which led to the current map, detailed consideration of individual areas would start during 2005.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact on areas of the removal of assisted area status by the implementation of the Assisted Area Order 2000. [28651]

  Alan Johnson
  None. Assisted area status allows, but does not require, public authorities to pay regional state aid to companies in those areas; in itself it does not affect an area.

  Depleted Uranium
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantity of depleted uranium is in use in civil non-nuclear applications in the United Kingdom; to what uses the DU is put; what disposal facilities exist for waste DU metal and its undiluted compounds; and in what quantities and where unused DU is stored. [28501]

  Nigel Griffiths
  A report on depleted uranium has recently been published by the Environment Agency: "Depleted Uranium: A Study of its Uses within the UK and Disposal Issues" (Reference R&D Technical Report
  561W
  P3–088/TR), copies of which are available from the Environment Agency. This report provides details on the quantities, uses and storage of depleted uranium in civil non-nuclear applications in the United Kingdom, and describes, among other areas, the safeguards arrangements for the depleted uranium. Issues relating to the disposal of radioactive materials, including waste depleted uranium metal and its undiluted compounds, are a matter for the Environment Agency.

  Carbon Monoxide
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to reduce accidents caused by the inhalation of carbon monoxide from coal and oil-fired appliances. [28054]

  Miss Melanie Johnson

  [holding answer 17 January 2002]The DTI is continuing to work with other Government Departments and industry to increase awareness of the dangers of carbon monoxide among consumers. Specifically our activity has included a mobile exhibition units road show targeted at areas with the highest occurrence of carbon monoxide related incidents and dissemination of advice through information toolkits and leaflets. This continues to be a priority area for consumer safety.

  Ceramics
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the safeguard provisions and implementation relating to the phasing out of ceramic import quotas from China to the United Kingdom. [28775]

  Nigel Griffiths
  In bilateral negotiations on China's Accession to the WTO, the European Community and China agreed to phase-out existing import quotas. EU import quotas on Chinese ceramics will be eliminated on 1 January 2005. The terms of China's accession to the WTO include an additional safeguard mechanism available for 12 years to guard against damaging import surges.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action is being taken in the World Trade Organisation on tariffs on United Kingdom imports of pottery catering wares into the United States; and if she will make a statement. [28774]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 16 January 2002, Official Report, column 322W.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when a decision will be made on the future of the urban network for sub-post offices. [28680]

  Mr. Alexander

  [holding answer 18 January 2002]Government have agreed in principle to support the compensation package negotiated between the Post Office Ltd. and the National Federation of SubPostmasters for a restructuring of the urban post office network. Detailed discussion continues on the programme and implementation will be carried forward in consultation with interested parties.

  Maternity Leave
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of women who left full-time employment on maternity leave returned(a) by the end of and (b) after the end of the statutory maternity leave period to (i) full-time employment and (ii) part-time employment, in each of the last five years. [27739]

  Alan Johnson

  [holding answer 18 January 2002]The latest information available is from a 1996 study entitled "Maternity Rights and Benefits in Britain 1996", Department of Social Security Research Report No. 67, published by the Stationery Office.

  The study included a survey of mothers who had given birth in June 1995 and collected information on their economic activity in spring 1996, some 10 to 11 months after giving birth, and thus after the point at which any statutory entitlement to maternity leave had expired.

  At this point, 34 per cent. of women employed full-time before taking maternity leave had returned to employment on a full-time basis and 35 per cent. had returned to employment on a part-time basis.

  It is not possible to identify the proportions returning to employment before and after their entitlements to statutory maternity leave had expired.

  The Department and the Department for Work and Pensions have commissioned a repeat survey in order to evaluate the impact of the changes to maternity leave arrangements introduced in 1999 and to provide a baseline for evaluation of the changes to maternity arrangements announced in the 2001 Budget and contained in the Employment Bill.

  Radioactive Waste
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what records she has of the(a) number of containers, (b) total weight and (c) geographical extent of dumping of radioactive waste which was deposited approximately 250 miles off Land's End during the 1960s and 1970s. [27191]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Details of all UK radioactive waste disposals in the north-east Atlantic have been made public and are available from a number of sources, including the "Report of the Independent Review of Disposal of Radioactive Waste in the North East Atlantic" (HMSO, 1984), copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The report contains data on the location of dumpsites, weight of material dumped, levels of activity and numbers of containers. The information on weight and numbers of containers is aggregated in the report for the whole period from 1949–82 during which the UK disposed of radioactive waste at sea. We estimate that, during the 1960s and 70s, around 41,000 tonnes were dumped in the north-east Atlantic in around 75,000 containers of various sizes and types. Radioactive waste disposals were also carried out in the north-east Atlantic by a number of other countries during this period.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Women
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent discussions she has had with her European Union counterparts on women's issues. [25512]

  Ms Hewitt
  I met Commissioner Diamantopoulou on 26 November 2001. We discussed a broad range of EU and UK social affairs policy issues, including child care provision, the gender pay gap, family friendly working and the Equal Treatment draft directive.

  I am also looking forward to discussing employment issues with the French Employment Minister, Elizabeth Guigou, in London today. As Minister Guigou's area of responsibility also includes women and equality issues our discussions will cover issues of particular interest to women. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office will also be attending the EU Informal Meeting of Ministers for Women to be hosted by the Spanish Presidency at Santiago de Compostela on 18–19 February 2002.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Traffic Calming
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what legal powers local authorities have to introduce passive traffic calming on trunk roads. [26470]

  Mr. Spellar
  Trunk roads are the responsibility of the Highways Agency. Local authorities have no legal powers to introduce passive traffic calming measures on trunk roads.

  Rolling Stock
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy to establish a national test track for rolling stock. [26058]

  Mr. Spellar
  As the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, Richard Bowker, announced in his Strategic Plan published on 14 January, the SRA is carrying out a study of the case for a national test track. The study will report early this year.

  Lord Birt
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last met Lord Birt to discuss transport policy. [26724]

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the terms of engagement of Lord Birt are in relation to transport matters. [26308]

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) if he will publish Lord Birt's study of Britain's transport needs; [26758]
  564W
  (2) what terms of reference he has agreed with Lord Birt for his study of Britain's transport needs; [26760]

  (3) on what date he first met Lord Birt to discuss the future of transport; [26763]

  (4) what administrative support his Department is supplying Lord Birt for his study of Britain's transport needs; [26762]

  (5) on what date he last met Lord Birt to discuss the future of transport, with specific reference to the railways; [26761]

  (6) what timetable he has agreed with Lord Birt for the completion of his study of Britain's transport needs. [26759]

  Mr. Byers
  The role of the FSU is to provide internal long-term strategic analysis and policy thinking for the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers on a range of issues, including transport. Lord Birt is one of a number of external advisers assisting the FSU in its work. It is not our policy to publish Forward Strategy Unit reports. Internal policy advice to Ministers remains confidential.

  The work of the FSU is being carried forward by a small and varying staff, drawn from the PIU and Government Departments. My Department keeps in close touch with the FSU.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many deaths there were in motor accidents in each of the last five years for which figures are available in which a contributory factor was(a) consumption of alcohol, (b) consumption of non-prescription drugs and (c) tiredness of driver. [27407]

  Mr. Spellar
  The numbers of deaths in motor accidents where one or more drivers involved tested positive for illegal levels of alcohol are shown for the most recent five years for which estimates are available, together with the provisional estimate for 2000.

  Estimates of casualties in accidents involving illegal alcohol levels: Great Britain

  Number

  1995

  540

  1996

  580

  1997

  550

  1998

  460

  1999

  460

  2000 (provisional)

  520

  The estimates do not, however, show the extent to which alcohol may have been a contributory factor in the accidents. Statistics are not compiled for drugs or tiredness as a factor.

  National Rail Model
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 8 January 2002,Official Report, column 583W, on departmental consultants, when Oscar Faber are due to conclude their work on the development of a national rail model. [27334]
  565W
  Mr. Byers

  [holding answer 15 January 2002]The original project specification issued in February 2001 set a completion date of 14 September 2001 for the initial version of the national rail model. The contract with Oscar Faber has since been extended to incorporate further development work and is likely to be extended further either with Oscar Faber or through competitive tender. The original project specification envisaged the further development phase would continue up to September 2002.

  London Underground
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he

  London Underground—Percentage of scheduled train kilometres operated, by line, by financial year

  Line

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Bakerloo

  94.6

  91.4

  93.6

  92.5

  90.5

  82.6

  Central

  97.5

  95.3

  95.1

  95.2

  96.5

  96.6

  Circle and Hammersmith and City

  94.6

  90.9

  93.0

  91.4

  89.7

  81.8

  District

  98.1

  96.0

  98.3

  97.4

  97.0

  92.9

  East London1

  —

  —

  —

  92.7

  95.7

  94.1

  Jubilee

  98.3

  96.4

  98.0

  97.5

  92.7

  89.2

  Metropolitan

  98.1

  95.9

  98.0

  97.5

  96.7

  95.0

  Northern

  93.6

  94.4

  95.5

  90.2

  94.9

  96.5

  Piccadilly

  95.5

  93.5

  92.9

  89.5

  90.9

  86.6

  Victoria

  96.0

  95.0

  95.1

  96.1

  97.4

  95.8

  Waterloo and City

  96.3

  94.5

  98.2

  96.9

  98.4

  96.8

  1 The East London Line was closed between March 1995 and March 1998

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many train breakdowns there were in each of the last seven years per underground line. [27713]

  London Underground—delays of over two minutes attributed to problems with rolling stock

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Bakerloo

  1,208

  1,216

  1,075

  1,144

  1,237

  879

  968

  Central1

  2,121

  1,739

  2,605

  2,423

  2,165

  2,304

  2,864

  Circle and Hammersmith and City

  1,741

  609

  1,167

  2,170

  1,380

  1,568

  1,463

  District

  1,532

  1,218

  1,160

  1,082

  995

  981

  834

  East London2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  106

  Jubilee2

  1,135

  1,156

  922

  1,239

  2,376

  1,722

  1,603

  Metropolitan

  1,685

  1,687

  1,363

  1,238

  1,065

  1,047

  1,247

  Northern

  3,405

  3,964

  3,505

  4,229

  5,942

  3,727

  1,674

  Piccadilly

  2,113

  2,376

  2,228

  3,115

  3,886

  2,934

  2,609

  Victoria

  1,290

  997

  757

  994

  821

  920

  1,053

  Waterloo and City1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  1 The figures for the Central line also include those for the Waterloo and City line to 1999–2000

  2 The figures for the Jubilee line also include those for the East London line to 1999–2000

  Car Fuel Efficiency and Emissions
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans the Government have to improve the clarity for consumers of the new car fuel efficiency and emissions labels. [27827]

  Mr. Spellar
  New requirements for labelling of passenger cars were recently introduced into UK law, in the form of regulations implementing EU directive 99/94/EC. This had the effect of adding information on CO, emissions to the information on fuel efficiency which was already displayed on labels in the UK. A new standardised format for labels was also introduced.
  566W
  will publish the performance indicators for (a) the Metropolitan Line and (b) other London Underground lines for (i) each of the last 12 months and (ii) the last seven years. [27712]

  Mr. Spellar
  Detailed in-year operational information of this nature is a matter for London Underground.

  London Underground has provided the information in the following table giving a line by line breakdown of the percentage of scheduled train kilometres operated in each full financial year since 1995–96. During the same period, the total number of train kilometres operated has increased by 11.5 per cent. from 57.2 million kms in 1995–96 to 63.8 million kms in 2000–01.

  Mr. Spellar
  This is an operational matter for London Underground who have provided the information in the table, showing, for each line on the underground, the number of delays of over two minutes attributed to problems with rolling stock.

  The directive requires member states to monitor and report on the effectiveness of these measures and the Government will be an active participant in the subsequent review by the European Commission. In order to better inform the UK position, the Department will shortly be conducting a consultation exercise on options for banded or comparative labelling.

  Refurbishment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in each of the last four years. [27964]
  567W
  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Central) has carried out four major building refurbishments valued at more than

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Relocation—Ashdown house (Victoria)

  6,516,488

  3,960,801

  —

  4,307,195

  Relocation—Eland house

  3,470,301

  1,279,561

  1,518,702

  —

  Romney House—GLA

  —

  —

  1,685,842

  —

  Relocation—Hempstead house

  —

  240,960

  716,497

  50,870

  Total

  9,986,789

  5,481,322

  3,921,041

  4,358,065

  Ordnance Survey
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what representations he has received on the use of National Interest in Mapping Service Agreement funding of the Ordnance Survey. [28074]

  Ms Keeble
  Since the commencement of the National Interest Mapping Service Agreement (NIMSA) in April 1999 I have received two representations, from a Member of Parliament, which included references to the use of NIMSA funding to support colour imagery.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will provide a table showing the annual payments of National Interest in Mapping Service Agreement funding to the Ordnance Survey in(a) 1990, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [28075]

  Ms Keeble
  The National Interest Mapping Service Agreement (NIMSA) commenced in April 1999 and is based on the financial year April to March. Detailed is a table indicating the payments made since April 1999. The final figure to be paid for activities carried out during financial year 2001–02 will not be finalised until April 2002.

  £ million

  Financial

  Payment

  1999–2000

  14.6

  2000–01

  13.5

  2001–021

  12.0

  1 To end December only

  Note:

  All figures have been rounded to the nearest £0.1 million.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether he has agreed that National Interest in Mapping Service Agreement funding for the Ordnance Survey should support aerial photography in colour. [28076]

  Ms Keeble
  No. National Interest Mapping Service Agreement (NIMSA) funding is directed towards the support of non-commercial database maintenance and other uneconomic national mapping activities that Ordnance Survey undertakes in the national interest.

  Aerial photography is used as part of the database maintenance process and NIMSA has always contributed to its use for uneconomic data base maintenance activities.
  568W
  £1 million which attracted expenditure in the last four years.

  Details of the expenditure are:

  The implications for NIMSA funding of Ordnance Survey's decision in May 2001 to change to colour photography, as part of a long term investment to improve services to customers, are currently under review.

  Local Government Finance (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with Wiltshire county council about an interim award for 2002–03; if he intends the teachers' pay award to be paid from the revenue support grant; if he will make an extra grant for Wiltshire to cover(a) the duties under the Education Act 1997 to provide full-time education for excluded pupils and (b) the new special educational needs duties in early years; and if he will make a statement on the local government settlement as it affects Wiltshire, with particular reference to education and social services. [27893]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The provisional local government finance settlement for 2002–03 continues to give priority to education and social services. Provision for spending on education overall will increase by £2.1 billion or 8.7 per cent. Personal social services will increase by £684 million or 6.5 per cent. Wiltshire benefits from this extra money. Wiltshire's provisional education standard spending assessment increase for 2002–03 is £11.58 million or 6.5 per cent. We have been consulting on our proposals and have not met individual councils during this time. We have been carefully considering all representations on the provisional settlement as we take final decisions.

  Wiltshire will also benefit from the overall increase in standards fund grant of £160 million and an increase in the direct grant for schools of 2.75 per cent. The increase in the education SSA already takes account of the prospective increase in teachers' pay, the duties under the 1997 Act to provide full-time education for excluded pupils and the new special educational needs duties in early years.

  Galileo Project
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on 3 December 2001,Official Report, column 53W, on the Galileo Project, and following the EU Transport Council meeting of 7 December 2001, if he will make a statement on the UK's commitment to the Galileo project. [28024]
  569W
  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to my report of the Transport Council, which includes an account of discussions on Galileo, pursuant to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 12 December 2001,Official Report, columns 875–77W.

  Following the Transport Council, the Laeken European Council reaffirmed the strategic importance of Galileo. It also invited the Transport Council to continue its work on the project with a view to deciding on funding for, and management of the development phase by next March and June respectively. The council was asked to take account of a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) on the project, which the European Commission issued only on 22 November.

  In principle the Government support Galileo, but, as my report of the Transport Council indicates, we and some other member states have outstanding concerns about cost-benefit, financial viability and management aspects of the project. Some of these issues are addressed by the PWC report. But PWC make clear that the system is likely to require more public funding than the Commission previously estimated, including ongoing support through the operational phase.

  National Rail Academy
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the estimated annual running cost is of the proposed National Rail Academy. [28563]

  Mr. Spellar
  The concept of a National Rail Academy is still at a very early stage. The Strategic Rail Authority has commissioned the Rail Industry Training Council to consult with the industry on the establishment of such an academy and what form it might take. Until these facts are known it is premature to estimate running costs.

  Trans-European Rail Network
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in what circumstances the European Commission would have decision-making rights over an application for a derogation under Directive 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC. [28557]

  Mr. Spellar
  The European Commission, normally acting on a qualified majority vote of member states, will decide on all derogations sought on the grounds that application of the technical specifications for interoperability would compromise the economic viability of an upgrading project on the trans-European rail network. This covers both infrastructure and rolling stock related projects.

  Light Rail Schemes
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what light rail schemes are under development and what their estimated completion dates are. [28483]

  Ms Keeble
  Two light rail schemes are currently under construction: the Sunderland extension to Tyne and Wear Metro, which is due to open in March 2002, and Nottingham Express Transit, which is due to open in November 2003.
  570W
  Three extensions to the Manchester Metrolink, three lines for Leeds Supertram and South Hampshire Rapid Transit have also been approved. Construction of these lines will probably begin in 2003, and is likely to take around three years.

  The City Airport extension of the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) in London is awaiting approval under the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA). An announcement on that is likely to be made shortly. Transport for London is also considering the possibility of extending the DLR to Woolwich.

  The economic appraisal for two extensions to the Midland Metro was approved in December 2000 and I understand that the promoters will be submitting a TWA application shortly. Whether or not these extensions are built will depend on the outcome of the TWA process.

  Transport for London is currently consulting on proposals for four intermediate mode corridors in London: Cross river, Uxbridge road, Greenwich waterfront and east London. Transport for London's Business Plan states that a light rail or tram scheme is an option on one of these routes.

  There are also proposals for light rail schemes in Bristol, Merseyside, Medway and Hull, and for further extensions to existing systems. These proposals would have to satisfy the Government's appraisal process and obtain TWA powers before construction could begin.

  Canvey Island
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what opportunity there will be for the Strategic Rail Authority to provide a passenger station for Canvey Island on an extension of the Stanford le Hope-Tilbury East goods rail link when that link is upgraded. [28131]

  Mr. Spellar

  [holding answer 17 January 2002]The SRA has no plans to provide a passenger station at Canvey Island. If there were a demand for a rail link it would be for the local authority, or other sponsoring party, to raise the matter with c2c and Railtrack in the first instance. If support were required from Government it may be available through the Rail Passenger Partnership scheme, administered by the SRA.

  Benfleet Station
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what opportunity there will be to influence the plans of the Strategic Rail Authority to increase the capacity of Benfleet station. [28128]

  Mr. Spellar

  [holding answer 17 January 2002]Through the Incremental Outputs Statement (IOS) scheme the SRA is supporting work to increase the capacity of Benfleet station from 2005–06, allowing eight trains per hour in the peak direction. The IOS programme was designed by the SRA following detailed consultation with stakeholders and the industry, including Railtrack and the Train Operating Companies.

  Bus and Rail Integration
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps he will take to secure better integration of bus and rail services. [28129]

  Mr. Spellar

  [holding answer 17 January 2002]Our 10-Year Plan makes a commitment to looking at transport as a whole, matching solutions to specific problems.

  The Strategic Rail Authority's new Strategic Plan describes a number of examples of better integration which are being taken forward and how further progress will be made. Copies of the Strategic Plan are available in the Library of the House.

  The UK transport industry has developed "Journey Solutions", aimed at promoting and improving integration between bus and train. They aim to showcase the best examples of integration across the country as models from which further schemes can be developed.

  At the local level, local authorities, within their five-year local transport plans and bus strategies, have been asked to consider the important contribution that better interchange can make in improving local transport provision. Our guidance to authorities makes clear the need for authorities, in conjunction with their local partners and the transport operators, to provide improvements to both infrastructure and services which can bring about better interchange between different modes of transport.

  European/British Railways
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the railways in(a) other European countries and (b) Britain. [28739]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following decades of underinvestment, it is clear that the performance of Britain's railways needs to improve. The 10-Year Plan for Transport and the Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan set out the strategy and resources to improve Britain's rail system and enable us to achieve our objective of benchmarking our performance against railways in other European countries.

  Tenancy Deposit Scheme
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will extend the Tenancy Deposit Scheme nationally when the five local pilot schemes end; and which of the two piloted options will be used. [28599]

  Ms Keeble
  We hope shortly to reach a decision on the voluntary pilot tenancy deposit scheme and on such alternative options as there might be for safeguarding tenants' deposits from unjustified appropriation by landlords.

  A14
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether in relation to the proposed major A14 improvements included in the Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal 572W
  study, it is proposed that the opening of the new A14 bypass will be contemporaneous with the opening of the remainder of the works to the A14 road. [27736]

  Mr. Spellar

  [holding answer 18 January 2002]The phasing of the proposed improvements to the A14, included in the Preferred Plan of the Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal study, can only be addressed when work is more advanced.

  Planning Appeals
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many planning appeals have been(a) upheld and (b) dismissed in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [28748]

  Ms Keeble
  The information for England on the number of planning appeals allowed and not allowed in 1996–97 to 2000–01 is given in the table.

  Planning appeals decided

  Planning appeals allowed

  Planning appeals not allowed

  1996–97

  12,029

  4,210

  7,819

  1997–98

  13,051

  4,685

  8,366

  1998–99

  12,991

  4,561

  8,430

  1999–2000

  12,575

  4,545

  8,030

  2000–01

  12,939

  4,525

  8,414

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy that accidents involving the transportation of radioactive material are made public. [28615]

  Mr. Spellar

  [holding answer 18 January 2002]Information on accidents and incidents involving the transport of radioactive material in the UK is published annually and placed in the House Library.

  The latest report, "Radiological Consequences resulting from Accidents and Incidents involving the Transport of Radioactive Materials in the UK—2000 Review, NRPB-M 1320", was published in October 2001.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list incidents whereby trains carrying radioactive material have been involved in(a) accidents and (b) safety-related incidents in each of the last five years, indicating the (i) date and (ii) location of each incident. [28614]

  Mr. Spellar

  [holding answer 18 January 2002]There have been no accidents or incidents with radiological safety implications involving trains carrying radioactive material in the UK during the last five years.

  Information on accidents and incidents involving the transport of radioactive material by all modes in the UK, including rail, is published annually. The reports covering events in each year have been placed in the House Library.
  573W
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what regulations cover the transport of radioactive material in the UK. [28613]

  Mr. Spellar

  [holding answer 18 January 2002]The following regulations cover the transport of radioactive material in the UK:

  Road
  The Radioactive Material (Road Transport) (Great Britain) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No. 1350).
  The Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1983 (SR 1983 No. 344).
  The Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1986 (SR 1986 No. 61).

  Sea
  The Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No. 2367); Merchant Shipping Notice No. M 1755(M), "The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants in Packaged Form—Amendment 30–00 to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code". The Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel etc.) (INF Code) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No. 3216).

  Air
  The Air Navigation Order 2000 SI No. 1562. The Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1994 SI No. 3187 and Amendments 1996 SI No. 3100 and 1998 SI No. 2536.

  Rail
  The Packaging, Labelling and Carriage of Radioactive Material by Rail Regulations (RAMRail) 1996 (SI 1996 No. 2090): Approved Requirements for the packaging, labelling and carriage of radioactive material by rail 1996 Edition. The Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Classification, Packaging and Labelling) and Use of Transportable Pressure Receptacles Regulations (CDGCPL) 1996 (SI 1996 No. 2092). The Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Amendment) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No. 303).
  The Packaging, Labelling and Carriage of Radioactive Material by Rail Regulations (Northern Ireland) (RAMRailNI) 1998 (SR 1998 No. 132).

  Ports
  The Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 37).
  Inland Waterways
  British Waterways Board Terms and Conditions: Dangerous Goods BWB 1981, and Schedule of Dangerous Goods ("The Green Book") BWB 1981 (Class 7).

  Indian Government Representatives
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he had to meet Indian Government representatives in early January. [28622]

  Dr. Whitehead

  [holding answer 18 January 2002]No meetings were fixed. The visit was entirely private and all the costs borne by my right hon. Friend.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the(a) dates and locations and (b) materials involved in railway safety-related incidents in the last six months in the north-west of England. [28612]
  574W
  Mr. Spellar

  [holding answer 18 January 2002]The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) advise that in the period from 1 July 2001 to 17 January 2002 there have been 174 incidents reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) in Railtrack's north-west zone, which covers the north-west of England. However, these figures do not necessarily include all safety-related incidents or details of the materials involved in an incident. A more detailed breakdown of these figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what procedures his Department has to ensure environmental appraisals are undertaken prior to(a) administrative and (b) policy decisions being made; [28986]

  (2) how many officials from his Department have attended the environmental appraisal and integration into policy training course run by the Civil Service College; [28988]

  (3) when the last occasion was on an which he requested an environmental appraisal before making a policy decision; [28985]

  (4) how many environmental appraisals have been published by his Department since 1 January 2001; and if he will list the last four; [28984]

  (5) what plans his Department has to appraise the environmental implications of its Spending Review submission to the Treasury. [28987]

  Dr. Whitehead
  My right hon. Friend receives environmental advice on all policy decisions for which environmental issues are relevant.

  In 1998, the former Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions published "Policy Appraisal and the Environment: Policy Guidance" which gave advice to Departments on when and how to carry out an environmental appraisal.

  The guidance made clear that environmental appraisal is part of the overall policy appraisal process. Accordingly, my Department does not now generally publish free-standing environmental appraisal documents. Environmental implications of the Department's policies and programmes are, where appropriate, set out in the various consultation documents and regulatory impact assessments that form part of our overall consideration of policy.

  In terms of administrative actions, our activities are governed by the Department's greening operations policy statement, published on the DTLR website in December 2001. Proposals for specific projects are assessed in respect of operational need, compliance with policy, environmental benefit, and value for money.

  Since the publication of the 1998 policy guidance, my Department, with others, has been developing an integrated policy appraisal methodology which will be used to assess the likely effect of proposed policies on a range of economic, environmental and social issues. My Department is using a summary version of the methodology to consider the sustainable development

  575W
  implications of our Spending Review submission to the Treasury. Beyond the Spending Review process, and in the light of further development of the methodology, we hope to use the methodology to ensure that full account is taken of all relevant economic, environmental and social factors before policy decisions are made.

  No officials from my Department have so far attended the environmental appraisal and integration into policy training course run by the Civil Service College.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he will reply to the letter of 4 September from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford with reference to Ms Dearns of Chelmsford. [28810]

  Ms Keeble
  I replied to the letter from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford on Tuesday 25 September 2001, in which I undertook to look into the issues raised. I sent a second, substantive, reply on Friday 18 January 2002. I have forwarded a further copy of this to the hon. Member.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much money Coventry city council will receive from the changes to the area cost adjustment; and if he will make a statement on the shortfall announced in July 2001 due to changes in the area cost adjustment. [28885]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The following table compares the provisional standard spending assessment (SSA) for Coventry city council, as announced for consultation on 4 December, with what it would have been if based on the area cost adjustment (ACA) for 2001–02. This shows the effect of updating the data underpinning the area cost adjustment between 2001–02 and 2002–03. The impact of changes to the area cost adjustment is relatively small, at 0.1 per cent. of SSA.

  Amount

  2002–03 provisional SSA1

  283.272

  2002–03 provisional SSA using 2001–02 ACA1

  283.520

  Absolute difference1

  -0.248

  Percentage difference

  -0.1

  1£ million

  The ACA data for 2002–03 that were announced in July 2001 was provisional. The Office for National Statistics subsequently revised the New Earnings Survey (NES) data for 2000 on which these provisional figures were based, in order to include a large number of additional records that had yet to be processed earlier in the year. The final ACA figures for 2002–03 are based on the revised NES data, as it is important that we use the most robust data that are available to us at the time the settlement is made.

  Road Safety
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what 576W
  arrangements there are to grant aid to non-governmental bodies, other than local authorities, to promote road safety. [29275]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have today announced that the Government have decided to allocate around £200,000 per annum to a road safety grant challenge fund to assist with the cost of projects promoting road safety proposed by organisations other than local authorities. Grant funding is expected to support the Government's road safety strategy and casualty reduction targets for 2010. Individual grants are expected to be for sums up to £20,000.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many speed cameras were located in Yeovil constituency in each year from 1995 to 2002; how much fine revenue has been collected from these cameras in each year; what the net costs of operating the cameras in each year has been; and if he will make a statement. [27053]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally.

  Home Sellers' Packs
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he plans to introduce home sellers' packs. [28877]

  Ms Keeble
  Legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time allows. In the meantime we are pressing ahead, in consultation with consumer representatives and the professional bodies, with developing the detailed contents of the sellers' pack.

  Millennium Dome
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of the Millennium Dome. [26180]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) on 18 December 2001,Official Report, columns 220–221W.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what legal requirements are placed on the administrators of Railtrack under the Strategic Plan published by the Strategic Rail Authority on 14 January. [29122].

  Mr. Byers
  The administrator has been appointed by the court for the purposes set out in the Railways Administration Order made under the provisions of the Railways Act 1993. Those purposes remain unchanged by the Strategic Plan.

  Train Operating Companies
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the European Council's Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies of the Member States
  577W
  and the Community on the future structure of the rail industry, with particular reference to the number of train operating companies. [29120]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government's policies for the railway industry, including those on rail passenger service competition and franchising, are consistent with the recommendations in these broad guidelines.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Non-career Civil Servants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many non-career civil servants are employed in his Department and at which grade; how many non-career civil servants have passed the ADC; and how many non-career civil servants he has appointed since 11 June 2001. [27480]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The FCO recruits some members of staff on fixed term contracts, which is what we understand by the term "non-career civil servants". Staff on fixed term appointments are employed on civil service terms and conditions, but their contract of employment has a fixed end date. This category does not cover staff seconded from the private sector. 22 staff are employed on fixed term contracts: two in the senior management structure; 20 in the delegated grades.

  No staff on fixed term appointments have attended an Assessment and Development Centre. Four such staff have been appointed since 11 June 2001.

  Southern Rhodesia Act
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all orders made under section 3(1)(b)(i) of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979, stating the purpose of each order and its duration. [27749]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Four orders have been made under section 3 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979.

  The Southern Rhodesia (Expiring Orders) (Consequential Provisions) Order 1979 (SI 1979 No.1445) made provision consequential on the lapse of a number of orders made under section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965. The order contained provisions relating to the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia Orders 1965 and 1967, to proceedings against, and liabilities of, the Government of Rhodesia, to the liability of the registrar and trustees of the sinking fund of any stock issued by that Government or for which that Government were responsible and to the records relating to such stock. The order was revoked on 7 December 1979 and replaced by the Southern Rhodesia (Legal Proceedings and Public Liabilities) Order 1979 (SI 1979 No. 1601).

  The Southern Rhodesia (Legal Proceedings and Public Liabilities) Order 1979 (SI 1979 No.1601) replaced the Southern Rhodesia (Expiring Orders) (Consequential Provisions) Order 1979; the subject matter being the same as the order it replaced. The order is still in force and was modified by the Zimbabwe (Independence and Membership of the Commonwealth) (Consequential Provisions) Order 1980 (SI 1980 No. 701) under powers in the Zimbabwe Act 1979.
  578W
  The Southern Rhodesia Constitution (Interim Provisions) Order 1979 (SI 1979 No.1571) made temporary provision for the Government of Southern Rhodesia. The legislative and executive powers, and the prerogative of mercy, were vested in a Governor who could give directions as to the authorities by whom executive powers may be exercised. The order also made provision for the revocation or suspension of a number of earlier constitutional provisions and for the suspension of the appeals to Her Majesty in Council. The order was revoked on 20 March 1980 by the Zimbabwe Constitution (Transitional, Supplementary and Consequential Provisions) Order 1980 (SI 19870 No.395).

  The Southern Rhodesia (Sanctions) (Amnesty) Order 1980 (SI 1980 No.565) makes provision for an amnesty, and for discontinuance of criminal proceedings, in respect of offences against certain measures under section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, the United Nations Act 1946 or the enactments specified in Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the order, by which effect is given to resolutions of the United Nations Security Council providing for the imposition of economic or other sanctions against Southern Rhodesia. The order is still in force.

  Religious Persecution
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to produce an annual report on the observance of human rights worldwide, with particular reference to religious freedom; and if he will make a statement. [28606]

  Peter Hain
  Promotion of human rights, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion, is at the heart of our foreign policy. We condemn instances where individuals are persecuted because of their faith or belief, wherever they happen and whatever the religion of the individual or group concerned.

  Human rights are inter-related and interdependent. In practice, violations of the right of freedom of religion are often accompanied by violations of other rights; for instance, of freedom of speech and association, freedom from torture and the right to a fair trial. Protecting and promoting freedom of religion is most effective when it is done in the context of the promotion and protection of other human rights.

  The Government were pleased to lay before Parliament their fourth Annual Report on Human Rights on 17 September 2001. The report details what the UK has done to promote human rights abroad. It included a section on freedom of religion in the chapter dealing with democracy and diversity. The section sets out some of the action that we have taken to promote religious freedoms in, for example, Turkmenistan, Pakistan and China.

  Iraq
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what goods on the Military List have recently been approved for export to Iraq. [29385]

  Peter Hain
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved
  579W
  a licence to export to Iraq two seal rings, which appear on the Military List, for use in a gas turbine engine at an oil pump station in Iraq. The UN Sanctions Committee approved the export to Iraq of this equipment under the Oil for Food Programme. The Oil for Food Programme allows the export to Iraq of equipment and spare parts required to improve its oil infrastructure. The revenue Iraq is able to generate from the sale of oil funds its purchases of humanitarian goods.

  EU-Israel Association Agreement
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has on whether goods from settlements in occupied territories are imported to the EU as being of Israeli origin; and what discussions he has had with EU partners on action to deal with failings on the part of the Israeli authorities to honour commitments under the EU-Israel Association agreement. [29235]

  Peter Hain
  The General Affairs Council last considered this question on 19 November 2001. Their conclusion, taking into account the results of responses from Israel to inquiries from EU national customs authorities, was that there remained a requirement to resolve the rules of origin issue. The EU side consequently made clear at the 20 November EU-Israel Association Council that it attached great importance to correct application of the Association agreement and would do its best to find a sustainable solution to the rules of origin issue. It noted that, if the Association Council process was not able to find a solution, the EU would have to review its position, in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. Both sides agreed to pursue discussions on this issue.

  Overseas Territories Bill
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the first British passports to be available to citizens of the Overseas Territories under the provisions of the Overseas Territories Bill. [28315]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  British passports will be made available to citizens of the Overseas Territories once two criteria have been met. First, that the Overseas Territories Bill has been passed and has received Royal Assent. Secondly, that a commencement date for the citizenship provisions of the Bill has been decided by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. This date will be set once satisfactory arrangements for practical implementation, such as passport issue, have been agreed and put in place.

  Zambia
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Zambia regarding alleged discrepancies in the electoral process in the recent elections in that country; and if he will make a statement. [26091]

  Mr. Straw
  The UK has not yet made any representations to the Government of Zambia about alleged discrepancies in the electoral process during the recent elections there. We await the final report of the EU 580W
  Electoral Observer Mission, which we understand will be issued shortly, and will examine its findings carefully with our EU partners.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken in response to the recent report of the EU Observer Mission highlighting alleged shortcomings in the electoral process in the recent tripartite elections in Zambia; and if he will make a statement. [26092]

  Mr. Straw
  We are aware of reports of irregularities in the administration of the recent Zambian elections. The EU Electoral Observer Mission is working with domestic observer groups to examine these reports and will issue a joint final statement as soon as possible.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what lessons he has drawn from the report of EU observers into the recent Zambian presidential and general elections. [28945]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The final report of the EU Electoral Observer Mission on the recent Zambian elections has not yet been issued. The EU team is working with domestic observer groups, and we understand that a joint final report will be issued shortly. We shall examine its findings carefully with our EU partners.

  Islamabad
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the explanatory statement for Islamabad, reference ISB/N7692, will be forwarded to the Home Office. [29239]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Joint Entry Clearance Unit are seeking information on this case from the High Commission at Islamabad and will write to my hon. Friend about this case in the next few days.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the British High Commission in Zimbabwe last met Mr. Mugabe; and what was discussed. [28858]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The British High Commissioner last met President Mugabe on 25 October, when he accompanied my noble Friend Baroness Amos on a call, as part of the visit by Commonwealth Foreign Ministers to Zimbabwe from 25–27 October. The meeting focused on implementation of the Abuja agreement.

  Kenya
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what action he has taken to ensure that the EU observers will be in situ for the Kenyan elections later this year; [28944]

  (2) what measures he intends to take to ensure fair and free elections in Kenya in 2002. [28964]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are working closely with our development partners, and in consultation with key Kenyan stakeholders, to establish a comprehensive monitoring effort for the elections.
  581W
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a formal complaint to the High Commission for Kenya over the plans to deforest part of the Mau area in Kenya. [28957]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The British High Commissioner and representatives from the Department for International Development have consistently raised with the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources and other members of the Kenyan Government UK concerns over plans to excise forest reserve.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Ring-fenced Funds
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funds allocated by(a) her Department and (b) its executive agencies are ring-fenced for specific purposes; and if she will list the allocations of funds involved. [22955]

  Estelle Morris

  [holding answer 18 December 2001]Most of the Department's funding is not ring-fenced for any particular programme. The exceptions to this are initiatives running with support from specifically targeted funds. Details of initiatives running in 2001–02 with funding which cannot be diverted into any other programme without Treasury permission are listed:

  £ million

  Initiative

  Student Loans

  818

  New Deal for Schools

  293

  Capital Modernisation Fund

  232

  Of which:

  UK Online Centres

  141

  City Learning Centres

  44

  Computers for Teachers

  5

  School Laboratories

  30

  University for Industry

  2

  The Cybrarian

  2.5

  Specialist Schools

  7

  Child care

  162

  Sure Start

  184

  Children's Fund

  100

  Invest to Save Budget

  2

  The Department provides grant funding for local education authorities (LEAs) for targeted initiatives, such as literacy and numeracy strategies, the National Grid for Learning, and capital support for schools, through the Standards Fund.

  The Department provides funding for non-departmental government bodies. In a number of cases there is a large amount of discretion for these bodies in how they deploy funds. Such organisations include the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Learning and Skills Council and the Teacher Training Agency.

  Most support for schools and local education authorities (LEAs) flows through the Education Standard Spending Assessment and Revenue Support Grant. This funding is not ring-fenced.

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what has been the expenditure of her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title for each year since 1997. [26990]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  For details of the advertising spend of the Department from 1996–97 I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 26 February 2001,Official Report, columns 379–480W. Department press expenditure during 2000–01 amounted to £7,323,331.

  Each advertising campaign may use national and regional media. In addition to regional newspapers, advertising space may also be taken in a large number of local newspapers.

  A breakdown on advertising by title could only be supplied at disproportionate cost.

  Information on advertising expenditure by agencies and non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally.

  School Internet Access
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in the north-east are equipped with internet access. [28067]

  John Healey
  Statistics published by the Department for Education and Skills in October 2001 show that 97 per cent. of schools in England were connected to the internet in April of that year; significant progress from a position where only 28 per cent. were connected in 1998. Our target is that every school should have access to the internet in 2002.

  The Department does not maintain information about internet access in schools on a regional or local basis.

  Education SSA (Swindon)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much of Swindon's standard spending assessment per pupil was allocated on the basis of pupil numbers alone for the years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01,(c) 2001–02 and (d) 2002–03. [28356]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested is in the following table.

  Swindon

  £

  SSA per pupil allocated on pupil numbers only1

  Total education SSA per pupil1

  1999–2000

  1,871

  2,513

  2000–01

  1,958

  2,624

  2001–02

  2,024

  2,681

  2002–03

  2,134

  2,811

  1 For pupils aged four to 19

  Data for 2002–03 are provisional.

  Teacher Recruitment Agencies
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she has collated on the costs of commission paid by schools to recruitment agencies. [28529]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Sixth-form Education (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will announce the amount of the additional payment she will make to the Worcestershire local education authority to compensate for the amount transferred to the Learning and Skills Council for sixth-form education in Worcestershire; and if she will make a statement. [28596]

  Mr. Timms
  The transfer of sixth-form funding to the LSC from April 2002 will be cost neutral at LEA level—the adjustments to individual SSAs to take account of the transfer will match the payments that LEAs get back from the LSC.

  But we propose to pay a special grant to a minority of LEAs where the changes being made to the funding methodology would not fully eliminate the impact of the funding changes in 2002–03.

  I expect details of the special grant to be released after consultation on the Local Government Finance Settlement has been completed at the end of the month.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance was given to local Learning and Skills Councils on the cost and location of their office accommodation. [28854]

  Margaret Hodge
  Decisions on the location of local LSC offices were taken by Ministers in February 2000, before the LSC became operational. Factors taken into consideration included the need to get best value for public money by using, where appropriate, premises then occupied by Training and Enterprise Councils, regard was also had to ensuring locations that would facilitate effective operation of the LSC. Since it became operational the LSC has been responsible for its local office locations and costs.

  Standards Funds
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the Standards Funds received by schools in Hampshire in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [28864]

  Mr. Timms
  The following table shows allocations for the Standards Fund for Hampshire local education authority in 2000–01 and 2001–02. The figures include both Government and local authority contributions. The amount actually paid to schools depends on local expenditure decisions by schools and the local authority.
  584W

  2001–01 Standards Fund allocations for Hampshire county council

  £

  Administrative Support for Small Schools

  608,000

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  136,500

  Beacon Schools

  341,450

  Best Practice Research Scholarships

  75,675

  Class Size Initiative

  4,245,393

  Developing and Extending Maintained Nursery School Services

  24,945

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  7,605,169

  Early Excellence Centres

  98,228

  Early Years Training and Development

  303,077

  Education and Health Partnerships

  97,995

  Ethnic Minority Pupils and Traveller Achievement

  397,838

  Key Stage 3 Numeracy: Secondary Schools Conference

  61,812

  Literacy and Numeracy: Summer Schools and KeyStage 3

  176,000

  Local Education Authority Music Services

  1,085,380

  Maintained Nursery Capital

  11,613

  National Grid for Learning

  3,858,095

  New Models for LEA Services

  45,000

  New National Curriculum

  431,400

  Performance Management Training

  907,454

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  2,792,848

  Qualifications

  197,363

  School Improvement

  7,239,927

  School Laboratories for the 21st Century

  550,813

  School Leadership

  449,904

  School Security

  510,545

  Secondary School Learning Support Units

  239,741

  Seed Capital Challenge

  593,728

  Small School Support Fund

  440,681

  Social Inclusion, Drugs and Youth

  1,776,297

  Special Educational Needs

  741,547

  Specialist Schools

  756,016

  Study Support

  160,640

  Summer Schools for Gifted and Talented Pupils

  63,000

  Support for Parent Governor Representatives

  1,200

  Supported Early Retirement Scheme for Heads

  180,399

  Teacher Incentives

  82,555

  Teaching Assistants

  2,806,098

  Working Environment Fund

  485,925

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  873,277

  Total

  41,453,528

  2001–02 Standards Fund allocations for Hampshire county council

  £

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  697,500

  Beacon Schools

  643,150

  Child Protection Co-ordinators

  39,600

  Children in Public Care

  136,330

  Children of Asylum Seekers

  1,000

  Class Size Initiative

  5,520,194

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  11,928,266

  Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco

  275,510

  Early Excellence Centres

  89,030

  Early Professional Development

  950,400

  Early Years Training and Development

  350,537

  Education Health Partnerships

  86,634

  Ethnic Minority Achievement

  250,513

  Gifted and Talented Children

  72,000

  Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers

  1,478,967

  Information Management Strategy

  691,163

  Learning Support Units

  640,155

  Literacy and Numeracy Summer Schools

  420,000

  Local Education Authority Music Services

  882,200

  Maintained Nursery School Service

  53,663

  National Curriculum

  427,613

  National Grid for Learning

  5,595,910

  NDS Condition Funding

  7,824,772

  New Models for Local Education Authority Services

  100,000

  Performance Management

  624,554

  Primary Literacy and Numeracy Strategies

  3,279,526

  Qualifications

  66,279

  Recruitment and Retention Fund

  1,652,000

  School Achievement Awards

  1,254,260

  School Improvement

  4,528,000

  585W

  2001–02 Standards Fund allocations for Hampshire county council

  £

  School Laboratories

  1,101,626

  School Leadership

  721,262

  School Security

  506,853

  Seed Capital Challenge

  687,914

  Sick Children

  38,951

  Small Schools Fund

  1,739,130

  Social Inclusion: Pupil Support

  1,768,300

  Special Educational Needs

  1,421,726

  Specialist Schools

  854,715

  Study Support

  1,302,976

  Supported Early Retirement Scheme for Heads

  240,000

  Teaching Assistants

  4,184,795

  Transforming Key Stage 3

  918,789

  Traveller Children Achievement

  177,231

  Year 6 Literacy and Numeracy Booster Classes

  975,740

  Year 9 Booster Classes

  319,500

  Total

  67,519,234

  Grants (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the(a) category and (b) amount of each grant outside the revenue support grant which her Department provided to Hampshire county council in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [28865]

  Mr. Timms
  The following table shows the Department's allocated grants to Hampshire local education authority in 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  £

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Standards Fund

  18,843,776

  26,224,965

  Teachers Pay Reform Grant

  5,881,466

  7,727,856

  Nursery Education Grant (3-year-olds)1

  1,701,150

  1—

  Nursery Education Grant (4-year-olds)

  4,742,626

  —

  Special Education Needs Co-ordinators (Early Years)

  —

  105,037

  Early Years Training and Support

  162,700

  720,251

  Childcare Grant

  1,386,320

  3,650,169

  School Standards Grant2

  6,701,000

  14,593,500

  School Budget Support Grant

  1,246,115

  —

  Education Budget Support Grant

  —

  100,000

  Education Action Zone3

  702,000

  3—

  Transitional Funding and Transitional Grant Insurance (former GM Schools)

  575,891

  358,349

  Capital Grant

  29,386,000

  27,272,000

  1 In 2001–02 Hampshire has received funding for the summer and autumn terms 2001 which amounts to £300,823. For the spring term 2002 it has been allocated up to £3,476,088 to fund early education places for 3-year-olds. This is as a result of a funding re-allocation exercise at the end of the autumn term 2001.

  2 2001–02 figures may be subject to change.

  3 Funding made directly to the Education Action Zone in Hampshire (Leigh Park). Up to £550,000 grant is available to the zone in 2001–02, conditional on the zone receiving £250,000 in eligible private sector sponsorship.

  Note:

  Amounts are in cash terms.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the direct grants for schools in Hampshire in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [28866]

  Mr. Timms
  A table listing the School Standards Grant payable in respect of each Hampshire school in 2000–01 and 2001–02 has been placed in the Library.

  School Statistics
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils there were aged 15 years broken down by ethnic group; what were the average percentage GCSE/GNVQ results of(a) over 5A* to C, (b) over 5A* to G and (c) no passes; what was the average number of (i) authorised and (ii) unauthorised absences for each English parliamentary constituency in the academic year 2000–01; and if she will make a statement. [28958]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The overall number of pupils in maintained secondary schools broken down by ethnic group is given in the following table; there are no figures for individual ages.

  Maintained secondary schools: number of pupils by ethnic group England—January 2000

  Number

  White

  2,780,167

  Black—Caribbean

  44,561

  Black—African

  37,466

  Black—Other

  25,397

  Indian

  83,177

  Pakistani

  76,131

  Bangladeshi

  29,876

  Chinese

  12,318

  Any other minority group

  79,259

  Unclassified

  63,475

  Total

  3,231,827

  The primary source of information on GCSE attainment by ethnic group is the Youth Cohort Study (YCS). The YCS is run in alternate years and estimates from the latest survey are provided in the following table.

  GCSE/GNVQ achievements by ethnic group England and Wales—1998–99

  Percentage

  5+ Grades A*-C

  5+ Grades A*-G

  No passes reported

  White

  50

  91

  4

  Black

  39

  86

  5

  Indian

  60

  95

  1—

  Pakistani

  29

  91

  4

  Bangladeshi

  29

  88

  5

  Other Asian

  72

  93

  4

  Other minority group

  43

  89

  9

  Not stated

  26

  66

  23

  Total

  49

  91

  5

  1 Not available (too small sample size)

  Note:

  Estimates exclude pupils in special schools

  Neither of the breakdowns is available for parliamentary constituencies.

  The data collected on authorised and unauthorised absences do not include ethnic group.

  Autonomous Schools
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools she expects to have earned autonomy by the end of the current Parliament. [28959]
  587W
  Mr. Timms
  We intend to consult widely on the criteria for earned autonomy before regulations are laid. We envisage that these criteria will enable around 10 per cent. of schools, including those succeeding in challenging circumstances, to qualify. At this stage, we are not in a position to say how many schools will qualify by the end of the current Parliament.

  Under-performing Schools
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of schools are(a) deemed to have serious weaknesses, (b) under special measures and (c) deemed to be under-achieving by Ofsted inspectors. [28960]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for HM Chief Inspector of Schools and I have therefore asked Mike Tomlinson to write to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if she will list for each local education authority the level of protected funding given by the LEA over that given by her Department as transitional funding to former grant maintained schools in each of the years 1998–99 to 2001–02; [28961]

  (2) if she will list for each year from 1998–99, the transitional funding made available by her Department to former grant maintained schools in England. [28962]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has not itself provided transitional funding for former grant-maintained schools. Such funding was provided in 1998–99 by the Funding Agency for Schools as part of the schools' annual maintenance grants, and has been provided in subsequent years by local education authorities in accordance with regulations made under section 47 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, with the assistance (in 2000–01 and 2001–02) of a special grant from the Department.

WALES

  Standard Spending Assessment (Monmouth)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much SSA per head Monmouth receives; and what the equivalent average figure is for English local government areas. [28008]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Distribution of the revenue support grant in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

  Democratic Process
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what assessment the Committee has made of the Electoral Commission's plans to encourage greater participation in the democratic process. [26157]
  588W
  Mr. Beith
  The committee has approved the commission's five-year plan for 2001–06, which provides for research and advertising campaigns directed at the promotion of voter awareness. It was laid before Parliament on 8 January 2002 and copies are available in the Vote Office. I understand that the commission intends to set out its strategy for promoting voter awareness in more detail in its next five-year plan, covering the period 2002–07, which is due to be considered by the Speaker's Committee next month and published later in the spring.

  Euro
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what the anticipated cost would be of conducting a referendum on entry into the euro. [26163]

  Mr. Beith
  The Electoral Commission has not to date provided the Speaker's Committee with any estimate for the cost of running a national referendum.

  The commission's five-year plan for the period 2001–06 makes clear that the commission will need to seek additional resources in the event of a referendum being called, but does not attempt to identify the scale of those costs.

  However, I understand from the Chairman that the commission, as part of its normal work, has recently begun to develop its contingency plans for any national or regional referendum, and will be looking at the issue of costs as part of this work.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Compensation Agency
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the future plans of the Compensation Agency are; and when they will be published. [29363]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Compensation Agency will publish today its corporate plan for 2001–04 and business plan for 2001–02. I have set the agency the following 11 key performance targets for 2001–02:

  (i) To process criminal injuries claims for an average unit cost of £290.

  (ii) To process criminal damage and Terrorism Act 2000 claims for an average unit cost of £140.

  (iii) To maintain the average time taken to reach decisions on criminal injuries claims at 45 weeks for claims received from 1 April 2000.

  (iv) To maintain the average time taken to reach decisions on criminal damage claims at 19 weeks for claims received from 1 April 2001.

  (v) To maintain the average time taken to reach decisions on Terrorism Act 2000 claims at 35 days for claims received from 1 April 2001.

  (vi) To reduce by 85 per cent. the number of criminal injuries claims in hand at 31 March 2000 on which no decision had been reached.

  (vii) To reduce by 85 per cent. the number of criminal damage claims in hand at 31 March 2001 on which no decision had been reached.

  589W

  (viii) To reduce by 95 per cent. the number of Terrorism Act 2000 claims in hand at 31 March 2001 on which no decision had been reached.

  (ix) To manage the agency's work load in 2001–02 within a running costs budget (to cover salaries and administrative expenditure) to financial limits agreed with the Department (including in-year adjustments).

  (x) To achieve an improvement in the level of satisfaction with the agency's service as evidenced by a further survey, to be conducted by December 2001, of a representative sample of applicants and their legal advisers.

  (xi) To assess claims in accordance with the requirements of the legislation and ensure that the standards of assessment are fair and objective.

PRIME MINISTER

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 289, if he will publish the documentation to support his reference to the uncovering by the Railtrack administrator of more financial difficulties at the company. [26409]

  The Prime Minister
  No. These are matters for Railtrack plc and its administrator. The administrator will lodge a Statement of Proposals with the Registrar of Companies and others, including creditors of Railtrack plc, at a time to be agreed by the court. The statement will therefore be widely available. It will contain the administrator's proposals and strategy for transferring the business to another company or companies and the carrying on of the relevant activities before making the transfer. And as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions told the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee on 16 January this will include a statement of affairs from the Directors of Railtrack, that will"disclose the level of debt that Railtrack had to serve"
  and people will then
  "understand why the High Court judge…took the decision which he did".

  Interception of Communications
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Lewes, of 19 December 2001,Official Report, column 367W, whether his policy in respect of telephone tapping of hon. Members extends to (a) other methods of interception of communications and (b) bugging. [27518]

  The Prime Minister
  The policy extends to all forms of warranted interception of communications.

  As to bugging, the position remains as I informed the House on 4 December 1997, Official Report, column 321, the policy applies in relation to the use of electronic surveillance by any of the three security and intelligence agencies as well as to telephone interception.

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last used the railway service in connection with his official duties; what station he left from and what was the destination; and whether it is his intention to make greater use of the railways in future. [28094]

  The Prime Minister
  I last travelled by train on 6 December 2001 from Paddington to Reading. I travel making the most efficient and cost-effective arrangements, and will continue to use the railway service regularly when appropriate. My travel arrangements are in accordance with the arrangements for official travel set out in chapter 7 of the Ministerial Code, and the accompanying guidance document, Travel by Ministers.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Prime Minister which special advisers have the authority to give directions to civil servants. [28355]

  The Prime Minister
  Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what the average time is that the Head of his Department has recommended since May 1997 between a special adviser leaving his Department and taking up outside employment; and if he will make a statement. [28908]

  The Prime Minister
  All special advisers are covered by the Business Appointment rules which are set out in full in the Civil Service Management Code. Each case is considered on its own individual merit, and an average of the outcomes would therefore be meaningless and potentially misleading. Individual applications submitted to the independent Advisory Committee on Business Appointments for advice are reported on in the committee's annual report.

  Russia
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters in respect of United Kingdom assistance to Russia in its weapons dismantlement and nuclear materials management programmes were discussed in his meeting with President Putin in December 2001. [28538]

  The Prime Minister
  At our joint press conference, President Putin and I announced the signature of an agreement to provide £12 million to help destroy Russia's stock of chemical weapons.

  I also said we hope this year to be in a position to complete agreement on assistance for the clean-up of nuclear submarines.

  Staff (Terms of Employment)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what the(a) date and period of appointment, (b) qualification and (c) status of the contract is of each person appointed to (i) the Forward Strategy Unit and (ii) the Performance and Innovation Unit. [28500]

  The Prime Minister
  Details of the terms of employment of individual members of staff are confidential.

SCOTLAND

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when the last occasion was on which she requested an environmental appraisal before making a policy decision; [29039]

  (2) how many environmental appraisals have been published by her Department since 1 January 2001; and if she will list the last four; [29038]

  (3) what procedures her Department has to ensure environmental appraisals are undertaken prior to (a) administrative and (b) policy decisions being made; [29040]

  (4) what plans her Department has to appraise the environmental implications of its Spending Review submission to the Treasury. [29041]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Scotland Office is a small Government Department with limited programme expenditure and procurement capacity. It has therefore not been necessary for it to carry out any environmental appraisals since its establishment in July 1999. The Scotland Office's management board take environmental considerations into account as part of its normal decision-taking process, including its Spending Review submission to the Treasury.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many officials from her Department have attended the environmental appraisal and integration into policy training course run by the Civil Service College. [29042]

  Mr. Foulkes
  None.

  Attendance Allowance
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans she has to make representations to the Department for Work and Pensions to reconsider its decision to withdraw attendance allowance to those recipients who will be entitled to receive free personal care in Scotland; [28954]

  (2) if the Scottish Executive received the support of the Scotland Office in its recent dialogue with the Department for Work and Pensions and other Whitehall Departments on the subject of the payment of attendance allowance to those recipients who will be entitled to receive free personal care in Scotland; [28955]

  (3) pursuant to her answer of 15 January 2002, Official Report, column 141, on the Barnett formula, what views of Whitehall were made clear to the Scottish Health Minister by her Office during the consideration by the care development review of the subject of the payment of attendance allowance to those recipients who will be entitled to receive free personal care in Scotland; [28956]

  (4) what plans she has to make representations to the Department for Work and Pensions to secure the continued allocation to Scotland of the attendance allowance money withdrawn from recipients who will be entitled to receive free personal care; [28953]
  592W
  (5) pursuant to her answer of 15 January 2002, Official Report, column 141, on the Barnett formula, which other Whitehall Departments were involved in the dialogue with the Scottish Executive and the Department for Work and Pensions on the subject of the payment of attendance allowance to those recipients who will be entitled to receive free personal care in Scotland. [28952]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Scottish Executive, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Treasury and the Scotland Office had a number of discussions on this matter. These discussions were amicable. Throughout, it was recognised that decisions on care services are devolved and those on benefits are reserved. The Government have made it clear that they are not prepared to transfer resources in this area to the Scottish Executive. The Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, said on 15 January that the discussions were concluded and the matter would not be taken any further.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Human Reproductive Cloning Act
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Advocate-General, pursuant to her answer of 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 169W, under what powers the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 was extended to Scotland. [28798]

  The Advocate-General
  The Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 is an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. This Parliament can legislate on any subject for the whole of the United Kingdom. A United Kingdom Act applies to Scotland unless stated otherwise. As this Act is not expressly restricted in its extent it applies to Scotland. The subject matter of the Act is in any case reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament by section J3 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Church of England Children's Society
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations the Church Commissioners have made to the Church of England Children's Society in respect of its decision to cease its activities in Wales. [26158]

  Mr. Bell
  The Church Commissioners' primary legal responsibility is to manage their assets for the financial support of the Church of England's serving and retired ministry. It would not fall to the Commissioners to make any such representations.

  Clergy Pensions
  Bob Spink
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how much was paid by the Church Commissioners for clergy pensions in the last financial year; and what the estimate is for the current financial year. [26159]

  Mr. Bell
  In the year ended 31 December 2000, the Commissioners paid £90.6 million for clergy pensions and a further £11.3 million in transitional relief to offset
  593W
  dioceses costs under the new pensions scheme. The Commissioners also paid pension contributions for bishops and cathedral clergy totalling £1.0 million.

  According to the latest estimate for the year ending 31 December 2001 the Commissioners expect to pay £94.1 million for past service clergy pensions and contribute £7.2 million to dioceses in transitional relief. Pension contributions for bishops and cathedral clergy are estimated to be £1.1 million.

  Clergy Safety
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what financial provision is made for improving the personal safety of the clergy on working duty. [26160]

  Mr. Bell
  Financial provision for improving the personal security of the clergy is largely the responsibility of the dioceses. The Church Commissioners offer guidance on security aspects of parsonage house design.

  The Archbishops' Council is currently making inquiries of dioceses about the measures they have in place. Early replies show that local police forces have provided training for clergy on how to recognise and deal with potentially difficult circumstances and that diocesan surveyors are giving renewed attention to the security of parsonage houses.

  Clergy Pay
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on clergy pay and pensions. [26162]

  Mr. Bell
  The National Stipend Benchmark for clergy of incumbent status with effect from 1 April 2002 is £17,420, an increase of 3 per cent. on the previous year. The full service pension from 1 April 2002 will be £10,693.

  Consultations are currently taking place with dioceses about stipend levels and pensions arrangements. Proposals for change will be discussed by the General Synod in November. Further details can be found in the Central Stipends Authority's forthcoming report for 2001, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Churches (VAT)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what is the estimated take-up of VAT concessions by churches with listed building status; and what guidance has been issued to assist eligible churches to claim. [27373]

  Mr. Bell
  This scheme is a Government initiative and responsibility rests with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I understand that the scheme contractor, reporting to the Department, has issued well over 1,000 application forms since the scheme was launched in December last year. The Department has publicised the scheme which includes information available on the Internet. The Church of England has issued publicity to parishes and dioceses about the scheme, including contact details for the scheme contractor.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the President of the Council what estimate his Department has made of the cost to its budget since 1 May 1997 of fraud; and if he will make a statement. [27304]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  No fraud has been recorded in the Privy Council Office during this period.

  Public Relations Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how much was spent by(a) his Department and (b) bodies for which it is responsible on external public relations consultants in each of the last four years. [27393]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  None. My Department is not responsible for any other bodies.

  Departmental Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council if he will commission and publish an independent report on the reasons for the level of sickness absence in his Department. [26967]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have no plans to do so.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Register of Members' Interests
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the President of the Council if he will support an amendment to the rules governing the Register of Members' Interests to oblige all Members to make entries within three months of being elected. [25255]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  This is a matter for the House. We would consider carefully any views Members put forward.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Council if the pension scheme for hon. Members will benefit from special arrangements vis-à-vis transferring out of Equitable Life. [28851]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Equitable Life is one of the providers appointed to provide an Additional Voluntary Contribution (AVC) facility for members of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF). This appointment is made and overseen by the Trustees of the PCPF. I understand that the Trustees have sought clarification from Equitable Life of the terms that will apply if members wish to transfer their funds out of the with-profits fund. The Trustees expect shortly to advise members of the terms offered, so that they can decide whether or not to transfer their funds.

  Office Costs Allowance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the President of the Council how many staff paid from the office costs allowance have full time contracts and claim(a) below £15,000, (b) between £15,000 and £20,000, (c) between £20,000 and £25,000, (d) between £25,000 and £30,000 and (e) above £30,000 a year at the latest date for which

  595W
  figures are available; if he will break down these figures to indicate whether the person holds (i) a secretarial personal assistant post and (ii) a research post; and how many people in each pay band are spouses or of the Member's immediate family. [24379]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The information requested on pay levels and job titles, and whether staff are part-time or full-time is not at present readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Fees Office do not record whether Members' employees are spouses or family members.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, which recent letters to the Commission from the Commissioner for Standards have not been published to hon. Members. [25062]

  Mr. Kirkwood

  [pursuant to his reply, 15 January 2002, c. 152–53]Following a request from the Committee on Standards and Privileges, the Commission has decided to release recent correspondence between Mr. Speaker and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I will place copies in the Library.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Properties
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the properties used by Ministers for(a) residential and (b) business purposes that are owned by Government organisations. [28280]

  The Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State
  The official residential properties used by Ministers are as follows:

  The flats above Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street;

  The flat in 1 Carlton Gardens;

  Flats 1, 2 and 3 in Admiralty house;

  Government House in Pimlico.

  Accommodation in Hillsborough Castle is available for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and other Northern Ireland Ministers while on duty in Northern Ireland.

  The Lord Chancellor has an official residence in the House of Lords which is provided in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Lords. The running costs are met by the House of Lords authorities and do not fall to the Government.

  In addition, Chequers, Dorneywood, Chevening, none of which is owned by the Government, are also available to the Prime Minister, me, as Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary at no cost to the public purse.

  Properties used by Ministers for departmental purposes are set out in the List of Ministerial Responsibilities. A copy of the List is in the Library of the House and is available on-line on the Cabinet Office website.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the last occasion was on which she requested an environmental appraisal before making a policy decision. [29014]

  Clare Short
  As answers to parliamentary questions 29013 and 29015 make clear, environmental appraisal is built in as part of the normal project or programme management cycle. Therefore environmental issues would routinely have been fully discussed before policy decisions are made.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to appraise the environmental implications of its Spending Review submission to the Treasury. [29016]

  Clare Short
  Our approach to the Spending Review and our Public Service Agreement is driven by our commitment to the millennium development goals. One of these goals is to ensure environmental sustainability. We therefore seek to integrate environmental considerations into all aspects of our policy and expenditure.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many officials from her Department have attended the environmental appraisal and integration into policy training course run by the Civil Service College. [29017]

  Clare Short
  No one from the Department for International Development has attended the environmental appraisal and integration into policy training course run by the Civil Service College.

  Over the past three years DFID has delivered its own environmental awareness training which has been delivered in both the UK and overseas offices to over 250 staff.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what procedures her Department has to ensure environmental appraisals are undertaken prior to(a) administrative and (b) policy decisions being made. [29015]

  Clare Short
  It is a mandatory requirement that all policies, programmes and projects are subject to environmental screening at the concept note stage. Screening aims to ensure that environmental issues are taken into consideration at the earliest opportunity and to initiate, where appropriate, more comprehensive environmental appraisal and, if necessary, a full environmental impact assessment.

  In 1999, DFID produced an environmental guide. It emphasises that environmental appraisal is concerned just as much with identifying environmental opportunities for improving development outcomes as it is with identifying environmental risks. It also stresses that environmental appraisal is applicable at policy and programme levels as well as at the project level. The guide complements the more detailed 1996 Manual of Environmental Appraisal.
  597W
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many environmental appraisals have been published by her Department since 1 January 2001; and if she will list the last four. [29013]

  Clare Short
  DFID's regular environmental appraisal procedures are described in response to PQ 2127. It is mandatory within DFID that policies, programmes and projects are subject to environmental screening at the concept stage, with further environmental appraisal to identify risks and opportunities being conducted as required. This work then becomes an integral part of the project documentation, which although not formally published, can be made available to the public on a case by case basis.

  In situations where the environmental screening reveals the need for a formal environmental impact assessment (EIA), the assessment will be undertaken by consultants for the national government of the partner country, with funding and, if necessary, additional international technical assistance from DFID. Publication of the EIA is the responsibility of the partner Government, in accordance with their legislation.

  Examples of formal EIAs since January 2001 include:
  Ngamiland veterinary fences, Government of Botswana, March 2001.
  Impacts of Tsetse Fly Control in Okavango, May 2001.
  Strategic Environmental Assessment for the "Rehabilitation of Feeder Roads in 9 Districts", Ghana Department of Feeder Roads, July 2001.
  Terms of Reference for full EIA of Gerald's Park Airstrip, Government of Montserrat, January 2002.

  DFID development spending has increasingly focused upon resource transfers to sectoral and general budgets. There has therefore been a corresponding decrease in infrastructure work requiring a formal EIA.

  In addition, as part of DFID's commitment to green housekeeping, environmental appraisals were undertaken for the relocation of the DFID London HQ; the consolidation of four DFID offices into one in Delhi, India; and environmental audit was voluntarily undertaken of the DFID Caribbean office; and the DFID Uganda office is to commence an audit in February 2002.

  Foreign Aid
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much foreign aid was given by the UK Government to(a) Israel and (b) the Palestinians in the last three years. [27433]

  Clare Short
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Israel is a prosperous country that does not need or require our development assistance.

  (b) The people of the West Bank and Gaza and Palestinian refugees are suffering considerable poverty, and are in need of development assistance. We have disbursed through our bilateral programme to the West Bank and Gaza Strip £5.2 million, £8 million, and £9 million in the last three financial years. We have also contributed £3.4 million, £13 million, and £18.7 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees during the same period. In addition we contribute 5 per cent. of the World bank's resources
  598W
  (about £13 million since 1994), and 17 per cent. of the European Commission's development budget (about £30 million in 2001) to the Palestinians.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [27978]

  Clare Short
  The estimated cost to DFID's budget of theft and fraud in the period 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2001 is some £250,000 of which £175,000 can be attributed to contractor fraud. Of the remaining sum, £22,000 relates to the theft of assets which, in line with Treasury guidance, has been classified as involving departmental staff either directly or through collusion. Details of suspected or proven fraud are provided to the Treasury on an annual basis. The annual report that the Treasury prepares on fraud is deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Kenya
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what investigations the World bank has undertaken to ensure that senior members of the Government of Kenya and their family members have not laundered money through(a) the City of London and (b) Switzerland. [29119]

  Clare Short
  It is not within the remit of the World bank to undertake such investigations.

  Zimbabwe
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the money committed for development assistance in Zimbabwe has already been spent. [28416]

  Clare Short
  DFID plans to provide up to £18 million in development assistance for the 2001–02 financial year. This figure has been fully committed. Over £10 million has already been spent.

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from her Department in each of the last four years. [28005]

  Clare Short
  Since 1 April 1997 the following items have been stolen or lost from DFID:
  14 laptop computers with a total value of £15,732. The value of each piece of equipment ranges from £730 to £1,642. Computer chips (£1,100), computer equipment (£8,500), one video camera (value unknown), one calculator (£108), one notebook computer (£1,880) and two mobile telephones (£250).

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her recent visit to the Sudan; and what recent
  599W
  discussions she has had with the Sudanese authorities on the implementation of a strategy for peace in that country. [27342]

  Clare Short
  I visited Sudan from 6–11 January and discussed the possibility of taking forward the peace process with the full range of Sudanese political leaders, north and south. I concluded that the time was right for a major international effort to help the parties resolve Africa's most costly and longest running civil conflict. All whom I met expressed their strong commitment to progress on peace, agreed that there was a window of opportunity and expressed their willingness to engage in negotiations. But all doubted they would succeed, given the legacy of mistrust, without outside help, which they thought should include major UK input. I confirmed that we stood ready to play our part. I also emphasised the potential economic benefits for all, and UK readiness to engage in development if stability can be achieved.

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she last used the railway service in connection with her official duties; what station she left from and what was the destination; and whether it is her intention to make greater use of the railways in future. [28101]

  Clare Short
  I last used the railway service on official duty when I took the Eurostar leaving Waterloo International for a meeting of the Development Ministers of Europe in Brussels on 8 December.

  The majority of my work outside London is overseas. However I make use of the railway service if it is the quickest way to a destination.

  International Aid
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make education a higher priority within the international aid budget. [27864]

  Clare Short
  Education is a precondition of development and poverty reduction and is given high priority within our development assistance programme. The Government are strongly committed to achieving the millennium development goals of universal primary education (UPE) in all countries by the year 2015 and gender equity in primary and secondary schooling by 2005. DFID' s education strategy paper, "The Challenge of Universal Primary Education", sets out our overall approach and three-fold strategy for achieving these goals. Our recent paper "Children out of School" identifies the different circumstances of children who are not in school and proposes an eight-point plan of international action for accelerating progress towards the 2015 target.

  European Commission Payments
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the European Commission on delays in payments of money owed by the commission to charities and NGOs. [28879]

  Clare Short
  Delays in payments by the European Commission to NGOs have been discussed on many occasions by member states, including the UK, and the 600W
  commission. We and others have urged the commission to take the steps needed to improve the handling of such payments since the delays are often excessive and cause real hardship to the organisations and individuals concerned. The commission has improved the management systems used to process those payments and we understand that the delays have been reduced but remain of concern. This is also the case with many payments for implementation of EC programmes in developing countries, where we are also promoting reform. We stay in close touch with UK NGOs about this issue and will continue to monitor the position with them.

  Education Charges
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she will take to secure the abolition of education charges in developing countries. [27865]

  Clare Short
  The Government are committed to the principle that primary education should be made free. No child should be denied access to a basic education because the costs, direct or indirect, cannot be met by the household. School fees are an example of a direct cost, but there may be indirect charges for books, uniforms and exams which can make education unaffordable to many.

  The equitable financing of education is a key issue for achieving universal primary education by 2015. Governments of developing countries need to demonstrate the political commitment to abolish education charges. The abolition of primary tuition fees in Malawi and Uganda, brought about by strong political leadership, resulted in enrolment increases of up to 3 million in Uganda and 1.9 million in Malawi. The impact was greatest on the enrolment of girls. Education budgets for proving effective primary education for all should be developed within national poverty reduction strategies and factor in the costs of introducing free primary education.

  In our dialogue with partner Governments, civil society and the international community on poverty reduction and education sector programmes, we will continue to argue for the reduction of the financial barriers that exclude large numbers of the poorest children.

  CDC
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) when she expects CDC, formerly the Commonwealth Development Corporation, to meet its target of 50 per cent. of its investment in Africa and poorer countries in Asia; [27701]

  (2) which Minister is responsible for the CDC, formerly the Commonwealth Development Corporation; [27700]

  (3) whether CDC, formerly the Commonwealth Development Corporation, submits an annual corporate plan for ministerial approval. [27702]

  Clare Short
  I am the Minister responsible for CDC. CDC have an investment policy set by Government, which provides the framework within which the board formulates its business plans. The Government do not require these plans to be submitted for approval by Ministers. CDC met the investment policy target for
  601W
  sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia in 2001, when 52 per cent. of the aggregate cost of its investments were for the benefit of these countries.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what expenditure has been incurred by her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if she will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [27946]

  Clare Short
  Expenditure in relation to surveys of public attitudes is as follows:

  £000

  1997–98

  43

  1998–99

  0

  1999–2000

  45

  2000–01

  58

  2001–02

  35

  Surveys commissioned
  Public Attitudes on Development, conducted by the Office for National Statistics, surveys conducted in July 1999, 2000 and 2001 and results published in November 1999, 2000, November 2001 respectively.Attitudes of School Children to International Development, conducted by MORI Schools Omnibus Research. published in July 2000 and 2001.
  In addition we conducted a readership survey in 2000 of "Developments Magazine" in order to test the impact and reach of the magazine.

  We are committed to regular monitoring of public and young people's attitudes to development in order to inform and monitor the impact of the public education work of the Department. All the aforementioned reports are accessible through the Department's internet site and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  None of our current non-department public bodies have incurred expenditure in relation to opinion bodies and/or focus groups.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime Statistics (Wales)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded crimes for(a) violence against the person, (b) sexual offences, (c) robbery, (d) burglary in a dwelling, (e) theft of a motor vehicle and (f) theft from a vehicle per 1,000 population there were in (i) Wales and (ii) the Cynon Valley in the last 12 months. [26870]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest available information covers the 12 months to March 2001 and is given in the table. Separate figures are not available centrally for the Cynon Valley area, which comes within the Rhonnda Cynon Taff 602W
  police Basic Command Unit (BCU). The BCU figures are taken from the Home Office Statistical Bulletin no. 12/01 "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 Months to March 2001", which gives details of all BCU and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership areas in England and Wales.

  Recorded crimes per 1,000 population for Wales and the Rhonnda Cynon Taff basic command unit, April 2000 to March 2001:

  Wales

  Rhonnda Cynon Taff BCU

  Violence against the person

  13.0

  8.3

  Sexual offences

  0.6

  0.3

  Robbery

  0.3

  0.2

  Burglary in a dwelling

  4.1

  5.2

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  6.1

  7.4

  Theft from a vehicle

  8.8

  6.5

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the cost to its budget since 1 May 1997 of fraud; and if he will make a statement. [27302]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The estimated costs of losses to the Home Office from reported fraud is summarised in the table.

  £000

  Accounting periods

  Estimated fraud

  1997–98

  13

  1998–99

  84

  1999–2000

  140

  2000–01

  90

  Total

  327

  Anti-terrorism Legislation
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the part police forces will play in the implementation of the new anti-terrorism legislation. [16882]

  Mr. Blunkett

  [holding answer 22 November 2001]The police will be at the forefront of the legislation's implementation and additional police powers included in the new legislation will enhance their capability to enforce the law effectively. I am in close contact with the police over on-going action to counter terrorism, using both the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and existing legislation.

  Remuneration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of individuals in his(a) Department, (b) related agencies and (c) related non-departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration including benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000 and (ii) £200,000 in each of the last four years. [26314]
  603W
  Mr. Blunkett
  The annual remuneration costs including benefits in kind cover basic salary, bonuses and any additional allowances payable including recruitment and retention and any allowance's payable as a result of relocation costs.

  (a) The number of individuals within the Home Office receiving remuneration costs exceeding (i) £100,000 and (ii) £200,000, was:

  (i)£100,000

  (ii) £200,000

  1 April 2001

  7

  0

  1 April 2000

  3

  0

  1 April 1999

  2

  0

  1 April 1998

  1

  0

  (b) The number of individual within the related agencies of the Home Office receiving remuneration costs exceeding (i) £100,000 and (ii) £200,000 was:

  (i)£100,000

  (ii)£200,000

  1 April 2001

  4

  0

  1 April 2000

  2

  0

  1 April 1999

  2

  0

  1 April 1998

  1

  0

  (c) The information requested relating to remuneration levels in related non-departmental public bodies is available in the annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies".

  Drugs
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many heroin addicts are on the methadone programme in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland; what the financial cost is of the programme in each country; and how many deaths have occurred while addicts are on a methadone programme in each country in each of the last three years. [23878]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since the Home Office addicts index closed in 1997, the regional drug misuse databases (RDMDs) have been the main source of information on persons presenting to drug treatment services with a drug problem. During the six month period ending 30 September 2000, around 21,200 people were reported to the RDMDs in England as presenting for treatment, with heroin recorded as their main drug of misuse. Around 6,200 of these people were reported as being prescribed methadone for treatment at the time they presented; other heroin users may subsequently have been prescribed methadone.

  In terms of financial costs, in 2001 the net ingredient cost (the basic cost of the drug, excluding dispensing cost, fees or prescription charges income) of methadone for use in substance dependence is £6.87 per preparation.

  The number of deaths in England and Wales where methadone was mentioned on death certificates in 1999 were 298.

  Information relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Assemblies.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Access Land
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to begin consultation on proposals for regulations on the dedication of access land under section 16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. [29577]

  Alun Michael
  I have today published a consultation paper which sets out the Government's proposals for regulations on the dedication of access land under section 16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The regulations, which we expect to lay before Parliament later this year, will enable the owner of any land, or a lessee with a long lease, to irrevocably dedicate that land for public access. The Forestry Commission has already announced its intention in principle to dedicate the national forestry estate under section 16.

  I am also writing today to Green Minister colleagues about the considerable scope for dedication of land held by Government Departments and sponsored non-departmental public bodies, where dedication is compatible with the purpose for which the land is held. We will work with other Departments to explore the opportunities for dedication through the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate.

  Copies of the consultation paper are being sent to organisations representing local authorities, recreational users and land managers, and others with an interest; the consultation paper is also being published on the DEFRA website. A copy of the consultation paper has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Foot and Mouth
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from the(a) Youth Hostels Association and (b) the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers about financial losses caused by the foot and mouth crisis; what proposals she has to compensate these organisations; and if she will make a statement. [26230]

  Alun Michael
  I have corresponded with the Youth Hostels Association and met their Chairman and Chief Executive, as has my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting I have also received around 200 letters from hon. Members on behalf of constituents concerned about the impact on the YHA's income of foot and mouth disease and the measures taken to control it. The YHA estimate that they lost £5 million 2001 out of an annual income of £30 million.

  I have also met representatives from the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers and discussed the impact of foot and mouth disease on their activities. I understand that the losses they suffered are in the region of £250,000 out of an annual income in the order of £23 million.

  I am well aware of the impact that foot and mouth disease had on a range of charities, especially those involved in promoting countryside access. The measures we put in place to help affected businesses were mainly focused on small businesses, and were not well adapted to helping national organisations such as the YHA or BTCV. During later stages we modified the guidelines for the

  605W
  Business recovery fund to clarify that charities' individual business units may be treated as separate business entities and may receive assistance in their own right if their applications meet the fund's other criteria. Charities may also benefit from rate relief granted by local authorities (for which we raised the rate of central subsidy from 75 per cent. to 95 or 98 per cent. in rural areas) and from the deferral of tax payments due. We have also put a lot of effort into encouraging local authorities into reopening footpaths as soon as possible to attract visitors back to the countryside, and put extra resources into tourism promotion via the British Tourist Authority and English Tourism Council.

  I accept that the help available is modest compared with the losses that organisations such as the YHA have suffered. It is not possible to provide compensation to charities for loss of income, any more than to farming or non-farming businesses affected by the disease and by the measures to control it. As explained in "England's Rural Future" published on 13 December, we are looking urgently and sympathetically at further measures to help charities—especially those involved in promoting countryside access—to recover from the impact of foot and mouth disease.

  Rural Development Plan
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what role national park authorities in England will have in delivery of the rural development plan; and what additional resources will be made available by her Department for the authorities concerned. [26897]

  Alun Michael
  National park authorities make a significant contribution to the operation of the National Rural Development Programme (ERDP), not least through participation in the national and regional consultation groups which advise on the strategic direction of the programme. National park authorities are also encouraged to work with DEFRA's Rural Development Service to ensure that effective delivery of the ERDP contributes to the aims and objectives of national parks. The national park authorities also play a positive role in encouraging uptake of the agri-environment schemes which now form part of the ERDP. In particular they can use their detailed knowledge of the parks to ensure that the Countryside Stewardship Scheme is utilised positively and appropriately within the individual parks.

  Birds of Prey
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to increase the number of British birds of prey. [26061]

  Mr. Meacher
  All wild bird populations (including birds of prey) are included in the wild bird population indicator, which is one of the 15 headline indicators of sustainable development. These indicators are a "quality of life barometer" measuring everyday concerns like health, jobs and air quality.

  Populations of birds of prey have increased as a result of better protection from persecution and restrictions on the use of persistent pesticides.
  606W
  There are three projects aimed at increasing the population of a bird of prey species:

  1. The Red Kite Reintroduction Programme

  2. The Hen Harrier Recovery Project

  3. The 'Wash Harriers' Recovery Project.

  Although these projects are focused primarily on individual species, their overall objectives are far wider. The work involves tackling problems that affect a range of different birds of prey, and in so doing, contributing to recovery in their populations or at least to maintaining populations.

  English Nature are also involved with the Osprey reintroduction project that has been undertaken at Rutland Water in central England.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many published environmental appraisals have been notified to the Sustainable Development Unit since February 2001; and by which Departments. [27536]

  Mr. Meacher

  [holding answer 16 January 2002]The Third Annual Report on Greening Government, published in November 2001, included a list of published environmental appraisals up to 31 March 2001. This can be found in Part 1 of the report at www.sustainable-development.gov.uk. We have been notified of the following published environmental appraisals in the period since:

  Number

  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

  2

  Export Credit Guarantee Department

  1

  Inland Revenue

  1

  The table may not, however, give the complete picture of the extent of environmental appraisal undertaken by Departments as it only covers published free-standing environmental appraisals.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she has taken, pursuant to the recommendation of the Environmental Audit Committee to ensure that departmental environmental appraisals assess the impact of competing options. [27543]

  Mr. Meacher

  [holding answer 16 January 2002]This recommendation was included in the EAC's assessment of the First Annual Report of the Green Ministers Committee. In our Second Annual Report, all Departments made commitments to: maintain a record of the outcome of each screening they undertake; publish all free-standing environmental appraisals of policies unless there are overriding reasons for not doing so; and to produce their own guidance or training on screening of options by March 2001. The onus is on individual Departments to ensure they are operating these procedures properly, in particular getting their approach to the initial screening of policies for environmental impacts right.

  The Third Annual Report on Greening Government, published in November 2001, reported that Departments, where applicable, had systems in place to maintain a

  607W
  record of environmental screenings and had produced guidance or training on the screening of options. Detailed information on the systems in place in each Department can be found in Part 2 of the report at www.sustainable-development.gov.uk.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in Buckinghamshire towards meeting the National Air Quality Strategy targets. [27788]

  Mr. Meacher
  National and local air quality modelling suggests that the objectives prescribed in the Air Quality Strategy will all be met across all of Buckinghamshire with the following two main exceptions:

  1. There is a risk that the nitrogen dioxide annual objective may not be met alongside parts of the M40 motorway. Wycombe district council has declared an air quality management area between junctions 3 and 5 of the M40, and is carrying out further modelling and monitoring in this area which is due to be completed by 31 July 2002.

  2. There is a risk that the national ozone objective may not be met across parts of Buckinghamshire. The Air Quality Strategy sets out the actions that are being taken at national and international level to tackle this issue, since, because of its transboundary nature with major contributions from outside the UK, ozone is a pollutant over which local authorities have little control.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many air pollution(a) passive diffusion tubes and (b) automatic monitoring sites were based in Buckinghamshire in each year since 1977. [27789]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are passive nitrogen dioxide diffusion tubes sites in the UK network in Aylesbury and Milton Keynes. Both towns have four sites each, which have been running since 1993. DEFRA has not funded any automatic monitoring sites based in Buckinghamshire at any time since 1977.

  In addition to these, each of the three local authorities in Buckinghamshire operates its own network of air quality monitors. Details of these are not held centrally.

  Eaga Partnership

  TXU Warm Front

  Total

  HEES budget 2001–021

  (£ million)

  139

  54

  193

  Percentage of budget already spent

  65

  67

  —

  Percentage likely to be spent by year end

  100

  100

  —

  1 The budget for 2001–02 includes the moneys not used in the previous financial year

  The scheme managers have sufficient resources to meet demand in this financial year. The major difficulty that they continue to face is the national shortage of gas heating engineers. Both scheme managers continue to recruit installers and thereby improve the quality of service provided to householders.

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the EU funding that would be lost if the landfill tax credit scheme were to be redefined as public instead of private money. [15946]
  608W
  Mr. Meacher
  None. However, I understand that two studies are currently looking into this issue. One from Glasgow Caledonian University commissioned by ENTRUST, the LTCS regulator, and an Environmental Bodies Council (ebco) survey.

  We have recently announced that we will be consulting later this year on possible changes to the existing scheme. We expect the issue of EU funding will be raised during this consultation.

  Home Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was the total budget for the warm front schemes in the(a) Eaga area and (b) eastern area during 2001–02; and (i) how much and (ii) what percentage of these budgets (1) has already been spent and (2) is projected to be spent by the end of the year given present trends; and what measures Eaga and eastern are expected to take to bring budgets back into line if they are depleted before the end of the year. [25354]

  Mr. Meacher

  [holding answer 9 January 2002]The home energy efficiency scheme (HEES), now marketed as the warm front team, is administered by two scheme managers, TXU Warm Front Ltd. (responsible for the eastern, east midlands and Yorkshire and the Humber) and Eaga Partnership Ltd. (responsible for the rest of England). The table provides the information requested.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the Government are helping to promote more energy efficient homes; and how many people in the Midlothian constituency have benefited from this. [27182]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is responsible for energy efficiency in England. In Scotland, and therefore for Midlothian this is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  The Government are committed to energy efficiency for its significant environmental, business and social benefits and have announced a range of policies to promote energy efficiency and reduce emissions in the domestic sector, including:
  A new Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) for 2002–05 will place an obligation on gas and electricity suppliers to make energy efficiency improvements, through measures provided to domestic consumers.
  The Energy Saving Trust promotes the sustainable and efficient use of energy in the domestic sector. The trust is also active in encouraging local authorities to develop and improve domestic energy efficiency.
  New Building Regulations to come into effect from April 2002 will include improved standards of energy efficiency for new houses and those undergoing refurbishment.
  The new home energy efficiency scheme (HEES) is designed to tackle fuel poverty among those most vulnerable to cold-related ill health. Access to the scheme is through receipt of a qualifying income or disability related benefit. By 2004, HEES is expected to have assisted some 800,000 householders.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many houses in(a) the UK and (b) Wales lack (i) insulation and\ (ii) draught-proofing; and what measures the Government are taking to lower this figure. [25626]
  609W
  Mr. Meacher
  As fuel poverty is a devolved matter, it is the responsibility of the respective Parliament and Assemblies to comment on the situation in their countries.

  The information is set out in respect of England:

  Insulation of households in England 1999

  Households

  Number

  With no insulation1

  2,600,000

  Without full insulation2

  18,100,000

  With no draught-proofing3

  4,400,000

  Without full draught-proofing4

  7,290,000

  Total

  20,800,000

  1 No insulation is taken to mean the following: no loft insulation (where there is a loft); no cavity insulation (if there is a cavity wall); no double glazing.

  2 Full insulation is taken to mean the following: at least four inches of loft insulation (where there is a loft); cavity walls insulated (where there are cavity walls); at least 80 per cent. of windows double glazed.

  3 Double glazing is taken to include draught proofing.

  4 Full draught-proofing is taken to mean 80 per cent. or more of rooms draught-proofed.

  The Government's main programme for private sector households in England is the home energy efficiency scheme (HEES), marketed as the warm front team, which is designed to tackle fuel poverty among those most vulnerable to cold related ill health—older householders, families with children and the disabled or those with long term illness. The scheme provides grants for a package of insulation and heating improvements. Separate programmes are in place to bring social sector housing up to a decent standard.

  The Government have recently set a target of 62 fuel-standardised terawatt hours for improvements in energy efficiency to be achieved by electricity and gas suppliers under the Energy Efficiency Commitment for 2002 to 2005 (EEC). Suppliers' EEC programmes are expected to include significant numbers of insulation measures.

  The Government also provide funding to the Energy Saving Trust to run a wide ranging programme of work to promote energy efficiency in homes. This includes promotion of cavity wall insulation and draught-proofing via advertising, advice centres and a database of available grants.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is the average installation cost of an Eaga central heating system in the(a) north-west and (b) UK. [22898]

  Mr. Meacher
  The two scheme managers, Eaga and TXU Warm Front Ltd., are responsible for recruiting heating contractors through an open tender in accordance with the UK Public Procurement Regulations. At present they are in the process of re-tendering contracts for the next two years. Therefore it is not possible to publish the current average installation prices without seriously distorting this tender process.

  However the average cost of providing a central heating system together with appropriate insulation is some £2,000.
  610W
  As fuel poverty is a devolved matter, it is the responsibility of the respective Parliament and Assemblies to comment on the situation in Scotland and Wales.

  Take-back Schemes
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of domestic appliance retailers who will cease take-back schemes because of a lack of recycling and processing facilities for domestic appliances containing CFCs and HCFCs. [27611]

  Mr. Meacher
  It is estimated that virtually all retailers have ceased their take-back schemes for fridges and freezers. However, this is not due to a lack of a disposal route. Fridges and freezers collected from householders may be re-used, disposed of via high temperature incineration in the UK, exported for recycling in other member states, or stored pending recycling in the UK.

  Refrigerators
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what storage facilities she has identified for the storage of fridges and deep freezers containing CFCs prior to their reprocessing. [27608]

  Mr. Meacher
  The location of storage facilities is a matter for the waste management industry and local authorities. A number of companies and local authorities have identified suitable storage facilities and I understand that sufficient capacity is available for all fridges and freezers that would be disposed of in a typical year.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what advice she has given to local authorities regarding the increased cost of collecting domestic appliances containing CFCs from 1 January; and when she plans to announce additional resources to be made available to local authorities under the New Burdens Procedures; [27609]

  (2) what estimate she has made of additional costs to local authorities of collecting white goods from 1 January. [27610]

  Mr. Meacher
  In December we announced a payment of £6 million funding for local authorities to cover their costs until March 2002. We are continuing to assess the impacts of the regulation and will determine what further action is required beyond that. As part of this process, my officials are in contact with local authorities and their representatives to gather additional information about costs.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimates she has made of the cost to local authorities per refrigerator of the collection, storage and processing of CFC-containing refrigerators. [27607]

  Mr. Meacher
  Collection costs will vary between local authorities and waste collection authorities may levy a charge to cover the costs of collection. I understand that the current charges levied by waste management companies for storage and processing of fridges are in the range of £22 to £35, but that these are likely to fall once more plants are operational. We expect new plants to come on-line in the spring.
  611W
  Many local authorities will choose to store fridges until prices are lower. The cost of storage will depend on whether local authorities have suitable land available, and the period for which fridges are stored.

  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if it was her policy to ensure that liquid processing facilities existed for the processing of CFC-containing refrigerators and refrigerators when EC Regulation 2037/2000 came into force on the 1 January. [27612]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK only received clarification of the requirements of the regulation with regards to ozone depleting substances in insulation foam in June 2001. As soon as this was received, officials worked, with stakeholders, on a package of measures, including funding for local authorities, technical standards for removal of ODS from fridges and standards for storage pending treatment. This package enabled companies to make the necessary investment decisions. Given the extremely tight time scale, it was always unlikely that processing plant would come on-line for 1 January. However, I understand that the first new plant is likely to be operational in spring 2002.

  Waste Refrigeration Equipment (Scotland)
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with Scottish Ministers regarding managing waste refrigeration equipment in Scotland. [26715]

  Mr. Meacher
  None. However, my officials have been working closely on this issue with colleagues in the Devolved Administrations.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on a five-year moratorium on genetically engineered crops. [20356]

  Mr. Meacher
  European Union Directive 90/220 lays down strict controls on the release of genetically modified (GM) organisms. It requires proposed releases to be considered on a case-by-case basis, with a detailed assessment of the potential risks to human health and the environment. The Government agree with this approach. At the same time, we have a voluntary agreement with the industry that GM crops will not be grown here commercially at least until the results of the Farm Scale Evaluations have been assessed.

  Sewerage Services
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many residential properties in(a) the UK and (b) Sheffield, Hillsborough were newly connected to mains sewerage in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and how many residential properties in the constituency of Sheffield, Hillsborough remain unconnected; [23922]

  (2) how many residential properties in the UK were not connected to mains sewerage in (a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) 2000. [23921]
  612W
  Mr. Meacher

  [holding answer 18 December 2001]The information requested is not available. We do not hold any figures about the type or number of properties connected or not connected to mains sewers. Water UK publish data annually about the UK water industry. They estimate that 6 per cent. of the population in the UK are not connected to mains sewerage. They do not have data for 1980 or 1990.

  Water Sports
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she intends to take on the research report, "Water-based Sport and Recreation: The Facts" commissioned by her Department; and if she will make a statement. [27855]

  Alun Michael
  Officials will be meeting the other sponsors of the research (British Waterways, the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales, the Environment Agency and Sport England) shortly, along with other interested Government Departments to consider what action we need to take in the light of the reports findings.

  Village Halls
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has in relation to the funding of village halls. [28874]

  Alun Michael
  Village halls are funded in a variety of ways, most of the sources of finance being very local in nature. DEFRA has inherited a small funding stream for aid to village halls, while currently there are no plans to alter the way in which the Department assists the funding of village halls through the Countryside Agency.

  We are supporting local communities and parish and town councils in a variety of ways which complement the work of village halls. Currently, the Village Halls Loan Fund is administered by Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE) on behalf of the Countryside Agency and can provide loans towards capital improvements such as maintenance, extensions or rebuilding costs. The total loan fund value is £700,000 and £244,000 has been loaned out to date this year.

  In addition, the Countryside Agency can offer help through the Community Service Grants Scheme delivered through the Vital Villages Programme. It can help fund an alteration/extension of a village hall or other community building where it provides a new or extended service to the community.

  Other sources of public funding for village halls include local authorities, regional development agencies, the community fund and the sports council.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measurements are made of the radiation above background level around intermediate and high level nuclear waste storage facilities at Sellafield and Dounreay. [25895]

  Mr. Meacher

  [holding answer 15 January 2002]Measurements of all major types of radiation in the environment around the Sellafield site are undertaken
  613W
  routinely by BNFL, the Environment Agency and the Foods Standards Agency1. The data are published annually in respective environmental monitoring reports. The measurements cover the marine and terrestrial environments and reflect both present and past operations on site. It is not possible to identify separately monitoring data relating specifically to waste storage facilities from those relating to other operations on site. Assessed doses to those most likely to be exposed to radiation (the critical group) are based on these measurements. These estimated doses reflect total risk from the site, and are within national and international dose limits for members of the public.

  Radiation measurements taken within the Sellafield and Dounreay sites, around the waste storage facilities (and other facilities), are carried out by BNFL and UKAES respectively. The results of these measurements are available to Inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive. Both of these operators have a duty to ensure that the radiation doses arising from, among other things, their waste storage facilities are below statutory limits and are kept as low as reasonably practicable.

  Responsibility for environmental protection policy in Scotland (Dounreay) is a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.

  1 Environmental reports referred to in the response:

  1. Discharges and monitoring of the environment in the UK: annual report for 2000, BNFL

  2. Radioactivity in the Environment, Report for 2000: Environment Agency

  3. Radioactivity in Food and the Environment, 2000: Food Standards Agency ad Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  Planning Reform White Paper
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consultations she has had with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in respect of the implications of the Planning Reform White Paper for her Department's White Paper on radioactive waste management. [25166]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has had several contacts with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on this issue. That Department's 12 December paper "Planning: delivering a fundamental change" proposes reforms to the planning system, and its consultation paper of 17 December sets out new parliamentary procedures for processing major infrastructure projects. Radioactive waste facilities are among the projects to which these procedures could apply.

  Our 12 September consultation paper "Managing radioactive waste safely" asks the public for comments, by 12 March 2002, on a proposed programme for reaching decisions on managing solid radioactive waste over thousands of years. Each Department consulted the other before publishing its paper. The Department's paper is not a White Paper as such and does not itself propose any infrastructure projects, but such proposals may one day result from our decision-making process. Our Departments will therefore continue to discuss planning and radioactive waste policy issues.

  Waste Management Scheme
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which schemes give financial assistance to local authorities in England and Wales to encourage waste management and recycling of waste; and which schemes give financial assistance to local authorities in the county of Essex for this purpose. [26846]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Spending Review 2000 announced the framework for the Government's support to local authorities for the next three years up to 2003–04. This included an annual increase in the revenue support to local authorities for Environmental Protection and Cultural Services (EPCS), which includes waste management services. By 2003–04 this support will have risen by £1.1 billion over the 2000–01 provision. Consistent with the general local authority financial framework, it is for Essex county council to decide the proportion of their budget that should be directed to waste management work.

  In addition to general support to local authority revenue expenditure, the spending review provided £140 million of Government grant for waste management work and £220 million for Private Finance Initiatives (PH) resources, for waste projects. We are currently in consultation on how the £140 million fund should be distributed. At this stage it is not possible to identify what funding Essex county council might receive from this source.

  The next tranche of lottery funding from the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) will include a £159 million fund for transforming communities, of which £49.5 million will be directed towards community sector reuse, recycling and composting schemes across the UK. This will benefit local authorities seeking to work in partnership with local community groups.

  Copies of the consultation on the distribution of £140 million fund are available from the House Libraries and from the DEFRA website: www.defra.gov.uk/ environment/consult/wastefund/index.htm.

  Domestic Refuse (Recycling)
  Mark Tami
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she provides to local authorities on the operation of schemes to recycle domestic refuse. [27212]

  Mr. Meacher
  All local authorities in England and Wales have been set statutory performance standards, under the best value regime, for recycling and composting household waste. It is up to individual authorities to decide how best to meet these standards, according to local circumstances. However, guidance was issued in March 2001, by the then DETR, on the development of joint Municipal Waste Management Strategies (MWMS) for waste collection and waste disposal authorities to encourage all authorities to set out integrated plans for meeting their recycling/composting targets. This guidance contains some case studies of local authority waste management schemes.
  615W
  In July 2000 guidance was issued to local authorities on applying the best value framework to all waste management services "Waste Strategy Guidance—Best Value and Waste Management".

  The Department also encourages the pooling of local authority experience and the promotion of best practice schemes, through the Beacon Council scheme, local Public Service Agreements and Best Value Networks.

  The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) is currently preparing a pilot training scheme, to begin in March this year, for local authority recycling officers, and for waste managers within the private and community sector. This scheme will aim to provide information on best practice from the UK and from around the world, information on the costs of recycling schemes, and advice on tools and techniques. Those involved will also be encouraged to identify and address areas where existing schemes could be improved, for example by looking at other recyclable materials or by targeting in other sectors of the community.

  WRAP hopes to make this training scheme available across the UK from September this year and intends to provide further training and development for chief officers and elected members in local authorities to raise their awareness of recycling issues. Collection operators, who come into direct contact with the public, will also be given further training so that they are better able to deal with public inquiries.

  WRAP also intends to invite tenders for assessing best practice guidance.

  Fox Population
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what impact the foot and mouth hunt restrictions have had on the fox population in the United Kingdom. [28362]

  Alun Michael
  There is no information which could provide the basis for an answer to this question.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tourism
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to promote tourism at industrial heritage sites with world heritage status. [26167]

  Dr. Howells
  I am delighted that Derwent Valley Mills, Saltaire and New Lanark, three outstanding examples of UK industrial heritage, and Dorset and East Devon coast were awarded World Heritage status last month.

  Many of the UK's World Heritage Sites are world renowned and feature prominently in BTA's overseas' campaigns. My Department takes an active role in establishing comprehensive Management Plans for UK World Heritage sites which include sustainable tourism policies.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will increase financial support for tourism in England. [26187]
  616W
  Dr. Howells
  Support for English tourism is set to increase from £10 million in 2001–02 to £12 million in 2002–03 and to £12.5 million in 2003–04. In addition, £3.8 million has also been made available to the English Tourism Council this financial year in response to the foot and mouth outbreak.

  Gambling
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures she is taking to reduce gambling. [26177]

  Mr. Caborn
  As I stated earlier today to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), we published the report of the independent Gambling Review Body in July last year. We are now considering all the comments which we have received on it since then, and we will announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Foot and Mouth
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the effect of the foot and mouth crisis on tourism. [26181]

  Dr. Howells
  The estimated loss to the tourism industry as a result of foot and mouth disease is between £2.9 billion and £3.6 billion in the months from March to October 2001.

  Meridian Television
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received with respect to Meridian Television's proposal to shut its Newbury studio. [26183]

  Dr. Howells
  I have received a letter from one hon. Member. I have also noted the early-day Motion of 21 November.

  Regional Theatres
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the future of regional theatres. [26184]

  Tessa Jowell
  Funding for theatre remains a matter for the Arts Council of England and the Regional Arts Boards. In March last year, the Arts Council announced a significant increase in funding for theatre in 2002–03 and 2003–04, including a 51 per cent. increase for subsidised theatre throughout the west midlands by the end of the period.

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to increase support to regional theatres and arts venues in Brighton. [26196]

  Tessa Jowell
  This is a matter for the Arts Council of England in collaboration with South East Arts as the regional arts board for Brighton. The Arts Council's theatre review published last year allocated flexible funding of £150,000 to Brighton Production Development with the aim of developing the new city as a hub of theatre activity, benefiting audiences and theatre practitioners
  617W
  throughout the region. Komedia, based in Brighton, will also see its funding increased by £95,000 over the next two years.

  International Film School
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to visit the International Film School at University College of Wales, Newport. [26185]

  Dr. Howells
  I met the Director of the School in October, but I have no current plans to visit the school.

  School Sports
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what consideration has been given to extending the school sports co-ordinators scheme beyond its target of 2003–04; and if she will make a statement. [26186]

  Mr. Caborn
  We are considering extending the school sports co-ordinators scheme beyond the current target of 2003–04 as a means of helping to deliver the Government's commitment to entitlement to a minimum of two hours high quality PE and school sport per week for all children. We shall be discussing this in more detail with DfES Ministers.

  Licensing Laws
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to bring forward licensing reform legislation. [26188]

  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to bring forward licensing reform legislation. [26190]

  Dr. Howells
  We plan to present legislation to implement the proposals set out in the White Paper "Time for Reform" as soon as parliamentary time permits. In addition, we are taking forward a series of regulatory reform proposals, including the one which allowed pubs and clubs to open continuously for up to 36 hours at new year's eve. The Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales has said that the resulting phasing of closing times was welcomed by the police service.

  Cultural Commission
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what basis she selected the members of the Cultural Commission for the east of England. [26189]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Chair of the East of England Regional Cultural Consortium, known as Living East, was appointed by me following consultation within the region and advice from an independent appointments panel.

  Consortium members are either nominated by the relevant cultural bodies or by local government, or appointed by the Chair in consultation with others in the region. Ministers are not involved with the appointment of any Consortium members other than the Chairs.

  Women (Sport)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what encouragement she has given to women's participation in sport. [26191]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are determined to ensure that there is equality of opportunity for all in every area including sport. Our policy of 'Sport for All' is aimed at encouraging everyone, including women into sport. Sport England provides over £6 million of Exchequer funding to sports governing bodies and all are required to ensure that they have proposals for the development of women as part of the condition of funding. Sport England also fund the Womens Sports Foundation (WSF) which is the only organisation in the UK that is solely committed to improving and promoting opportunities for women and girls in sport at every level. More women than ever are finding that regular physical exercise can lead to improvements in health, self-confidence and well-being. Women's team sports such as football and rugby are among the fastest-growing sports in the country.

  Libraries
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals she has to increase Library use among low income and socially excluded groups. [26192]

  Tessa Jowell
  Policy guidance on the contribution that libraries can make to tackling social inclusion was issued in January last year in the document "Libraries, Museums, Galleries and Archives For All".

  Over the past two years, my Department has supported 49 library schemes which contribute to tackling social inclusion under the DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund.

  We are working with Resource (the Council for Museums, Libraries and Archives) to ensure that library services are made as widely available as possible to all sections of society.

  Through lottery funding, all public libraries will offer public internet access by December 2002.

  Dorset and East Devon Coast
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what meetings she has had with the English Tourist Council regarding the granting of world heritage status to the Dorset and east Devon coast. [26193]

  Dr. Howells
  I am delighted that the Dorset and East Devon coast was awarded World Heritage status last month.

  I have not met with the English Tourism Council to discuss this matter. The ETC offers leadership and guidance to the tourism industry and reported recently on the heritage sector in Action for Attractions. My Department takes an active role in establishing comprehensive Management Plans for UK World Heritage sites which include sustainable tourism policies.

  Football (Crowd Control)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to meet representatives of the Football Association to discuss crowd control. [26194]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government look to the football authorities to act quickly to prevent any recurrence of recent crowd disorder at matches. The Football Association and the FA of Wales are conducting detailed inquiries into events at the cup ties played at Cardiff and Aston Villa on 6 January. I expect that these inquiries will consider the extent to which local police forces made use of the extensive public order powers available to them under the Football Offences Act 1991 and other legislation. I have made it clear that the Government stand ready to assist with these inquiries, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport would be happy to facilitate meetings between the football authorities and Ministers, if these are considered necessary.

  Euro
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she has met the English Tourist Council to discuss the acceptance of euro notes and coins. [26195]

  Dr. Howells
  I have not met with the English Tourism Council to discuss this matter.

  The British Tourist Authority has recently issued revised guidance for the tourism industry on the euro which includes a checklist of action points and advice on authenticating banknotes. Further guidance will be issued if it is needed.

  Derwent Valley Mills
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether she has met the English Tourist Council to discuss the granting of world heritage status to Derwent Valley mills. [26197]

  Tessa Jowell
  I am delighted that Derwent Valley Mills was awarded World Heritage status last month.

  I have not met with the English Tourism Council to discuss this matter. The ETC offers leadership and guidance to the tourism industry and reported recently on the heritage sector in Action for Attractions. My Department takes an active role in establishing comprehensive Management Plans for UK World Heritage sites which include sustainable tourism policies.

  National Museums
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people visited national museums in December. [26198]

  Tessa Jowell
  Overall some 200,000 more people visited in December 2001 than in December 2000 taking the total to 1.8 million. Visitors to those that went free on or just prior to 1 December doubled. This clearly demonstrates the success of our policy to abolish admission charges.

  Golden Jubilee
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to celebrate the Golden anniversary of the Queen's accession on 6 February 2002. [24963]

  Tessa Jowell
  Although the actual anniversary of Her Majesty the Queen's accession to the throne is 6 February, the Prime Minister announced on 23 November 2000,Official Report, column 294W, that the Queen had approved his recommendation that the anniversary should be celebrated during the summer of this year, the focal point of which will be the celebrations during the 'Jubilee Weekend' of 1 to 4 June.

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the expenditure of her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title in each year since 1997. [26989]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's total expenditure on newspaper advertising over the years in question is shown in the table. The Department uses newspaper advertising mainly to attract candidates for the many public appointments for which the Department is responsible but it also includes the cost of external recruitment exercises for the Department itself. Expenditure by title is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  £

  1997–981

  0

  1998–991

  244,377

  1999–20001

  139,501

  2001–011

  121,012

  2001–022

  83,514

  1 Outturn

  2 To date

  The Department has 66 non-departmental public bodies and does not keep central records of their newspaper advertising. The cost of tracing and listing each public body's advertising and promotional campaigns could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Relations Consultants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was spent by(a) her Department and (b) bodies for which it is responsible on external public relations consultants in each of the last four years. [27398]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has only let one contract with external public relations consultants during the period in question. In order to preserve commercial confidentiality I am unable to provide details of the cost. Information relating to the bodies for which my Department is responsible is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Heritage Lottery Fund
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what expert advice the Heritage Lottery Fund seeks when making policy changes. [27752]
  621W
  Dr. Howells
  The Heritage Lottery Fund's standard practice is to consult with a range of organisations and individuals, including statutory agencies and practitioners, in advance of policy developments. For example, in reaching a new policy statement on skills and training for the heritage sector, to be published later this month, the Heritage Lottery Fund commissioned a MORI survey, and discussed findings with heritage organisations and employers to inform policy making. The fund's new strategic plan is being considered against the background of extensive consultation undertaken during summer 2001. The consultation process was UK wide, and included heritage practitioners and representatives of non-heritage organisations, members of the public and community leaders. The Heritage Lottery Fund received some 315 responses to its consultation document, and took the views of nearly 600 people who attended workshops, seminars and focus groups into account. The Heritage Lottery Fund follows the Cabinet Office's Code of Practice on written consultation.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the cost of(a) ministerial cars and drivers and (b) taxis for her Department in each of the last four years. [27913]

  Dr. Howells
  The question concerning ministerial cars will be dealt with centrally, by the Cabinet Office. The information requested concerning all types of taxis used by the Department is shown in the table.

  £

  2001–021

  2000–012

  1999–20002

  1998–992

  Other ministerial car services (non-Government car service)

  8,649

  5,726

  3,203

  4,230

  Taxis

  18,468

  28,669

  21,917

  15,367

  1 To date

  2 Outturn

  National Lottery
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much unclaimed money is held in the National Lottery Distribution Fund which is not committed to projects. [28066]

  Mr. Caborn
  At the end of September 2001 (the latest figures available), approximately £264 million of the total amount available for distribution was uncommitted to projects.

  Horse Racing Industry
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will introduce a betting levy for the financial year 2002–03 to help support the horse racing industry. [28309]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, as amended, provides that if the Horserace Betting Levy Board does not approve, by 31 October each year, a scheme for the following financial year under which bookmakers pay a levy on betting on horse racing, the Secretary of State has a duty to determine a scheme. Such a duty has now arisen, and consideration is being given 622W
  to a scheme in accordance with the requirements of the Act. An announcement will be made as soon as practicable.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of United Kingdom homes have digital television services; when she expects(a) 50 per cent., (b) 70 per cent. and (c) 90 per cent. of homes to have digital television services; what recent discussions she has had with the retail sector about the promotion of digital television; and if she will make a statement. [28381]

  Dr. Howells
  I understand that over one third of UK homes are now accessing digital television services. I am not in a position to predict when digital television take up will reach specific levels. A Digital Television Action Plan was issued on 20 December 2001, following consultation on a Draft Plan with stakeholders from all sectors of the broadcasting industry, including the retail sector, and with representatives of consumers. The Action Plan sets out a series of actions to be taken by Government and industry, in partnership, to achieve the aim for the UK to have the most dynamic and competitive market for digital TV in the G7, as measured by take up, choice and cost, and to meet the criteria announced in September 1999 which must be met before analogue terrestrial transmissions could be switched off.

  UK Sports Institute (Regional Centres)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress she has made in the development of facilities at the regional centres of excellence for the UK Sports Institute. [28605]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government remain committed to the development of the United Kingdom Sports Institute (UKSI) and good progress is being made in its establishment. Centres in Scotland and Wales are now operational; the English Institute is developing apace and it is hoped that work on the Northern Ireland Institute will begin soon.

  Encouraging progress is being made with the development of the English Institute of Sport (EIS) facilities. To date 17 facilities are now open, with a further 10 on-site and under construction, over £100 million of lottery investment is now secured by funding agreements and large sites in Bath and Sheffield are secured and going on-site in early 2002. The majority of EIS facilities should be fully operational by the end of 2002.

  Supporters Direct
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much she is making available to Supporters Direct in 2001–02; how much she will be giving in 2002–03; how many supporters trusts have been established by Supporters Direct; and what plans she has to fund Supporters Direct after 2003. [28604]

  Mr. Caborn
  Supporters Direct has assisted in the formation of 43 supporters trusts to date, which puts it well ahead of the targets included in its original Business Plan. Under its three-year funding agreement, Supporters Direct received £250,000 from the Reduction in Pool Betting Duty for 2000–01, and will receive the same
  623W
  amount in 2001–02 and 2002–03. My Department and Supporters Direct are currently discussing the funding arrangements which will follow the end of the current agreement.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what procedures her Department has to ensure environmental appraisals are undertaken prior to(a) administrative and (b) policy decisions being made. [29055]

  Dr. Howells
  Environmental considerations are fully established as part of administrative decisions about the procurement of any goods for my Department, and are set out in the Department's procurement manual. My Department has also established an on-going Environmental Management System with the assistance of environmental consultants WSP, who scrutinised the environmental impact of the Department's procurement practices, use of energy and disposal of waste. The policy makers checklist, which includes reference to environmental and sustainable development considerations, is held on the Department's intranet to inform policy decisions.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many officials from her Department have attended the Environmental Appraisal and Integration into Policy training course run by the Civil Service College. [29057]

  Dr. Howells
  None of my officials have attended the Environmental Appraisal and Integration into Policy training course run by the Civil Service College.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans her Department has to appraise the environmental implications of its Spending Review submission to the Treasury. [29056]

  Dr. Howells
  Officials in my Department are aware that they have to produce a sustainable development report due at the end of February, as part of SR 2002.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the last occasion was on which she requested an environmental appraisal before making a policy decision. [29054]

  Dr. Howells
  Policy makers in my Department are aware of the policy makers checklist which includes the recommendation to consider any environmental implications; however my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has not had occasion to request a formal environmental appraisal since her appointment.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many environmental appraisals have been published by her Department since 1 January 2001; and if she will list the last four. [29053]

  Dr. Howells
  No environmental appraisals have been published by my Department since 1 January 2001.

  Forth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her oral answer of 3 December 2001,official Report, column 6, what
  624W
  discussions she has had with the British Tourist Authority on the impact on tourism of maintenance problems concerning the Forth Rail Bridge. [26557]

  Dr. Howells
  I have not had discussions on this as transport is a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Channel 5
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if it is her policy that Channel 5 should be available to all terrestrial analogue television users in the United Kingdom. [28861]

  Dr. Howells
  It was clear at its inception that the fifth channel could not be available in all parts of the United Kingdom because of spectrum constraints. I do not expect analogue terrestrial Channel 5 services to be extended to all analogue terrestrial television users because our priority is to use available spectrum for developing digital terrestrial television.

  Regional Museums
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she plans to meet the Council for Museums and Libraries to discuss the funding of regional museums, with specific reference to those in north-east England. [26182]

  Tessa Jowell
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts will shortly be meeting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, the Chairman of Resource: The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries, to discuss the report by the Regional Museum Task Force "Renaissance in the Regions: a new vision for England's museums" which was published last October.

  The report makes recommendations for a new framework for museums and galleries in England's regions, including the north-east.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the reformed Child Support Agency has a section dedicated to counter fraud work; and what the budget is of that section for the first year of operation. [22892]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mike Isaac to Mr. Frank Field, dated 10 January 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply.
  Mr. Smith is unavailable and therefore I am writing to you on his behalf.
  You asked if the reformed Child Support Agency has a section dedicated to counter fraud work; and what the budget is of that section for the first year of operation.
  We have set up sections dedicated to counter fraud as part of the implementation of changes to child support legislation. These units investigate cases where individuals appear to have deliberately

  625W
  provided incorrect or misleading information. They also consider cases where information might properly be referred for investigation elsewhere.
  The budget for this section in its first year was £3.5 million.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the extent of benefit fraud through the use of bank accounts set up by members or supporters of Shariah and Al Muhajaroon. [26772]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are implementing our strategy to tackle fraud and error by tightening up the system and making sure that, from the first claim, the right benefits are going to the right people. Due to the nature of fraud, it is not possible to give an estimate of the level of fraud committed by particular groups or their supporters.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been spent in total on the Targeting Fraud website. [27760]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is not possible to provide a specific cost for the Targeting Fraud website, as it was built and is maintained on the departmental web server from existing resources.

  Shareholders
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of the adult population owned one or more shares in(a) the latest year for which figures are available and (b) each year since 1997. [25292]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information available is in the table:

  Percentage of adult population owning one or more stocks/shares, unit trusts, PEPs, ISAs

  Stocks/shares

  Stocks/shares trusts/PEPs/ISAs

  1997–98

  22

  27

  1998–99

  21

  27

  1999–2000

  20

  29

  2000–01

  19

  32

  Notes:

  1. The estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors that control for tenure, Council Tax Band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.

  2. Questions on assets are a sensitive part of the FRS questionnaire and have relatively low level of response, and hence higher levels of imputation, compared to other parts of the survey. Responses are imputed in around one in 10 cases. Evidence also suggests some under reporting of capital by respondents.

  3. The final column of the table shows the percentage of adults reporting one or more of the categories: stocks and shares, unit trusts, PEPs and ISAs.

  4. The results are for financial years.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (FRS)

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide a breakdown of share ownership by occupational status for the most recent date available. [26140]
  626W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The information available is in the following table:

  Breakdown of adult population owning one or more stocks/shares, unit trusts, PEPs, ISAs by occupational status

  Occupation

  Stocks/shares

  Stocks/shares/unit trusts/PEPS/ISAs

  Undefined

  33

  32

  Managers and administrators

  16

  15

  Professionals

  11

  11

  Associate professionals and technical

  9

  9

  Clerical and secretarial

  10

  11

  Craft and related

  6

  6

  Personal and protective service

  4

  5

  Sales

  3

  4

  Plant and machine operatives

  4

  4

  Other occupations

  2

  3

  Total percentage of adults

  19

  32

  Notes:

  1. The estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors that control for tenure, council tax band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.

  2. Questions on assets are a sensitive part of the FRS questionnaire and have relatively low level of response, and hence higher levels of imputation, compared to other parts of the survey. Responses are imputed in around one in 10 cases. Evidence also suggest some under reporting of capital by respondents.

  3. The final column of the table shows the percentage of adults reporting one or more of the categories: stocks and shares, unit trusts, PEPs and ISAs.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 2000–01

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the final maintenance assessment accuracy figure is for the Child Support Agency in each year since 1997. [24211]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mike Isaac to Mr. David Willetts, dated 10 January 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply.Mr. Smith is unavailable and therefore I am writing to you on his behalf.You asked what the final maintenance assessment accuracy figure is for the Child Support Agency in each year since 1997.The information requested is in the attached table.Until this year our target measured the accuracy of our assessments to the nearest penny and required us to revisit the whole of the current assessment, including those elements which may have been in place for some considerable time. The measure therefore reflected historical mistakes rather than our current performance.The target for this year focuses on improving the accuracy of the last action we have taken on a case. On that basis our achievement last year was 78.5%. We have continued to focus on accuracy and so far this year we have further improved that figure to 82.8%.I hope this is helpful.627W

  CSA: cash value accuracy of maintenance assessment

  Percentage

  Achievement it against the cash value accuracy target for the last four years

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000-–01

  Target

  85

  75

  78

  78

  Achievement

  85.6

  77.2

  70.5

  67.4

  Source:

  Agency Annual Reports 1999–2000 and 2000–01

  Cold Weather Payments
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cold weather payments have been triggered this winter as a result of low temperatures, broken down by(a) weather station and (b) nation and region of the United Kingdom. [25948]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 11 January 2002]: Cold weather payments are a key part of our strategy to tackle fuel poverty. They provide extra help towards heating costs for the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society in periods of exceptionally cold weather. They are paid to pensioners receiving the minimum income guarantee, and to people receiving income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance who have children under the age of five or who have a premium for disability or long term sickness.

  The payments are made automatically and are triggered when the average temperature is recorded as, or forecast to be, 0 degrees Centigrade or below over seven consecutive days at the weather station linked to the customer's postcode. So far this year we estimate that payments to the value of almost £16.8 million have been triggered. Available information on the breakdown of the payments is in the tables.

  Estimated number and value of cold weather payments triggered by weather station

  Weather station

  Estimated number of payments triggered from 1 November 2001 to 14 January 2002

  Estimated value of payments triggered (£)

  Andrewsfield

  39,790

  338,215.00

  Aviemore

  3,099

  26,341.50

  Bedford

  60,529

  514,496.50

  Bingley

  86,283

  733,405.50

  Bishopton

  178,525

  1,517,462.50

  Boltshope Park

  9,370

  79,645.00

  Boulmer

  10,793

  91,740.50

  Bracknell

  53,193

  452,140.50

  Braemar

  152

  1,292.00

  Brize Norton

  22,139

  188,181.50

  Carlisle

  9,896

  84,116.00

  Cassley

  208

  1,768.00

  Coleshill

  249,130

  2,117,605.00

  Coltishall

  34,663

  294,635.50

  Dumfries

  5,128

  43,588.00

  Dyce

  22,024

  187,204.00

  Edinburgh Gogarbank

  65,607

  557,659.50

  Eskdalemuir

  4,356

  37,026.00

  Fylingdales

  25,142

  213,707.00

  Great Malvern

  37,578

  319,413.00

  Lake Vyrnwy

  1,398

  11,883.00

  Leeds

  143,964

  1,223,694.00

  Lerwick

  829

  7,046.50

  Leuchars

  32,244

  274,074.00

  628W

  Estimated number and value of cold weather payments triggered by country

  Weather station

  Estimated number of payments triggered from 1 November 2001 to 14 January 2002

  Estimated value of payments triggered (£)

  Linton on Ouse

  62,637

  532,414.50

  Loch Glascarnoch

  525

  4,462.50

  Lyneham

  24,040

  204,340.00

  Marham

  14,914

  126,769.00

  Newcastle

  122,657

  1,042,584.50

  Nottingham

  147,861

  1,256,818.50

  Redhill

  32,551

  276,683.50

  Ringway

  199,291

  1,693,973.50

  Salsburgh

  12,027

  102,229.50

  Sennybridge

  47,119

  400,511.50

  Shawbury

  48,288

  410,448.00

  Tulloch Bridge

  1,931

  16,413.50

  Waddington

  95,223

  809,395.50

  Wattisham

  35,582

  302,447.00

  Wick Airport

  1,956

  16,626.00

  Wittering

  30,163

  256,385.50

  Total

  1,972,805

  16,768,842.50

  Estimated number and value of cold weather payments triggered by country

  Country

  Estimated number of payments triggered from 1 November 2001 to 14 January 2002

  Estimated value of payments triggered (£)

  England

  1,595,677

  13,563,254.50

  Scotland

  328,611

  2,793,193.50

  Wales

  48,517

  412,394.50

  Total

  1,972,805

  16,768,842.50

  Notes:

  1. Figures are not available by Government Office Region.

  2. Those weather stations where cold weather payments have not been triggered are excluded from the tables.

  3. Cold weather payments are payable for periods of cold weather between 1 November and 31 March each winter.

  4. Social security matters in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  5. The figures provided are estimates. The final number and value of actual payments made will be reconciled after 31 March 2002.

  Source:

  Estimates are based on a scan in November 2001 of income support and jobseeker's allowance live load linked to Weather Station postcodes.

  Benefits Agency (Freecall Service)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how the determination is made as to whether a benefit applicant faces significant difficulties such that a freecall number is provided by the Benefits Agency. [28799]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In deciding whether a freecall service ought to be provided, a variety of factors are considered, e.g. the anticipated length of calls, location of the customer and their likely financial circumstances. Guidance to staff within the Department tells them to make a return telephone call to a customer in the UK on request.
  629W
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many freecall numbers have been provided by the Benefits Agency to such benefit applicants since 1997(a) in Scotland and (b) in the rest of the United Kingdom. [28800]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Since 1997 the Benefits Agency has provided two freecall numbers for benefit applications. Both services are available to all UK customers. The first was provided for the benefits inquiry line and the second for minimum income guarantee claims.

  ME
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what effect the NHS recognition of ME as a medical condition will have on the operation of the physical capability assessment; and if he will make a statement. [28801]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We recognise chronic fatigue syndromes, including ME, as potentially debilitating illnesses and the Department's Chief Medical Adviser constantly evaluates the latest developments in the understanding of these conditions. The personal capability assessment which is used in determining entitlement to incapacity benefit is a functional assessment which looks at the extent to which a person's ability to carry out certain everyday activities is affected by their medical condition. In general, it is the effect of the condition that is important, not the specific diagnosis.

  The application of the assessment to people who have a medical condition that fluctuates or varies in its severity (such as ME) is already covered in the training and guidance given to Medical Services doctors who provide advice for Decision Makers. The doctors are trained to base their advice on the level of function that the person is capable of most of the time taking into account such factors as pain, fatigue and variability of symptoms.

  Attendance Allowance
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how much of the attendance allowance money withdrawn from recipients in Scotland will be spent in Scotland; [28802]

  (2) when his Department notified the Scottish Executive that the payment of attendance allowance to those recipients who will qualify for free personal care would be withdrawn; [28803]

  (3) whether attendance allowance payments contribute to the funding of free nursing care in England; [28804]

  (4) how the attendance allowance money withdrawn from recipients in Scotland will be allocated by his Department. [28805]

  Mr. Darling
  To avoid duplicate provision from public funds, the Great Britain-wide social security benefit rules have always precluded payment of attendance allowance to people in residential care homes and nursing homes who receive help with the cost of their place in the home from a local authority or a health authority. Benefit spending is determined by the number of claimants who satisfy the qualifying conditions that apply to a particular benefit. A reduction in forecast benefit expenditure will increase the funds available for public expenditure as a whole, and issues regarding their allocation will be dealt 630W
  with in the usual way. The funding arrangements for free nursing care have always been entirely separate from those for attendance allowance.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he plans for the services of the Universal bank to be in operation by April 2003. [28937]

  Malcolm Wicks
  While there are still issues to be resolved, substantial progress is being made towards delivery of the project as planned.

  Benefits Agency (ACT)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advice will be available to benefit claimants who do not have a bank account when the move to ACT takes place. [28938]

  Malcolm Wicks
  If claimants do not have a bank account, staff will discuss options with them to help them make the best choice for their circumstances.

  Benefit Payments (ACT)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of benefit recipients have received their benefits by automated credit transfer in each year since ACT was introduced. [24240]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Comprehensive statistics on customers paid by Automated Credit Transfer (ACT) date back to 1993. The table reflects the average take up across all benefits apart from job seekers allowance (JSA) as take-up data are not currently available.

  Year

  Percentage of benefit recipients receiving their benefit by ACT

  1993

  18.5

  1994

  23.5

  1995

  24.0

  19961

  28.0

  1997

  30.5

  19982

  33.0

  1999

  36.0

  20003

  38.0

  2001(August)

  40.0

  1 Includes IIDB from June 1996

  2 Includes ICA from June 1998

  3 Includes guardians allowance from June 2000

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his estimate is of the costs that the Government will incur in servicing Post Office card accounts for(a) 3 million, (b) 4 million, (c) 5 million and (d) 6 million benefit claimants. [28940]

  Malcolm Wicks
  This will depend on the outcome of contractual negotiations between the Government and the Post Office, which will remain commercially in confidence between the parties.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research his Department has carried out into the numbers of benefit claimants who already
  631W
  have a bank account; and if he has estimated how many of these claimants will choose to transfer to a Post Office card account when they start to be paid by ACT. [28941]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Around 85 per cent. of benefit claimants have an account into which they can be paid directly. In general, we expect that they will choose to use these accounts when moving to payment by ACT.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on what information the Government based its assumption that around 3 million benefit and tax credit recipients will open a Post Office card account and what provision is being made available should this figure rise following the introduction of the Universal Bank. [28942]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our assumption was derived from the number of benefit and tax credit recipients without bank accounts, recognising that some of these customers will open basic accounts with a high street bank. The commercial arrangements between the Government and the Post Office will provide for the possibility that the actual number of Post Office card accounts may be higher or lower than our 3 million operational assumption.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent discussions he has had with the Post Office about the provision of the Post Office card account; what the outcome of these discussions was; and if he will make a statement. [28943]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Officials, together with officials from the Inland Revenue and the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency, have had extensive discussions with the Post Office. These are still continuing.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many environmental appraisals have been published by his Department since 1 January 2001; and if he will list the last four; [29018]

  (2) when the last occasion was on which he requested an environmental appraisal before making a policy decision; [29019]

  (3) what procedures his Department has to ensure environmental appraisals are undertaken prior to (a) administrative and (b) policy decisions being made; [29020]

  (4) what plans his Department has to appraise the environmental implications of its Spending Review submission to the Treasury; [29021]

  (5) how many officials from his Department have attended the environmental appraisal and integration into policy training course run by the Civil Service College. [29022]

  Maria Eagle
  With the creation of the Department for Work and Pensions arrangements have been put in place to ensure that the new Department continues to meet the Government's sustainable development objectives.

  We have actively embraced the social, economic and environmental elements of sustainable development, and are taking these aspects forward together within an integrated strategy. The Department has a Grade 2 Senior Accountable Official for sustainable development (SD) and has established an SD steering group to take
  632W
  ownership of, and drive forward, sustainability across the Department. The steering group includes senior "SD Champions" from each area of the Department's business.

  A corporate SD team has been established also to own the Department's SD policy, and to establish targets and monitor progress. Representatives from the six main business areas of the Department and the SD team all attended a specifically tailored SD training course on environmental appraisal run by the Civil Service College in November 2001.

  A mechanism has been put in place to ensure that all major initiatives are assessed for SD impacts and benefits through the Department's projects approvals process. A further proposal is under development which will provide appraisals of new and revised policies. DWP internal auditors will include these appraisals within its audit programme.

  We are preparing a Sustainable Development report to accompany our Spending Review submission to Treasury, and are working with our client groups and Business Management Division to ensure that the Department's bid accords with the objectives within the UK strategy for SD.

  We have published a free-standing SD annual report which has been placed in the Library.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people claimed jobseeker's allowance in the Hornchurch constituency in(a) September 1997, (b) September 1999 and (c) September 2001. [27221]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to John Cryer, dated 21 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question regarding the number of people claiming job seeker's allowance (JSA) in the Hornchurch constituency in September 1997, September 1999 and September 2001. I am replying in his absence. (27221)
  The claimant count consists of all people claiming JSA or NI credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which their claim is made

  The information is given in the table below.

  Claimant Court level (not seasonally adjusted—in the Hornchurch Parliamentary Constituency

  Date

  Number

  September 1997

  1,337

  September 1999

  1,125

  September 2001

  748

  Benefits (Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what was the claimant count in York and north Yorkshire in(a) 1997, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001. [28195]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.
  633W
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Miss Anne McIntosh, dated 21 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question regarding the number of claimants in York and North Yorkshire in 1997, 1999, 2000 and 2001. I am replying in his absence (28195)
  The table below shows the annual average claimant count level for the York unitary authority local district and North Yorkshire County for the years 1997, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

  The annual average levels of claimants (not seasonally adjusted) in the York (UA) and the North Yorkshire county

  Number

  York UA

  North Yorkshire County

  1997

  3,786

  13,495

  1999

  2,762

  10,380

  2000

  2,367

  8,940

  2001

  2,120

  8,038

  Child Asylum Seekers
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the Government are doing to safeguard the welfare of unaccompanied asylum seeking children when they are given leave to remain in the UK; how the Government are helping social care agencies protect and aid those children deemed most at risk; and how many children are at risk in the Midlothian constituency. [27177]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Unaccompanied asylum seeking children are assessed by local authorities in accordance with their duties under the Children Act 1989, and are provided with help and support on the basis of that needs assessment. The position is unchanged when they receive leave to remain in the United Kingdom. While the young people are under 18 the local authority is able to claim grant funding from the Home Office to meet the costs of support. The Quality Protects programme, designed to improve services to children in local authority care, applies to local authorities' services for these young people as for other children in need.

  Matters relating to Scotland are for the devolved Administration.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what procedures the Lord Chancellor's Department has to ensure environmental appraisals are undertaken prior to(a) administrative and (b) policy decisions being made. [29060]

  Ms Rosie Winterton

  No formal environmental appraisal process is in place for administrative decision making, but reference is made to the Department's Environmental Strategy, which addresses the environmental impact of the Department's operations. This specifically targets construction of new courts and 634W
  office buildings, the maintenance of our diverse estate, energy efficiency and water management, procurement of goods and services; training and education of staff; waste management; and the impact of travel to and from our buildings.

  Policy decisions are subject to environmental screening, and policy makers use the Cabinet Office's Policy Makers Checklist.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the last occasion was on which the Lord Chancellor requested an environmental appraisal before making a policy decision. [29059]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To date there have been no policy decisions that have required the Lord Chancellor to request an environmental appraisal.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department have attended the Environmental Appraisal and Integration into Policy training course run by the Civil Service College. [29062]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As yet no officials from my Department have attended the Environmental Appraisal and Integration into Policy training course.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many environmental appraisals have been published by the Lord Chancellor's Department since 1 January 2001; and if she will list the last four. [29058]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There have been no environmental appraisals published by my Department since 1 January 2001. No environmental impacts were identified in any of the policies or programmes considered since that date.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what plans the Lord Chancellor's Department has to appraise the environmental implications of its Spending Review submission to the Treasury. [29061]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My Department's spending review team is collaborating with our Energy and Environment Branch on the environmental implications of the spending review, and the production of a free-standing sustainable development report. They will be using the guidance provided by HM Treasury on the conduct of the review, including advice on sustainable development.

  Immigration Appellate Authority
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, how many adjudicators in the Immigration Appellate Authority have(a) been dismissed and (b) resigned in each of the last five years. [29243]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  No Immigration adjudicators have been dismissed during the last five years. The Lord Chancellor's Department does not have definitive records of resignations during the last five years but estimates that 26 Immigration adjudicators have resigned during that period.
  635W
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the minimum qualification to serve as an adjudicator for the Immigration Appellate Authority. [29240]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  All appointments are made under Schedule 3 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. All appointees must hold a seven year qualification within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which is a right of audience in any class of proceedings in any part of the Supreme Court or in all proceedings in the county court or magistrates courts, or they should be an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least seven years' standing, a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland of at seven years' standing or have such legal or other experience as appears to the Lord Chancellor to make him or her suited for appointment.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what training is given to adjudicators in the Immigration Appellate Authority. [29241]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Qualification for appointment for adjudicators is laid out in Paragraph 2, Schedule 3 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. For adjudicators new to the jurisdiction there is a structured four-day induction programme of training. This includes judicial practice, immigration and asylum law, discussion groups and practical exercises. Inductees are mentored and sit in with an experienced adjudicator for at least three hearing days.

  For existing adjudicators there is a regular series of training events. All adjudicators receive a minimum of three days training per annum. Such training covers new developments as well as providing opportunities to refresh existing knowledge and skills.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what written guidance is given to adjudicators in the Immigration Appellate Authority on the conduct and management of appeal hearings. [29242]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  All adjudicators receive an extensive Bench Book covering all aspects of relevant law and practice. They are also provided with equal treatment guidance, standard legal texts and extensive guidance on determination writing. IAA Legal and Research support further provides regular updates on issues and developments in the immigration and asylum field.

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from her Department in each of the last four years. [27995]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The figures are as in the table:

  Date of incident

  Items stolen/lost

  Value (£)

  Financial year 1997–98

  11 April 1997

  Cash

  200.00

  26 April 1997

  Cash

  55.00

  1 May 1997

  TV/video

  450.00

  11 May 1997

  Cash

  500.00

  11 May 1997

  Printers x 4

  1,000.00

  16 May 1997

  Video recorder

  350.00

  20 May 1997

  Printer

  250.00

  22 May 1997

  Laser printer and fax machine

  250.00

  636W

  Date of incident

  Items stolen/lost

  Value (£)

  3 June 1997

  Laptop

  1,000.00

  1 July 1997

  Recorder and CD

  1,000.00

  17 August 1997

  Laser printer

  250.00

  18 August 1997

  Pen

  150.00

  9 September 1997

  Laptop

  1,500.00

  15 September 1997

  Video recorder

  250.00

  7 November 1997

  Desk tops x 5 and printer

  300.00

  22 November 1997

  Video recorder

  250.00

  16 December 1997

  PC

  1,500.00

  22 December 1997

  Laptop

  1,500.00

  6 January 1998

  Laptop

  1,000.00

  9 January 1998

  PC

  1,000.00

  12 January 1998

  Printer, keyboard and telephone

  250.00

  17 February 1998

  Answering machine

  73.00

  5 March 1998

  Assorted cutlery

  65.00

  12 March 1998

  External security light

  100.00

  19 March 1998

  Laptop

  50.00

  19 March 1998

  Colour TV and file server

  50.00

  20 March 1998

  File server and chips

  3,000.00

  21 March 1998

  Cufflinks

  50.00

  27 March 1998

  Cash

  160.00

  29 March 1998

  Keyboards x 4, mouse and barcode reader

  300.00

  Total

  16,853.00

  Financial year 1998–99

  3 April 1998

  Cash

  230.00

  14 April 1998

  Contents of payphone

  80.00

  18 May 1998

  PC

  150.00

  19 May 1998

  CPU's missing

  1,000.00

  29 May 1998

  Video recorder

  200.00

  2 June 1998

  Mobile phone

  100.00

  12 June 1998

  Computers x 4

  4,000.00

  12 June 1998

  PC

  250.00

  24 June 1998

  Laptop

  1,300.00

  27 June 1998

  TV and CD radio

  800.00

  29 June 1998

  TV/video, TV, radio

  800.00

  10 June 1998

  Wallet

  130.00

  11 July 1998

  Safe and laser printer

  50.00

  14 July 1998

  Laptop

  2,000.00

  15 July 1998

  Safe

  1,015.00

  20 July 1998

  Cash

  102.00

  21 July 1998

  Roof lead

  1,500.00

  21 July 1998

  External security camera

  200.00

  24 July 1998

  Laptop

  1,300.00

  27 July 1998

  First aid boxes

  148.00

  5 August 1998

  Pen and lighter

  90.00

  6 August 1998

  Office CD

  350.00

  12 August 1998

  CD/radio

  129.00

  20 August 1998

  Mobile phone

  95.00

  17 September 1998

  Video recorder

  350.00

  24 September 1998

  Printer

  200.00

  21 October 1998

  Handbag and contents

  110.00

  29 October 1998

  Printer

  700.00

  10 December 1998

  Laptop

  2,500.00

  14 December 1998

  Handbag and contents

  50.00

  16 December 1998

  Vacuum cleaner

  100.00

  29 March 1999

  Specialist phone

  50.00

  1 April 1999

  Payphone and cash

  500.00

  Total

  20,628.00

  Financial year 1999–2000

  10 April 1999

  Cash

  67.00

  26 April 1999

  Payphone

  505.00

  9 May 1999

  Roof lead

  500.00

  15 June 1999

  Mobile phone

  113.00

  4 July 1999

  Union flag and rope

  65.00

  11 August 1999

  PC

  1,500.00

  17 August 1999

  Payphone

  340.00

  20 August 1999

  Laptop

  1,500.00

  20 August 1999

  Laptop

  1,500.00

  24 August 1999

  Payphone

  340.00

  15 September 1999

  Cash

  340.00

  16 September 1999

  Payphone

  200.00

  26 September 1999

  TV and CD player

  318.85

  13 October 1999

  Mobile phone

  158.25

  21 October 1999

  Mobile phone

  50.00

  29 November 1999

  Wallet and contents

  120.00

  9 December 1999

  Laptop

  200.00

  10 January 2000

  Hard drives x 3

  600.00

  13 January 2000

  Video camera

  500.00

  637W

  Date of incident

  Items stolen/lost

  Value (£)

  2 February 2000

  Payphone

  50.00

  16 March 2000

  Dictaphone

  69.81

  19 March 2000

  Vending machine

  340.00

  Total

  9,376.91

  Financial year 2000–01

  3 April 2000

  Barrier rope

  116.00

  3 April 2000

  Rope

  116.32

  12 April 2000

  Cash and cheques:

  73,000.00

  21 April 2000

  Electronic postal scales

  500.00

  18 May 2000

  PC base units x 15

  15,000.00

  13 June 2000

  Handbag and personal palm pilot

  400.00

  22 June 2000

  TV/video

  250.00

  28 June 2000

  PC's x 54

  16,000.00

  1 July 2000

  Laptop

  1,500.00

  3 July 2000

  Mobile phone

  50.00

  3 July 2000

  Mobile phone

  50.00

  27 July 2000

  Cash

  2,300.00

  8 August 2000

  Mobile phone

  117.50

  10 August 2000

  Laptop

  1,000.00

  30 August 2000

  Union flag

  109.24

  20 September 2000

  Payphone

  550.00

  21 September 2000

  Laptop

  500.00

  27 September 2000

  Laptop

  1,500.00

  27 September 2000

  Laptop

  1,500.00

  28 September 2000

  TV/video

  160.00

  28 September 2000

  TV/video

  160.00

  6 October 2000

  PC

  150.00

  11 November 2000

  Laptops x 9, keyboards x 2, projector and mobile phone

  25,000.00

  15 November 2000

  Laptop

  500.00

  16 December 2000

  Cash

  140.00

  11 January 2001

  Department mobile phone

  100.00

  2 February 2001

  CCTV camera

  600.00

  Total

  151,369.06

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what her estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) her Department,(b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [27983]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is not possible to distinguish the figures between the Department and its agencies. Available figures for the cost of theft and fraud for each of the last financial years are:

  Department and agencies (£)

  NDPBs (£ million)

  1997–98

  21,721.52

  1.08

  1998–99

  79,923.02

  0.8

  1999–2000

  21,558.40

  3.2

  2000–01

  159,817.87

  4.1

  Figures for the current financial years are not yet available.

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the expenditure of the Lord Chancellors(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title for each year since 1997. [26981]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Newspaper advertising is used for a very wide range of public information and recruiting purposes across the national, regional and local press of England and Wales. While some recruitment has been 638W
  handled centrally since August 2001, the bulk is delegated to Communications, People and Learning Centres on behalf of group managers and records of expenditure on advertising are only available from individual court and group managers' offices. A breakdown of advertising per year by title since 1997 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Crown Court Proceedings
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the annual costs of Crown court proceedings where the defendant has elected trial by jury were in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [28429]

  Mr. Wills
  This information is not available in the format requested. However, the most recent estimate of the average cost of contested Crown court proceedings is £21,250 per case, falling to £3,550 in proceedings where a guilty plea is entered. 15,500 defendants elected to be tried by a jury in the year to September 2001, and it is known that many who so elect later enter a guilty plea.

  Unified Criminal Court
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what assessment he has made of the net change in the number of magistrates which would be needed to implement the creation of a new district division of a unified criminal court and associated changes as proposed in Lord Justice Auld's report "Review of the Criminal Courts"; and if he will make a statement; [28525]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the net cost of establishing a new district division of a unified criminal court and associated changes as proposed in Lord Justice Auld's report "Review of the Criminal Courts"; if he will give a breakdown of available figures; and if he will make a statement. [28524]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government have taken no decisions on Sir Robin Auld's Review report. The period of comment closes on 31 January. The Government will then be considering the recommendations in detail, including assessments of costs, benefits, and associated factors such as the numbers of magistrates needed to implement them. The Government will announce their conclusions by way of a White Paper in the spring.

  Census Website
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what quality checks were built into the contract between the Public Record Office and QinetiQ. [26803]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The contract between the Public Record Office and QinetiQ Ltd. makes comprehensive provision for quality checks, which are covered by commercial confidentiality. These checks have been carried out, and will continue to be carried out, at the appropriate times.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the final tender price of the contract won by QinetiQ from the Public Record Office to design, build and maintain the website for the 1901 Census was. [26801]
  639W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The final tender price of the contract is commercially sensitive information, which it would be inappropriate to put into the public domain.

  Ministerial Transport
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor last used the railway service in connection with this official duties; what station he left from and to what destination; and whether it is his intention to make greater use of the railways in future. [28103]
  640W
  Mr. Wills
  The Lord Chancellor last used the railway service in connection with his official duties on 11 January—the date of his most recent official visit. The journey was between Gatwick Airport and London Victoria. The Lord Chancellor will continue to use the railway for official travel as appropriate. All arrangements for official travel are made in line with the guidance set out in Chapter 7 of the "Ministerial Code", and the accompanying guidance document "Travel by Ministers", using the most efficient and cost effective mode of transport, and bearing in mind security considerations.

TREASURY

  Overseas Dividends
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers receive income from overseas dividends; and what was the gross sum received before tax in the last year for which figures are available. [26114]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross income is paid in income tax,

  Multiple Dies of median earnings

  50 per cent.

  150 per cent.

  200 per cent.

  300 per cent.

  500 per cent.

  1,000 per cent.

  5,000 per cent.

  Single-earner married couple, two children

  1997–98

  £ per week

  Gross income

  160.37

  481.10

  641.46

  962.19

  1,603.65

  3,207.30

  16,036.50

  Income tax

  11.35

  85.12

  132.50

  260.79

  517.37

  1,158.83

  6,290.51

  NICs

  11.08

  41.54

  41.54

  41.54

  41.54

  41.54

  41.54

  Child benefit (CB)

  20.05

  20.05

  20.05

  20.05

  20.05

  20.05

  20.05

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Net income tax

  7.1

  17.7

  20.7

  27.1

  32.3

  36.1

  39.2

  NICs

  6.9

  8.6

  6.5

  4.3

  2.6

  1.3

  0.3

  Net income tax + NICs-CB

  1.5

  22.2

  24.0

  29.3

  33.6

  36.8

  39.4

  2001–02

  £ per week

  Gross income

  188.07

  564.22

  752.30

  1,128.44

  1,880.74

  3,761.48

  18,807.40

  Income tax

  7.85

  90.60

  156.57

  310.39

  611.30

  1,363.60

  7,381.97

  NICs

  10.11

  47.72

  48.80

  48.80

  48.80

  48.80

  48.80

  Child benefit (CB)

  25.85

  25.85

  25.85

  25.85

  25.85

  25.85

  25.85

  WFTC

  79.98

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Net income tax

  -38.4

  16.1

  20.8

  27.5

  32.5

  36.3

  39.3

  NICs

  5.4

  8.5

  6.5

  4.3

  2.6

  1.3

  0.3

  Net income tax + NICs-CB

  -46.7

  19.9

  23.9

  29.5

  33.7

  36.9

  39.4

  Two-earner married couple, two Children

  1997–98

  £ per week

  Gross income

  160.37

  481.10

  641.46

  962.19

  1,603.65

  3,207.30

  16,036.50

  Income tax

  0.00

  64.86

  101.74

  175.51

  398.57

  1,040.03

  6,171.71

  NICs

  6.12

  38.19

  54.23

  75.07

  83.08

  83.08

  83.08

  Child benefit (CB)

  20.05

  20.05

  20.05

  20.05

  20.05

  20.05

  20.05

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Net income tax

  0.00

  13.5

  15.9

  18.2

  24.9

  32.4

  38.5

  NICs

  3.8

  7.9

  8.5

  7.8

  5.2

  2.6

  0.5

  Net income tax + NICs-CB

  -8.7

  17.3

  21.2

  24.0

  28.8

  34.4

  38.9

  2001–02

  £ per week

  Gross income

  188.07

  564.22

  752.30

  1,128.44

  1,880.74

  3,761.48

  18,807.40

  Income tax

  0.00

  67.08

  108.46

  197.24

  470.31

  1,222.61

  7,240.98

  NICs

  2.58

  39.02

  57.83

  85.24

  97.60

  97.60

  97.60

  Child benefit (CB)

  25.85

  25.85

  25.85

  25.85

  25.85

  25.85

  25.85

  WFTC

  60.08

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Percentage of gross earnings

  Net income tax

  -31.9

  11.9

  14.4

  17.5

  25.0

  32.5

  38.5

  NICs

  1.4

  6.9

  7.7

  7.6

  5.2

  2.6

  0.5

  Net income tax + NICs-CB

  -44.3

  14.2

  18.7

  22.7

  28.8

  34.4

  38.9

  Notes:

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the basis that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners are assumed to pay Class 1 national insurance contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  2. Earnings are taken to be the median gross weekly earnings of all full-time employees on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence.

  3. In line with the convention in the Tax Benefit Reference Manual, child benefit is treated as negative income tax.

  4. For the two-earner family it is assumed that earnings are split 60/40 per cent.

  642W
  national insurance contributions and VAT by (a) a married man with a non-earning wife and two children and (b) a married man with an earning wife and two children at (i) half, (ii) one and a half, (iii) two, (iv) three, (v) five, (vi) 10 and (vii) 50 times national average earnings in 2001–02; and what were the comparative figures for 1997–98. [26208]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The available information is given in the table. Estimating the impact of indirect taxes on these very specific family types is meaningless because spending patterns vary considerably between households of the same type and income.
  643W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what proportion of people of pensionable age are liable for income tax; what the total tax yield from people of pensionable age is; what the average income is of people of pensionable age before and after tax; and what the average percentage of income paid in tax by people of pensionable age is. [26279]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In 2001–02, 4.3 million (four in 10) people of pensionable age are liable to income tax. Pensionable age taxpayers have a total tax liability of £8.5 billion in 2001–02. The mean before tax income for pensioner taxpayers in 2001–02 is £15,800 pa and the mean after tax income is £23,850 pa. Tax as a percentage of total income for pensionable age taxpayers is 12.6 per cent.

  These estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2001 pre-Budget report. Non-taxable income such as ISA income is excluded from the analysis as individual details are not known.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals in each of the last four years have been granted exemption from inheritance tax in relation to chattels declared to be open to inspection by the public. [26108]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Exemption is not generally granted to individuals, but to executors of a deceased person's estate and/or to the trustees of trusts in which the deceased person was involved. On that basis, exemption was granted to chattels in their own right in 59, 74, 39 and 21 cases in the years 1997–98 to 2000–01 respectively. Exemption was also granted in three, six, two and no cases respectively for chattels which are historically associated with a heritage building. Exemption claims often cover more than one chattel or collection of chattels.

  Incomes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many tax units in 2001–02 will be on(a) twice, (b) five times and (c) 10 times average earnings or more; [26207]

  (2) how many and what proportion of taxpayers earn less than (a) three-quarters and (b) two-thirds of median male earnings in the most recent year for which figures are available. [26266]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Available estimates for the numbers of individual taxpayers in 2000–01 and proportions in the income ranges specified are given.

  Employee taxpayers in 2000–01 with earnings in the range

  Number

  Proportion of all employee taxpayers

  Over twice average earnings (million)

  1.04

  —

  Over five times average earnings (thousand)

  150

  —

  Over 10 times average earnings (thousand)

  14

  —

  Less than three-quarters of median male earnings (million)

  10.2

  48

  Less than two-thirds of median male earnings (million)

  11.7

  55

  644W
  Average earnings and male median earnings are based on the New Earnings Survey first release.

  Estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and consistent with the November 2001 pre-Budget report.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the net change in the annual income of a married couple with one earner and two school age children living in rented accommodation for which they pay average council house rent and average rates of a 1 per cent. cut in the basic rate of tax before and after taking account of any change in entitlement to housing benefit and WFTC, assuming that the earner is on(a) half and (b) one and a half times average earnings. [26215]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A married couple with one earner on half median earnings (£9,800 per annum) and two school age children would benefit by £34 a year from a 1 per cent. cut in the basic rate of income tax before taking account of working families tax credit and by £15 a year after taking account of working families tax credit. On one and a half times median earnings (£29,400 per annum) this family would not be eligible for working families tax credit and would benefit by £230 a year from a 1 per cent. cut in the basic rate of income tax. A single earner family with two school age children and paying average council house rents would not be eligible for housing benefit on either half median earnings or one and a half times median earnings.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) average and (b) median income is of (i) married couples and (ii) single people, whether liable to income tax or not, in 2001–02; and what percentage of (a) married couples and (b) single people fall below the average for their group. [26285]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available.

  Works of Art (Access)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what actions his Department has taken in each of the last four years to make the public aware of their rights of access to homes containing works of art granted exemption from inheritance tax. [26338]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Revenue website dedicated to information about tax-exempt works of art remains the primary vehicle for informing the public, as it has been since its launch in 1996. The site was redesigned in 2000 to make it more user-friendly and to give fuller information about public access to heritage assets. The number of hits on the site has increased from less than 1,000 per month at the beginning of 1998 to around 15,000 per month currently.

  Owners of tax-exempt heritage assets, particularly historic houses and their contents, increasingly maintain their own websites or have some other presence on the Internet: we now offer such owners the facility of a link from the Revenue website.

  The Revenue website can be accessed direct at www.cto.eds.co.uk or through the Revenue's main website at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the savings in a full year at 2001–02 rates of restricting all allowances and reliefs to the standard rate of tax broken down by category of allowance and relief; [26209]

  (2) what extra revenue would result from allowing all tax allowances at the standard rate of tax only. [26235]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full year yield in 2001–02 from restricting the personal allowances (including the blind person's allowance) to 22 per cent. is estimated at £2.6 billion.

  I regret that estimates for the effect of restricting all allowances and reliefs to the standard rate of tax broken down by category of allowance and relief could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many(a) basic rate and (b) higher rate taxpayers paid capital gains tax in 2000–01; [26211]

  (2) what the projected increase or reduction in capital gains tax liability is of the (a) top 1 per cent., (b) top 5 per cent., (c) top 10 per cent., (d) bottom 25 per cent. and (e) bottom 10 per cent. in 2001–02; and what the total number was of tax units estimated to be liable. [26258]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest available information on the distribution of the income and gains of capital gains taxpayers is in table 14.3 and projections of taxpayer numbers are in table 1.4 of the online edition of "Inland Revenue Statistics" which can be accessed on the Inland Revenue website www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats.

  Tax Receipts
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the total revenue from income tax was paid by the top five per cent. of taxpayers in each of the last four years. [26281]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to "Inland Revenue Statistics" table 2.4, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The latest version can be accessed on the Inland Revenue website www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/it_t04_1.htm.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the capital gains tax receipts and the corporation tax receipts were for each of the Inland Revenue districts in(a) Greater London, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland in current and in constant prices for each of the last four years. [26225]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Total receipts of capital gains tax and of corporation tax in each of the last four years are given on the Inland Revenue website at: http:// www. inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/tax_t02_1.htm.

  Receipts information in the detail requested is not available.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many people paid inheritance tax in each of the last 10 years; and how much tax was paid in each year; [26340]
  646W
  (2) what the total annual revenue yield was from stamp duty on property purchases in each of the last 10 years; [26336]

  (3) what the total payments were of capital gains tax; and how many people made them in each of the last five years. [26262]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The requested information on receipts of tax and number of taxpayers is available in tables 1.2 and 1.4 of the online edition of Inland Revenue Statistics—http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats. Further breakdowns of stamp duty yield are given in table 15.1, with earlier years in the equivalent table of the paper publication, Inland Revenue Statistics 1997.

  Higher Rate Taxpayers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many higher rate taxpayers there were in 2000–01; and what their average income was. [26263]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the "Inland Revenue Statistics" table 2.1, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The latest version can be accessed on the Inland Revenue website http:// www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/it_t01_1.htm.

  The average income of higher rate taxpayers in 2000–01 is around £69,000.

  Share Gains
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the capital gains tax and corporation tax yields from gains in quoted shares and gains in unquoted shares(a) in 2000–01 and (b) expected in 2001–02. [26224]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on the asset distribution of gains of capital gains tax payers and of non-life companies for 1998–99, the latest year for which figures are available, is in tables 14.4 and 14.7 respectively on the online edition of "Inland Revenue Statistics" which can be accessed on the Inland Revenue website www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats.

  It is not possible to measure directly the tax yield due to separate asset classes as some reliefs (including annual exempt amount) are given against aggregate gains.

  Age Allowance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people(a) eligible for and (b) in receipt of age allowances (i) are on high marginal tax rates, (ii) are on basic rate tax and (iii) pay no income tax. [26280]

  Dawn Primarolo
  People should get their age allowance if they tell the Inland Revenue of their date of birth. The number getting age related allowances, in 2001–02, for each of the categories requested is given in the table:

  Million

  Number

  Top rate (40 per cent.) taxpayers

  0

  Basic rate (22 per cent.) taxpayers

  2.2

  Non taxpayers

  2.3

  647W
  These estimates are based on the survey of personal incomes and are consistent with the November 2001 pre-Budget report.

  Revenue Losses (Farm Incomes)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue lost to the Inland Revenue as a result of the reduction in farm incomes in the last four years. [27928]

  Dawn Primarolo
  PAYE tax by sector and income from self-employment by sector are available in tables 2.10 and 3.9 of Inland Revenue Statistics. The latest version can be accessed on the Inland Revenue website: http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/ it_t10_1.htm and http://www:inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/ income_distribution/pi_t09_1. htm.

  Child Poverty (London)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will put in place measures to enhance the impact of the working families tax credit on reducing child poverty in London; and if he will make a statement. [28262]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The working families tax credit, combined with other tax and benefit reforms since 1997, means that there are now 1.2 million fewer children in relative poverty than there would otherwise have been.

  In August 2001, 95,000 families with children were receiving the working families tax credit in London, compared with 58,900 London families who received its predecessor family credit in August 1999. This represents a 61 per cent. increase in London which is greater than the increase across the United Kingdom as a whole over the same period.

  The Government keep under constant review the effectiveness of the working families tax credit across all areas of the United Kingdom. They continue to put in place measures to encourage those who are eligible to take up the tax credits to which they are entitled.

  Regulations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the regulations which entail a cost to public funds and estimate the cost in each case. [28030]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost

  The cost to 'public funds' (exchequer costs) is considered at the policy development stage of any new regulatory proposal, and a Regulatory Impact Assessment is completed unless there are no or negligible costs.

  Where Ministers choose a regulatory option, they must be satisfied that the benefits justify the costs.

  Married Couples Allowance
  David Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many pensioner couples in 2000–01 in north-west Leicestershire did not receive the married couples allowance available until 5 April 2000 because neither was 65 before 6 April 2000; [28704]
  648W
  (2) how many pensioner couples in 2000–01 did not receive the married couples allowance available until 5 April 2000 because neither was 65 before 6 April 2000. [28703]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There were some 100,000 couples where at least one partner was aged 65 in 2000–01 not receiving the married couples allowance because neither was 65 before 5 April 2000. This estimate is based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and is consistent with the November 2001 pre-Budget report.

  I regret that because of small sample sizes, it is not possible to provide a reliable estimate for the numbers in North-West Leicestershire.

  Child Tax Credit
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of families in receipt of(a) the child tax credit and (b) the child care tax credit in the Loughborough constituency. [28517]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information about the children's tax credit is not available by constituency. However, the number of families who are eligible for CTC in the east midlands is estimated to be 400,000.

  Analyses of the numbers of recipients of child care support within working families tax credits and disabled person's tax credits by parliamentary constituency were published in "Working Families' and Disabled Person's Tax Credit Statistics: Geographical Analyses August 2001" on 8 January 2002 by the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what end of year reconciliation information about incomes will have to be supplied by recipients of the proposed child tax credit; which group of recipients will have to supply such information; by what mechanism this information will be collected; and if he will make a statement. [28841]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Clause 17 of the Tax Credits Bill requires that a person who has received a tax credit award to be given the opportunity, after the end of the year, to provide details of their income and circumstances so that the Inland Revenue is able to finalise their award on the correct basis.

  The Inland Revenue will issue a notice to those people. The notice will set out the circumstances and income on which the award is based. It will then be for claimants to respond, making clear any respects in which the information held needs to be updated.

  Railtrack
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what implications Railtrack's successor's(a) spending and (b) borrowing requirements will have for the PSBR. [28825]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Railtrack's successor is expected to be in the private sector. Its spending and borrowing will have no impact on public sector net borrowing.

  Government subsidies and investment grants paid to the rail industry add to public sector net borrowing. This will be the same when Railtrack's successor is established.

  Scottish Transport Group Pension Fund
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the distribution of moneys to the members of the Scottish Transport Group pension fund; when he expects these payments to be made; and what rate of tax will be applied to such payments. [28973]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Scottish Executive are taking forward matters regarding the distribution of moneys to members of the Scottish Transport Group pension fund, following its announcement in November 2001 on the pension fund surplus. The tax payable on payments to pensioners will depend on the nature of the payment and the personal tax circumstances of the individual.

  International Aid
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Government proposes to fulfil the commitment at the 2000 G8 Summit in Okinawa that no countries seriously committed to education for all will be thwarted in their achievements of this goal by lack of resources; what information he has collated on the actions of the other G8 countries to meet this commitment; and if he will make a statement. [27862]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  The international response to the resource commitment made at the World Education Forum in Dakar (and endorsed by the G8 at Okinawa) has been slow and has lacked effective co-ordination. At the Education for All High-Level Group meeting in Paris in October, I called for international action to be stepped up in a coherent, well-organised and supportive way.

  Achieving universal primary education (UPE) can happen only through reform and action at the country level. More attention needs to be given to determining whether a country is "seriously committed" to education for all. Key indicators of commitment are the development of sound national education policies, closely linked to the country's poverty reduction strategies; the rapid abolition of user fees and other direct cost barriers to, education; the resources allocated to education, and specifically to primary education; and concrete evidence of efforts to promote gender equality. Being serious about UPE means clear commitments in all of these areas.

  Where countries are making these commitments, the international community must deliver the additional resources they require. We believe that delivering this Dakar resource commitment is best analysed and acted upon at the country level. It should be incorporated into all country level negotiations on poverty reduction strategies. It will also require a step-change in the level of international financing to support and sustain UPE, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Development agencies and the multilateral development banks, including the World bank, must increase the resources committed to helping reforming Governments deliver UPE. We also need much greater co-ordination between development agencies, working together in support of a country's own development strategy.

  DFID's "Children out of school" paper sets out these proposals and urges much greater international energy and co-operation in taking them forward. It also calls for the
  650W
  response of the developed world to the Dakar resource commitment to be monitored and reported at the World bank annual meeting, and in the report on progress towards the millennium development goals provided by the multilateral developments banks for the G8.

  The Government give high priority to the UPE goal and DFID has committed over £600 million to support the development of good quality, sustainable primary education systems in developing countries since 1997. We will do more. Canada shares our strong commitment to UPE and now chairs the G8 Education Task Force, where DFID represents the UK. Information submitted to the task force indicates clearly that the priority given to primary education within other G8 members' development programmes varies significantly. We would like the task force's report to this year's summit in Canada to indicate how the G8 can deliver effectively on its Okinawa commitment, and complement other international action to accelerate progress toward the UPE goal.

  Seaside Amusement Arcades
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the economic impact on seaside amusement arcades of recommendation 43 of the Budd report. [28849]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have made no such assessment.

  Hourly Wages
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average hourly wage in each travel to work area is at the latest date for which figures are available. [28505]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 21 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the average hourly earnings by travel to work area. I am replying in his absence. (28505)
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) provides earnings data for full-time employees on adult rates of pay. The most recent estimates for average hourly earnings for all travel to work areas in Great Britain are for April 2000. I have deposited a table showing these in the House of Commons Library.

  Breast Cancer Survival Rates
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the survival rates were for victims of breast cancer in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) South Tyneside in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [28065]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Stephen Hepburn, dated 21 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the survival rates for breast cancer in (a) the UK and (b) South Tyneside. I am replying in his absence. (28065).

  651W
  Figures are not available for the United Kingdom as a whole or for local authority areas. The latest available five-year relative survival rate from breast cancer for women in Gateshead and South Tyneside Health Authority is 75%, the same as in England as a whole. These figures relate to women diagnosed in 1992–94 and followed up to 31 December 1999.

  Theft and Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost of theft and fraud to(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies in each of the last four years. [27971]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information provided was compiled from information supplied to the Treasury for inclusion in the Government fraud reports for the years 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01. These figures do not include some external thefts and fraud but we cannot guarantee that this is the complete picture as there is no requirement for Departments to report details of all external thefts and frauds to us. Departmental returns include details of cases relating to their agencies but our records are not detailed enough to allow us to provide separate figures for departments and agencies. Data relating to NDPB are not collected for inclusion in the fraud report.

  Cost of theft and fraud HM Treasury

  £

  1997–98

  15,385

  1998–99

  20,867

  1999–2000

  21,630

  2000–01

  0

  Lost/Stolen Property
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those items valued at more than £50 which have been stolen or lost from his Department in each of the last four years. [27999]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows:

  £

  Item(s)

  Cost (approximately)

  1998

  1 Laptop PC

  2,500

  1999

  1 Desktop PC

  2,000

  1 Laptop PC

  2,000

  1 Laptop PC

  3,000

  2000

  1 LCD Projector

  2,000

  2 Disk Drives

  300

  1 Laptop PC

  2,000

  2001

  1 Laptop PC

  2,000

  1 Personal Data Assistant (PDA)

  250

  1 Laptop PC

  2,000

  Bank and Building Society Interest
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax is paid annually by basic rate taxpayers on bank and building society interest. [26254]
  652W
  Ruth Kelly
  The amounts are included in "Inland Revenue Statistics" table 2.6, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The latest version can be accessed on the Inland Revenue website http:// www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stat/income_tax/it_t06_1.htm.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list advertising campaigns undertaken by his Department and associated non-departmental public bodies since May 1997; what the cost of each campaign was; and if he will make a statement. [27603]

  Ruth Kelly
  With regards to advertising campaigns by HM Treasury, I refer the hon. Member to my reply given to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 432W, and the reply given to the former hon. Member for Guildford, Mr. St. Aubyn, on 18 May 2000, Official Report, column 258W, by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total receipts from Lottery duty are since the inception of the Lottery. [27931]

  Mr. Boateng
  Receipts from Lottery duty since its introduction in December 1994 are shown in the table.

  Lottery duty

  £000

  December 1994 to March 1995

  103,905

  1995–96

  611,912

  1996–97

  557,777

  1997–98

  674,517

  1998–99

  627,606

  1999–2000

  609,173

  2000–01

  596,386

  2001–02 (to November 2001)

  387,309

  Aggregates Levy (Scotland)
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the aggregates levy in Scotland. [27890]

  Mr. Boateng
  A Regulatory Impact Assessment for the aggregates levy was published at the time of Budget 2000. It is available from the Customs and Excise website.

  Fraud
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each of the central Government bodies which have reported fraud cases in each of the last four years, indicating for each body(a) the number of cases, (b) the number of staff involved in each case and (c) the total value of frauds. [27929]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information in the table was compiled from data supplied to HM Treasury by Departments for the annual fraud report in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 and is an analysis of internal frauds only (ie frauds committed by departmental employees).
  653W
  The list of Departments is not complete. The absence of a Department from the list indicates that a 'nil' return was received from that Department in each of the four years. The data relate to frauds and thefts committed by employees of Departments only.

  The values of frauds supplied by Departments are often only estimated values as a number of cases reported each year are at an early stage of investigation when values might not be known.

  Department

  Number of cases

  Number of staff involved

  Total value (£)

  1997–98

  MAFF

  6

  6

  10,729

  Cabinet Office

  8

  8

  8,094

  COI

  Crown Office

  CPS

  3

  3

  630

  Customs and Excise

  35

  36

  36,369

  MOD

  213

  216

  585,750

  FCO

  2

  2

  155,949

  Health

  11

  12

  49,411

  Home Office

  24

  24

  15,447

  Inland Revenue

  5

  5

  9,996

  Land Registry

  LCD

  12

  12

  6,092

  National Savings

  Northern Ireland Office

  1

  1

  0

  OFT

  DSS/DWP

  233

  250

  926,707

  Scotland Office/Assembly

  2

  2

  1,722

  DTI

  23

  23

  24,714

  Treasury Solicitor

  ONS

  2

  2

  3,100

  DETR/DTLR

  11

  11

  3,661

  DfEE/DfES

  18

  27

  98,436

  PRO

  1

  1

  680

  Scot Court Service

  1

  1

  33,428

  Forestry Commission

  1

  1

  705

  NI Court Service

  DFID

  3

  3

  2,732

  Ordnance Survey

  HMT

  11

  11

  11,385

  Ofsted

  Charity Commissioners

  GCHQ

  1

  1

  80

  House of Commons and Lords

  National Assembly for Wales

  2

  2

  200

  1998–99

  MAFF

  12

  12

  10,817

  Cabinet Office

  8

  8

  12,522

  COI

  1

  1

  15,263

  Crown Office

  1

  1

  2,472

  CPS

  4

  4

  3,058

  Customs and Excise

  39

  40

  79,380

  MOD

  129

  129

  829,404

  FCO

  10

  13

  102,227

  Health

  6

  6

  66,882

  Home Office

  48

  48

  83.416

  Inland Revenue

  7

  7

  139,462

  Land Registry

  16

  16

  13,564

  LCD

  3

  3

  64,274

  National Savings

  5

  5

  487

  Northern Ireland Office

  3

  3

  6,515

  OFT

  1

  1

  253

  DSS/DWP

  199

  238

  455,585

  Scotland Office/Assembly

  3

  3

  11,022

  DTI

  37

  37

  102,084

  Treasury Solicitor

  1

  1

  1,037,912

  ONS

  11

  11

  10,305

  DETR/DTLR

  10

  12

  1,889

  DfEE/DfES

  21

  28

  19,114

  PRO

  4

  4

  1,696

  Scot Court Service

  1

  1

  548

  654W

  Department

  Number of cases

  Number of staff involved

  Total value (£)

  Forestry Commission

  NI Court Service

  DFID

  Ordnance Survey

  HMT

  Ofsted

  Charity Commissioners

  GCHQ

  House of Commons and Lords

  National Assembly for Wales

  1999–2000

  MAFF

  16

  16

  10,117

  Cabinet Office

  24

  24

  28,126

  COI

  Crown Office

  CPS

  Customs and Excise

  53

  53

  140,049

  MOD

  77

  77

  268,416

  FCO

  4

  4

  11,183

  Health

  22

  22

  28,917

  Home Office

  16

  16

  136,517

  Inland Revenue

  7

  7

  826,939

  Land Registry

  18

  18

  10,956

  LCD

  3

  3

  2,710

  National Savings

  1

  1

  5,249

  Northern Ireland Office

  9

  9

  23,711

  OFT

  DSS/DWP

  220

  261

  417,152

  Scotland Office/Assembly

  1

  1

  1,596

  DTI

  23

  23

  18.646

  Treasury Solicitor

  1

  1

  250

  ONS

  8

  8

  7,062

  DETR/DTLR

  21

  23

  30,451

  DfEE/DfES

  22

  33

  46,122

  PRO

  Scot Court Service

  Forestry Commission

  1

  1

  535

  NI Court Service

  1

  1

  7,822

  DFID

  4

  4

  11,220

  Ordnance Survey

  4

  4

  58

  HMT

  6

  6

  19,130

  Ofsted

  1

  1

  2,503

  Charity Commissioners

  3

  3

  700

  GCHQ

  House of Commons and Lords

  National Assembly for Wales

  2000–01

  MAFF

  2

  2

  4,242

  Cabinet Office

  3

  3

  4,227

  COI

  Crown Office

  CPS

  Customs and Excise

  33

  34

  53,962

  MOD

  151

  151

  493,029

  FCO

  9

  9

  16,326

  Health

  27

  27

  34,626

  Home Office

  71

  71

  108,724

  Inland Revenue

  11

  13

  187,518

  Land Registry

  25

  25

  4,496

  LCD

  2

  2

  387

  National Savings

  Northern Ireland Office

  4

  4

  5,225

  OFT

  DSS/DWP

  137

  143

  71,112

  Scotland Office/Assembly

  1

  1

  0

  DTI

  12

  12

  6,043

  Treasury Solicitor

  1

  1

  170,000

  ONS

  4

  4

  2,500

  DETR/DTLR

  23

  23

  40,027

  DfEE/DfES

  7

  7

  402,063

  PRO

  Scot Court Service

  Forestry Commission

  NI Court Service

  3

  3

  440

  655W

  Department

  Number of cases

  Number of staff involved

  Total value (£)

  DFID

  5

  6

  7,709

  Ordnance Survey

  1

  1

  550

  HMT

  Ofsted

  Charity Commissioners

  1

  1

  750

  GCHQ

  2

  2

  1.610

  House of Commons and Lords

  1

  1

  100

  National Assembly for Wales

  3

  3

  12,379

  Euro
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to allow United Kingdom businesses to make dual currency VAT returns to Customs and Excise where they trade in sterling and euros. [28395]

  Ruth Kelly
  No. The euro is treated for VAT return purposes as any other foreign currency.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total cost to United Kingdom businesses of additional administrative costs following the introduction of euro notes and coins. [28396]

  Ruth Kelly
  It is not possible to estimate the administrative costs to United Kingdom businesses of the introduction of the euro in the euro area. This would depend on the approach taken by individual organisations.

  "Promoting Sport in the Community"
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of his consultation document, "Promoting Sport in the Community", were printed; and how many responses he has received to the consultation. [28603]

  Mr. Boateng
  5,000 copies of the "Promoting Sport in the Community" consultation document were printed and it is also available on the Treasury public internet site. A number of responses to the consultation have been received and consultation continues.

  Public Sector Money
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons(a) the £162 million payment due on 1 October 2001 to Renewco was classified as public sector money and (b) the £1.2 billion loan to Railtrack administration was not classified as public sector money. [28826]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) determined that Renewco's activities would be classified to the public sector. The decision was based on the application of internationally agreed definitions for national accounts. This means borrowing by Renewco would be public sector borrowing and add to public sector net debt. The borrowed funds are therefore "public sector money". Payments by Government to Renewco would be transfers of public sector money within the public sector and so would have no impact on the consolidation public sector statistics.

  Loans to Railtrack's administrator count as lending by the public sector to the private sector. That lending has to be funded from public sector sources such as taxes or
  656W
  government borrowing, and so is "public sector money". The lending is expected to be repaid before the end of March 2002 and so would have no impact on the fiscal balances and expenditure measures for the financial year as a whole.

  Gift Aid
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the reasons underlying his statement in the pre-Budget report that the generosity of Gift Aid has been increased; and if he will make a statement. [28921]

  Ruth Kelly
  In his pre-Budget report statement the Chancellor stated that Gift Aid was being more widely used. This is a result of reforms he introduced from April 2000 to improve incentives for giving to charity. A larger number of donors can now use Gift Aid following the abolition of the £250 million minimum limit on Gift Aid donations. This has brought into the scheme the large number of smaller donations, which were previously excluded.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 891W, on child benefit, what the yield would be for 2002–03 of taxing child benefit payments to (a) recipients paying tax at the higher rate and (b) higher rate tax payers in a couple where one partner receives child benefit, with child benefit rates at £26.25 per week for the first child and £17.60 per week for subsequent children. [27317]

  Dawn Primarolo

  [holding answer 15 January 2002]If child benefit were increased to £26.25 per week for the first child and £17.60 per week for subsequent children and made taxable for higher rate taxpayers, it is estimated that it would yield about £0.1 billion of income tax. If it were taxable at the higher rate for any family with a higher rate taxpayer (regardless of who received the benefit) it would yield around £1.0 billion of income tax.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the results of the impact of the introduction of the climate change levy on the priority given to energy efficiency by United Kingdom energy managers; and if he will make a statement. [28013]

  Mr. Boateng

  [holding answer 18 January 2002]The climate change levy is designed to promote greater energy efficiency. Part of the levy revenue is being recycled to provide enhanced advice on energy efficiency to business and to provide support for energy efficiency investments. As the levy package has only been operational since April 2001, it is too early for an assessment to be made of its impact.

  Census
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what he estimates to be the minimum threshold in respect of persons and households compatible with the
  657W
  requirements of confidentiality about individuals which will permit effective data to be made available through the 2001 Census; [28863]

  (2) how many parishes in (a) North Yorkshire and (b) England will fall below the minimum threshold of 100 persons/40 households for the purposes of the 2001 Census carried out by the Office for National Statistics. [28862]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. David Curry, dated 21 January 2002:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions asking:

  (i) what he estimates to be the minimum threshold in respect of persons and households compatible with the requirements of confidentiality about individuals which will permit effective data to be made available through the 2001 Census (28863); and

  (ii) how many parishes in (a) North Yorkshire and (b) England will fall below the minimum threshold of 100 persons/40 households for the purposes of the 2001 Census (28862).

  I am replying in his absence.
  As part of the disclosure control measures being adopted to protect the confidentiality of personal information provided in the 2001 Census, we have recently announced that standard statistical output, other than simple headcounts, will not be released for small areas below a population threshold of 100 resident persons and 40 resident households.
  The design of output areas recognises the need to identify parishes separately in the 2001 Census, but the number of parishes that fall below this threshold will not be known until the processing of data is completed later this year. Using information from the 1991 Census, we would estimate that some 215 parishes in North Yorkshire and 1230 in England would fall below the 2001 Census threshold.

  Scottish Bus Group Pension Fund
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has had discussions with Scottish Ministers concerning the Scottish Bus Group pension fund holders. [28797]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Treasury Ministers have held discussions on the matter with Scottish Ministers.

  The Scottish Executive are taking forward matters regarding the Scottish Bus Group pension fund, following its announcement in November 2001 on the pension fund surplus.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has discussed with the Scotland Office the Scottish Bus Group pension fund holders. [28796]

  Mr. Andrew Smith

  Treasury Ministers have held discussions on the matter with Scotland Office Ministers.

  The Scottish Executive are taking forward matters regarding the Scottish Bus Group pension fund, following its announcement in November 2001 on the pension fund surplus.
  658W
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received representations from members of the Scottish Parliament about the Scottish Bus Group pension fund holders. [28795]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this matter.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received representations from the Scottish Bus Group pension fund holders. [28794]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on this matter.

HEALTH

  Social Services Departments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 November 2001,Official Report, column 351W, on social services departments, if he will set out the amount of unallocated funds within the departmental expenditure limit (a) at the start of the financial year,(b) now and (c) the forecast outturn. [14959]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 15 November 20011: The information requested is given in the table.

  2001–02 departmental unallocated provision

  £000

  Plan

  Forecast outturn1

  NHS2

  350,000

  0

  Personal social services

  82,750

  2,750

  Total

  432,750

  2,750

  1 This is the forecast outturn that will be reported to Parliament shortly in the spring supplementary estimates.

  2 This is the total departmental unallocated provision for the national health service of which £90 million is for revenue expenditure and £260 million for capital expenditure. The planned departmental unallocated provision for PSS was for revenue expenditure only.

  BCG Vaccine
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the availability of the BCG vaccine against tuberculosis in schools in Arundel and South Downs. [18322]

  Ms Blears
  Our policy is that all school children should be BCG immunised between ages 10 to 14 if they have not previously been immunised. Initially, in West Sussex, this vaccine was offered to those students who were due to leave school in summer 2001. Where there has been sufficient vaccine and resources year 10 pupils were also offered testing and immunisation. Any current year 10 and 11 pupils who have not yet been offered vaccine will be offered testing and immunisation during this academic year.

  Standards Reports
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the reasons for the delay in publishing the standards reports relating to(a) cleanliness and (b) decontamination announced on 14 November 2000. [19957]
  659W
  Ms Blears
  There has been no delay in publishing the standards reports relating to hospital cleanliness. So far as decontamination is concerned, we took the view that improving the standard of decontamination in the national health service was more important than reporting on it. We therefore asked the assessors to help with drawing up action plans and check on their implementation. We have published the results of the preliminary and comprehensive surveys of decontamination today. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Community Equipment Services
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what systems are in place to ensure that social services and NHS trusts have agreed budgets for community equipment services by April 2002. [R] [21794]

  Jacqui Smith

  [holding answer 10 December 2001]Statutory guidance issued to health and local authorities in March 2001 explained the requirement to make adequate financial provision for Modernising local community equipment services. Several systems of financial and performance monitoring encourage commissioners and providers to identify and agree budgets for community equipment services for the coming financial year. These include spring and autumn monitoring exercises with senior managers of social services. Budgetary commitments agreed in local business plans by social services and national health service trusts feed into local Modernisation reviews and planning for the integration of local services.

  Home Helps, Buckingham
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many home helps are working in the constituency of Buckingham. [23719]

  Ms Blears
  Data on the number of home helps are not available by parliamentary constituency. As at 30 September 2000 there were 52 full-time and 661 part-time home helps employed by Buckinghamshire county council. This is equivalent to approximately 410 whole-time staff.

  NHS Dentists
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the adult population in(a) Devon and (b) Torbay was registered with NHS dentists in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01. [22802]

  Ms Blears
  The percentage of adults registered with a general dental service (GDS) dentist per head of population is shown in the table for South and West Devon health authority and North and East Devon health authority for 30 September in each of the years 1997–98 to 2000–01.

  The registration rates for September 1997 are not comparable with the later figures. The September 1997 rates reflect a 24-month registration period; the later figures reflect a 15 month registration period.

  Devon is covered by the South and West Devon HA and North and East Devon HA. Information is not available by constituency area for the percentage of adult registrations per population.
  660W

  General dental services: percentage of the adult registrations1 per population2, 1997–98 to 2000–01

  September each year

  South and West Devon HA

  North and East Devon HA

  1997–983

  3 51

  3 50

  1998–99

  43

  43

  1999–2000

  41

  45

  2000–01

  42

  48

  1 Based on the number of adult registrations at September for each financial year.

  2 ONS mid-year adult population estimates used to calculate percentage of adult patients registered.

  3 Registration rates reflect a 24-month registration period rather than 15 months which is the basis of the later figures.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the correlation between inadequate coverage of NHS dentistry in a given area and a higher than average incidence of oral cancer. [25389]

  Ms Blears
  With an incidence of oral cancer of some 2,500 new cases per year it is not possible to make significant comparisons with provision of national health service dentistry by area especially as confounding factors like use of tobacco and alcohol would need to be eliminated. Nevertheless, we recognise that dentists have a unique opportunity both to warn patients of the risks from smoking and to identify pre-cancerous signs of oral cancer. We are committed to improving access to NHS dentistry.

  Mixed Sex Wards
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mixed sex hospital wards are in use in the United Kingdom. [14732]

  Ms Blears
  Guidance on maintaining privacy and dignity was first issued to the service in 1997 and since then the national health service has been working towards a clear target to eliminate mixed sex accommodation in 95 per cent. of national health service trusts by December 2002.

  It is not possible to provide information at the level of the individual ward. The majority of hospital wards are usually subdivided into bays which are designated as male or female. Depending on the case mix and local need, the exact proportion of male to female bays will vary.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's progress on their plan to abolish mixed sex wards by 2002. [26717]

  Ms Blears
  We have set a target of December 2002 for the provision of single sex accommodation in 95 per cent. of trusts.

  On-going monitoring of the progress of the project continues and indicates that progress towards the targets is being maintained and work is continuing to ensure that this remains so.

  Water Fluoridation
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's policy on the fluoridation of water. [23968]
  661W
  Ms Blears
  Our current policy is to encourage health authorities with high levels of dental decay among their populations to consider the option of fluoridation as part of their overall oral health promotion strategy. Before asking their water suppliers to introduce fluoridation of the water supply, health authorities are required to undertake wide-ranging consultation with their local population to establish support for fluoridation.

  The Medical Research Council has been commissioned to provide scientific advice regarding the health effects of water fluoridation and to suggest priorities for any further research which may be required. We will be reviewing our policy in the light of their report which is expected next year.

  Health Expenditure, Isle of Wight
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the expenditure was on non-national health service nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff in the Isle of Wight health authority in the financial years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [23660]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Multiple Sclerosis Drugs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of NICE's provision appraisal determination estimate for implementing a positive guidance on beta interferon and glatiramer acetate; [8710]

  (2) what assessment he has made of NICE's Provisional Appraisal Determination estimate for implementing positive guidance on beta interferon and glatiramer acetate. [9416]

  Ms Blears
  We are currently holding discussions with the manufacturers to consider a range of options under which drugs for multiple sclerosis might be made available under the national health service. One option is a 'risk-sharing' scheme which will evaluate their clinical and cost effectiveness, and until these discussions are concluded we cannot provide the information requested.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the Buckinghamshire health authority area referred urgently with suspected breast cancer waited for more than two weeks for an out-patient appointment for each reporting period since March 1999. [24849]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Year

  Quarter

  Part

  00–14 target

  Beyond 14 day target

  1999–2000

  1

  Referrals within 24 hours

  186

  6

  1999–2000

  1

  Referrals not within 24 hours

  13

  6

  1999–2000

  2

  Referrals within 24 hours

  158

  5

  1999–2000

  2

  Referrals not within 24 hours

  13

  8

  1999–2000

  3

  Referrals within 24 hours

  212

  5

  1999–2000

  3

  Referrals not within 24 hours

  12

  15

  1999–2000

  4

  Referrals within 24 hours

  246

  9

  662W

  Year

  Quarter

  Part

  00–14 target

  Beyond 14 day target

  1999–2000

  4

  Referrals not within 24 hours

  14

  10

  2000–01

  1

  Referrals within 24 hours

  248

  9

  2000–01

  1

  Referrals not within 24 hours

  26

  13

  2000–01

  2

  Referrals within 24 hours

  224

  11

  2000–01

  2

  Referrals not within 24 hours

  15

  4

  2000–01

  3

  Referrals within 24 hours

  274

  11

  2000–01

  3

  Referrals not within 24 hours

  22

  5

  2000–01

  4

  Referrals within 24 hours

  262

  5

  2000–01

  4

  Referrals not within 24 hours

  16

  1

  2001–02

  1

  Referrals within 24 hours

  285

  16

  2001–02

  1

  Referrals not within 24 hours

  22

  1

  2001–02

  2

  Referrals within 24 hours

  213

  41

  2001–02

  2

  Referrals not within 24 hours

  16

  6

  Source:

  Quarterly Central Return QCW, Code QA8

  NHS Census
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses to the NHS census he received from people living in the Buckingham constituency. [24860]

  Ms Blears
  There has been no national health service census. The acute trust patient survey is currently scheduled to take place between January and March 2002. The survey will be part of a programme that the Government are putting in place throughout England. Hospital trusts will carry out a specially designed patient survey programme to seek views on the patient experience.

  Improving the experience of the individual patient is central to the NHS Plan. By finding out more, in this systematic manner, we will increase our knowledge of what patients need and expect from the NHS and how well the service responds to their needs and expectations.

  Pharmacies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community pharmacies in the Buckingham constituency(a) closed and (b) opened in each year since 1997. [24855]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of community pharmacies in the Buckinghamshire health authority area that opened and/or closed 1997–98 to 2000–01

  Year

  Opened

  Closed

  1997–98

  0

  0

  1998–99

  1

  0

  1999–2000

  1

  0

  2000–01

  2

  2

  Source:

  PHS1 return

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest percentage reduction of fees for community pharmacists for dispensing NHS prescriptions. [24708]
  663W
  Ms Blears

  [holding answer 8 January 2002]The fees paid to community pharmacy contractors vary according to the item prescribed. The large majority of prescriptions attract a basic dispensing fee. From July 1999 to October 2001 that fee was 97.5p per prescription dispensed. In November 2001 it was changed to 87.4p. This represents a reduction of approximately 10.4 per cent.

  The basic dispensing fee is one of a number of fees and allowances by which the global sum for community pharmacies is distributed between pharmacy contractors. The global sum is the amount to be paid to contractors overall in the year in question. The global sum for 2001–02 for England and Wales is £806.6 million, an increase of 3.7 per cent. over 2000–01.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of pharmacy within the national health service. [25534]

  Ms Blears
  Our programme for the future of pharmacy in the national health service in England was set out in "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan" published in September 2000, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was allocated to pharmacists for the dispensing of prescriptions; how many prescriptions were dispensed; and what was the unit cost allowed for each prescription in each year from 1992 to 2001. [25536]

  Ms Blears
  Each year, a figure (known as the global sum) is set for the remuneration to be paid to pharmacies overall in England and Wales for the national health service pharmaceutical services they provide.

  The total remuneration to be paid in any given year is distributed through a system of fees and allowances, some of which relate directly to the number (and type) of prescriptions dispensed, some of which do not.

  Number of Buckinghamshire HA residents admitted from a waiting list where the primary operation was a heart operation or hip replacement, or where treatment was for a primary diagnosis of cancer, by time waited

  Time from referral for treatment to admission

  Data year

  Operation/condition

  Up to 3 months

  More than 3 months

  More than 6 months

  More than 9 months

  1997–98

  Diagnosis of Cancer (ICDIO COO to D48)

  5,962

  668

  310

  198

  1998–99

  Diagnosis of Cancer (LCD 10 COO to D48)

  5,994

  835

  452

  268

  1999–2000

  Diagnosis of Cancer (LCD10 COO to D48)

  6,377

  793

  337

  181

  2000–01

  Diagnosis of Cancer (ICD10 COO to D48)

  5,595

  708

  281

  151

  1997–98

  Heart operations (OPCS4 K01 to K71)

  651

  192

  94

  47

  1998–99

  Heart operations (OPCS4 K01 to K71)

  867

  354

  141

  57

  1999–2000

  Heart operations (OPCS4 K01 to K71)

  888

  328

  103

  36

  2000–01

  Heart operations (OPCS4 K01 to K71)

  831

  536

  174

  93

  1997–98

  Hip replacement (OPCS4 W37 to W39)

  137

  276

  194

  108

  1998–99

  Hip replacement (OPCS4 W37 to W39)

  130

  331

  221

  137

  1999–2000

  Hip replacement (OPCS4 W37 to W39)

  163

  314

  210

  139

  2000–01

  Hip replacement (OPCS4 W37 to W39)

  100

  361

  257

  161

  664W
  For the years 1991–92 to 2000–01 (the latest year for which complete information is available), the table shows the global sum, the number of prescription items dispensed and the global sum expressed as an amount per prescription item.

  Year

  Global sum (£ million)

  Prescription item dispensed (million)

  Global sum expressed as an amount per prescription items dispensed £

  1991–92

  601.4

  412.8

  1.46

  1992–93

  631.1

  429.4

  1.47

  1993–94

  640.6

  447.3

  1.43

  1994–95

  655.3

  462.2

  1.42

  1995–96

  671.7

  474.7

  1.41

  1996–97

  692.7

  487.9

  1.42

  1997–98

  709.3

  505.8

  1.40

  1998–99

  730.6

  518.3

  1.41

  1999–2000

  755.1

  535.7

  1.41

  2000–01

  777.8

  531.8

  1.38

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to replace the global sum approach to the payment of pharmacists for dispensing NHS prescriptions. [25537]

  Ms Blears
  We have no current plans to replace the present global sum system.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the Buckinghamshire health authority area waited more than(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) nine months, (d) 12 months, (e) 15 months, (f) 18 months and (g) 24 months for (i) heart operations, (ii) cancer treatment and (iii) hip replacements in each year since 1997. [24850]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is in the table.
  665W

  Time from referral for treatment to admission

  Data year

  Operation/condition

  Up to 3 months

  More than 3 months

  More than 6 months

  More than 9 months

  1997–98

  Diagnosis of Cancer (ICDIO COO to D48)

  110

  32

  10

  5

  1998–99

  Diagnosis of Cancer (ICD10 COO to D48)

  142

  58

  24

  8

  1999–2000

  Diagnosis of Cancer (ICD10 COO to D48)

  81

  37

  13

  6

  2000–01

  Diagnosis of Cancer (ICD10 COO to D48)

  77

  31

  19

  12

  1997–98

  Heart operations (OPCS4 K01 to K71)

  23

  10

  1

  0

  1998–99

  Heart operations (OPCS4 K01 to K71)

  28

  7

  2

  1

  1999–2000

  Heart operations (OPCS4 K01 to K71)

  14

  7

  2

  1

  2000–01

  Heart operations (OPCS4 K01 to K71)

  36

  19

  6

  1

  1997–98

  Hip replacement (OPCS4 W37 to W39)

  57

  28

  9

  1

  1998–99

  Hip replacement (OPCS4 W37 to W39)

  89

  41

  13

  2

  1999–2000

  Hip replacement (OPCS4 W37 to W39)

  77

  43

  17

  3

  2000–01

  Hip replacement (OPCS4 W37 to W39)

  87

  58

  23

  10

  1 The time spent waiting for admission is calculated for HES purposes as being the period elapsed from the initial decision to admit until the date that the patient is actually admitted. This takes no account of any periods when the patient may have been unavailable for admission, or may have been suspended from the waiting list for medical reasons. It is for this reason that this analysis apparently shows patients waiting over 15 months. The waiting time figures published by the Department of Health take these situations into account.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list NHS trusts by length of average waiting time(a) to see an orthopaedic specialist and (b) for a non-emergency orthopaedic operation. [25449]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  The in-patient average waiting time is calculated as the median time waited so far for patients who were on the trauma and orthopaedics in-patient waiting list at end September 2001, that is it looks at patients who are still waiting for treatment.

  For out-patients, the total number of patients still waiting for a first out-patient appointment is not collected. As a result, the average is calculated using data for patients who have already been seen for their first out-patient appointment. Hence the average is calculated as the median waiting time of patients seen during Quarter 2 2001–02 for a first out-patient appointment in trauma and orthopaedics specialty following general practitioner referral.

  The in-patient and out-patient averages are approximations only, particularly for trusts who see very few patients. It is difficult to accurately calculate the average.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list average accident and emergency waiting times by NHS trust for(a) triage and (b) definitive treatment in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [25450]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS trusts in England where more than 10 per cent. of patients are suspended from the waiting list for an in-patient operation. [25491]
  666W
  Mr. Hutton
  Trusts with a suspension rate of more than 10 per cent. are shown in the table.

  In-patient waiting list data, England, position at quarter end September 2001

  NHS Trusts with a suspension rate of over 10 per cent.

  Suspension rate (percentage)

  East Cheshire NHS Trust

  10.0

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust

  10.0

  Eastbourne and County Healthcare NHS Trust

  10.0

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust

  10.0

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  10.1

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  10.2

  Good Hope Hospital NHS Trust

  10.3

  Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust

  10.3

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  10.4

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  10.5

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  10.5

  Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust

  10.6

  North Dorset PCT

  10.7

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  10.8

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust

  11.1

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust

  11.2

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  11.3

  Hastings and Rother NHS Trust

  11.4

  South West Dorset PCT

  11.4

  Harrogate Health Care NHS Trust

  11.6

  Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust

  11.9

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

  13.0

  North West Anglia Healthcare NHS Trust

  13.1

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

  13.4

  Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  13.4

  Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  13.9

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust

  15.1

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  16.0

  Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  16.1

  West Dorset General Hospitals NHS Trust

  16.2

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  16.3

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services NHS Trust

  17.6

  Mental Health Services of Salford NHS Trust

  21.8

  South Staffordshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  26.0

  Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust

  31.6

  Source:

  Department of Health forms KH07 and KH07A

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which national minimum standards care homes will have to be fully compliant with from 1 April 2002. [24183]

  Jacqui Smith

  [holding answer 19 December 2001]National minimum standards that will not apply to care homes from 1 April 2002 are those relating to training and environmental requirements. Specifically, existing care homes will have until 2005 to comply with the standards requiring a minimum of 50 per cent. of care staff to be qualified at NVQ level 2 or equivalent. Existing care homes will have until 2007 to comply with the standards relating to room size, shared facilities and places in single rooms.

  However, non-compliance with national minimum standards will not lead to the National Care Standards Commission automatically pursuing enforcement action or deregistration. Instead it will seek to agree actions to be taken by homes to ensure compliance with standards within a reasonable time frame—unless vulnerable service users are at serious risk as a result of non-compliance. The national minimum standards are intended to be a means of assisting care homes to improve the quality of their services as well as a vehicle to protect vulnerable people

  Not all of the standards relate to all care homes as some are aimed at specialist provision only.

  Western General Hospital, Swindon
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new beds are to be purchased for the new Western General Hospital in Swindon; how many new beds have been purchased; where they are presently stored; how they will be transported to the new hospital; what their total cost was; how their dimensions compare with the dimensions of the doors and lifts through which they must pass; and if he will make a statement. [24264]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Citizens Council
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisation will be used to prepare and organise meetings of the Citizens Council. [24615]

  Mr. Hutton
  I understand that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has not yet appointed an organisation to prepare and organise meetings of the Citizens Council.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there will be a time limit imposed between ceasing to work in specified capacities and joining the Citizens Council. [24607]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is considering this matter.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which categories of desired members of the Citizens Council will be targeted by outreach selection from the electoral register. [24610]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is important that the Citizens Council reflects the range of different views of society within England and Wales. Outreach selection will be used to complement the results of open advertisement. The 668W
  categories of members which need to he enhanced through outreach selection will become apparent once the first stage—open advertisement—is complete.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if an independent body will be responsible for evaluating the meetings of the Citizens Council. [24614]

  Mr. Hutton
  I understand that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence intends to recruit an independent body to evaluate the meetings of the Citizens Council.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many subjects Citizens Councils are expected to cover each year. [24611]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence has not yet made a decision on this point.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if members of the Citizens Council will be paid travel and accommodation expenses to attend its meetings. [24613]

  Mr. Hutton
  Yes.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what briefing will be given to members of the Citizens Council which will advise NICE. [24579]

  Mr. Hutton
  The nature of the briefing will be a matter for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long people will remain in the pool of potential members of the Citizens Council; and if the requirements for membership of this pool differ from that for full members of the council. [24609]

  Mr. Hutton
  I understand that the pool of potential members will exist solely in order for members to be selected. Once the selection has taken place, the pool will cease to exist.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated annual cost to public funds will be of the new Citizens Council to advise NICE. [24612]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently considering the detailed arrangements for the Citizens Council and these will be published in the institute's business plan.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the ratio of membership between England and Wales of the members of the Citizens Council which will advise NICE; and what recruitment mechanism will be used to select members. [24580]

  Mr. Hutton
  The appointment of members to the Citizens Council is a matter for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. We are confident that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will ensure that the constitution of the council will contain representatives from all walks of life from England and Wales. We therefore do not consider it necessary to be prescriptive about the number of members from each country.

  A and E (IT)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations have taken place with(a) the Royal College of Nursing and (b) other representatives of nurses over the new IT provision in A and E. [24585]
  669W
  Ms Blears
  The Royal College of Nursing, the chair of the Royal College of Nursing Accident and Emergency Nurses Group and a representative of the Royal College of Nursing Faculty of Emergency Nursing are part of the consultation process for the new clinical assessment system—the information technology system that is currently being introduced to accident and emergency departments.

  Efficiency Task Force
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the annual financial savings generated by the work of the NHS Efficiency Task Force since its inception. [24443]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service Efficiency Task Force was an advisory group that made a very helpful contribution in taking forward the Government's programme to improve efficiency. It is not possible to ascribe specific financial savings to the work of the task force.

  Public Relations
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the projects on which his Department collaborates with Headline Communications, indicating how much money has been paid to Headline Communications in the past year. [24577]

  Ms Blears
  Headline Communications have provided the Department with design services for a variety of projects including:

  Health and Social Care Awards

  Association of Healthcare Communicators Conference NHS Direct

  NHS Magazine

  NHS Syndication Service

  NHS Photo Library

  NHS Plan News.

  Moneys paid to Headline Communications from 1 December 2000 to 30 November 2001 amounted to £24,161.48 inclusive of VAT.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the projects on which his Department collaborates with Atlas PR, indicating how much money has been paid by his Department to Atlas PR in the past year. [24616]

  Ms Blears
  Atlas PR have provided the Department with a variety of communications services on the following projects:

  NHS Magazine

  NHS.uk

  Walk in Centres

  Patient and Public Information website

  Association of Healthcare Communicators Conference

  NHS Quality Programme

  NHS Plan

  NHS syndication service

  DH and NHS Corporate Exhibitions and Events

  NHS Plan News

  NHS Direct

  Health and Social Care Awards.

  670W
  Moneys paid to Atlas Public Relations from 1 December 2000 to 30 November 2001 amounted to £807,148.60 inclusive of VAT.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met his independent reference group on mental health. [24449]

  Jacqui Smith
  The last meeting of this group took place on 11 February 1998. My right. hon Friend the Secretary of State for Health has never met with this reference group, however my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), when Under-Secretary of State for Health, met with the group at their last meeting on the 11 February 1998. The independent reference group discontinued its work in 1998

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Secretary of State for Education in order to discuss the training for state schools in the skills and knowledge to ensure children have access to early assessment and support in relation to mental health. [24687]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 8 January 2002]My right hon. Friend has not met with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to discuss this topic. We recognise the importance of promoting children's mental health and emotional well-being and the importance of working together to promote this.

  We have an on-going commitment to the improvement of child mental health and it will be an important part of the Children's National Service Framework. We shall be working closely with the Department for Education and Skills when developing the mental health module of the framework. This is a major development and will safeguard the quality of child mental health services.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government expects to publish its strategy for women's mental health. [28288]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 18 January 2002]The Department will publish the women's mental health consultation document in the spring and, after a period of consultation, will publish the strategy implementation document in the autumn.

  Nursing and Residential Care Homes
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing and residential care homes in each health authority have closed in each year since 1997. [24619]

  Jacqui Smith
  The total number of residential and nursing care establishment closures in 1999 and 2000, together with number of new registrations, are shown in the table. Regular statistical collections on nursing and residential care home closures were first introduced for the year ending 31 March 1999. Reliable information is not available for each health authority.
  671W

  Care home establishment closures and new home registrations in England

  Year ending 1999

  31 March 2000

  Establishment closures

  Residential

  885

  1,510

  Nursing

  245

  360

  New registrations

  Residential

  1,540

  1,920

  Nursing

  245

  345

  Source:

  Registration and Inspection Survey

  Clinical Indicators
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the clinical indicators announced on 9 July 1997 were adopted as performance measures. [24571]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department published a consultation paper to the national health service in July 1997 which proposed a set of 15 clinical indicators. Following consultation six indicators were published in "Quality and performance in the NHS: Clinical Indicators" in June 1999 and in "Quality and performance in the NHS: NHS Performance Indicators" in July 2000.

  The six indicators published were:

  Deaths in hospital following surgery

  Deaths in hospital following a fractured hip

  Deaths in hospital following a heart attack

  Readmission to hospital following discharge

  Returning home following treatment for a stroke

  Returning home following treatment for a fractured hip.

  NICE-Approved Therapies
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new funding will be made available to health authorities to ensure the funding of all NICE-approved therapies. [24588]

  Ms Blears
  We have recently announced an average 7.2 per cent. real terms increase in funding of the national health service.

  We expect health authorities and primary care trusts to fund treatments recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence from their general allocations.

  Diabetes
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support will be made available to GPs who seek to implement the delivery strategy prelude to the National Service Framework for Diabetes. [24589]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Diabetes National Service Framework Standards, published on 14 December 2001, include an analysis of the implications for planning and organising services. Those who are planning and investing in local diabetes services on an on-going basis will be able to take account of this in their plans for next year and beyond. Health improvement programmes and primary care implementation plans produced by health authorities, primary care groups and primary care trusts must include strategies for implementing National Service Frameworks.
  672W
  The delivery strategy for the Diabetes National Service Framework will follow this summer, for implementation from April 2003. We shall set milestones in the delivery strategy based upon the resources that will be available to support implementation.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to introduce the National Standards Framework for diabetes. [26020]

  Jacqui Smith
  We published the Diabetes National Service Framework Standards on 14 December 2001. The delivery strategy will follow this summer, for implementation from April 2003.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps are being taken to provide extra funding for new treatments approved by NICE mid-way though the financial year and to ensure that the funding of other treatments and services awaiting approval is not adversely affected; [25874]

  (2) what steps are being taken by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to ensure that patients whose treatment has not been (a) examined and (b) approved by NICE will not assume a lower priority than patients on approved treatments; [25876]

  (3) what steps are being taken by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to ensure that the provision of unapproved services is not affected by funding the cost of approved treatments. [25875]

  Mr. Hutton
  Standing guidance in Health Service Circular 1999/176 advise national health service bodies to use their existing arrangements to determine local policies for treatments not referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence or pending guidance from NICE, using publicly available evidence to inform their decisions.

  The statutory obligation on health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for treatments recommended by NICE was introduced as part of our strategy to ensure consistency of access to treatments for patients.

  Funding is provided in baseline allocations to meet these commitments. NHS bodies are expected to take into account in-year pressures in developing their expenditure plans.

  Health Care Provision (Value Comparisons)
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a body to compare the value of(a) extra district nurses and (b) counsellors with the cost-effectiveness of drugs and treatments. [25873]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans to establish such a body.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of tuberculosis have been reported in the Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [24946]
  673W
  Ms Blears
  Information on statutory notifications of tuberculosis (excluding chemoprophylaxis) are available from the Public Health Laboratory Service. Further local information can be obtained from the Chairman of Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority.

  The Department collects information on tuberculosis as part of the Hospital Episodes Statistic (HES) system, which contains details of patients admitted to and treated in NHS hospitals in England.

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire health authority: admission for tuberculosis (1CD10 code A15–A19)

  Number

  1996–97

  10

  1997–98

  11

  1998–99

  16

  1999–2000

  28

  2000–01

  27

  Admissions are defined as the first period of patient care under one consultant within one health care provider. Admissions do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  Stroke Clinics
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions have taken place with concerned parties regarding funding of stroke clinics in the UK. [24894]

  Jacqui Smith
  The funding of stroke clinics is a matter for local discussion as set out in the recently published priorities and planning framework 2002–03. One of the priorities is to continue to implement on agreed time scales the National Service Framework for Older People.

  The NSF for Older People sets a milestone of April 2002 for every general hospital which cares for people with stroke to have plans to introduce a specialised stroke service as described in the stroke service model from 2004. The development for these plans will incorporate local service configuration, integration and any relevant aspects of local funding requirements/priorities.

  Orthopaedic Consultants
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many orthopaedic consultants were working

  MRI scanners1

  Region

  MRI scanners per region (December 2001)

  Population

  MRI scanners per million population (2001)

  MRI scanners per region—post NOF programmes 2003

  MRI scanners per million—post programmes 2003

  MRI scanners per million—post programmes 2003

  Eastern

  18

  5,377,003

  3.35

  20

  3.72

  —

  London

  44

  7,187,272

  6.12

  46

  6.40

  —

  North and Yorks

  23

  6,339,044

  3.63

  26

  4.10

  —

  North West

  26

  6,603,991

  3.94

  28

  4.24

  —

  South and West

  18

  4,901,316

  3.67

  20

  4.08

  —

  South East

  29

  8,619,633

  3.36

  32

  3.71

  —

  Trent

  14

  5,133,802

  2.73

  19

  3.70

  —

  West Midlands

  15

  5,332,521

  2.81

  19

  3.56

  —

  Total

  187

  49,494,582

  2 3.70

  210

  2 4.19

  3 5.20

  1 This table shows a regional breakdown of MRI installed in the NHS to date and on completion of central equipment programmes

  2 Average

  3 Projected average

  674W
  in NHS hospitals in Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [25848]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  Hospital medical trauma and orthopaedic surgery consultants within Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority area

  Number

  1997

  10

  1998

  10

  1999

  20

  20001

  20

  1 As at 30 September 2000

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. In 1997 and 1998 there were seven organisations within this HA:

  Merton and Sutton Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  Pathfinder NHS Trust

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton NHS Trust

  St. George's Group NHS Trust

  St. Helier NHS Trust

  Wandsworth Community Health NHS Trust

  3. In 1999 and 2000 there were five organisations within this HA:

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  Pathfinder NHS Trust

  South West London Community NHS Trust

  St. George's Group NHS Trust

  Source:

  Department of Health 2000 medical and dental work force census

  CT/MRI Scanners
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) CT and (b) MRI scanners are in working use per head of population in each health authority area in England and Wales. [24664]

  Yvette Cooper

  [holding answer 8 January 2002]There are currently approximately 5.7 CT scanners and 3.7 MRI scanners per million head of population in England. By the time that central programmes are complete in 2004 these figures will have risen to approximately 7.1 and 5.2 per million respectively.

  To provide these figures for every health authority in England would require disproportionate effort. However a breakdown by region has been provided in the tables.

  Information regarding CT and MRI provision in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
  675W

  CT scanners1

  Region

  CT scanners per region (December 2001)

  Population

  CT scanners per million population (2001)

  Post programme CT scanners per region—2003

  CT scanners per million—post programmes 2003

  CT scanners per million—post programmes 2004

  Eastern

  24

  5,377,000

  4.46

  28

  5.21

  —

  London

  58

  7,187,300

  8.07

  58

  8.07

  —

  North West

  45

  6,604,000

  6.81

  45

  6.81

  —

  Northern and Yorkshire

  41

  6,339,000

  6.47

  43

  6.78

  —

  South East

  41

  8,619,600

  4.76

  47

  5.45

  —

  South West

  21

  4,901,300

  4.28

  27

  5.51

  —

  Trent

  27

  5,133,800

  5.26

  29

  5.65

  —

  West Midlands

  29

  5,332,500

  5.44

  30

  5.63

  —

  Total

  286

  49,494,500

  25.69

  307

  26.14

  37.14

  1 This table shows a regional breakdown of CT installed in the NHS to date and on completion of central equipment programmes

  2 Average

  3 Projected average

  Note:

  For both CT and MRI London appears to have significantly larger numbers of machines per head of population than other regions. However, these figures are based on resident population and do not take account of the patients referred into London from elsewhere.

  Surgical Instruments
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the extent of re-use of single-use surgical instruments in hospital trusts; what action has been taken against hospital trusts found to be re-using surgical instruments designated for single use only; and which items of surgical equipment in general hospital surgical theatres are normally designated for single use only. [24667]

  Jacqui Smith
  Designation of medical devices as single use is a matter for the device manufacturer. The Department has advised national health service trusts on a number of occasions that they should not re-use single use devices. Any trust found doing so during the recent comprehensive survey was advised to cease and such cessation was made part of the action plan.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of hospital trusts in England and Wales have an infection control policy in place regarding surgical instrument sterilisation. [24675]

  Jacqui Smith

  [holding answer 8 January 2002]The Department does not routinely collect information about the details of national health service trusts' infection control policies. There is, however, a controls assurance standard dealing with infection control. This requires NHS trusts to ensure that written policies, procedures and guidance for the prevention and control of infection are implemented and reflect relevant legislation and published professional guidance, including that on decontamination and the reprocessing of re-usable medical devices.

  Air Ambulances
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many air ambulances there are; and what plans he has to increase this number; [24683]

  (2) what his Department is doing to encourage increased corporate sponsorship of air ambulances. [24684]

  Ms Blears

  [holding answer 8 January 2002]In England, there are 12 air ambulance services provided by 12 independent air ambulance charities. These charities are responsible for the number of aircraft provided.
  676W
  Fund raising for air ambulances is organised by independent local charities. On all primary missions, air ambulances are called out directly to emergencies by the local ambulance service. Partnerships between the national health service and a whole range of charitable organisations can bring additional benefits to patients in particular circumstances.

  GP Retirements
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners are due to retire in(a) Pendle and (b) the East Lancashire health authority in each year up to 2005; and what steps he is taking to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of younger general practitioners so that no practice closes. [24979]

  Mr. Hutton
  Figures are not available centrally in the requested format. However, during 2002–03, 14 general practitioners in the East Lancashire health authority area are expected to retire. A further eight GPs are due to retire during 2003–04.

  18 GPs currently within the Pendle Primary Care Group are aged over 55.

  East Lancashire health authority are pursuing a number of initiatives both in the long and short term to help address the problems in recruiting and retaining GPs.

  Note:

  These figures have been extracted from a study by Lancashire university in 1998 relating to work force planning for general medical and other primary care staff.

  Asthma
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will prepare a national service framework for asthma. [24981]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are currently no plans to establish a national service framework for asthma.

  Belarus
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to complete an inter-country adoption agreement with Belarus. [25153]
  677W
  Jacqui Smith

  [holding answer 9 January 2002]An inter-country adoption agreement is currently being drawn up between the United Kingdom and Belarus. The wording of the agreement is being finalised. Once this has been done, it will be signed by both countries in due course.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions he has had with the Royal College of General Practitioners about recognising ME as a clinical condition by GPs; [25393]

  (2) what research his Department has commissioned into the diagnosis and treatment of ME; [25394]

  (3) if he will issue guidance to health authorities to ensure that ME is recognised as a clinical condition by GPs and that patients are referred to appropriate specialists. [25395]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have not had specific discussions with the Royal College of General Practitioners about this issue. However the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME independent Working Group's report which was published on 11 January has been placed on the Chief Medical Officer's website so that it can be accessed by all interested parties including general practitioners. The report and the summary for clinicians should result in improved awareness and understanding of this condition.

  ME is mainly managed in primary care. The range of symptoms and other conditions associated with it should be investigated and treated by the most appropriate primary, community or secondary care service. Some patients are seen by neurologists, rheumatologists and psychiatrists.

  The Department has commissioned research into the diagnosis and treatment of ME/CFS and details are available on the National Research Register which can be accessed via the Department's research and development website—www.doh.gov.uk/research. The Department has asked the Medical Research Council to develop a broad strategy for advancing biomedical and health services research on chronic fatigue syndrome.

  Operating Theatres
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to monitor health and safety standards in operating theatres. [25358]

  Ms Blears
  The statutory responsibility for managing health and safety, including operating theatres, lies with the chief executive of a national health service trust.

  The Department has introduced controls assurance standards as part of performance management arrangements. There are 21 controls assurance standards including a health and safety standard, medical devices standard, infection control standard and a decontamination of medical devices standard.
  678W
  The controls assurance health and safety management standard requires that individual departments have health and safety policies, which address their own specific health and safety concerns.

  NHS trusts are required to undertake risk assessment and the implementation of action plans against criteria defined in the controls assurance standards. NHS trusts must include a controls assurance statement in their annual report.

  NHS Staff Budget
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total staffing budget of the NHS was in financial year 2000–01(a) as an actual figure and (b) as a percentage of the total NHS Budget; and what the equivalent estimates are for (a) and (b) in the NHS Budget for 2001–02. [26595]

  Mr. Hutton
  Finalised figures for 2000–01 are not yet available. Provisional figures show that the hospital and community health service paybill in 2000–01 is £20.4 billion. This is 46 per cent. of the estimated net national health service expenditure in 2000–01 (£44.6 billion).

  Our estimate of the HCHS paybill in 2001–02 is £22.7 billion. This is 46 per cent. of the planned expenditure for the NHS in 2001–02 (£48.8 billion).

  Revenue Support Grant
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the category and amount of each item of funding outside the revenue support grant which his Department made available to(a) Westminster and (b) Kensington and Chelsea in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [26246]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table lists the category and amount of funding outside the revenue support grant which the Department made available to Westminster in 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  £000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  AIDS Support Grant

  798

  547

  Mental Health Grant

  930

  1,088

  Training Support Programme

  319

  355

  Partnership Grant1

  1,500

  —

  Prevention Grant1

  222

  —

  Promoting Independence Grant1

  —

  1,979

  Carers' Grant

  384

  554

  Children's Grant

  1,234

  3,216

  Improving Information Management Grant2

  —

  16,666

  Deferred Payments Grant2

  —

  32

  Young People's Substance Misuse Planning Grant2

  —

  51

  Building Care Capacity Grant2

  —

  422

  Supplementary credit approvals:

  Mental Health

  50

  0

  AIDS/HIV

  414

  300

  1 The Partnership and Prevention Grants were amalgamated into the Promoting Independence Grant from 2001–02

  2 The grants commenced in 2001–02

  The table lists the category and amount of funding outside the revenue support grant which the Department made available to Kensington and Chelsea in 2000–01 and 2001–02.
  679W

  £000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Aids Support Grant

  816

  592

  Mental Health Grant

  780

  891

  Training Support Grant

  204

  195

  Partnership Grant1

  1,002

  —

  Prevention Grant1

  157

  —

  Promoting Independence Grant1

  —

  1,324

  Carers' Grant

  270

  393

  Children's Grant

  916

  2,390

  Improving Information Management Grant2

  —

  16,666

  Deferred Payments Grant2

  —

  26

  Young People's Substance Misuse Planning Grant2

  —

  37

  Building Care Capacity Grant2

  —

  265

  Supplementary credit approvals:

  Mental Health

  0

  350

  AIDS/HIV

  0

  0

  1 The Partnership and Prevention Grants were amalgamated into the Promoting Independence Grant from 2001–02

  2 The grants commenced in 2001–02

  Strategic Health Authorities
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the anticipated costs are of early retirement associated with the establishment of strategic health authorities. [26612]

  Mr. Hutton
  The current re-organisation of the national health service involves a significant movement of staff. However, all staff are guaranteed employment until 2003. With this in mind, it is too early to indicate levels (and therefore costs) of early retirement resulting from the forthcoming structural changes.

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the anticipated annual saving to the NHS budget is of replacing existing health authorities with the proposed strategic health authorities. [26598]

  Mr. Hutton
  Strategic health authorities will not be replacing the existing 95 health authorities. Existing health authorities will be disestablished at the end of March and the vast majority of their functions transferred to primary care trusts. Strategic health authorities will have a new role: one of strategic development and performance management. However, the reductions in bureaucracy made as a result of the whole reform programme will lead over time to annual savings of £100 million.

  NHS Directors (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many executive directors of NHS trusts and health authorities were allowed to retire early in financial year 2000–01; and what cost this represented to the NHS Budget. [26596]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service does not hold details of the number of executive directors who were allowed to retire early in 2000–01, or the cost to the NHS Budget. However, the total compensation for loss of office paid in respect of all NHS directors in trusts, primary care trusts and health authorities, both executive and non-executive, was £3,652,000 for 2000–01.

  Surgical Staff
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what new recruitment initiatives he plans to rectify the shortfall in surgeons in England; what assessment he has made of the feasibility of widening access to training programmes; what expenditure has been allocated to rectify the shortfall; by what date he expects the shortfall to be redressed; and if he will make a statement; [26098]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the shortfall in surgical staff in England. [26097]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Plan work force numbers targets, updated in the Government's manifesto, provide the staff needed to deliver the NHS Plan up until 2005. International recruitment of medical staff including surgical staff is being taken forward to help deliver these targets.

  Increases in national health service staffing are funded from the general allocation to the NHS and for staff in training from the multi professional education and training budget. Spending plans beyond 2002–03 are currently being finalised as part of SR2002.

  Our current supply projections expect an increase of around 1,320 trained specialists to be available to take up surgical consultant posts by 2009–10. This reflects increases in the numbers of doctors in higher specialist training in surgery as a result of the NHS Plan. Projections to 2009–10 suggest an increasing gap between supply and demand may emerge without further action. We continually review future work force needs as part of our national work force planning processes and take action accordingly to address any shortfalls. This action includes increasing numbers in training but also Modernising roles and developing new ways of working for doctors alongside other staff.

  Paramedics/Hospital Staff (Assaults)
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many assaults there have been on paramedics and hospital staff in each year since 1997 in(a) the UK, (b) the north-east and (c) South Tyneside. [26040]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the 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 were not collected centrally for 1997–98.

  The Department conducted a survey of NHS trusts in England in 1998–99. The survey found that, on average, seven violent incidents were recorded each month per 1,000 staff. This is equivalent to approximately 65,000 violent incidents against NHS trust staff each year. Details of the survey can be found in Health Service Circular 1999/229: "Managing Violence, Accidents and Sickness Absence in the NHS", a copy of which is in the Library. Figures for recorded violent incidents in 2000–01 are currently being analysed by the Department.

  The number of reported violent incidents for South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust and for the North-East Ambulance Service NHS Trust is shown in the table.
  681W

  South Tyneside health care NHS trust

  Calendar Year

  Violent incidents

  1997

  27

  1998

  114

  1999

  326

  2000

  558

  2001

  401

  North-east ambulance service NHS trust

  Financial Year

  Violent incidents

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  39

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  66

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  142

  1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001

  201

  1 April 2001 to 31 December 20011

  188

  1 To date

  The increase in reported violent incidents by staff is as a result of both on-going local and national campaigns to tackle violence against staff working in the NHS. The reduction in reported violence in 2001 is however a more meaningful comparison, indicating an actual reduction in violent incidents over that 12 month period.

  Bed Blocking
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many delayed discharges there were in North Yorkshire in the last month for which figures are available. [26455]

  Jacqui Smith
  During the four week period ending 30 December 2001 North Yorkshire health authority reported an average of 78 delayed discharges a week.

  Sunderland Health Authority
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the real terms increase in budget allocated to Sunderland health authority has been for each year from 1997 inclusive; and what the projected increase is in each of the next three years. [26122]

  Jacqui Smith
  The real terms increase in budget allocated to Sunderland health authority for each year from 1997 inclusive is shown in the table. From 1 April 2002 the Sunderland health authority will be absorbed into the Northumberland and Tyne and Wear health authority.

  Sunderland HA real terms revenue increase

  £000

  Percentage

  1997–98

  2,950

  2.10

  1998–99

  3,251

  2.31

  1999–2000

  8,225

  4.37

  2000–01

  9,198

  4.58

  2001–02

  13,957

  6.39

  Correspondence
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the hon. Member of Colchester's letters to him of 2 October and 30 November 2001 on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Brookes and their son Peter. [25962]
  682W
  Ms Blears
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 9 January.

  Medical Intervention Costs
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessments his Department has carried out in the last two years into the relative costs of medical interventions in the UK public and private health systems; if he will publish the results; if he will summarise the key conclusions; and if he will make a statement. [26911]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has recently conducted a survey of health authorities, primary care trusts and acute trusts on the levels of activity being commissioned in the private sector and the accompanying costs. The survey returns from the national health service are being validated and analysed. We expect to be able to share key findings shortly.

  The Department does not collect information about the cost of medical interventions in private hospitals for non-NHS patients.

  Care Home Beds (Wiltshire)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the change in the number of care home beds in(a) west Wiltshire district and (b) Salisbury district since 1997. [26734]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information for West Wiltshire and Salisbury districts is not collected separately. The table shows the number of places in residential care homes and registered beds in nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics in the Wiltshire area in 1997 and 2001.

  Residential places1 and registered nursing beds in the Wiltshire2 area in 1997 and 2001, as at 31 March

  1997

  2001

  Places in residential care homes

  4,513

  3,991

  Registered nursing beds in nursing homes3,4

  2,234

  2,057

  Total care beds

  6,757

  6,048

  1 Excludes places in children's homes.

  2 Information is presented for the area represented by the county of Wiltshire prior to local government re-organisation on 1 April 1997. Figures for 2001 relate to the unitary authority of Swindon and the reduced shire county area of Wiltshire. For both years, information on nursing beds relates to Wiltshire health authority (which equates to the former county of Wiltshire prior to local government re-organisation).

  3 Registered beds in general and mental nursing homes, hospitals and clinics.

  4 Information for registered nursing beds 1997 relates to the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual returns

  Hospital Beds (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the patients awaiting discharge in inappropriately occupied beds in Wycombe and Amersham hospitals will have their future care practice funded by(a) the health authority, (b) the county social services department and (c) a combination of both; and what the equivalent figures were in January (i) 2001, (ii) 1999, (iii) 1998 and (iv) 1997. [27120]
  683W
  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not collected centrally in the format requested.

  Quarterly information for Buckinghamshire health authority, for patients aged 75 and over is available in the Library.

  Hospital Car Parking Fees
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance his Department has given NHS trusts with regard to car parking fees at hospitals. [26858]

  Mr. Hutton
  Guidance on car parking charges was issued to national health service hospitals in March 1996. It is a matter for individual hospitals to decide whether or not to charge for car parking and the cost of such charges in the light of local circumstances. Where charges are introduced, patients who are eligible to claim reimbursement of travelling expenses under the Hospital Travel Costs Scheme may have the charges reimbursed.

  Autism
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the incidence of children with autism was in each district health authority in England in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [26884]

  Jacqui Smith
  The figures requested are not available. The Medical Research Council's recently completed review of the Epidemiology and Causes of Autism notes that differences in definitions used in the past make comparisons problematic. The review states that there is fairly good agreement in recent studies that autism spectrum disorders affect about 60 per 10,000 children under eight and more narrowly defined autism between 10 and 30 per 10,000.

  We are investigating ways of improving our data on autism. The Children in Need census issued in September/October 2001 is collecting data on the numbers of autistic children known to social services departments in England, who will be an important group within the overall total.

  In June 2001 the Department for Education and Skills carried out a pilot exercise on data collection on a broad range of types of Special Educational Needs involving 200 schools and is now considering introducing a requirement for schools and local education authorities to provide this information from 2003 or 2004. This is likely to include data on pupils with autism.

  Funding Resources/Initiatives
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all(a) funding resources and (b) initiatives sponsored by his Department for (i) the private sector, (ii) the voluntary sector and (iii) local authorities. [26849]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will discuss with MENCAP access to services by persons with learning difficulties. [27847]
  684W
  Jacqui Smith

  [holding answer 17 January 2002]Our strategy for improving services for people with learning disabilities, their families and carers is set out in the white paper "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century" published in March last year. MENCAP contributed to the development of the White Paper and is involved with the implementation of some of its proposals. The chief executive of MENCAP is a member of the Learning Disability Task Force, set up to oversee the implementation of "Valuing People".

  Ministers and departmental officials have met representatives of MENCAP on several occasions since "Valuing People" was published; I hope to meet them on 5 March.

  Children's Rights Director
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will consult on establishing a children's rights director; and if he will make a statement. [27432]

  Jacqui Smith

  [holding answer 17 January 2002]Draft Children's Rights Director Regulations were issued on 17 January for public consultation. It is envisaged that these regulations will establish the parameters of the children's rights director's initial role and functions. The consultation period will last for 12 weeks, to give enough time for interested parties to read and comment on the proposed draft regulations. Responses should be returned to the Department by 11 April 2002.

  The children's rights director will be a senior officer of the National Care Standards Commission, an independent, non-governmental public body established under the Care Standards Act 2000 to regulate social and health care services previously regulated by local councils and health authorities. The post-holder, Roger Morgan, will have a national overview of the rights of children receiving services regulated by the NCSC.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the numbers of people awaiting delayed discharge(a) by region, (b) by health authority and (c) by trust in (i) numbers and (ii) percentage terms for (A) Q2 2001–02 and (B) the most recent figures available; what the reasons for delayed discharge were; and how many people were waiting (1) 0 to eight (2) eight to 14, (3) 14 to 21, (4) 21 to 28, (5) 28 to 35, (6) 35 to 42, (7) 42 to 49 and (8) 49 to 56 days. [28815]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information from Quarter 2 of 2001–02 on the numbers and percentage of delayed discharges at regional and health authority level, together with the reasons for delay and the numbers of people waiting one to eight days, eight to 14 days, 14 to 28 days and over 28 days has been placed in the Library. The other information requested is not available centrally. The data for the third quarter of 2001–02 will be available in mid-February.

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to monitor the mortality rate for those re-admitted over 75 years of age(a) in re-admission and (b) within 30 days of re-admission; and if he will make a statement. [28814]
  685W
  Jacqui Smith
  Information is collected on mortality in hospital and within 30 days of discharge, but not separately following re-admission to hospital.

  Psychogeriatricians
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychogeriatricians(a) there were in England

  Hospital medical staff within the old age psychiatry speciality by region

  As at 30 September

  Number

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  All staff

  Consultant

  All staff

  Consultant

  All staff

  Consultant

  All staff

  Consultant

  All staff

  Consultant

  England

  640

  230

  710

  240

  760

  270

  820

  310

  860

  330

  Eastern

  60

  20

  70

  20

  70

  30

  70

  30

  80

  30

  London

  100

  40

  110

  40

  120

  40

  110

  40

  130

  50

  North West

  60

  20

  60

  20

  70

  30

  90

  40

  80

  40

  Northern and Yorkshire

  90

  40

  100

  50

  120

  60

  150

  70

  130

  60

  South East

  130

  40

  140

  40

  150

  40

  160

  50

  170

  60

  South Eastern

  60

  20

  60

  20

  60

  20

  70

  20

  70

  20

  Trent

  90

  30

  100

  30

  110

  30

  100

  30

  120

  30

  West Midlands

  70

  30

  80

  30

  70

  30

  80

  40

  80

  40

  Note:

  Where regions are shown, staff holding appointments in more than one region are included separately in each region. The sum of regional totals therefore differs slightly from the England total and a direct comparison between England totals is not advised.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental work force census

  Hospital Practitioners
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long investigations into allegations of professional misconduct for hospital practitioners and the final judgment have taken for the last five years; and what the status is of the person under investigation while the complaint is being processed. [28319]

  Mr. Hutton
  The General Medical Council does not collect data showing the time taken to conclude cases. Each case varies in complexity and length.

  Unless an order has been made by the Interim Orders Committee, a doctor under investigation is free to practise pending conclusion of the case. However, after the screening decision to proceed with an investigation, the GMC notifies the doctor's employer who may take steps in relation to the doctor's continued employment.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers the General Medical Council has to discipline hospital practitioners who are found to have been guilty of(a) serious professional misconduct and (b) other less serious misconduct charges. [28317]

  Mr. Hutton
  When the General Medical Council's Professional Conduct Committee has found a doctor guilty of serious professional misconduct, it can issue a reprimand to the doctor, impose conditions on a doctor's practice for up to three years, suspend the doctor's registration for up to 12 months, which may be renewed, or erase the doctor's name from the register. At present the Professional Conduct Committee has no other powers. The GMC has made proposals for dealing with less serious charges arid the Government will be considering how these might be implemented.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints about the conduct of hospital practitioners have been received in each year from 1997. [28318]
  686W
  by region in the last five years and (b) he estimates there will be in post in the next five years. [28880]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is in the table.

  Latest projections suggest that by 2006 there will be an additional 143 trained specialists available to work within the specialty.

  Mr. Hutton
  National data collection on complaints includes data on the number of complaints made by profession, and separately on the subject of complaint.

  The table shows the total number of complaints, complaints against medical staff, and what percentage of the total the latter represents. The complaints against medical staff cover a range of issues and not only questions of conduct.

  Hospital and community health services

  2000–01

  1999–2000

  1998–99

  1997–98

  Total number of complaints

  95,994

  86,536

  86,013

  88,757

  Complaints against medical staff

  43,930

  38,261

  37,382

  36,883

  Percentage of total

  45.7

  44.2

  43.4

  41.5

  The number of complaints received by the GMC about doctor's conduct are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  2000

  4,343

  1999

  3,001

  1998

  3,066

  1997

  2,687

  The figures for 2001 are not yet published but the indications are that the 2001 figure is similar to the 2000 figure.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures have been introduced since 1997(a) to speed up the complaints process against hospital practitioners and (b) to increase the powers of the General Medical Council. [28320]

  Mr. Hutton
  In August 2000 the Medical Practitioners Act 1978 was amended to widen the General Medical Council's powers to act swiftly and effectively when a
  687W
  doctor's fitness to practise is first called into question. It introduced a minimum five-year period before a doctor who has been struck off the register may apply for restoration. It also enabled the GMC to co-opt nonmembers of the Council to any of its committees chiefly to help tackle the backlog of cases.

  The GMC have committed themselves to new service standards including that by May 2002, except in exceptional circumstances, cases are to be heard by the Professional Conduct Committee within a year of referral by the Preliminary Proceedings Committee.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regulations are in use to discipline hospital medical practitioners. [28316]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department issued (Disciplinary Procedures for Hospital and Community Medical and Dental Staff) Health Circular (90)9 in 1990, a copy of which is in the Library. This sets out the procedures for handling disciplinary issues for medical and dental staff on nationally negotiated terms and conditions of service. These arrangements are now under review to make sure they meet the needs of the modern national health service.

  Registrars
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of registrars in the NHS went into full-time general practice in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [28870]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Analysis of recent information on new entrants suggests that around two thirds of general practice registrars take up a permanent appointment in general practice within five years of qualifying.

  Private Sector Nursing Homes
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is in relation to the level of fees paid by 688W
  the public sector to private sector nursing homes for care of the elderly; and if he will make a statement. [28869]

  Jacqui Smith
  In our recently published agreement with the statutory and the independent social care, health care and housing sectors—"Building Capacity and Partnership in Care"—we make clear that contract fees should not be set mechanistically but should take into account the legitimate current and future costs faced by providers as well as the planned outcomes for people using services.

  Trust Merger
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to announce his decision on the proposed merger of the Princess Royal Hospital Trust and the Royal Sussex County Hospital Trust. [28859]

  Ms Blears
  The announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State' s decision on the proposed merger of the Princess Royal Hospital (Mid-Sussex National Health Service Trust) and the Royal Sussex County Hospital (Brighton Healthcare NHS Trust) was made at 11.00 on 18 January.

  Social Services (Older People)
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the criteria by which the money made available in 2002–04 to improve services for older people and speed discharge from hospital was allocated. [27136]

  Jacqui Smith

  [holding answer 15 January 2002]All councils received additional funding through the Building Care Capacity Grant. The 55 councils of the highest rates, and the most severe problems, of delayed discharge received extra funding. The extra funding to these councils reflected the rate of delayed discharge in that council's area in summer 2001. These councils will, therefore, be subject to tighter conditions and closer monitoring.

  The same criteria were used to distribute the £190 million available for councils through this grant in 2002–03.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

Education Act 1998: Performance of Adjudicators
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the adjudicators appointed under the Education Act 1998 are conducting their duties satisfactorily.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the latest annual report from the Chief Schools Adjudicator, published in October 2001, provides a review of the performance of adjudicators. Adjudicators are independent of government as they operate in a quasi-judicial capacity. Any concern about their decisions would be pursued by judicial review. There were no applications for judicial review of adjudicator decisions in the past academic year.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. However, is she happy, even in the absence of judicial reviews, that adjudicators follow similar rules of procedure which should require consultation with schools and local communities before they make a decision? For example, they consulted immaculately in relation to the closure of a school at Gravesend in Kent, but there was no consultation with interested parties concerning preferences given to parents of potential grammar school pupils. That seems to me odd—even unjust—particularly as the adjudicators are appointed officials and are not responsible to the electorate as were their predecessors. I confess an interest as president of the National Grammar Schools Association.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am familiar with the three adjudication decisions made in Kent on 27th July, 12th October and 14th December. The adjudicators are able to consider only those matters put before them. It is up to school admission authorities to have regard to the effect on parents and children of any changes that they want to make after they have published their admission arrangements, particularly if they seek to vary them late in the admissions process. As I said previously, the adjudicators are independent of government and, of course, it is open to those who wish to do so to seek judicial review.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at the time of the passing of the
1324
1998 Act many of us were unhappy about the position of the adjudicators because we believed that local decisions were involved which ultimately should be taken by local politicians? Can the Minister tell us to what extent she is happy with the experiment involving independent adjudicators?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the adjudicators' purpose is to deal with decisions on local school organisation matters which it has not been possible to resolve locally and to deal with objections and variations to school admission arrangements. We are happy with the process in that it behoves an adjudicator to become involved only when local difficulties arise which cannot be resolved in a local context. We hope that it will be possible for them to resolve matters in the vast majority of cases—if not all cases. The adjudicators are independent people who are brought in only at that point. We believe that the process is working satisfactorily.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is there any machinery under which one can apply to the adjudicator to reconsider his decision in the light of evidence that was not before him; in other words, in the light of new evidence that at that time was not available?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I said, those who are unhappy with an adjudicator's decision may seek judicial review. However, adjudicators keep abreast of the situation. In relation to the three adjudicator decisions in Kent, as I understand it, the chief adjudicator visited Kent last week in order to discuss the issues involved.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but perhaps I may remind the Minister that judicial review is an enormously expensive process. Traditionally the Secretary of State was the final arbiter. He is an elected Member in an elected House and is, we are told, the best guardian of all our destinies. Why has the Secretary of State been deprived of participation in this exercise?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there has long been a debate about where such decisions best lie. It is considered that the independent nature of the adjudication system is of benefit to all. The noble Lord is correct that judicial review can be an expensive process. However, it is worth noting that, in the course of the year 2000–01, the adjudicator process cost £442,000 and that, in that year, 107 cases were considered.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, can the Minister tell us who appoints the independent adjudicators?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness has rather caught me with that question. My understanding is that appointments are put forward to the Secretary of State. If I am incorrect on that point, I shall of course write to the noble Baroness.

Higher Education: Funding
2.41 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Lord Hannay of Chiswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What studies they have undertaken of the additional resources which British universities will need if the Government's target of getting 50 per cent of young people into higher education by 2010 is to be achieved; and what proportion of those additional resources they contemplate providing from public funds.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government are considering these issues as part of the spending review, the outcome of which will be made public in the summer. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is consulting the sector on supply and demand for higher education over the coming years.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer and declare an interest as Pro-chancellor of the University of Birmingham. However, perhaps I may observe that her reply was a little light on substance. Does she not believe that it was somewhat feckless of the Government to set a very ambitious target, such as 50 per cent participation, and then to set off towards it on a wing and a prayer? Does she agree with the calculation made by the universities that the achievement of that target requires the creation of 30,000 additional places in our universities every year from now to 2010 and the allocation of £420 million of additional funds to provide the necessary resources?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not consider the decision to be feckless. Noble Lords will be aware of the higher education working group formed in 1999 to advise on expansion, achievement of participation rates and related funding issues. The forecast of the National Skills Task Force is that by 2010 there will be a growth of 1.73 million jobs in occupations that typically recruit graduates. That constitutes over 80 per cent of overall employment growth. It would be feckless not to take into account the needs of our graduates. As I have said, the Government are well aware and mindful of the issues relating to universities in terms of achieving this target and they form part of the spending review.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, bearing in mind the already high vacancy rate among senior teachers in higher education, is the Minister confident that we have adequate numbers of such teachers available to meet this new target?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I recognise the challenge for universities in relation to the target. The purpose of the target is to set a challenge for Government and universities which they should meet in partnership. I argue that that is also
1326
true for schools. Therefore, it is important to see the target as worth pursuing in the context of where we want to go and what we want to achieve. That must be done in collaboration with the universities, taking on board issues such as the ability to provide the teaching and the research that is needed.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I declare an interest as chief executive of Universities UK. I remind the Minister how hard the universities are working in support of the Government's target to widen participation through summer schools, mentoring schemes and so on. Last week's NAO report indicated the lack of resources for such work. Does the Minister agree, at least as an initial measure, that the 5 per cent access premium currently available to universities should be increased to 20 per cent in line with the recommendation of the Education and Skills Select Committee so as to enable universities to maximise their efforts to meet the 50 per cent target?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Yes, my Lords, I am aware that the universities are working hard. We are delighted with the progress that they are making, as is highlighted in the NAO report. As regards the postcode premium, I understand that it is the reimbursement to institutions for the additional resources that they have invested in recruiting and retaining students from lower socio-economic groups. It is not intended as an incentive payment. I understand that HEFC is currently evaluating the effectiveness of the postcode premium. I argue that it is sensible to await those findings before committing more funds through that route.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that already nine out of 10 of those in the lowest two social classes who qualify for entry to universities go on to higher education? If the Government persist with the 50 per cent target they are likely to achieve it only by increasing the proportion of middle class students entering higher education, which will increase the gap between the higher social classes and the lower social classes in universities?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it depends how it is done. As I said earlier, it is important that we recognise the need for graduates if we are to fulfil our expectations in terms of jobs. Therefore, I would expect an increase across all socio-economic groups. However, in this House we have long discussed working with those who do not aspire to a university education so that we can persuade them that it is a route that they can follow to their and our greater benefit.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how the Government define "higher education"?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, higher education includes academic learning beyond A-levels. It also includes foundation degrees. We are

1327
looking carefully at the role of the e-learning university, if I may describe it as such, and at different routes by which people can go on to higher education.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the £420 million mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is a tidy sum, it is dwarfed by the £6 billion that universities say will be needed over the forthcoming three years? In view of the experience of the railways and the Tube, it may be as well to take note of that.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sure that everyone in government takes note of experience from everywhere, and rightly so. I have heard many figures in relation to the needs of universities. I fully recognise, as does my honourable friend Margaret Hodge, who has responsibility for this area, that we have to develop the correct basis upon which we can work in partnership. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who asked the Question, was seeking that kind of assurance. We must all await the outcome in the Comprehensive Spending Review.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether she accepts that extending the catchment of universities and other institutions of academic higher education by something like a quarter of a million will have an effect on the academic standards of entry? What does she believe will be the effect? Does she also accept that norm referencing of examination results will mean that the average pass rate will remain the same regardless of the quality of the input? What will that say about overall national standards?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am quite certain that there is no need for any lowering of standards. In relation to A-level results, there is nothing to suggest that standards are being lowered. We have many hard-working young and older people who do extremely well and make their way into our university sector. However, I accept—I believe this is behind the question raised by the noble Lord—that one has to ensure that the experience of young or older people who go to universities is a positive one, and that they can learn because the resources are available. That is the crux of the matter. There must be a partnership between government and universities to ensure that we are able to achieve that.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, whatever the merits of aiming to secure a particular overall admissions percentage, does the Minister agree that a so-called voucher system, whereby the Government vest their contribution directly to every student who qualifies, could have the advantage of making it possible to top up the voucher's basic value for students from less advantaged backgrounds; further, that it would give the universities more flexibility to recruit both students and academics at realistic market prices?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I hope that I have understood the noble Baroness correctly. Does she mean a voucher system for those who are going to universities?
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: That is correct.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, all these ideas—and there are many—about how best to organise student financing are being considered by the review. It is important that your Lordships have a chance to impact on this important review. That is why I am delighted to be standing here again discussing higher education today. I hope that those directly involved in the review—I am sure that they will—rule "nothing in and nothing out" until they have made their decisions about what will work best. The words of the noble Baroness will be in Hansard. I am sure that they will be fed into the review.
Lord Plumb: My Lords—
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has tried to speak at least three or four times.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that not every young person is well suited to a university education? Will she therefore ensure that the funding for these matters is not wholly confined to universities but remains adequately available for vocational training where appropriate?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Yes, indeed, my Lords. I agree that it is very important that we do not lose sight in our discussions of the need for our young people to be able to pursue the career and the route into employment that suits them best. We ara trying to make sure that those who would benefit from a university education are given the opportunity of one and do not lose out simply because of lack of aspiration, lack of knowledge or lack of opportunity.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we must move on now.

Commonwealth War Graves: Pilckem Ridge
2.52 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Flemish regional government to prevent the destruction of the Pilckem Ridge Commonwealth war graves site by the construction of a new section of the A 19 road
between Ypres and Furnes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the Government have made no such representations, but the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is in discussion with the Belgian authorities. The route of the proposed road will not encroach on any Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries, but the Government recognise the sensitivity of this issue and would resist any proposal which would affect these important sites.
We expect that the Belgian authorities will continue to honour our war dead, both in existing cemeteries and where remains are newly discovered.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. He is aware that twice in recent weeks I have visited this unique and extraordinarily unspoilt site at Ypres, which is much the same as it was before the First World War. Does my noble friend appreciate that the principal objection to the proposed road lies in the fact that it would cut the Pilckem Ridge battlefield site in half? It would destroy its attraction as a place of pilgrimage for up to a quarter of a million visitors a year, particularly those visiting the 12 or so Commonwealth war graves cemeteries, seven of which would be only just a few metres from the motorway traffic and thus have their tranquillity destroyed. Is my noble friend prepared to lend his support to the campaign that is now under way to persuade UNESCO to designate the entire battlefield as a world heritage site and so leave in peace the tens of thousands of British and Commonwealth soldiers who lie in unmarked graves across the Pilckem Ridge?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the proposed extension to the road is a matter for the Belgian authorities. It has been opposed by local interest groups for many years. My noble friend's recent visits have added extra force to that opposition. If the extension were to go ahead and the remains of war dead were unearthed, as occurs as often as 60 times a year from ordinary farming activity and other development in the area, we would expect the Belgian authorities to show the same sensitivity as they have always shown, and that includes treating the remains with due respect.
The Flemish Minister for the Interior, who is responsible for heritage affairs, has informed the Belgian Minister for the Interior of his intention to start procedures for the recognition of war relics as world heritage matters. That, too, is a matter for the Belgian authorities. I cannot comment further at the moment.
The Flemish authorities have confirmed that a final decision on the road extension would be taken only after an environmental impact study had been carried out. That is a significant assurance against concern that the tranquillity of the site as a place of pilgrimage could be destroyed. That is a rather long answer, but I hope that it goes some way to satisfy the House.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is right that, in the first instance, the
1330
Commonwealth War Graves Commission should make such representations as it feels necessary? So far as concerns the designation of the UNESCO world heritage site, is the Minister further aware that it would be absolutely right for Ministers in his Government to give support to that?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am aware of that. But first things first. As I told the House a moment ago, the Belgian Minister of the Interior has been told by the Flemish Minister, the regional Minister, that he is to start procedures for the recognition of war relics as world heritage matters. I do not think that that is a bad beginning.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, what representations are Her Majesty's Government making with regard to the British cemetery at Rosiéres and two other smaller cemeteries which are on the site of the proposed third Paris airport? This also is the site of a much larger French cemetery.
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is too early for us to make representations. The French Government have not released any approved plans for a new international airport which might affect historic battlefields to the north of Paris. But, as my honourable friend Dr Lewis Moonie said in another place last week, if these matters went ahead we would certainly have strong representations to make.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people in Belgium have written to me saying that they also are very concerned about the scale of the roadworks envisaged and, further, that they might turn up all kinds of graves of people who are lying along the ridge in the battlefield where they fell in 1917?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Yes, Her Majesty's Government are very aware of the strong feelings about this matter, not just in Belgium but also in this country and in this House.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, perhaps I may return briefly to the related and deeply sensitive issue of the French Government's widely reported decision to build a third Paris airport on a Somme battlefield where British war graves are sited, which I raised in a recent Parliamentary Question helpfully answered by my noble friend. Can he now say what response there has been to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's representations to the French Ministry of the Interior about the strong feeling in this country, not least in the ex-service community, on this issue?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He gave me advance notice of his question. Therefore, I was able to check this morning through my department with the Commonwealth War Graves

1331
Commission whether it had had any response. It has not yet had any response. When it has, my noble friend will be the first to know.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I strongly support the original Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. While taking considerable comfort from the answers given by the Minister, will he take the opportunity of drawing the British Ambassador's attention to these exchanges in this place this afternoon so that he in turn can make the due approaches to the relevant Minister in order to emphasise the very strong feelings held in all parts of this House and in this country, that this vitally important and significant memorial to the dead—to those who sacrificed their lives for the preservation of freedom—should be preserved?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I very much take on board what the noble Lord has said. I shall personally make sure that Her Majesty's Ambassador hears about these exchanges.

Arts Council
3 p.m.
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will continue to support the Arts Council's proposals for a single organisation for arts funding if the proposals do not meet the criteria for a new organisation articulated by the Minister for the Arts in the House of Lords on 2nd July 2001.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government are closely monitoring the progress of the Arts Council as it implements its plans for a single organisation for arts funding. We remain confident that that will deliver, first, administrative savings throughout the system, allowing increased funding for arts organisations, and, secondly, greater scope in the regions to award that funding in the light of regional priorities. We will continue to monitor progress to make sure that those goals are achieved.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. It seems to me, however, that the changes are a fait accompli. It is not just restructuring; it is substantial reorganisation. Is the Minister aware that the Arts Council kindly sent me a copy of the written evidence that it submitted to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport on these matters? The council listed 14 areas of improvement that would result from the transfer of regional responsibility to a single, national body with responsibility for arts funding.
Does the Minister agree that the conclusions are interesting? In its conclusions, the council says that it accepts that the current regional structure already delivers some of those benefits but that it is necessary,
1332
in order to make the benefits more complete, to have a single organisation to deliver them. Without exception, all the benefits could be delivered more fully and more quickly within a single organisation than through the current 11 organisations in tile regional structure. Where has the Government's commitment to regionalism gone?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should explain that the Arts Council is trying to reduce the level of bureaucracy that has been involved in the funding of the arts for some time. There are 11 organisations and there is quite a lot of second-guessing between the centre and the regional arts boards. We want a more streamlined and less bureaucratic system, but one that is decentralised. It is important to get that point across. What lies behind the proposals is not greater centralisation, but the reverse. We support the Arts Council in bringing its proposals into line with regional government and the Government's commitment to regionalisation by moving from 10 to nine regions. Within those regions it will be possible for decisions to be made that are relevant to a particular region's needs as far as concerns the arts.
Lord Moser: My Lords, I declare an interest. I have had a long involvement with the Southern Arts Board, and, at present, I am chairman of the Playhouse in Oxford and of Music at Oxford.
In my years as president of Southern Arts, I learnt that the arts depend ultimately on local involvement. May I ask the Minister three questions?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Moser: My Lords, perhaps I may ask two questions. I shall make the three into two. Long statistical experience enables me to do that.
The Arts Council today announced that the regions would become ever more important. How does that square with devolution, which is the present situation? It is being replaced with minor delegation.
My second question is about the proposed staff cuts. How many of those cuts will fall on the central—now monolithic—organisation, as opposed to the regions?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am happy for the noble Lord, Lord Moser, to ask three questions, but I shall answer only two.
Improving regional representation and making sure that the regions have a voice will happen through a completely restructured Arts Council. What is proposed is a new system under which all the chairmen of the regional advisory councils that are being set up under the reorganisation will be members of the Arts Council and will be able to reflect regional interests, needs and arguments at the centre. That is a substantial step forward.

1333
The Government have asked the Arts Council to make sure that its commitment to making savings is fulfilled. The council is expected to save between £8 million and £10 million. The great majority of those savings will fall on the centre.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I shall declare an interest as executive director of the National Theatre, which is in receipt of funds from the Arts Council of England. Is the Minister aware that the current funding system in this country does not serve the arts well? There is widespread support among arts organisations for this much needed reinvention of the funding system. The current system is extremely bureaucratic and diffuse.
Does the Minister agree that proper accountability to Parliament for the dispensation of public funds to the arts is likely to be better achieved through one organisation than through 11?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall that too much money is spent on bureaucracy and not enough goes directly to the arts organisations that we want to see benefiting, and that is the purpose behind the change, as I said. There are too many separate funding schemes—currently over 100. That is what I meant when I said that there was a need for greater streamlining.
I am also very aware of the fact that many arts organisations themselves favour the change. An independent survey was undertaken as part of the consultation exercise, and it showed that, of the 74 arts organisations that responded, around two thirds were either positive or neutral about the change and only about a third were negative. That is a reflection of what my noble friend has just said.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Amos will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on volcanic eruptions in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
3.7 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the Third Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 54) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
The Committee have met and been attended by the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
1. Membership of Sub-Committees
The Committee appointed Baroness Williams of Crosby to the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee in place of Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, and Lord Cope of Berkeley to the Administration and Works Sub-Committee in place of Lord Henley.
2. Fielden House
The Committee were gratified to learn of the purchase by the House during the Summer Recess of Fielden House on a 999 year lease. Fielden House is situated opposite 1 The Abbey Garden on the corner of Little College Street and will provide potential accommodation space for the House in the order of 12–13,000 square feet, spread over approximately 50 rooms.
The property was sold by way of a competitive bidding process. The House of Lords' bid, which proved successful, was made after consultation with the Treasury and with professional valuation advice.
The building will need complete refurbishment. The allocation of the additional accommodation is currently under consideration by the Administration and Works Sub-Committee. When decisions have been taken, designs will be drawn up to enable works to begin in the Autumn of 2002 with a view to occupancy in late 2004.
3. Lords' Reimbursement Allowances
The Committee took note of the annual uprating of the following allowances, in line with the retail price index, with effect from 1 August 2001:
Overnight subsistence by £1 per day to £122
Day subsistence by £1 per day to £61
Secretarial costs by £1 per day to £51
Secretarial costs for non-sitting periods by £40 per annum to £2,040.
4. Salaries of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees
The Committee approved revised salaries for the Chairman of Committees (from £68,283 to £70,283 per annum) and the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (from £63,626 to £65,626 per annum), with effect from 20 June 2001, following similar salary increases for Ministers and other paid office holders.
5. Staff of the House
The Committee approved the creation of a new post to provide secretarial support to the Accountant and his Deputy at span C3; the making permanent a temporary C2 post in the Accountants' Office; the re-grading of the post of Assistant to the Internal Auditor from span C2 to B2; the creation of a post of House of Lords Webmaster on 2-year basis at span B2, to provide expertise and management for the House of Lords Intranet. The Committee also agreed to contribute 25 per cent to the cost of a new joint Lords and Commons post of Parliamentary Website Content Manager at span BI, to manage the accuracy, timeliness and consistency of Parliament's Internet website.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I want to say a brief word, first, to congratulate the noble Lord on this report. I am sure that Members of the House are only too happy, if they are aware of it, to vote him a modest increase in his salary for the work that he does.
The structure of the Offices Committee, as the Chairman of Committees and everyone else will be aware, is somewhat complex, and it takes a long time for its reports to come before your Lordships. A steering group was set up nearly a year ago, and we still have not had an opportunity to debate its work. I understand that a further consideration is now being put in place. When can we expect to see that report and

1335
will the House have an opportunity to decide on it, rather than the usual channels, who normally dominate such matters?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for confirming my salary. Actually, it is not technically a matter for the House; the House is merely informed of it, I am pleased to say.
Noble Lords will remember that, just before the Summer Recess, I announced that a further working party had been set up to take on the work that had been done by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and others. That group has completed its investigation, and the report is in final draft form. I hope that it will be completed by tomorrow. It will then be sent to the Offices Committee for discussion at a special meeting on 13th February. I intend to put a copy of the report in the Library at that stage.
On the basis of what the Offices Committee decides to do, the matter will, presumably, come before the House as a report from the Offices Committee and will then be debated.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Bill
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Bill
3.10 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Repeal of provisions of Football ( Disorder) Act 2000]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 2, leave out "In"
The noble Lord said: Members of the Committee will recall that at Second Reading I explained at length why the Government believe there to be a compelling good cause for maintaining Sections 14B, 21 A and 21 B on the statute book.
1336
The measures contained in the Bill are, l believe, a tailored, proportionate and effective response to English football disorder abroad. They strike the right balance between national and international interests and individual civil liberties. They have undergone a thorough practical and legal examination in the past 18 months. In that regard, I argue that they have not been found wanting.
To lose the measures in August next year would, in our view, send out a negative message to our European partners, undermine English and Welsh anti-hooligan strategy and weaken the powers of the police and courts to act against the thugs. It would also be seen as an encouragement to hooligans to resume the pattern of repeat offending overseas at precisely the time when England is preparing to embark on its Euro 2004 campaign.
In recent weeks, we have all received a timely reminder that the menace of domestic hooliganism has not been eradicated. Of course we must be careful not to draw too many conclusions from events in Cardiff and the copy-cat behaviour elsewhere. There is no evidence of the return of the virulent strain of mass hooliganism which marred our national game in the 1970s and 1980s and tarnished our reputation. However, the shameful scenes in Cardiff reinforced why government, the police and the football authorities must avoid any hint of complacency.
It is equally important that Members of this Chamber and the other place remain ever vigilant. We must ensure that the police and the courts have the powers they need to nip in the bud any resurgence of the hooligan phenomena.
However, the Government recognise that the measures in question are radical and that their impact warrants careful scrutiny. The Government also understand why many Members of the Committee are of the view that the provisions need to be tested for a longer period of time before being firmly enshrined, without time limit, on the statute book.
That is why during Second Reading I announced that the Government were prepared to initiate a further trial period. Amendment No. 2 is the outcome. I am delighted to be able to say today that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, have felt able to add their names to it. We therefore have all-party agreement to the approach being adopted.
The amendment seeks to extend the lifespan of the measures in Sections 14B, 21A and 21B for a further five years, whereupon they will either lapse or be renewed by statute. The Government have opted for a five-year period following careful consideration and study of the international football calendar. A five-year period will enable the powers to be in place for the 2006 World Cup in Germany and, importantly, for the 2008 European Championship qualifying matches which will take place while these measures undergo further parliamentary scrutiny.
I want to repeat the commitment I gave at Second Reading regarding the submission to Parliament of further impact reports on how the measures are

1337
progressing. Detailed reports will be submitted before the question of renewal is resurrected and at ad hoc periods during the next five years should the need arise.
I am most grateful to both parties for their careful consideration of the proposition I put to them between Second Reading and Committee stage and I am delighted that they have joined the Government today in supporting the amendments. Amendment No. 1 is of course a paving amendment for Amendment No. 2. I hope that all Members of the Committee will support the amendment and I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McNally: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of Amendment No. 1. When I looked at the Marshalled List I realised that although I had been invited to put my name to Amendment No. 2 I had not been invited to put my name to Amendment No. 1 and I began to try to find some squalid back-stage deal between the Labour and Conservative Front Benches. However, the Minister's explanation has put my mind at ease. I want to make clear the fact that we on these Benches support both the paving and substantive amendments.
Perhaps I may take up a couple of minutes of the Committee's time in putting the matter in context. As the Government and Minister know, we on these Benches have been concerned about the civil liberties aspect of the matter. My noble friend Lord Phillips has been firm on it and his absence today does not reflect the fact that he has weakened his concern but that, like me, he accepts that a five-year trial period is sensible and covers crucial periods.
I hope that the football authorities at all levels use that five-year period to try to get to the root of the problem in both domestic and international games. When we previously debated the matter before Christmas it was a particularly emotive time in the wake of the trial of the Leeds players and the focus on football that that produced.
However, the sad fact is that in only a few weeks since Second Reading the situation has become worse rather than better. There have been examples in the domestic game on and off the field of disorder created by players; of disorder at grounds; and a deterioration in the public esteem of football. If the football authorities do not realise that the cycle of violence on the field and the terraces and the misconduct of players away from the game is in grave danger of causing permanent damage to the game, they are even more short-sighted than they appear. Violence, foul language and racism is still too endemic in our football.
As was said at Second Reading, and it bears repetition, leadership from the top is required; that is, from the FA and from the chairmen and their boards. Many board chairmen invest heavily in corporate social responsibility in companies outside football. It is time for football to do likewise. Under Gordon Taylor, the players' union has in many ways done
1338
some admirable work at all levels, but I should like to see much more leadership from the union, instilling a sense of responsibility into what is now the extremely privileged group playing football at the highest level.
I turn to the role of the national media. It is no use football correspondents tut-tutting about behaviour when they are gathered around a table in a Sky television studio, but then, when they write for their newspapers, whipping up all kinds of animosity and xenophobia for games both domestic and international. En passant, I wonder what Ladbrokes.com was thinking when it placed the following advert in the London Evening Standard:
"Bet tax free on the dirtiest game since naked mud wrestling"?
The advert referred to the forthcoming Leeds versus Arsenal game. I watched it yesterday and, with no thanks to Ladbrokes, it was not a particularly dirty game. However, the advert underlines the point that many people working in the media and in betting and gaming make a good living from football, but they themselves need to begin to demonstrate a sense of responsibility if we are to succeed in stamping out the extremely damaging phenomena that have grown up in our national game.
I am glad that the Minister has promised to produce regular reports on the effectiveness of the Act. I hope that the Bassam committee set up to look at these matters is kept in being and continues to report and to stimulate action not only in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but also in the Home Office, thus ensuring that we get proper, joined-up government.
I welcome the belated appointment of Professor Derek Fraser as the new independent football commissioner, although it appears that he will head up the sporting equivalent of the Press Complaints Commission. Professor Fraser will need to establish very early on the fact that he has not been appointed simply as a stable-door slammer or as an apologist for what is wrong in football; rather he should ensure that the Independent Football Commission is a regulatory body with teeth. However, early reports are not very promising.
At some stage I should like either the Select Committee in the Commons or even perhaps a Select Committee of this House to look at this matter. Such a committee could bring some of the various bodies into the public gaze and thus make them justify their behaviour. Ultimately, of course, all this boils down to the behaviour of the individual football fan, but so many influences could be brought to bear by those who bear real responsibility. Furthermore, there are opportunities to improve the image of soccer.
It is worth reminding the Committee that the game itself is played with immensely more skill and that the performances of the players are beyond the dreams of only about a decade ago. One of the good things for which we can take credit is that, after the tragedies of Hillsborough and Heysel, we have learnt the lessons and today our stadia are among the best in the world. As I have said, many opportunities are available. In my remarks on Second Reading I said that many good

1339
things are being done by individual football teams. Yesterday I found it heart-warming to read that Niall Quinn, the Sunderland player, is giving away to charity the entire proceeds of his testimonial, estimated in the region of £1 million. Perhaps one of our television companies could make that donation even larger by broadcasting the game.
So it is not all bad news, but a strong message needs to be sent out if we are going to make the Act work; that is, the Act cannot be considered as a stand-alone measure, it will need a great deal of thoughtful action taken by many different bodies as well as by individuals with real responsibility in this area. In that respect, we wish the amendment well.
Viscount Bridgeman: In rising to support the amendment, noble Lords will recall that there was considerable disquiet in another place at the absence of a sunset clause in this Bill. For that reason, we were particularly pleased when on Second Reading the Minister announced his intention to introduce one. Originally we looked for a four-year period, but the live-year period will at least save the run-up to the World Cup from being involved in the passage of legislation through Parliament. That is welcome and we very much support the approach.
I should like to associate my remarks with those made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in particular as regards the upsurge of violence in the domestic game which we have seen since our debate on Second Reading. We are also particularly grateful for the Minister's assurance that regular reports will be produced to chart how the legislation is working and what progress is being made. We have had two excellent reports which provide excellent examples to follow. The amendments have the support of these Benches.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am disappointed not to be following the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who has managed to precede me with libertarian speeches attacking the legislation from the very first time the temporary measure was introduced two years ago.
Like other noble Lords I, too, welcome the Bill and the amendment which has been moved in such a spirit of amity and cross-party unity. I should like in particular to associate myself with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The events over recent days in football remind us of just how many undercurrents are at work in the game which could easily break out into something a great deal more serious. Legislation of this kind is necessary, as is a continuing review of the difficulties. It was interesting to note that Mark Steele, the spokesman for the National Criminal Intelligence Service, has gone on the record as saying that football violence is once again on the increase.
In the debate on Second Reading, a number of noble Lords, including myself, referred to the trial and subsequent partial acquittal of the Leeds players. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, received a considerable volume of correspondence for his
1340
comments relating to the behaviour of those players. I received only one letter to which I was able to reply in a fairly measured way. I recall commenting in the debate that I hoped that the Football Association would feel that those players were not appropriate representatives of their country and that they would not be chosen to play for England. In that context, I very much welcome the robust attitude demonstrated by Adam Crozier, chief executive of the Football Association, not specifically on these cases—I hope that he will come to that conclusion in due course—but in considering the role of players as models and examples for young people. I applaud also his clear unwillingness to allow players who set a bad example to be given the great privilege of representing their country.
Like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I welcome the appointment of Professor Fraser. I think that the body has been set up around 15 months late. The report of the Football Task Force, which noble Lords with longer memories than I will recall reported in December 1999 with the proposal to establish an independent football commission, had something rather more robust in mind than the body which has emerged from that process. However, I wish Professor Fraser well and I look forward to meeting him in a few weeks' time. I hope very much that the commission will be as forthright in its work as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has indicated.
I hope that it will focus on one particular area; that is, implementation of one of the first of the recommendations made by the Football Task Force relating to racism. The situation has improved slightly but still has an awfully long way to go. I recall that during Question Time recently the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, drew attention to the fact that little work seemed to have been done on implementing the recommendation. I hope that the new commission will take it as its main task and seek to stamp out the problem of racism, which lies at the heart of so much of the violence to be found in football. I endorse also the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Bassam should continue with its work. I wish the Bill well and hope that it passes through all its stages.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: I did not speak at Second Reading but, before the orgy of all-party agreement on the Bill goes too far, I should say that I did not like the Bill when it was presented. In general, I do not like Bills which mark out certain sections of the population and laws which restrict their civil liberties. This is not too bad, but I would have welcomed the withdrawal and expiry of the Bill rather than its continuing existence.
The fact that there is violence in football is neither here nor there. We have laws on the statute book to deal with that. To single out football fans as we do is not justified. That remains my view, but I have no wish to oppose the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It seems that we are almost universally agreed. Standing at the Dispatch Box today, I rather regret that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is not in his place because I believe, quite firmly, that the case he makes should be well put. He is, quite rightly, a clear advocate of maximising the protection of long fought for and hard won civil liberties, even when they may be the civil liberties of football hooligans who, some may think, should not enjoy such liberties. However, it is important that that argument is heard and is well put. To give the noble Lord, Lord Phillips his due, it is because he and others have put that case that we in government have thought long and hard and concluded that these measures—
which are, in their way, draconian—should be reviewed regularly. There should be regular reports to your Lordships' House and another place, and these should be placed in the public domain and become the subject of public debate. The issues deserve to be debated publicly.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made his usual valuable contribution. My only disagreement with the noble Lord is probably that which occurs regularly between Blackpool and Brighton. Blackpool scored a last-minute equaliser in the most recent game, which I greatly regret. The noble Lord did not raise that issue today and therefore I shall not go on at length about it.
As ever, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, made some important points. I am particularly drawn to the key question of leadership within the game. It is important that managers, players, commentators and supporters exert leadership and take responsibility. Without that, fans will react in the way they do. We must remind them that that is not only wrong, but that it is counter-productive to the game and destroys its image. It is a beautiful game, and what they do mars and denigrates it and draws it down. We do not want that. After all, the game is one of our most profitable exports and does a great deal for international relations when played in good spirit and good heart. For those reasons, if not many more, it is important that we assert the value and importance of leadership at every level of the game—particularly at club level, where what people say and do obviously matters.
I am pleased that we have support for the Bill from all sides of the Committee. I am also pleased that I have been able to reiterate our commitment to bring forward regular reports. I do not know about the fate and continued existence of the so-called Bassam committee, but the working party is still there. More importantly, its recommendations are being carefully worked through. In saying that, I pay great tribute to David Bohannan, who heads the Home Office unit on football disorder, for the work he has done. I know that that work is being valuably taken forward. Work is being carried out with the clubs, the footballers, the PFA, the Football Association, the Premiership and the Nationwide League and is proceeding at a pace.
I hope that the report's findings will feed into the work of the Independent Football Commission. Although some noble Lords have drawn attention to the delay in appointing a chair for the commission, now that that appointment has been made I expect
1342
careful thought to be given to the relationship between football hooliganism and raising standards in the game, and ensuring that we have good, fair, sound and effective regulation. Clearly that is what the game needs.
I was also attracted to the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that a Select Committee should be set up. That is an interesting contribution to the debate and powerfully makes the point that these matters need to be kept in the public gaze to ensure that the debate does not fade away. The game deserves more than that.
I am grateful for all contributions. We have agreement on the amendments and there will be a five-year sunset clause. This is a small but important Bill. Putting this kind of legislation on the statute book for another five years will do much to bring people to consider carefully which way we go in dealing with football hooligans. It is important that we should proceed with the legislation and ensure its continued effectiveness during an extremely busy period—not only in the domestic game but in the international game through three very important international competitions, Euro 2004, the World Cup 2006 and Euro 2008.
I am grateful for all contributions and support. I hope that this legislation, after further consideration here, will speed its way back to another place and receive widespread support and acclaim.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 4, leave out ", subsections (2) to (5) are repealed" and insert "is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) For subsection (2) there is substituted—
"(2) But

(a) no application under section 14B of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (banning orders made on a complaint) may be made, and

(b) no power conferred on a constable by section 21 A or 21B of that Act (summary measures) may be exercised, after the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which section 1 of the Football (Disorder) (Amendment) Act 2002 comes into force."

(3) Subsections (3) to (5) are repealed."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on the volcanic eruptions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I should inform the House that there will be a second Statement today on the detention of British nationals in Guantanamo Bay.

Democratic Republic of Congo: Volcanic Eruptions
3 38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign arid Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the volcanic eruptions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
"Last Thursday at about 10 o'clock in the morning the Nyiragongo volcano near Goma in the DRC erupted. That evening the quantity and rate of lava flow from the volcano increased and further fissures opened up in Goma itself. Much of the town was engulfed and destroyed.
"Early reports suggest that about 100 people have lost their lives, but the death toll may rise further. Hundreds of thousands of people have had to flee their homes. Many crossed to Rwanda in the east to seek shelter in and around the town of Gisenyi. Others fled west in the direction of Sake inside the DRC. Some who were trapped in the town and under threat from the heat and from noxious gases have been helped to safety.
"The volcano continues to erupt and the whole area, including Gisenyi, is subject to continuing earth tremors. There also concerns that gases given off, especially deep in Lake Kivu, may be disturbed and could threaten the lives of civilians who remain in or return to the area.
"In spite of these dangers, many of those displaced are now moving back into Goma itself. Those affected naturally want to find out the extent of the destruction of their homes and property and to see what the chances of returning may be. It also appears that many would rather be in the DRC than seek refuge in Rwanda. Irrespective of where people choose to locate themselves, there is an urgent need for water and sanitation, healthcare, shelter and food. Cholera is a particularly serious threat.
"The response of the international community and of the Rwandan Government has been as follows. The Rwandan Government have already provided assistance to civilians trapped by the lava flows. The UN has redeployed resources from the DRC, and staff from Geneva, to lead the relief operation. MONUC, the UN peacekeeping operation in DRC, has made its logistical capacity available. The International Committee of the Red Cross and major international NGOs based in the area are already working to help those affected. The relief agencies have a presence and capacity on both sides of the Rwanda/DRC border and will be able to offer support where it is most needed—although the challenge will be considerable.
1344
"Appeals have been made to donors to help finance the relief operations. DfID has set aside £2 million to help fund the relief operation through Oxfam, Merlin, a UK emergency medical response agency, and the British Red Cross. We will also respond to the UN appeal. Oxfam has been asked by the UN to take on the role of providing water and sanitation, and a flight with equipment and supplies left RAF Manston on Saturday evening. That was paid for by DfID funding. Merlin will be providing healthcare to those affected. The organisation has considerable experience in the DRC and has a large and experienced team of Congolese professionals already present on the ground. The Red Cross will continue to deliver emergency help in Goma and Gisenyi.
"As the situation changes, DfID will continue to provide support to agencies already engaged on the ground and we stand ready to consider further help if necessary. Earlier this year, the ICRC received £5.5 million from DfID for its programme in DRC, including a significant element for humanitarian assistance.
"These two countries have already suffered a great deal from the conflict that has affected the region. This human catastrophe is another burden for the people of Goma to bear. I am sure the whole House will wish to express its sympathies to all of those who have been affected and who have lost loved ones".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I apologise to her for missing the first minute of her speech. I was informed that the Statement would follow the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in the Northern Ireland debate.
Anyone who saw on television the weekend's harrowing scenes cannot fail to have been deeply moved. On behalf of these Benches, l should like to express our condolences to the many families who have lost loved ones. The region around Goma has suffered so many man-made problems that this natural disaster must be particularly hard to bear.
We welcome the £2 million announced in immediate aid to the victims of the volcano. Is that amount for short-term humanitarian aid only? Are the Government planning, in addition, long-term recovery assistance? Can the Minister also confirm the report in the Financial Times that the EU has announced £3.1 million of immediate emergency aid?
If refugees are now returning to Goma, as reports suggest, will the aid be in the right place at the right time? What is being done to provide aid to those who have returned home, given the lack of water and electricity within Goma?
This disaster has taken place in an area controlled by rebels. Past experience shows that where there are competing factions, competing donors and Competing aid agencies, strong co-ordination is needed. Is the

1345
Minister satisfied with the present arrangements? What role do the Government of the DRC and the Rwandan Government have in the humanitarian effort?
The volcanic eruption was, to a certain extent, predictable. Can the Minister say whether the new technology for measuring long episodes of seismic activity will be feasible in the long term to improve our response to such disasters? Finally, the Minister mentioned that gasses deep in Lake Kivu could threaten civilians in the area. Has any real measurement of this risk taken place?
3.46 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I should like to express our concerns, from a distance, at the appalling loss of life and devastation.
It occurs to me that there are three specific responses. There is the immediate response—referred to in the Statement—and the work of aid organisations such as Oxfam. Secondly, there is the long-term response. I should like an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are doing all they can in terms of the immediate and the long-term response to bring other nations, the European Union and the United Nations on board, so that the matter is taken extremely seriously and it is seen that the developed world has a real part to play.
Thirdly, I wonder whether out of tragedy may come opportunity. We have heard reference to the Government's "Africa concerns". Is this now an opportunity for the Government, having become involved in this specific issue, to see whether something can be done in terms of the politics of the area? Not only is there devastation; there is also the continuing dreadful dispute in the region. Is not this an opportunity to take hold of the politics as well as to respond to the devastation?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the £2 million that has been announced is for short-term humanitarian assistance. Noble Lords will wish to know that we do not have a bilateral development programme with the Democratic Republic of the Congo because of the serious conflict in the country. However, we have contributed substantially to the humanitarian situation. The £2 million is part of that.
In terms of long-term recovery, we have a development programme with Rwanda to the tune of some £76 million over three years, 2000–2003. In December last year, the European Union considered approving a national indicative programme for the DRC which in the longer term would lead to bilateral assistance between the European Union and the DRC; but it is clearly dependent on progress being made in the inter-Congolese dialogue and the peace process in the DRC. So in terms of the long term within the DRC, we shall have to sit down and think about the implications of what has happened in Goma and how
1346
we might support long-term recovery in the DRC. As I said, currently we do not have a bilateral programme with the DRC.
On co-ordination, noble Lords will be aware that because of the conflict in the DRC different groups control different parts of the country. Therefore, the eastern DRC—the part of the DRC which borders Rwanda where Goma is situated—is controlled by the RCD Goma. We have to work with them and with the international agencies such as the ICRC and the UN. We are keeping a close eye on the situation. The Rwandan Government have been involved with regard to the move of the population from Goma into Rwanda. However, the bulk of the population has moved back to Goma and co-ordination becomes even more important. Goma has been a base for the UN peacekeeping operation. Humanitarian agencies have been based in Goma. That makes our job somewhat simpler.
As to aid being in the right place, we have aid agencies working in Rwanda and Goma so we are able to provide assistance
With regard to gases on Lake Kivu, noble Lords will understand that I am not remotely technical. However, although it is a possibility, the noxious gases about which we are worried have not so far been released. A technical team is keeping an eye on the situation. Noble Lords may also have seen press reports indicating that some of the equipment for monitoring volcanic activity was looted. We have had no confirmation of that.
Finally, on the Government's priority with regard to the new partnership for African development and working towards the G8 action plan for Africa, noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is currently in the DRC—the visit has been long planned—with his colleague, Foreign Minister Vedrine from France. Part of the purpose of that visit is to ensure that French and British policy in the Great Lakes region is properly co-ordinated. Both countries consider the peace process extremely important. What is happening in the DRC has an impact on countries across the region. I am sure that peace and security will be a key element of any plan which is agreed on development issues for the African continent.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two brief questions. First, did we have any early warning about the eruption? Some time ago I worked on early warning systems for famines. Are there any early warning systems for such eruptions? If not, would not they be a good idea?
Secondly, I often hear of ourselves and the EU giving aid to Afghanistan or the DRC. Do other individual members of the EU also give aid? If the Minister cannot tell me now, perhaps she will write to me.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I asked the question on early warning systems. I understand that there has

1347
been some monitoring of the volcano in Goma. I am unable to say more about early warning systems but I shall write to my noble friend.
I regret that I did not answer the question on EU aid. The sum of 5 million euros—that may translate to £3.1 million; I have been unable to do the maths in the time—has been made available by the EU. In addition, individual member states can contribute. The Government of Belgium have pledged 1.25 million euros; the Government of France, 300,000 euros; the Government of Germany, 1.3 million euros; and Sweden 467,000 US dollars.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, first, I declare an interest. One of my nieces is the head of the operations for relief and development in the Congo for the Irish charity, Concern, and may be in Goma today.
Pursuant to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, when the Minister provides further information about the seismological resourcing and forecasting can the noble Baroness indicate whether the Government believe that those resources are adequately funded? Can she also clarify whether the volcanic monitoring equipment was looted before or after the eruption?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in answer to another question, I understand that the equipment was looted after the eruption but that has not been confirmed. It is an unconfirmed press report.
On the seismological issue, perhaps I may place in the Library of the House a letter answering questions raised by noble Lords.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the aid provided directly from the United Kingdom, which we all applaud, is separate from, and additional to, this country's share of the European Union aid which has also been provided?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that. We have pledged £2 million. That is in addition to the money which has been pledged by the European Union.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the urgent, immediate and necessary support which is very much welcomed and also referred to recovery. Are we likely to make some contribution towards recovery, and on what basis? I have read reports that the volcano is continuously active and potentially exceedingly damaging. One has to ask the difficult question: is recovery or rebuilding a large town in an area so exposed to that risk the best way to recovery?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, when we have discussed humanitarian crises in the past, noble Lords have always been concerned about the recovery element. It is very early for us to know what any reconstruction effort may look like. The situation is complicated by the fact that we do not at present have a development assistance programme with the DRC because of the conflict which currently exists within the DRC, with different parts of the country being controlled by
1348
different groups. It is, therefore, too soon to say what might happen in Goma and what contribution, if any, the British Government might make.
I recognise that noble Lords are concerned about the issue. As soon as we have any further information, I shall share it with your Lordships.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the Minister has answered in part my question. However, I should still like to ask it. It is fairly well known, alas, that this is an extremely divided country. How far does the writ of Kinshasa run in Goma? Will it be difficult for the Government to provide support without the risk that it will go straight into the pockets of Ministers in Kinshasa? I hope very much that all aid that we are giving is through international organisations. How will it be possible to discuss with the government at the head of the country the real problems which exist? I should like to know more about how we are dealing with that.
4 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. We are channelling our humanitarian effort through NGOs. Of the £1 million that has so far been allocated from the £2 million total, some has gone to the Red Cross, some to Merlin and some to other organisations. The area of the DRC in question is controlled by RCD Goma and not by the Government of the DRC. That makes any discussion of long-term reconstruction difficult.
The Government are making efforts to look at peace and security in the area. We very much want implementation of the Lusaka agreement, which has a number of complementary elements within it, including the withdrawal of all foreign troops and the active involvement of the different groups within the inter-Congolese dialogue process. The next stage of that dialogue process will take place probably at the end of February in South Africa. In addition to that, we use every opportunity to engage in discussions not only with President Kabila and with leaders of the rebel movements, but also with the presidents of Uganda and Rwanda, for instance. Burundi has some interest because of the activities of the Interahamwe. Your Lordships will know that the conflict has also touched Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia.
The situation is extremely complicated. We think that the implementation of the Lusaka agreement is the best way forward and we shall do all we can to promote that.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, on the question asked by my noble friend Lady Park, is it not important that the Government, when rightly dealing with locally established NGOs in Goma, should also establish good relationships with whoever is in charge in Goma? Is it not the case that two or three years ago, when the latest civil war swept through Bukavu, further south at the southern end of Lake Kivu, a great deal of property was lost by NGOs which failed to take into account the views of their representatives on the ground who had made deals with the general in

1349
charge? Is it not important to deal with those who are effectively in charge and not allow ourselves to be deflected by amour propre in Kinshasa?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is right. It is important in terms of co-ordination that we deal with the authorities that exist on the ground. RCD Goma plays that role in Goma at the moment. In addition to talking to its representatives locally about the current situation, we are engaged with them at a broader level on the wider process of inter-Congolese dialogue. We are well aware of the difficulties that exist and the importance of keeping a dialogue process going with all the different groups represented in the DRC. The dialogue process has been difficult at times. At the last phase the dialogue broke down, but we are confident that we shall make progress at the next stage.
It is important to point out that we see some of the tensions currently emerging through the dialogue process as positive signs, because at least the groups are talking. The difficulties are being discussed rather than the groups constantly going back to using violence and arms.

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill
4.4 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
If passed, the Bill will extend the maximum length of the period during which legal immunity may be provided in a decommissioning scheme. It does so by amending Section 2 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, under which the power to provide legal immunity would otherwise expire on 27th February this year.
Clause 1(2) initially extends the maximum period during which legal immunity may be provided to end at midnight on 26th February 2003. Under the 1997 Act, the Secretary of State has the power, by order, to extend the relevant period further. Such an extension may not run for more than 12 months after the order is made, or five years after the 1997 Act was passed.
Subsection 1(3)—your Lordships may regard this as important—does not affect the former condition. Each order would still therefore be subject to a maximum duration of 12 months. However, 27th February 2007 is substituted for the original five-year period. The effect of that is to extend the order-making power for a further five years beyond the expiry of the current period.
Clause 1(4) provides for retrospective effect, if necessary. That means that anything done in accordance with a decommissioning scheme, even if this Bill is not enacted by 26th February, would, after enactment, fall within the legal immunity provided. In short, the Bill extends the existing arrangements for
1350
one further year, with the possibility of further extensions, subject, of course, to parliamentary approval.
An integral part of the peace process has been to try to convince those who were previously committed to violence, including those brought up in the traditions of physical force republicanism, that there is another, better, way. Almost five years ago, when she introduced the original Bill, Lady Denton, whom we all remember with a good deal of personal respect as well as affection, said that the process of decommissioning would not take place overnight. Of course, she was right.
More recently, the political landscape has changed significantly in Northern Ireland. We now have the democratic institutions; the North-South bodies; stronger British-Irish relations; the principle of consent enshrined in the agreement; the removal of the Republic's historic territorial claim to Northern Ireland, formerly in Articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's constitution; the incorporation of human rights in all aspects of life by the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the establishment of the commission in Northern Ireland; the advancement of equal opportunities; and a new start in policing and criminal justice, on which we are about to embark.
In the past six months, we have seen formal cross-community support for policing; successful recruitment to the new police service from both traditions; further progress towards the normalisation of security arrangements; the publication of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill and draft implementation plan; and the act of decommissioning by the Provisional IRA. As we have all agreed on numerous previous occasions, there is a long way to go, but substantial progress has been made.
We have been reminded again in the past fortnight that the conflict is plainly not yet over. We see this amendment to the law as a continuing opportunity to further that progress. We need the legislation to go beyond February, when legislative cover expires. It is not realistic to expect all arms from all organisations to be handed in by the end of next month. We must not allow the potential that we now have to make further progress to be thrown away because we have arrived at a deadline that, in the nature of things, was arbitrary.
We need to be realistic. We have seen the act of decommissioning. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in paying tribute to General de Chastelain and his colleagues in the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. We are entitled to look to them as persons of integrity, diligence, skill and perseverance.
We look to the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms. The pursuit of that objective must continue. We are providing a legal framework. That will remove an obstacle—not every obstacle—to decommissioning. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
4.9 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for describing the Bill so clearly. Before continuing, however, I should like to express our alarm that Jane Kennedy was very nearly seriously hurt last week. Our thoughts are with her good fortune.
Let us consider for a moment where I think we are in the Northern Ireland peace process as a whole. Clearly, as the noble and learned Lord has said, compared with a few years ago, there is a great deal in Northern Ireland about which we can be positive and from which we can take heart. After the protracted crisis of last summer and early autumn—precipitated by Mr Trimble's totally understandable decision to resign—there has been significant progress in the implementation of the Belfast agreement.
Furthermore, the executive and the Assembly, although not perfect in every respect, are by common consent bedding down well and delivering sound local administration for the people of Northern Ireland. What we have now is certainly an improvement on direct rule and is far more accountable to local needs.
Moreover, the police service is making the transition, however painful, from the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Although there remain some serious difficulties over morale and operational effectiveness—as I made my views on this subject heard in your Lordships' House last week, I shall leave it there—the new policing board has made a positive start, albeit without Sinn Fein, especially in its unanimous approval of a new cap badge which includes, I am pleased to say, the Crown. Other aspects of the agreement are also being taken forward.
I have no doubt that life is immeasurably better for a great many people in Northern Ireland as a result of the agreement. Yet for all that has been achieved in recent years, two scars in particular continue to blot the Northern Ireland landscape. The first is the level of paramilitary violence and gangsterism, most notably in North Belfast, which last week saw the obscene murder of a young Roman Catholic postman. The second is the failure of the main paramilitary organisations to make more—in most cases, any—progress on decommissioning their illegally held arms and explosives.
The blunt truth is that while literally every other aspect of the agreement has been—or is well on the way to being—implemented, decommissioning lags way behind the rest. That in itself is one of the principal reasons for the dangerous loss of confidence in the agreement across the wider Unionist community. There have been years of concessions by Unionists, some very painful, but there is still no sign of the end to the armed struggle.
Of course we welcome the first act of decommissioning by the Provisional IRA last October. We also accept the judgment of General de Chastelain that it was, in the words of his report, "significant", and that, again as his report says,
"The material in question includes arms, ammunition and explosives".
1352
I do not underestimate the importance of that act either for the process as a whole or for the republican movement in particular. Anyone who knows the first thing about republicans will understand that it represented a huge psychological hurdle for them. We all hope that it marks the beginning of a clear transition to exclusively democratic and peaceful means.
We should not blind ourselves to the reality of what brought about that act at this particular juncture. There was the undoubted pressure caused by Mr Trimble's resignation. There was also the revelation about suspected IRA links with Cuba and FARC terrorists in Colombia. There was also, of course, the renewed pressure placed on republicans by the United States administration following not only those events but the tragic events of 11th September.
The crucial point now, however, is that whatever brought it about, it must continue. As the US envoy, Richard Haas, put it in an admirable speech in New York, on 9th January,
"decommissioning must he a process, not a single event".
On the day when Sinn Fein Members take up residence in this Palace, with their special status granted by the Government, they should be reminded again of their obligations, and they should get on and fulfil them. That means a process that leads to what is clearly stated in the Belfast agreement as
"the complete disarmament of all paramilitary organisations".
In other words, there must be a cut-off point at which General de Chastelain—whose independence and integrity in these matters we fully respect—can say that to his satisfaction decommissioning has been completed.
I also stress that all paramilitary organisations must disarm, as our focus—not least because Sinn Fein Ministers are in the Executive—is often concentrated on the IRA. We should never forget that so-called loyalists also have an obligation to get rid of their illegal weapons. The threat from loyalist organisations, especially the UDA and its sub-contractors the UFF, remains very high. In the past three years, three quarters of all paramilitary murders in Northern Ireland have been committed by loyalists. Like their republican counterparts, they continue to engage in the most savage beatings, mutilations and shootings. They are involved in all kinds of Mafia-style gangsterism. In this context, it is right to remind loyalist political leaders that they too have a particular responsibility to use their influence to defuse some of the tensions that currently exist and to help bring about loyalist decommissioning.
Decommissioning should of course have been completed, under the terms of the agreement, within two years of the referendum, by 23rd May 2000. Had that happened, this Bill would not have been necessary. We are where we are because of the Government's total ineptitude in dealing with Sinn Fein/IRA over this matter so far; their continuing policy of appeasement; and, more recently, their double standards in relation to world terrorism. If a terrorist shoots a British or an American soldier in

1353
Afghanistan, he is likely to forfeit his life, but those who have done the same in Northern Ireland receive an amnesty or have been released from gaol. In return for what? It has certainly not been in return for decommissioning.
Furthermore, as I said, the Prime Minister's double standards for Westminster are being demonstrated today. He has played the world stage in good company, but his Government have totally failed to take on the challenges of terrorism at home. The regrettable truth is that the May 2000 deadline came and went without the decommissioning of a single bullet or ounce of Semtex; as I pointed out, decommissioning began only three months ago. The Government have therefore been forced to introduce this Bill to extend for a further five years the decommissioning regime, including the amnesty period, in the 1997 Act. It is here that we have a problem.
Surely the message that should be coming from the Government now is that decommissioning must take place as a matter of urgency. But that is not what the Bill as drafted does. It allows the paramilitaries the luxury of another five years in which to consider decommissioning their illegal weapons. In the opinion of the Opposition and, I know, of very many people in Northern Ireland, that is just too long. Surely in these circumstances it would have been more sensible, and would have at least conveyed a sense of urgency and importance on the part of the Government, to extend the legislation for a period that falls within the life of this Government.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, when the IRA announced a "cessation of military operations"—that was the phrase it used—I chanced to be in Downing Street, and I publicly welcomed the statement. I expressed the hope that those who had influence with terrorists of all shades would use that influence to persuade all of them to take the subsequent steps to the creation of an unconditional and permanent peace.
Before that decision was announced, Mr John Major and Mr Albert Reynolds were already engaged in negotiations. They subsequently intensified those discussions, to which I was not exactly an outsider, and they set out very clearly the path for any and all terrorists to follow.
The IRA leadership sought and obtained clarification from Her Majesty's Government on the proposals set out in the Major-Reynolds statement. That clarification phase was handled with great skill by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In due course, they had talks with the IRA and the civil servants, later with Northern Ireland Ministers and eventually with the elected representatives of Northern Ireland.
1354
The key to understanding the process appeared in a report of Senator Mitchell's commission in these words:
"Everyone with whom we spoke"—
that is, the commission—
"agreed in principle, with the need for decommissioning".
The report added,
"The main principle of total disarmament [was agreed by]… all paramilitary organisations".
I share the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that all terrorists of all shades have not moved to any significant extent in that direction of disarmament.
The language used in all such documents insisted upon a "progression" of decommissioning, in line with the Belfast agreement. It must be said that most of us believed that that foundation would be preserved. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, and as was reflected by the Leader of the House, it was not a question of a one-off stunt; it was to be a progression step by step, and step by step as between various paramilitary bodies.
When it became clear that that was a false assumption on our part, it was naturally expected that the sensible reaction of both governments would be a stoppage of the conveyor belt of concessions. In such circumstances a step-by-step process was, and would be, expected and understood. Now, two years on, the conveyor belt continues to deliver to one side only. The other side—the greater number of decent citizens, Protestant and Roman Catholic—now know that they have been conned. Their representatives have been hung out to dry, helplessly awaiting their inevitable fate when the assembly elections occur next year. That is something which should give us all food for thought.
Support for the representatives of the greater number of people of all shades plunges with every government concession to terrorists and fellow travellers of all shades. Apart from one derisory gesture, real decommissioning is no nearer than on the day the Belfast agreement was signed. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland fears that Ulster will become a cold house for those who longed for peace and harmony within a law-abiding community?
It is true that the Secretary of State has not publicly supported the recently declared aim of the Irish Foreign Minister of,
"removing all traces of Britishness from Northern Ireland"—
a very large cat to be let out of the bag! But of course Mr Cowan, the Irish Foreign Minister who used those words, is, with our Secretary of State, a form of joint governor. So we can hardly expect one of Her Majesty's Ministers to contradict his Irish partner. Is it any wonder that the "cold house" objective is now becoming a reality for many people? I refer to the greater number who have been let down and feel betrayed. That betrayal is made the more real by the interpretation of this sordid little Bill indicating that the Government are prepared to put off decommissioning—not for yet another 12 months, but for five whole years.

1355
Lest my earlier references to the Irish Government should appear somewhat harsh, perhaps in fairness I may quote a statement made by Mr Ahern, the Irish Prime Minister, at the weekend. He had been asked to comment on the possibility of co-operation with Sinn Fein candidates should they be elected later this year. He said,
"Sinn Fein has to resolve its relationship with the IRA before becoming part of a sovereign Irish government, exercising collective responsibility for justice and defence".
Mr Ahern continued,
"Even if the IRA were disbanded, all weapons put beyond use and there was a complete end to vigilantism and punishment attacks, North and South, and full support given to the police service of Northern Ireland, there would he insufficient time to establish confidence for government participation to be realistic".
It is passing strange that the Irish Government should be so forthright when Her Majesty's Government have already installed Sinn Fein in Cabinet in another part of the United Kingdom and have today installed Sinn Fein in the Palace of Westminster itself.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the report of the International Committee on Arms Decommissioning of 1996 said unequivocally that the decommissioning process should result in the complete destruction of the armaments, whether by handing them in for destruction or by destruction sur place in the presence of the commission. It was to have legal and technical advice available to receive and audit armaments and to observe and verify the decommissioning process, and to be able to call on the resources and relevant technical expertise of the British and Irish armies.
In its report of July 1999 the commission published an annex setting out its mandate which stated that in both the Northern Ireland Decommissioning Act 1997 (UK) and the Decommissioning Act 1997 (Ireland) it was specified that.
"Methods and manners (schemes) to be used for decommissioning require the destruction of the arms being decommissioned",
adding that,
"at the request of the two governments the Canadian Armed Forces and the US Army have made available to the Commission on an as-required basis two officers who are experts on arms, ammunition and explosive ordnance disposal. These two officers have taken part in refresher training with the Defence Forces in both jurisdictions and they are called upon to join the Commission when needed".
The commission also reported that it had consulted with all the parties to the Belfast agreement, which included Sinn Fein/IRA, to see which of the two methods of decommissioning would be acceptable to the paramilitary groups, and each group was asked to nominate a representative or point of contact. In September Martin McGuinness was nominated to be the point of contact with the IRA.
The commission had already set up operations centres in Belfast and Dublin, consulted experts in forensic and destruction techniques, the disposal of residues etc., and explored the acquisition of commercial sources for vehicles and equipment. Its
1356
scheme was in place by June 1998. It actually hoped, at that stage, to carry out decommissioning by 22nd May 2000 (already an extension from February 1999 when the amnesty period had ended). Its report, both then and in the next two years, reflected however a process of effortless political manipulation of the commission by the IRA.
The February 2000 report quoted the IRA as "engaging frankly and helpfully", and described as "valuable progress" and "particularly significant" the assertion made to them by Mr McGuinness that,
"the IRA will consider how to put arms and explosives beyond use in the context of the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and in the context of the removal of the causes of conflict"—
IRA-speak for the destruction of the RUC and the withdrawal of the Armed Forces from a part of the UK.
The commission welcomed the IRA's commitment to sustain and enhance its contribution to a durable peace—and much more of the same, and it reports that,
"The representatives indicated to us today the context in which the IRA will initiate a comprehensive process to put arms beyond use in a manner to ensure maximum public confidence".
Already the IRA had moved the whole process to their agenda.
In May 2000 three things happened. First, the British and Irish Governments asked the commission to consider with the paramilitary groups,
"further proposals for decommissioning schemes beyond the two approved by them".
Those two, in both Acts, required the complete destruction of arms and explosives. The commission was anxious to explore the IRA's proposals to put arms beyond use—a rather different thing. Secondly, the IRA, as the then Secretary of State reported on 8th May, committed itself to
"a process that will completely and verifiably put arms beyond use",
and to resume contact with the commission, which had been broken.
Thirdly, the IRA agreed to a confidence-building measure to confirm that its arms remained secure. Independent inspectors were to scrutinise a number of arms dumps and report to the commission and that would be an ongoing process with regular inspections. There have been three such inspections, the last in May last year, when the inspectors said, as they had done in previous reports, that
"the arms dumps held a substantial amount of military material including explosives and related equipment as well as weapons and other material. We confirm that the arms dumps have not been tampered with and that they have remained secure".
I should like to know from the noble and learned Lord first, whether the Government's request to the commission to consider further decommissioning schemes not requiring total destruction of the arms, as the legislation did, had any connection with the IRA's brilliant new idea for putting arms beyond use rather than destroying them in that same month. I should like also to know whether when the two distinguished

1357
inspectors went to inspect the dump they were accompanied by the trained military Canadian and US advisers who were provided for in the Act, and if not, why not? It was clearly originally considered to be a necessary part of any effective operation.
Moving to the IRA's next manipulation of the decommissioning process, we come to its offer of August 2001. This was around the time when, at an awkward moment for it, the PIRA connection with FARC in Colombia, and Sinn Fein/IRA's quasi-diplomatic link with Cuba (denied by Sinn Fein, but unfortunately confirmed by the Cuban Government) had both become public. The commission reported that the IRA had proposed a method—yet another one—for putting IRA arms completely and verifiably beyond use. The commission believed it would do so, and that it met the commission's remit in accordance with the Government's scheme and regulation. By the time this allegedly historic event, announced as such on 24th October last year by a euphoric Secretary of State, who believed it
"took the peace process onto a new political level"
took place, the events of 11th September had made the IRA, because of its recently revealed active collaboration with terrorists near home, unpopular even with Irish Americans, most of whom are Americans first. We were told that the commission had "witnessed" an event which it regarded as significant, in which the IRA had put a quantity of arms beyond use. The material in question had included arms, ammunition and explosives. It added that it was
"satisfied that it would not further the process of putting arms beyond use were we to provide further details of this event".
When the Secretary of State announced this "historic move"—I do not deny its relative significance for the IRA—he also promised without delay to amend the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, barely a year old, to
"reflect more fully the Patten recommendations"
(that is, to diminish if not destroy the Special Branch and weaken the police yet further) and
"in response to yesterday's developments undertake a progressive rolling programme of security normalization—reducing levels of troops and installations in Northern Ireland as the security situation improves".
All this while Sinn Fein/IRA has continued to refuse to recognise the new police service, has tightened through the paramilitaries its brutal grip of its own communities, and has openly threatened recruits to the new police force. Work on the demolition of observation towers was, according to the Secretary of State, to begin on that very day in October, and while the Government have promised further amnesties for men on the run by March this year, families have continued to be exiled from their own country.
Although I have the greatest respect for the commission and I recognise that the Government have had little choice but to continue with this long and deplorable process, the IRA has taken the two governments for a ride over decommissioning since the beginning. It has used each report of the commission
1358
to press further its own agenda of forcing ever more concessions on troop levels, policing and security—the IRA context. It has moved the whole process from the destruction of arms to putting them beyond use, but most of all it has gained both time and massive further concessions (and by its failure to act has, incidentally, given the loyalists an excuse not to act either).
In the hope of getting some movement the governments have steadily weakened and diluted the whole process to a so-called "inspection of arms" which, unless the Minister can tell us otherwise, was conducted with none of the safeguards of military expertise which the Act specially provided. The process is hailed as confidence building, yet no one outside the commission is allowed to know how many arms or what explosives have been not destroyed but put beyond use.
The Government never stop talking about transparency. What could be more opaque than an event known only to the IRA and the commission, despite the fact that it is a matter of deep and proper public concern, and has been hailed as confidence building? Why does the commission think that it would not further the process of putting arms beyond use
"to provide details of this event"?
If it was a significant quantity, that could really have encouraged the unfortunate people of Northern Ireland and could have given the IRA some credibility in the peace process. If it was not, then why should the IRA be getting yet more concessions with such indecent and craven haste to placate it? The IRA was for the first time on the run—partly because of outside events—and still it was allowed to dictate the agenda, and I strongly suspect that after all this the mountain has brought forth another mouse.
The IRA has managed throughout the whole decommissioning saga to manipulate it to its own advantage and it seems clear that nothing will stop the Government from giving it more concessions whenever it asks for them in return for meaningless inspections or processes conducted in the dark. Both governments ought at least to admit to the people of Northern Ireland that the whole process of decommissioning has proved to be largely a series of victories for the IRA. It matters, not just because of the arms—we all know the IRA can go out and buy more when it needs them (and has done so in the last four years)—but because the people who believed things were really going to change see that, just as before, the IRA calls the tune.
It will be pointless to resist the Government's intention to extend the amnesty, if necessary up to 2007, and clear that the IRA will continue to use the process to secure even more of its objectives. Time is on its side and it is now playing the political card—including the ballot—with the guns behind its back. Can the noble and learned Lord at least assure us that there will be no more concessions on security, the police, the military presence or anything else on the Sinn Fein/IRA agenda and that now we have, for the first time, a US Government who perceive the threat

1359
we should require Sinn Fein/IRA to end the violence against its own community, a point which I am glad to say the Secretary of State recognised in his statement in October, but I want to see some action? Of course the loyalists are just as bad, but that does not alter the Government's duty to refuse to promote the IRA's agenda. Incidentally, an invitation to Downing Street today to celebrate Sinn Fein/IRA's victory in winning the undeserved right to enter this House does not send a message of principle but rather of appeasement.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, of course we all wish that decommissioning had been completed by now. That was the fervent hope of everyone in this House and, indeed, of people in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, the speeches today, with the exception of that of my noble friend on the Front Bench, have been extremely negative and have not given a balanced picture of what has happened in Northern Ireland.
We all know that progress in Northern Ireland is slow and has tended to be two steps forward and one and a half steps back. But we have made progress. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, portrayed such a negative impression of events, as did the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Molyneaux. I do not think that it is fair or proper to say that the Government have appeased Sinn Fein or the IRA. The peace process demanded give and take on all sides. Of course, some concessions were made to one side, but some were also made to the other side. In the end I believe that we achieved a balanced package.
I accept that decommissioning has been far too slow and should have finished by now. However, we are where we are and it is not right to say that the Government's approach has been flawed or that the Government have helped only one side.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said that the Government installed Sinn Fein in government. That would suggest that there had been no elections in Northern Ireland and no agreed process whereby parties were given positions in the Executive based on the number of seats they had obtained in the Assembly. This debate has not had the balance that I would have wished.
There are, of course, strong negatives in Northern Ireland: the situation in north Belfast is—and has been—horrendous. There are unacceptable levels of paramilitary violence. People are being forced out of their homes, and there was the tragic murder of the postman. Those are all serious blots on Northern Ireland. However, there is a more positive side. Overall, the level of violence is lower. The number of murders, particularly of the security forces and of civilians through the troubles, is down. There is a ceasefire.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I saw the statistics last week. The number of murders for the 11 months ending 25th November last year was the second highest ever recorded since the statistics that I read were started.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I shall have to go back to the figures; I do not have them to hand. However, I was
1360
looking at them earlier and I do not think that we can dispute the fact that, taking the run of years since the Good Friday agreement, the level of murders and violence has gone down. However, that level is still too high. Any single murder and any act of grotesque violence is unacceptable; we all agree on that. I very much sympathise with the Government's efforts to get the level down. However, people in Northern Ireland also have to do things themselves. I refer to the unacceptable levels of violence in north Belfast in particular.
I return to decommissioning. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, seems not to accept the concept of arms being put beyond use. She suggested that there was no substance—I hope that I state her argument accurately—in that claim and she wanted arms handed over publicly to the decommissioning body, the Government or the police. I am satisfied that when General de Chastelain says that arms have been put beyond use, he means just that. He means that those arms can no longer be used by anyone. Surely that is good enough. If the arms cannot be used, that is just as good as if they had been handed over in a ceremony in front of the television cameras.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, when the issue was considered by the two governments, it was made absolutely clear that total destruction was required. My point was simply that we have moved from that position to a far more nebulous concept and that proof is far more difficult.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, obviously none of us was present to see the arms being put beyond use. However, I have confidence in the integrity of General de Chastelain. I have met him—I do not know whether the noble Baroness has—and I know that he is a man of integrity and trustworthiness. If he vouches for the fact that the arms have been put beyond use, I am satisfied that those arms could not be used by anyone, no matter how hard they tried. If they have been concreted in in such a way that they cannot be got out again, that, frankly, is good enough for me. If there is a difference between that process and what appears in earlier legislation, I suggest that that is a technical distinction and that the substantial point is that arms have been put beyond use. I should like all arms to he put beyond use in the same way.
The IRA made an important step, although it was not the final step. Before that, there was a limited amount of decommissioning by the LVF, which seems to have stopped the process. We want all arms to be put beyond use so that they can never be used again. That is the reason for the Bill. It would demonstrate a total commitment to democratic politics and the peace process. That is what we want—it is surely the desired aim. How to get it is, I agree, very difficult.
I wish that some positive loyalist decommissioning was currently taking place. That can come only with clear political leadership from local people on the spot. The Government can encourage, advise and provide the context, but in the end alternative political leadership is required. I fear that on the loyalist side,

1361
with the exception of the PUP—I believe that it is making efforts—there is no such political leadership and no effort to stem the level of violence in north Belfast in an attempt to achieve decommissioning. That is what matters. The loyalists need to reciprocate the step that has been taken by the IRA. That does not mean that the IRA should stop; it must go on decommissioning until all arms are decommissioned.

British Nationals Detained at Guantanamo Bay
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement made in the other place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay.
"A team of British officials visited Guantanamo from 17th January to 20th January and saw the three British detainees. We received a full report this morning.
"The team asked the detainees questions about their identity, nationality and welfare.
"Our officials' report confirms that the three are British and that they are all in good physical health. During lengthy discussions they spoke without inhibitions. None complained of any ill treatment. None said they had any medical condition requiring treatment. Medical facilities are available in the compound.
"All three asked for messages to be passed back to their next of kin, which we have undertaken to do. The identity of one of the men, Feroz Abbasi, is already in the public domain. It is not our intention to reveal the identities of the other men, pending contact with their families.
"The International Committee of the Red Cross now has a permanent presence at Guantanamo Bay and ICRC officials have access to detainees at any time. The detainees are free to conduct religious observances. They have prayer mats and calls to prayers are broadcast over the Camp X-Ray PA system. They are given as much drinking water as they want, three meals a day and food that complies with their religious practice if they wish it. During the visit, our officials received full co-operation from the camp's commander, who said that the more lurid allegations about torture and sensory deprivation are completely false. The recent pictures of detainees featured in the media were taken on arrival at the base where security needs are paramount.
1362
"Our officials report that as the numbers grow at the base there will be a need for more scope for exercise and every effort is made to provide all inmates who want one with a copy of the Koran.
"The conditions at Guantanamo Bay have attracted a great deal of parliamentary and media criticism. On the basis of the detailed report I have seen today, I am satisfied that these accusations were premature and that the detainees are being treated in line with international humanitarian norms in conditions where security is paramount.
"We are fully satisfied with the co-operation we have had from the United States authorities on this issue. Both we and the Americans are well aware that we will be judged by a higher standard than the Taliban and Al'Qaeda. On the basis of the report I have seen today, I can confirm that these standards are being met".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that Statement from the Minister in the other place. It is her second Statement this afternoon—heavy duties for her. We very much appreciate her efforts.
The Statement was reassuring in a number of senses. The report from the British officials makes it clear that, as the Statement pointed out, the detainees are in good physical health. That is reassuring when one has previously seen those undeniably disturbing pictures in the Sunday press, which at first glance seemed to portray a rather hideous regime. If those pictures were not really a true depiction of the way in which those people are being held, I am slightly left wondering why a US Navy photographer took them and why they were circulated world-wide. I do not understand the motive for doing that. They certainly gave the situation a very ugly appearance.
It is reassuring that there is satisfaction that those people are being treated humanely. They are undoubtedly extremely dangerous people. Although they have not been properly tried, it is probable that charges of committing the most unspeakable atrocities will be laid against them. I am quite sure that the treatment that they are now receiving is infinitely better than anything they ever meted out to the people whom they may well have slaughtered. However, that remains to be seen.
When making the Statement in another place, the Minister said that he was satisfied that the accusations that have been circulating were "premature". I believe that "premature" is a slightly odd word to use in that context. It implies—and would do so grammatically—that, later on, the accusations might be justified. That leads one to express the hope that that is not what is meant in the Statement; and also to express the hope that there will be a continuing, open communication with our officials through the Red Cross, or perhaps directly with our officials, about what is unfolding and

1363
happening at the base, and the nature of the plans for putting these individuals on trial or bringing them to justice in one way or another.
I remain puzzled, as, I suspect, do many noble Lords, as to the exact status of these people. As is clearly recognised, they are extremely dangerous people. They would attack their warders and their keepers in a most dangerous way. But are they prisoners of war, or not? If they are, can the Minister say whether they are receiving the required treatment under the Geneva Convention? Alternatively, if they are just potential criminals and murderers—perhaps, for all we know, mass murderers—when will charges be brought forward? When will we know about the nature of those charges?
In our dialogue with the American authorities, which I hope will be both constructive and supportive, it is important for us to indicate to them that it would help their case, the world case, and the case of the grand coalition of which we are members, if they would make clear how matters will be handled and what the status of these people will be. Finally, will the three individuals who have been identified as UK nationals be returned—as it has been suggested that some will be returned—to the countries of their nationality—for any charges to be brought? Can the Minister say whether any indication has been forthcoming from the American authorities on the matter?
However, overall, one is ready to invest hope that the statement from the commander at the camp is right; namely, that the allegations were "lurid", and that the cries about torture were false. Let us hope that that is absolutely right. I assume that it is; indeed, I do not question it. But we shall need to keep a very close watching arrangement on what is going on at the base so that the world can continue to be reassured, and we can continue to be a good and friendly supporter of our American allies by whose side we have stood so clearly and so strongly thus far.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I, too, should like to express my gratitude to the Minister for repeating the Statement. While the team were in Guantanamo Bay last week, I should tell the Minister that I was in Washington attending a seminar of the American Bar Association on these topics. I also had discussions with senior officials of the Administration. When considering the status of these detainees, I hope that the Government will not grant to them the status of "prisoners of war". A terrorist is a criminal; he is a criminal who has no legitimate target, whether civil or military. To allow such a person to be labelled as a "prisoner of war" suggests, for example, that an attack on the Pentagon would be a legitimate military target. That cannot possibly be allowed.
This country has entered into many anti-terrorist conventions. We have made it clear that we stand shoulder to shoulder with many nations around the world against terrorism. The IRA terrorists and the loyalists in Northern Ireland were always anxious to
1364
be treated as prisoners of war: they wanted to be named in that way. They took steps to act as though they were prisoners of war. They would give no more than their names; and they would refuse to be interrogated; they would not give evidence at trial. They would accept their punishment, go to prison and set up blocks within the Maze Prison with a chain of command as though they were prisoners of war. Finally, they would wait for hostilities to cease whereupon they would be released, as, I regret to say, has now happened. We should not allow the label, or the privileges, of a "prisoner of war" to Al'Qaeda and Taliban detainees.
I have one question for the Government. Following my discussions last week, it is an issue that I shall continue to pursue. Can the Minister say whether the Government will request the extradition of British nationals suspected of terrorism from wherever they may be in the world—whether in Afghanistan or in Guantanamo Bay—to this country for open trial by the procedures that we have built over 30 years to deal with terrorism, and under the Terrorism Act 2000 passed by this Parliament, so that we play our part by standing next to our American allies and shouldering the burden of dealing with terrorism in the world?
4.56 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the main issue raised by both noble Lords related to the status of the detainees, and whether or not they are considered to be prisoners of war. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said very clearly that he thought that they should not be. Whether or not an individual is classed as a prisoner of war depends on the facts of each case. It is for the detaining power—in this instance, the United States—to take a view. We do not know all the facts and, therefore, cannot form a view about individual cases. We have stressed that the detainees are to be treated humanely, and in accordance with international law. The Americans have reassured us that that will be the case. Against that background, I am unable to say anything further to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, as regards his specific question on the issue of extradition. As I have said, we are not yet in a position to form a view about individual cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked particularly about the current situation. I believe he said that he found the Statement reassuring in that respect. I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. As I said when repeating the Statement, the British detainees had no complaints. Our officials saw no signs of physical maltreatment or unnecessary force. I understand that certain security and health measures were taken during the transfer of the detainees to Guantanamo Bay, such as the wearing of ear-muffs and masks. However, these were removed once the detainees were processed on arrival at the base. They are high security prisoners who, in some cases, have vowed to kill their captors. Therefore, it is understandable that security measures are clearly necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, also asked when charges would be brought and what their nature would be. Again, we are waiting to receive clarification of the

1365
status, and I am unable to tell the noble Lord when we will have this information. However, as soon as the information is to hand, we shall share it with Parliament.
4.58 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am obviously in a minority on the issue. I believe that the treatment of these people by the Americans is deeply wrong. Either they are prisoners of war and should be treated under the Geneva Convention, or they have committed a crime and should be treated as criminals through the due process of law. As far as I can gather, they have just been locked up and taken to a place that is deliberately held to be outside American criminal jurisdiction. They have no access to lawyers, to the Red Cross, or to the rules of law and justice.
I know and accept that an awful lot of them are disgusting toads of the worst order who would slit my throat and the throat of anyone else in this House. That is not the point. The Americans and, I hope, ourselves stand for a higher order. Therefore, we must do things by the book as we did in Northern Ireland. We hope always to act in that way. The Americans are letting themselves down by the way in which it appears they are treating these people neither as criminals nor as prisoners of war. Therefore, to mix metaphors, they are neither fish nor fowl nor fair red herring. That makes me, as a liberal constitutionalist with a Whig background, very unhappy.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in the Statement I made it absolutely clear that we shall be judged by a higher standard than the Taliban and Al'Qaeda. We are absolutely clear that the detainees must be treated humanely and in accordance with international law. We have been given assurances by the Americans on the issue of humane treatment. I believe that, when I answered questions previously, I explained that we do not know all the facts. At this point we cannot form a view about individual cases. We are in constant contact with the Americans over the next steps, and decisions on those steps will depend on each individual case.
However, I believe that the important point is that the detainees are treated in a humane way and in accordance with international law. We have received assurances to that effect. The ICRC is currently in Guantanamo Bay and has access to the detainees day and night.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the transcript of the Statement was not available in the Printed Paper Office after she sat down? That meant that those of us who were wrong-footed by the unexpected brevity of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, cannot fully take part in this discussion. Therefore, I simply ask the Minister to clarify what she said in reply to my noble friend Lord Onslow.
There are only two possibilities: either the detainees are prisoners of war, as some of them may be because they were captured in battle; or they are criminals who
1366
are terrorists, as some of them may be because they have committed terrorist crimes all over the world. Therefore, they must be treated as one or the other. However, at present it appears that those who are terrorists will be given the legal recourse appropriate for prisoners of war if, as we read in the press, it is correct that they will be tried by a military tribunal and not by a court. I believe that that is what worries my noble friend and it worries me, too.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Lord about the transcript of the Statement. In fact, I received my own copy rather late.
With regard to clarifying what is happening, I believe that I have now said twice that we do not know all the facts and, therefore, cannot form a view on individual cases. The process is ongoing and we shall keep in constant contact with the Americans in relation to what happens next.
Earlier I was asked about legal representation. Clearly if any of the detainees face prosecution, then, under international norms, they should be entitled to legal representation. We know that. But at present decisions have not been made about the charges that the detainees might face. Therefore, it is our view that we must have all the facts at our disposal before making decisions about the next steps. That is why we are keeping in constant contact with the Americans. A decision on whether or not there will be military tribunals is for the Americans as the detaining power. Again, we have asked for full information on the way that such tribunals might work.
Lord Monson: My Lords, virtually all of us will have been very pleased to hear the noble Baroness's reassurances. However, she confined her report to the British detainees. Since Britain has given more support to the United States action in Afghanistan than almost any other country, is it not likely that we shall be held responsible by the world at large, and in particular by the Islamic world, for anything that happens to the detainees? Therefore, we should be concerned about the well-being of all the detainees.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, claims that the detainees are all terrorists. How can he possibly know? Distasteful though the Taliban regime undoubtedly was, that does not mean that every single Taliban solider is a terrorist. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, there is a mixture of simple soldiers, who are prisoners of war, and undoubted terrorists. But, pending the trial and finding of guilt of the terrorists, in the initial stages they should all be treated as prisoners of war. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees with that.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the reason that I focused my remarks on the British detainees is because the UK team saw only the three British detainees. The ICRC team is in Guantanamo Bay and will see all the other detainees. It will make its report to the US authorities. I understand that, as is the tradition, the ICRC will make its report in confidence to the US authorities. It will then be for the US authorities to act on any

1367
information contained in that report. But I believe that it is important for me to repeat that we have sought assurances that the detainees will be treated in a humane way and in accordance with international law. We have been given those assurances.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, temperamentally I am very much inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. However, with regard to the British detainees—be they prisoners or whatever else—I wonder whether we know the circumstances under which they were captured. Were they captured under what one might call "orthodox military" circumstances, in which case, they may well be prisoners of war; or were they captured in another context in which they might be regarded as terrorists? I dare say that at present we do not know which is the case. But are we trying to find out?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can say to my noble friend that the detainees were captured during the conflict in Afghanistan. I am unable to say more than that. Noble Lords will appreciate that further information is required on this issue. That is why we must keep in constant contact with the US authorities, and that is what we are doing.

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill
Second Reading debate resumed.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, if the Bill had provided for the extension of the amnesty for paramilitary decommissioning for one year, I could have understood it. To provide it for five years is, in the paramilitary world, almost light years away. So why should the paramilitaries bother to decommission this year or the next? They are getting on very well—in particular the IRA, which, figuratively speaking, has kept its arms under the negotiating table and is sticking it out. Therefore, I believe that we can now forget about decommissioning by any paramilitary organisation—loyalist or republican—for the reasonable future.
I accept that decommissioning by the IRA in October last year was significant and important. But it is now clear that that was done for many special reasons—largely to get the IRA out of trouble. Therefore, I do not consider that it is likely to recur.
It is today that members of Sinn Fein/IRA get into their offices in the other place and receive substantial allowances. Let us consider the access that that will allow to Westminster for their fellow travellers. All that is very disturbing for the pro-union people in Northern Ireland. We were led to believe that we had a peace process in which Sinn Fein/IRA would decommission and become democrats. It is now clear that it will not decommission, and massive electoral fraud has made it plain that its members are not democrats.
1368
What on earth have the Government been thinking about? Do the Government believe that they are dealing with a child and that if they give him or her a sweet every week Sinn Fein/IRA will grow up and do what the Government want? The sweet every week to Sinn Fein/IRA has made the pro-union people in Northern Ireland feel distressed and threatened. Living and moving about there as I do, the feeling of what is an almost physical hurt is universal. People do not know what we are heading for when all the Government appear to do is give more to the IRA.
Nothing is being done to review the work of the Assembly and sectarian feeling is worse than it has ever been, promoted by paramilitaries on both sides. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that many brave people, including the leaders, in the community have been working very hard to try to make sense of what is going on. But it is clear that the paramilitaries are up to a game of their own and that politics is not their concern.
Nothing can excuse the paramilitary murders, shootings, bombings, organised rioting and much else in the areas that they control. It is all too obvious that a determined, concentrated police effort is urgently needed to regain control in those areas. But the police reserve is being disbanded, again to please the IRA. The Northern Ireland police service no longer has the numbers required to undertake this very difficult task. The Government must remember that they are responsible for security in Northern Ireland and at the moment we do not have security. Therefore, it is not surprising that the pro-union majority is very disenchanted with the peace process and this Bill is not helpful.
President Bush's special adviser on Northern Ireland, Mr Richard Haas, has been visiting the Province. He has said that he believes that the peace process will be unable to go forward unless a majority in both communities is supportive. He said,
"quite simply, what is needed is a warm house for all who live there".
I can tell the House that it has become very chilly for pro-union people. I commend this advice to the Government and urge them to drop the Bill as a start to a revision of policy that will enable the peace process to go forward.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, as is so often the case in relation to our debates on Northern Ireland, this debate has caused me anguish. Comfortably seated as we are 400, 500 or 600 miles away from the seat of the Troubles, such debates tend to bring before us so much frustration, so much pain and so much wickedness. However, I do not believe that this Bill is wholly without some positive signs. In a brief contribution, I want to try to re-establish, or a t least to remind myself of, a principle that we should bear in mind when considering this Bill: almost everyone agrees that in our democracy illegal armaments must be removed from any position in which they can influence the political process.

1369
Agreeing on that is the easy bit. It gets much harder when it is recognised that illegal though it is to hold armaments, the yielding up of them will be done only voluntarily. If it is not done voluntarily, it will not be done at all. Therefore, to secure the best prospect of the armaments being dealt with so that they are for ever out of harm's way, it is necessary to put in place a rather more sophisticated scheme than many would like. I believe that proposition to be sound.
In the circumstances, that is fortunate because I ventured to express that proposition on 9th December 1996 in another place when I moved the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill in exactly those words. Out of interest, this afternoon I looked up those words. That Bill was enacted with all-party support, notwithstanding that at that time the IRA's ceasefire had not been restored after the incident at Canary Wharf; and in accordance with the earlier Mitchell report, an independent commission under General John de Chastelain was put in place. Mr Trimble has said, as we have been rightly reminded today, that the expectation was, and the requirement of the Mitchell report was, that decommissioning should be progressive and should not end before it was total.
There was also put in place a tightly defined and narrow amnesty which was, and is, available only to those who adhere to the strict terms of a decommissioning scheme, and only for offences that are committed technically in respect of anything done in accordance with such a scheme. They are mainly possessory offences in nature. So it is a tight, narrowly drawn and technical amnesty indeed.
That Bill was not so much an act of faith—that would have been too much—but it was an act of hope. Above all, I consider it an act of reason. It is perfectly true that it was introduced at a time when Mitchell had reported that all paramilitary organisations had committed themselves to the rightness of total decommissioning. Now we are within weeks of the time running out in which such an amnesty can be provided. I am in no doubt that it must be extended, although, together with my noble friend on the Front Bench and with others, I believe that it would be right that there should be an extension for 12 months, with no provision written into the Bill for further extension because of the points that have been made about the signal that a further extension power by order up to a total of five years harmfully sends.
The reason is that although we have had far too little decommissioning by the IRA, and by the loyalists, we have had some. That has taken place in the context of the positive developments that have already been listed and which need not be repeated. We want and demand much more. More importantly, the people of Northern Ireland demand much more. We know of no better method of gathering it in.
To close off this method and this route by removing the amnesty necessary—that is, as it were, to give safe conduct to people who deliver up arms—would achieve no good and very much harm. It would be the
1370
end of any prospect of the further decommissioning that is owed by the IRA and by the loyalists and it would be a self-inflicted end.
In my view, the Government are entitled to the Bill, or at least to the principle of the Bill. I shall return to the matter of duration. If the IRA's October tranche of decommissioning had been but a silly or a cynical token or a sham, it would be different. But having seen it himself, General de Chastelain, whom I have known well for many years now, and whom I trust implicitly both as to integrity and judgment, described it as significant. When this Bill was before another place, Mr Trimble said:
"I have no doubt that it was significant".
Indeed, he believed that it was more than significant. He said:
"I think it was substantial".—[Official Report. Commons, 17/12/01, col. 74.]
There is much in this progression, which we have had brought before us again this afternoon, that is maddening. There is no question about that. However, it is very important that we should not allow it to madden us. There is much about this progression—snail-like and erratic as it has been—that is sickening. I listened with mounting depression—but I could not fault it—to the list, to the progression of concessions and the cynical disregard of them from the republican side, that my noble friend Lady Park rehearsed in her powerful speech. There is much that is sickening.
It is so easy to appear soft and wimpish when one rejects an impulse inspired by fury rather than by reason. Yet to yield to such an impulse would bring only short-lived satisfaction and at a cost that others would have to pay over a long time.
Maintenance of object should be the first principle of any campaign. Our object must be to secure the removal from our democracy of all illegally held munitions and, with them, the influence that they continuously exert, even from their hiding places.
Appeasement will not achieve it. I agree with what has been said about the step taken today at the other end of this building in relation to offices for Sinn Fein notwithstanding those Members' refusal to take the oath that all other Members have taken. I am afraid that the Government missed a serious and valuable trick in continuing with the release of prisoners notwithstanding that violence continued, because that was the one lever that they had—and they threw it away. But there is plenty of pressure that can be brought to bear on the IRA. It must be sustained pressure and must come from as wide an area of the world as possible. We should call on every country engaged in the war against terrorism to exert that pressure. There is no justification for any armaments to be retained.
There is no justification for maintaining, uncorrected, the imbalance—it is a huge imbalance—between the concessions and the moves that have been made towards conciliation by unionists since the Good Friday agreement, and any movement since then on the part of Sinn Fein/IRA.

1371
I listened with anguish to what my noble friend Lord Molyneaux of Killead said about the consequences electorally for those in the Ulster Unionist Party who supported the Good Friday agreement as they face the elections for the Assembly in May.
That imbalance is well recognised world-wide. So we must steel ourselves, yet again saying, "We are where we are", against very sincerely held views that we are being soft and wimpish. We have to grant this extension of this technical amnesty.
I very much regret the five-year duration. I have no doubt that we shall come back to this matter, but I am very clear that we must not make impossible what we should be exhorting countries all over the world to press for—that is, the total decommissioning of all illegally held arms.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill. There is not an alternative.
Let us consider the alternative. The alternative of not having the Bill and not extending the time period for decommissioning would mean that people will believe that it is no longer required. Just think of what may happen—whether it be Republican or Loyalist—if the thinking is that decommissioning need no longer be pursued.
There has been a depth and diversity of comment in the debate about what is a short eight or nine-line Bill. Many of your Lordships have used the temptation to talk about the many and several ills in Northern Ireland at the present time. Indeed, the Leader of the House in opening the debate gave a list of forward-moving measures. But we still have the conflict of—it came from several of the speakers—the present unionist problem about unionist confidence. I suspect that we shall have to return to this matter.
However, as is the nature of matters in this House, the bulk of today's speakers have had a unionist handle to them. Indeed, if one takes the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Parks, the entire speech was stating clearly the ills of Sinn Fein and the IRA, but there were seven words:
"The Loyalists are just as bad but".
The rest of it was about another group of people.
I am gratified that in the end, and particularly from the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, speakers are not saying, "Please do not pass the Bill". Yes, an opportunity has been used to make many of the comments that have been made on many occasions, but there is an understanding that the way forward is to have the Bill.
I was thinking that if, during the passage of the Bill, a messenger appeared and a piece of paper was handed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, with two choices on it—that General de Chastelain has announced that there is a little more decommissioning on the one hand, or, on the other hand, that peace has broken out in North Belfast—which would your Lordships sooner have? We need to put these matters into context. I must say that if a piece
1372
of paper were to come saying that peace had been found in North Belfast and that people had stopped knocking hell out of one another, many of us in this House would give that an incredible welcome and it would be a wonderful present for the day.
Reference has been made to the Bill having a long life. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said that he would prefer just a short extension. I am far from certain that this constant business of having a buffer a few months away and then a crisis when we get up to it, is the best way to get progress in Northern Ireland. Although I understand the argument about giving a lot of rope, I believe that if we have a Bill which gives that greater opportunity for us not to be under this constant pressure on the subject area, that would he better.
Of course decommissioning must happen. It is part of the Good Friday agreement that was negotiated in Belfast. There should be decommissioning. People have signed up and agreed to it. We all want it to happen. It would be useful if the Minister in his reply could indicate whether there has been any further progress—people would like to know—since the measures in October. Three months have now passed.
With those few remarks, I should like to say that from these Benches we support the Bill. Nevertheless, we hope for speedy decommissioning.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have never been present when we have debated the continuing problems of Northern Ireland without benefiting from the speeches made. That has been the case today. Just before he sat down, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, asked me whether there had been any further progress. My answer to him is: yes, the Assembly still continues; yes, the Police Service for Northern Ireland has now been set up. Surprisingly—we shall discuss this in a little while—all parties with a legitimate interest agreed on a badge.
Much more importantly in the Northern Ireland context, if the noble Lord were to chide me by sending yet another messenger with another piece of paper saying, "Can you tell us about further progress on decommissioning?", I would have to say that I could not. However, I agree with the theme and implications of his earlier remarks: to focus unnaturally and solely on decommissioning is to do Northern Ireland's interests significant harm. Decommissioning is very important, but it is not the only aspect of importance.
In many ways the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was brave and thoughtful. He, at least, could not be accused of not focusing on the paramilitaries—the accusation made by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. His criticism of the loyalist paramilitaries was ringing and robust. He pulled no punches, as he never does. If I may say so, he was most even-handed—indeed, he was highly critical of the so-called loyalist paramilitaries. He was generous—I was grateful to hear this—in his commendation of the Assembly, which is now on the way to becoming a sound administration.

1373
Of course it is right to say, as did my noble friend Lord Dubs, that it was not the British Government who installed the Assembly; it was not the British Government who installed elected members; it was voters, by the choice that they exercise at elections. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, referred to the cold house and the chill house in the speech of my right honourable friend Dr Reid. I read that speech several times. It was an extremely thoughtful speech of considerable depth. The Secretary of State seemed to me to be reminding himself and all of us that we must bear in mind the susceptibilities of the Unionist community, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, referred, as a most important part of Northern Ireland society.
That was exactly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. There is a significant amount of loyalist violence. It is not simply armed violence but the sort of violence to which we are becoming far too accustomed—it is hardly an exaggeration to say that it has occurred every night during recent weeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, were both good enough to say that they accepted the integrity—and, perhaps more to the point, the judgment—of General de Chastelaine. I agree with what was said: decommissioning must continue. We must carefully consider the scheme of the Act. The initial Act was introduced by the noble and learned Lord when he was Secretary of State. I responded to it when the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, was taking it through this place. It is not a case of extending decommissioning for five years. As the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, pointed out, the provision is for up to five years and must be attended to annually. That is important and distinct.
I must take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. She described the act of decommissioning on 22nd October—I think—as an act of relative significance. That puts it far too low in the history of Ireland as I have read and come to know it. In fact, it was an act of dramatic significance—not sufficient, not entire, but extremely important. She said that the Government talk about transparency and yet some things are opaque. I agree—as did she in her former incarnation.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would agree that there is not really a comparison between the conduct of secret and public affairs. My point was that the Act was announced as something to create public confidence. It failed to do so. Incidentally, I should like to take this opportunity to say that I have never challenged—and never would challenge—the integrity, honour and competence of General de Chastelaine; I greatly admire all three. I was talking about what the IRA managed to do, despite his integrity and professionalism.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness has mistaken me. I did not suggest for a second that she had challenged General de Chastelaine's qualities of integrity.
1374
As I think that we both enjoy these occasions, I return to her challenge to me. Her former work—and the work on which the Government are presently engaged—are both to the public advantage. In that context of working to public advantage, not every aspect of every activity can conceivably be made known at the time in the public interest. So there is no real difference between us, and I hope to have rounded that circle—if not squared it.
The noble Baroness asked me some specific questions. I can answer one, which falls into the non-opaque category. The inspectors were not accompanied by technical advisers. They had been thoroughly briefed by arms experts before the inspections took place, so that they would be able to verify the viability of the material that they were shown.
The noble Baroness also asked me whether the Government had asked the commission to consider any proposals for decommissioning that would not involve the weapons concerned being put permanently and verifiably beyond use. I must remind her and your Lordships that destruction is described in the Act which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, introduced. In Section 10 of that Act, destruction is described as follows:
"'destruction' includes making permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable".
So that is not a modern gloss or a contemporary fiction, it has always been in the Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is right. He speaks with the authority of recent engagement with and continuing experience of Northern Ireland. He pointed out—as, more brutally, did the noble Lord. Lord Shutt—that we must continue to engage. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, may well be expelled from his party, because he used the words that I have not heard since the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was with us: there is no alternative.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, wanted the Bill to be dropped. There is no prospect in this world of our doing so. That would be an act of gross irresponsibility. I take up and agree with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew: it is easy for us to have views when the consequences do not immediately impinge upon our lives so many hundreds of miles away.
There was no invitation to No. 10 to celebrate the Sinn Fein members being allowed to use parliamentary facilities. I understand—and I am pretty sure that I am right about this—that the appointment had been agreed weeks before. We can argue about whether Sinn Fein representatives, who have been voted in by their constituencies, ought or ought not to have been given parliamentary privileges. But that, as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, said much more plainly than I could, has nothing to do with the Bill. So I shall not engage in that controversy, which was a matter for the other House.

1375
We are asking for a continuation of the opportunity to continue the possessory amnesty. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, was absolutely right about that. The amnesty is limited in legal terms but is of great significance in political and party terms. Let us assume—this may never come about—that some degree of human grace entered those who cruelly murdered the postal worker, Mr McColgan, on his way to work at 4.45 a.m. Do we not want a continuing possessory amnesty available for people who may actually think that they were wrong?
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Police Emblems and Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002
5.40 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th January be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, before I go into any detail, I shall reiterate the tribute that we rightly, full-heartedly pay to members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, now the Police Service of Northern Ireland. On Friday, I had the great privilege of having a lengthy conversation with the incumbent Chief Constable, Sir Ronnie Flanagan.
We must bear in mind, not least in the context of this debate and the Second Reading debate that we had a few moments ago, that 302 of the men and women of the RUC' were murdered simply because they were police officers. Of course, an infinitely larger number mourn them, and a very large number were injured while simply carrying out their work.
The regulations that I commend to your Lordships regulate the symbols and flags of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The independent commission on policing in Northern Ireland said that the,
"new beginning to policing cannot be achieved unless the reality that part of the community feels unable to identify with the present name and symbols associated with the police is addressed".
The regulations are intended to come into operation on 5th April, the date on which the first batch of new recruits will graduate. We hope to have the new emblems ready for the new recruits to wear as they complete their training.
The Northern Ireland Policing Board has achieved something remarkable. The noble Lords, Lord Brookeborough and Lord Kilclooney, are members of that body. It reached unanimous agreement on a design for the new emblem. That would have been a surprise to most of us. The emblem is in Schedule l to the regulations. Regulation 3 enshrines it as the new emblem for the PSNI. The Chief Constable and other police representatives have also agreed to the new design. Regulation 4 makes it clear that it is the only emblem or badge that may be used in connection with the police—on uniforms, stationery, forms, police stations and police vehicles.
1376
Regulation 6 is important. The Government honour the contribution that the RUC has made. The award of the George Cross was a public and considered mark of that recognition. The RUC George Gross Foundation honours the achievements and sacrifices over the years. The Northern Ireland Police Fund has been set up to provide support for police officers and their families. Regulation 6 makes it clear, in line with Patten's recommendations, that memorials will stay as they are and where they are.
Regulation 7 prescribes the form of emblems of rank, which are illustrated in Schedule 3. We want to give the Chief Constable maximum operational flexibility, both for the present and in the future. Regulations 8 to 11 deal with the question of flags. The new police service flag is the PSNI emblem on a dark green background. The service flag is the only flag that can be used in connection with the police. Regulation 10 provides for the royal standard to be flown on the occasion of a visit by Her Majesty the Queen to a police building.
I repeat that the measures contained in the regulations are intended to look ahead. They are not intended to discredit or dishonour those who served in the RUC under different symbols. The change is necessary in order to secure for Northern Ireland a police service that has the support of all members of the community—and can, therefore, be more effective. I hope that the badge will not be seen as a neutral badge or a badge of controversy but as a badge that esteems a number of different traditions.
It is remarkable—I repeat myself deliberately—that the board was able to agree unanimously on the badge. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th January be approved [15th Report front the Joint Committee].—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
5.45 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for bringing the Motion before the House. I say outright that I support it.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the policing board has done a seriously excellent job in approving the new badge for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, including the three key symbols that were already in place—the crown, the harp and the shamrock. The colours, as far as one call tell from the photocopies, are very reasonable.
I have spoken once or twice recently about the problems with morale in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is important for morale that a service of that type should have an emblem to wear of which it can be proud. I sincerely hope that the politics of the new badge is now over and that the police will be wearing it proudly very soon.
I am, of course, sad that one significant part of the population is not represented in the result. Sinn Fein has been conspicuous by its absence. The Roman Catholic Church came on hoard. The SDLP took courage and came on hoard, as did everyone else—but

1377
not Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein has its own reasons for that, and most of us will be able to guess at them in one shape or another.
There is no occasion on which the national flag may ever again be flown from police stations in Northern Ireland. That is another aspect of the regulations that is sad and will be seen by part of the population as bad. The Union Jack is the national flag of Northern Ireland, and it is wrong that it cannot be flown ever again. It sends out a sad message. I would have understood if there had been provision to identify certain days of the year on which the national flag could and should be flown on police stations. However, that is not to be, and I hope that, as the years go by, it will be seen to have been a detail, and the least important at that.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for introducing the regulations. I also associate those of us on these Benches with his words regarding the work of the RUC during the past years.
1378
I shall make it clear that there can be many alternatives to these plans. Already, I have heard a suggestion that within the service emblem there should, perhaps, be a hand. I have looked at the torch and wondered whether it had anything to do with the Conservative Party. Where is the bird of liberty? Should there be a rose? I wonder whether the clover—is it a clover, with three leaves?—should not have four leaves, for good fortune. That would be wonderful. I am certain that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is delighted that we are not discussing the Emblems (Drawing up the plans thereof) Bill.
It is wonderful that we can rejoice that there is unity on the emblems for the new Police Service of Northern Ireland.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before six o'clock.

  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  Arms Export Policies
  Arms Export Policies
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Gypsies: Planning Permission Appeals
  Gypsies: Planning Permission Appeals
  Tourism Enterprises: Planning Policies
  Tourism Enterprises: Planning Policies
  Bullying in the Workplace
  Bullying in the Workplace
  Access Land
  Access Land
  Cell Nuclear Transfer and Cloning
  Cell Nuclear Transfer and Cloning
  Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry
  Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry
  DCMS: Quinquennial Reviews
  DCMS: Quinquennial Reviews
  Belfast Agreement: Parity of Esteem
  Belfast Agreement: Parity of Esteem
  Northern Ireland: Victims of Intimidation
  Northern Ireland: Victims of Intimidation
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Palace of Westminster Security Passes
  Palace of Westminster Security Passes