Sitting of 10 July 2002

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

    Sectarianism
    Mr. John Lyons: When he last met trade unions in Northern Ireland to discuss the implications of sectarianism for the peace process. [65799]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): The trade union movement in Northern Ireland has been at the forefront of the campaign against sectarianism, particularly in the workplace.
    I met a delegation from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions on 25 March 2002, and we discussed sectarianism among other subjects.
    Mr. Lyons: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. All across the House there is recognition of the sterling work of the trade unions in Northern Ireland, not only in fighting for certain issues in the workplace but in combating sectarianism. Will my right hon. Friend review how the trade unions in Northern Ireland can become more involved and included in the work of the broader civic Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed, I am happy to pay tribute to the trade unions. As part of the discussions on sectarianism that I have been having with a range of bodies, I have been meeting the trade unions and discussing with them what they can contribute. It is a particularly challenging problem in Northern Ireland because, unfortunately, we have recently seen an increase in attacks on bus drivers and essential emergency services. This reached a new low yesterday when a cortege and hearse in Londonderry were pelted with stones and paint-bombed. That is the lowest of the low—beneath contempt. Where are we when we cannot even treat the dead with dignity? I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that those who are laying their loved ones to rest should be afforded—if anyone should be—at least a dignified funeral at the culmination of their loved one's life.
    Mr. David Trimble: I am sure that the Secretary of State will be happy to convey to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons) the fact that trade unions—whose work in dealing with
    868
    intimidation in the workplace I, too, applaud—are represented in the civic forum in Northern Ireland, which represents those elements of civic society not directly represented in the Assembly.
    I agree with the Secretary of State about the new low that has been reached in a number of recent incidents. Someone appears to have made a deliberate attempt in north Belfast to use a car as a lethal weapon to drive on to the pavement and run people down, simply because they were in a different area. Is that not symptomatic of the way in which relations in a number of areas have deteriorated; is that not inseparable from the recent activity of various paramilitary organisations; and is that not the problem that the Secretary of State should get a grip of?
    Dr. Reid: I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman says. A report yesterday from the University of Ulster about the further polarisation of opinions made depressing reading. I have no doubt that sectarianism is at least part of the problem with which we are confronted. We have seen street violence where there has been some involvement by paramilitaries. That is part of the reason why there is a need to restore confidence in the peace process.
    We have a challenging and difficult weekend ahead. I appeal to anyone of any influence and authority to do all they can to make sure that we come out of this weekend without the blight of the violence that has too often scarred Northern Ireland in the past. In the longer term, we will have to take steps to ensure that everyone recognises that there is no halfway house, no tolerable level of violence in Northern Ireland. I will certainly do all I can in that respect, and so, I hope, will right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Are not trade unions in Northern Ireland to be complimented not only on their formal campaigns against sectarianism in the workplace but on their day-to-day activities, in which Catholic and Protestant workers are drawn together in seeking decent wages and conditions? Some of us are of the opinion that membership of the Labour party should be permitted so that that such activity can be continued in those areas.
    Dr. Reid: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I know that that view is shared by many in the Labour party. Notwithstanding the fact that the Labour party is not at present organised in Northern Ireland, I hope he would accept that many of the measures that the Labour Government have introduced—the legal right to membership of trade unions, the minimum wage, the working families tax credit, the extra expenditure provided to the Northern Ireland Assembly for quality public services—have an impact on the social and economic environment of many areas in Northern Ireland.
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it behoves all of us to address the underlying social problems in many of those areas. Unfortunately, many of the areas in which there is continual violence are precisely those with the worst social deprivation. One of the elements that we cannot forget is the practical application of policies on the ground to create a better economic and social environment

    869
    for people in Northern Ireland, who deserve just as much opportunity and just as much chance to advance their families as people in the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Gregory Campbell: Given the Secretary of State's comments about the report released yesterday by the University of Ulster, which indicated the increasing sectarianism and increasing polarisation in Northern Ireland, allied with the recent police report which indicated that community relations are at an all-time low and that violence has been at an all-time high in the past eight years, what plans has he to put in place a political process in Northern Ireland that has the possibility of attracting Unionist as well as nationalist support?
    Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a political process and, indeed, a wider peace process under way in Northern Ireland that has received far more backing than any alternative that I have ever heard of. If he knows of an alternative that he thinks can command the support that the present process commanded in referendums north and south of the border, I would be glad to hear of it, but I have not so far heard of it from him or his colleagues. Surely part of combating sectarianism and polarised attitudes is the capacity of all politicians from all parties and all walks of life to reach out beyond their own community to try to understand the position adopted by the other community in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman attempts to do that just as much as I do.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: I strongly agree with the Secretary of State's comments about the incident in Londonderry. It is particularly disappointing that it should happen in Derry, where I hope to be on Monday, because that city has had a very good record during the past few months. I also thoroughly endorse his appeal for forbearance and for everyone to use their influence to try to avoid violence next weekend, during coming weekends and, of course, beyond then.
    As for reviving the peace process and restoring momentum, the Taoiseach, speaking in the Dail on 17 April, spoke of his determination—I use his word—that decommissioning should be completed in advance of the May Assembly elections next year. If Bertie Ahern can say that, and if he can set out a maximal time scale in which that must happen, why cannot, or why will not, the British Government say the same thing?
    Dr. Reid: Because the Taoiseach did not say that; he said that he expected that we could make rapid progress towards the culmination of decommissioning before May of next year. I would certainly hope that that is the position, and the Taoiseach has made his views known. There is no difference on this issue between the Irish and the British Governments. We have continually made it plain that the process has to proceed to the eventual disbandment of all paramilitaries. We want that to happen as soon as possible. We also make it absolutely plain that, if anyone is under any illusion that there is a halfway house that can comfortably accommodate successful political intervention as well as the maintenance of a high level of paramilitary activity, we have to get rid of that illusion.
    Mr. Davies: I am afraid that we have another example of self-delusion by the British Government. The Taoiseach did say that; I used the quotation correctly. I shall now hand the right hon. Gentleman the document which quotes from the Dail record of 17 April. The Taoiseach did use the word "determination". He spoke of his
    "determination that this will not drift on into election time in the North next year."
    In another words, he suggests that it will be over by May next year. Those are the facts, and I am sorry that the Secretary of State is so poorly advised that he did not know what the Taoiseach said.
    Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman another question on which he has had no less than four months to try to make up his mind. On 9 March, the First Minister called for a border poll or referendum on the future status of Northern Ireland at the same time as the Assembly elections next year. What is the Secretary of State's response to that proposal?
    Dr. Reid: You won't mind, Mr. Speaker, if I tidy up the Desk.
    My response to the second point, which I have made public on several occasions—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not had a chance to read my response—is that I will consider that.
    Mr. Davies: After four months!
    Dr. Reid: I am afraid that we are about 10 months away from the next election. The hon. Gentleman is keen on deadlines, and he is now ascribing the deadlines to the Taoiseach, whom—with great respect to him—I meet occasionally, and I am familiar with what he says publicly and privately. We are, of course, determined that, as far as is humanly possible, we get advances on decommissioning and on demilitarisation of paramilitary organisations. The whole House wishes to see that achieved. It is something that we have been trying to achieve in Northern Ireland since the origins of the state. It is easy to make trite points to the effect that it should be finished by next week or the following week.
    All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that there are no illusions in the Government or in the House that, for any sustainable period, we can tolerate indefinitely the level of paramilitary activity, including targeting and attempts to acquire weaponry, which appears to have been going on. I cannot make that plainer. I am determined, as are the whole Government, to try to get full decommissioning of paramilitary apparatus in the shortest possible time. There is no difference on that between us and the Irish Government, and, no doubt, no difference between my wishes and those of the hon. Gentleman on the matter.

    Smuggling
    Mr. Neil Turner: If he will make a statement on progress made in tackling smuggling in Northern Ireland. [658001]
    Mr. Tom Harris: What progress the Government have made in combating organised crime in Northern Ireland. [65804]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): This year—for the first time in five years—legal deliveries of oil products in Northern Ireland have risen, which, in large part, is thanks to the successful disruption of fuel smuggling rings. Since April last year, Customs has seized more than 63 million smuggled cigarettes in Northern Ireland. Clearly, there is much more to do, as the Select Committee report has shown, but I congratulate my partners engaged in the organised crime taskforce on their efforts and their success to date.
    Mr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I am sure that we are all gratified by the progress that is being made. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems in the Northern Ireland context is that much of the smuggling contributes to the funds of paramilitary organisations on both sides of the sectarian divide? Is she satisfied that the legal process in Northern Ireland gives proper recognition to that when it takes account of the people who carry out that smuggling?
    Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The organised crime taskforce was established because we recognise the links that exist between those engaged in organised crime and paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Of the more than 70 different organised crime networks, we acknowledge that probably half have links to paramilitaries. That is precisely the reason why, through the organised crime taskforce, we have adopted a multi-agency approach to tackling anyone engaged in organised crime. By doing so, we know that we will catch in the net those who would use the proceeds of that activity for terrorist purposes. We find it easier to bring those individuals to justice through the operations of the organised crime taskforce. The effect is the same.
    Mr. Harris: Would my hon. Friend agree that, for many terrorists, the accumulation of personal wealth comes before the political aims of a united Ireland or of maintenance of the union? Will she reassure the House that the Proceeds of Crime Bill will be used with enthusiasm and vigour to confiscate the property of gangsters who, even now, are buying up Southfork-style homes in Northern Ireland? Some are even applying for planning permission for swimming pools next door, without there being any evidence that they have the legitimate income to do so.
    Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend is right. Later this year, the Assets Recovery Agency, a statutory body, will be an important extra weapon in the armoury that we will be able to deploy against organised criminals. As he rightly points out, to the great irritation of the ordinary, decent people of Northern Ireland, these criminals flaunt in the face of everyone else the assets and wealth that they have gained through their activities.
    Lembit Öpik: The Government lose about £400 million a year as a result of petrol and diesel smuggling across the border. What do they intend to do to enforce law-abiding practice, and is the Minister willing to accept representations from those who represent
    872
    the law-abiding people who sell fuel in Northern Ireland? They are absolutely desperate for support in terms of law enforcement in the Province.
    Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman is right. In the United Kingdom context, the problem of fuel smuggling and laundering is unique to Northern Ireland because of the long land border and the problem of policing areas such as South Armagh. Many resources are being deployed to tackle the problem, and there have been many successes, including recent successes in which significant smuggling and fuel laundering plans and networks have been disrupted. I commend the work of Customs and Excise officers, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the other agencies who work under the umbrella of the organised crime taskforce. They are having a real impact—so much so that, as I said earlier, we are beginning to see an increase in the amount of legal fuel being delivered to the Province.
    Mr. John Taylor: Will the Minister comment on the difference in fuel duties north and south of the border in Ireland and on the impact that the fuel duty differential has on the proprietors of filling stations in Northern Ireland?
    Jane Kennedy: There is no doubt that there is an impact. The fuel price differential is one of the factors that encourages those who would engage in criminal activity to smuggle fuel. However, those individuals would smuggle something else or engage in another form of criminal activity in other circumstances. The tax differential is a factor, but not the only one. The Government need to bring together all the law enforcement agencies and make sure that their policies, procedures and energies are directed towards tackling the individuals engaged in such activities and towards disrupting and interrupting whatever criminal activity they carry out. That is the taskforce's focus, and that is why we are having the success that we are.
    Mr. John Hume: Given that the petrol industry is the biggest cross-border industry, will the Minister and the Secretary of State strongly support the proposals that I have put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to save the petrol industry? The tax on fuel has closed petrol stations in Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Newry and Armagh, and instead of bringing the Government extra money, the tax has lost them £400 million a year because fuel is being bought on the other side of the border. Will the Minister therefore ask the Chancellor to act strongly on my proposals to restore the petrol industry in the border counties of Northern Ireland? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, may I remind hon. Members that it is only courtesy to remain quiet during Question Time?
    Jane Kennedy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Tax and taxation policy are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. We have regular discussions and constantly monitor the situation, particularly the impact that the duty has on legitimate businesses. Indeed, I have met representatives of the fuel retail industry in Northern Ireland. Tax evasion is not the only issue; many other factors are involved. Criminals are taking through the

    873
    Irish countryside—both north and south of the border—dangerous vehicles containing huge amounts of fuel in very risky conditions. We should oppose such practice, and the Government and every law enforcement agency should work with the utmost vigour to stop the smuggling of fuel and other commodities in that way.
    Again, we return to the link between organised crime and paramilitaries and to the need for the law enforcement agencies to co-ordinate their efforts to beat these criminals and to achieve the success that they are achieving in the organised crime taskforce. It is a long haul, but we will get to the end of the road.

    Voluntary Bodies (Grants)
    Norman Lamb: What sums have been earmarked by his Department for grants to voluntary bodies in 2002–03. [65801]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): In Northern Ireland there are an estimated 5,000 voluntary and community groups. Some £;200 million of public money is invested each year in grants to these bodies, which includes European funding. For this financial year, the Northern Ireland Office has earmarked more than £1 million for Victim Support Northern Ireland, £400,000 for the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and nearly £300,000 for Extern, which focuses its work on young offenders.
    Norman Lamb: One of the great values of the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland is that it is one way of keeping the lines of communication open between the communities. Given the importance of the voluntary sector to the peace process, will the Minister agree to meet representatives of the sector to discuss their role fully?
    Jane Kennedy: I, or perhaps more appropriately my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, will be happy to meet representatives of voluntary organisations. Such meetings have taken place and I am sure that a request will be received sympathetically.
    Lady Hermon: What aid have the Government given to women's voluntary organisations such as the Women's Support Network, which does such great work in both communities, especially among working-class women in Belfast?
    Jane Kennedy: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of women's organisations as recently as, I think, the night before last. Representations are received regularly. I cannot give the hon. Lady the exact figures, but I undertake to get those to her in the next few days.

    Security Situation
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [65802]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid): There are significant residual problems of violence in terms of paramilitarism in Northern Ireland and we will continue to work to ensure that these are eliminated. We have, however, come a long way in counteracting violence and we maintain a security presence commensurate with the level of threat.
    Mr. O'Brien: While I recognise the depressing and deteriorating level of violence in Northern Ireland, as shown in the answers given by the Secretary of State this afternoon, does he agree that the best way to demonstrate his and the Government's good faith and belief that no violence will be tolerated in Northern Ireland is for him and the Prime Minister to rule out once and for ever an amnesty for Northern Ireland paramilitaries on the run?
    Dr. Reid: We said publicly at Weston Park that there is an issue to resolve. We are intent on doing that, but we have not decided how to resolve it. As far as the general situation is concerned, there is no doubt that violence is intolerable, and we have made it plain that there is no acceptable level of violence in a modern democratic society. We will continue to make that plain, but no one should forget just how far we have come in the past 10 years. There have been enormous improvements in the economy, in the standard of living, and in security in Northern Ireland in terms of the number of people maimed, injured and murdered. That is not to say that we are the least bit complacent. There is a very long way to go.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Following talks at Hillsborough last week, the Prime Minister undertook to introduce proposals to sustain the peace process before the House rises on 24 July. Will the Secretary of State, with the Prime Minister sitting alongside him, confirm that those will be announced in an oral statement to the House?
    Dr. Reid: We will certainly consider that and say what we have to say before the House rises.
    Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Secretary of State said that there is a residual security problem, yet the number of regular police officers with the Police Service of Northern Ireland has gone down to 6,952, several hundred below the number recommended by Chris Patten for normal circumstances. Will the Secretary of State now give a commitment to the retention of the full-time police reserves for the foreseeable future, because it is clear that they are indispensable?
    Dr. Reid: First, the hon. Gentleman is incorrect; Patten envisaged that number not in normal circumstances, but in more benign circumstances than we have at present. I agree that we are below the level that we should have by several hundred, as he pointed out, which is precisely why we are recruiting about 50 per cent. more a year than was envisaged in the Patten proposals.
    On the full-time reserves, I had a meeting on the matter—yet another meeting—with the Police Federation yesterday. I am well aware of the valuable role played by the reserves in the present situation and historically, and I have no hesitation in paying tribute to them. However, the new policing board is looking at human resources,

    875
    the manpower and womanpower element, and I would not want to pre-empt any decision that it may make. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will take into consideration the facts that he enumerated when it is looking at the full-time reserves.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [65830] Fiona Mactaggart: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Is the Prime Minister aware that the lack of affordable housing in the south-east is not only causing us difficulties in delivering our public service commitments but causing despair to decent families? Will he use the comprehensive spending review to increase the supply of affordable housing in London and the south-east?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that that is a serious issue. We have to ensure that we retain the green belt, and since we came to office some 30,000 hectares have been added to it. We must retain the existing 60:40 split between brownfield and greenfield developments, which we increased. We also have to make sure that there is more affordable housing in London and the south-east. That is one of the issues that the comprehensive spending review will address on Monday, and that is permissible only because of the extra investment that we are putting into our public services. As has been made clear, most recently yesterday, that investment is opposed by the Conservative party
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Why should anyone now have confidence in the Government's new drugs policy when the Prime Minister's own drugs tsar has resigned, saying that it is all wrong?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps for this reason: the change proposed by the Home Secretary, which he will give details of later, is supported by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which includes many senior police officers, by the Home Affairs Committee, which includes Conservative MPs, by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which is the association of chief constables, and by the Metropolitan police. It is clear that there will be differences of opinion on all sides, and it would be absurd to say that everybody is of the same view. If the right hon. Gentleman listened to the arguments, he would find that they are supported by all the people whom I have just listed.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I notice that the Prime Minister failed to say why Keith Hellawell, his drugs tsar, who has now resigned, said that the policy was wrong. It is worth
    876
    reminding everyone that the Prime Minister said of Keith Hellawell, believing that he was a very good man, that he had
    "a formidable record of tackling drugs".
    When Mr. Hellawell resigned today he said something very important. He said that the change is
    "a softening of the law and sending the wrong message".
    Will the Prime Minister answer this very simple question? When the public have to choose between the Home Secretary and the Government's drugs tsar, who does he think they ought to choose?
    The Prime Minister: Keith Hellawell's work on issues such as drugs education and spending on treatment, which has doubled in recent years, has been extremely important. The right hon. Gentleman says that this is a question of preferring Keith Hellawell's views to those of the Home Secretary, but my point is that one could ask whether it is a question of preferring Keith Hellawell's views to those of the Association of Chief Police Officers or the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which are experts in this field.
    I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we have a sensible argument about the matter. There are differences of view between people in the police service. There are differences of view locally, in areas such as Lambeth, as the right hon. Gentleman discovered for himself yesterday. There are also differences of view within the political parties. There will be some on the Government Benches who disagree with the change of policy, and some on the Opposition Benches who disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's position. I suggest that we debate the policy itself, rather than simply scoring points.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I could not agree with the Prime Minister more about the need to have a proper debate, but we can hardly have a proper debate when the Home Secretary, without disclosing any evidence whatever, comes to the House and tells us that the law is to be changed. Worse than that, the Prime Minister knows that his Home Secretary bases that change on the Lambeth experiment. If the Prime Minister listened to the radio today, he will know that people who work on the Stockwell Park estate say:
    "Our children are being told that it is OK to get stoned because nobody has the right to challenge you on this."
    If the Prime Minister wants that debate, perhaps he can answer this question: if he were the parent of a 16-year-old living on that estate, would he want that kind of message going out to children there?
    The Prime Minister: In relation to Lambeth, as I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman a moment or two ago, there will be differences of opinion. I think that he found that himself. The independent Police Foundation poll found most people in Lambeth in favour, but of course there will be people against the change.
    Since the Lambeth experiment started, there have been more arrests, for example, for class A drug dealing. Street crime has fallen since the experiment began. When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Home Secretary presents the proposals without any consultation at all, let me repeat that he asked for advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The council has given

    877
    him the advice, and he has decided to take it. It is therefore absurd to say that the Home Secretary is taking this step without any support whatever.
    Let me make it clear that, under the proposals, the possession of cannabis remains a criminal offence; dealing remains a criminal offence, with the full weight of the law; and the power to arrest remains. However, where the police think it right, reclassification allows them to focus on hard drug dealing and drug dealing of any description, including of cannabis. That is why the proposals are supported by the chief police officers and the Metropolitan police.
    Mr. Tom Levitt: Last week the Prime Minister outlined the results of the G8 summit in Canada, which included a substantial initiative to remove weapons of mass destruction—chemical and otherwise—from the face of the globe. Can my right hon. Friend outline to the House what the British contribution to that most worthwhile and essential initiative will be?
    The Prime Minister: Very roughly, we will be allocating about $750 million to that programme over the next 10 years. We are currently allocating about $51 million to it. That allows us to clean up facilities—nuclear facilities, or chemical or biological weapons facilities. The important point is not merely the environmental benefits, but stopping such weapons of mass destruction falling into the wrong, and possibly terrorist, hands. It is an important programme, and I thank my hon. Friend for his support.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Applications this year from Scottish students to attend university are up by 5.5 per cent. The equivalent increase in applications from students in England is up by only 0.5 per cent. How does the Prime Minister explain that difference?
    The Prime Minister: In fact, since we introduced student fees, applications are significantly up, by more than 0.5 per cent. Of course the right hon. Gentleman can argue that we could provide tuition free, but he knows that under the Scottish experiment, people do pay at the end—indeed, everyone pays.
    Mr. Kennedy: Not only have tuition fees been abolished in the Scottish context but, in addition, grants have been reintroduced for students from poorer backgrounds. In England, students face the prospect of ever-rising levels of debt. Will the Prime Minister deny this week's reports that, in the light of that evidence, the Government are considering increasing the level of fees that some students in England will have to pay? Given the evidence available, such a policy would be totally unacceptable.
    The Prime Minister: First, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he and his colleagues said that numbers of applications for universities in England and Wales would fall as result of tuition fees, but they have not—they have risen. Secondly, let me point out to him that we are putting more money into universities, but it is important to recognise that we will never be able to go back to the old grant system—not with the numbers of people who are going through universities. Moreover,
    878
    he is wrong to say that all people from poorer backgrounds pay tuition fees—more than 40 per cent. of them are exempt from tuition fees.
    Mrs. Irene Adams: Given that the air travel industry throughout the world suffered a great loss of business after 11 September last year, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the management and staff at Glasgow airport in my constituency, where business has increased by 5.7 per cent. in that period? Will he thank them for their hard work and investment and for holding their nerve during that time?
    The Prime Minister: That is a tough one, but I am going to answer it. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says and congratulate the staff at Glasgow airport on the excellent service that they provide.
    Mr. Michael Jack: The Prime Minister will no doubt recall the statement made in November 1998 by Lord Robertson, who committed the Government to the purchase of 232 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft. May I invite the Prime Minister to tell the House that there is no truth in today's press reports that the Government are to renege on that commitment, and that they will purchase all 232 Eurofighter aircraft?
    The Prime Minister: There is no change in our commitment to the Eurofighter.
    Ann McKechin: Last month, the Scottish Council Foundation issued a report showing that if Glasgow is to reach the Scottish average for the percentage of its population in employment, an additional 40,000 jobs are required to be created in the city. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review, the Government will place continued priority on reaching full employment for all, especially in areas of special need such as Glasgow?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, there are still pockets of very high unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency and in others, and we will continue to address them in the comprehensive spending review and elsewhere. However, I think she will agree that the measures that have produced one and a quarter million extra jobs in the British economy have been achieved through a combination of low interest rates, low inflation and the new deal for the long-term unemployed, which has given hundreds of thousands of people the chance to get decent work for the first time in their lives. Again I point out that the new deal was of course opposed by the Conservative party.
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating my constituents in Shetland, who succeeded in raising more than £20,000 in six weeks for the purchase, operation and training of a drugs detector sniffer dog, a resource that is now much appreciated by police on the islands who are combating a growing hard drugs problem? Can I ask him to intervene with the senior management of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, who have demonstrated a very poor attitude towards that

    879
    community initiative, refused to allow local officers to use it, and insisted that our ports in Shetland can be covered by dogs based in Manchester?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to congratulate the hon. Gentleman's constituents on what they have done. As for the second part of his question, if he will forgive me I do not know the details of the matter, so I shall have to write to him about it.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: This morning, ASW, which has steel mills in Cardiff and in Sheerness in my constituency, went into receivership. President Bush's steel tariff proposals may have been the last straw for UK banks in respect of our overdraft facility for ASW. Does the Prime Minister think that the World Trade Organisation has the systems in place to react more speedily—within days, rather than months—on this issue, because that announcement has had a profound and devastating impact on my community today?
    The Prime Minister: Let me first express my sympathy to my hon. Friend's constituents. We greatly regret that ASW Holdings plc has applied for receivership. As my hon. Friend knows, meetings took place with him, Ministers, the company and others to try to avoid the situation. Unfortunately, that did not happen but we shall do everything possible to help those employed by the company.
    We have made clear our reasons for disagreeing with the decision made by the United States, and I hope that the WTO rules against it. I understand my hon. Friend's desire to speed up the processes; that can be considered in the context of the negotiations that will continue later this year. However, even in the light of the exclusions for some of our companies, the decision is regrettable. I do not believe that it is in the interests of people here or of the US steel industry.
    Mr. lain Duncan Smith: Last week, the Prime Minister told the House that new restrictions on care homes
    "do not come into effect until 2007."
    Of the 246 new rules that the Government are imposing, how many will take effect by 2007?
    The Prime Minister: From memory, I said that provisions for matters such as widening rooms and bathing would take effect in 2007, and that those were the regulations about which people were complaining. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's comments. On our information, my remarks last week were accurate.
    The main issue is care home fees. Again, I point out that we are increasing social services spending by 6 per cent. in real terms. Some of that money will go to care homes, yet the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to all that spending.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I know that the Pope is meant to be infallible, but I did not realise that that applied to the Prime Minister. He said of the regulations that they
    "do not come into effect until 2007."—[Official Report, 3 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 221.]
    880
    The answer to the question that he did not want to answer is that only four provisions do not come into effect until 2007. Almost all the others—some 240—came into effect on 1 April this year. No wonder care homes are closing: instead of removing red tape, the Prime Minister spins his way out of doing that every time.
    Now that we know there are fewer care homes, perhaps the Prime Minister would like to answer another question. Since he came to power, how many more elderly people are receiving care in their own homes?
    The Prime Minister: First, I said that the provisions that related to matters about which people were complaining, such as widening rooms, would not take effect until 2007. That is my understanding.
    Also on care homes, I speak again from memory, I believe that around 40,000 extra people are receiving care in their homes. It is therefore true that there has been a net loss of some 17,000 care beds and that the number of people who receive care in their homes has increased by 43,000.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister should ensure that he surrounds himself with friends before taking people's advice. The number of people who receive care at home has fallen by 80,000 since he took office. If elderly people cannot get places in care homes and they are not being looked after at home, does he agree that the message from the Government is, "Fend for yourself'?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that. I am afraid that we disagree about the figures. However, it is obvious that if people need more care, whether in care homes or in their own homes, we need to invest in provision for that. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor committed themselves to opposing the extra money for investment in health and education. The right hon. Gentleman started by believing that he would go for compassionate Conservatism, but he has reverted to the proposals for cuts—precisely the same position adopted by the Conservatives in the previous Parliament. Indeed, after their public spending announcements yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman must be the only known disciple of Hagueism.
    Ms Dari Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Stockton's drugs action team? It has more than 800 young people in treatment, 500 of whom are testing clean and 200 of whom are testing clean permanently. However, we have a problem with chaotic drug users—people who are spending more than £45 a day by stealing from anybody. Those people are outside the loop. Does he think that it is time we gave serious consideration to allowing supervised prescriptions of heroin so that we can break the link with the drug dealers and also get those young people into a system of support?
    The Prime Minister: I hear what my hon. Friend says. The most important thing is to ensure that persistent drug abusers are getting treatment. That is precisely why we have radically increased provision. What is happening in her constituency is happening in other constituencies too. Indeed, we have a target to increase dramatically the number of drug users who are receiving treatment in the

    881
    next few years. I also believe, however, that drug treatment and testing orders are a further important innovation. In the areas where they have been piloted—more than 6,000 have been granted—they mean that people who may go to prison, and are criminals, are faced with a choice: they may either have drug treatment or they will go to prison.
    I think that we have got to increase the level of treatment available, increase arrest referral schemes in police custody suites and increase the testing of people in relation to drugs so that we can ensure that people who are criminals and are committing criminal offences are given a clear choice: they can either take the treatment to get off the drugs or they will face the consequences, which may well include custody.
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: The secondary schools in the constituencies represented by the five Education Ministers receive 20 per cent. more funding than the schools in my Wiltshire constituency. That gap has widened since 1997. Given that the Prime Minister and his Ministers have consistently assured the House that they are looking at that problem, when can Wiltshire schoolchildren expect to receive a fair slice of the funding cake?
    The Prime Minister: First, there is an increase of more than £11 million to the Wiltshire LEA on last year, so that is the good news, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he and his hon. Friends had better wake up to what happened yesterday. His shadow Chancellor and his leader said that the answer was not money. Indeed, they wanted to cut the amount going to education. I am afraid that they are in a lot of trouble. Every Conservative Member who gets up from now on and asks for more money for schools, hospitals, transport or crime will, I am afraid, have to go down under the category of rebel.
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: While the rain has been falling throughout the UK this week, the sun has been shining in Formby, where for the first time, we have been organising an arts festival. The festival has been made possible through lottery funding, and I know that many other constituencies throughout the UK have received similar funding to celebrate Britishness and community in this year of jubilee. What other measures can my right hon. Friend take to ensure that this is not a one-off event and that the sun keeps shining on that part of the world?
    The Prime Minister: Interesting requests come to Prime Ministers. The unfortunate thing about bank holidays marking particular events is that if we were to grant every request for a bank holiday that was made to us, very few people would be at work at any point in time. Of course, we try to make provision for sensible bank holidays, and I point out to my hon. Friend and to her constituents who are enjoying the sunshine that, as a result of the Government's signing up to the social chapter, we have paid holidays for the first time in this country as of right rather than at the discretion of the employer.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: In a parliamentary reply on 11 June, I was told:
    "It is for the French railway industry and public authorities to ensure that rail freight through the channel tunnel is not disrupted".—[Official Report, 11 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 1133W.]
    In a further reply on 1 July, I was then told:
    "The Strategic Rail Authority … will contribute to the cost of works in progress".—[Official Report, 1 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 103W.]
    Why has there been a change in policy and what specific guarantee has the Prime Minister received that rail freight services will be restored in respect of 100 freight trains going in each direction each week by September? He assured the House that that would happen.
    The Prime Minister: Of course the French have a responsibility for this matter, but it is very much in our interest to help them to discharge that responsibility. I would have thought that the hon. Lady supported the moves to tighten security and achieve the September deadline for restoring the freight service to its proper position. It is not a question of either us or the French doing this; we have to do it together, and that is what we will do.

    Constituency Visit (Blackpool)
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: When he next plans to visit Blackpool.
    The Prime Minister: I will visit Blackpool in the autumn.
    Mr. Marsden: May I assure my right hon. Friend that he will be warmly welcomed back to a Blackpool that has had three sure start schemes, one of the best-used NHS walk-in centres in the country, and major sea defences all completed in the last 12 months? May I also remind him, however, that Blackpool has 11 million visits a year, and that those visits are not fully funded by the money that is given for policing, health and social services? Given that we are having a fundamental review of local government finance, will he at least talk to his colleagues about this factor, which disadvantages Blackpool and other seaside towns?
    The Prime Minister: Let me congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on the significant advances that they have made on the facilities in Blackpool and on the changes in schools and health, which are important for them. On visitors' costs, he will know that there is a consultation at the moment; some options include provision for this, and some do not. This is obviously a matter that we will consider very carefully, but, at this time, I cannot give him a determined view.

    Engagements
    Jonathan Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are 6,500 parents, including 30 in the Medway towns, struggling to bring up their children in bed-and-breakfast hotels, where they are forced to share a bathroom, toilet and kitchen? Is it not the case that compassionate words are simply not good enough for these children? Will he give a commitment

    883
    that the £35 million provided to tackle this issue will be continued in the comprehensive spending review so that we can put an end, once and for all, to this hellhole-type accommodation that blights the lives of our children?
    The Prime Minister: We have set a time limit of March 2004 by which to ensure that no homeless family with children is in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for more than six weeks. My hon. Friend is right to say that we have put £35 million into tackling this. Obviously, he will have to wait for the comprehensive spending review to find out the details of that. To return to the first question that I was asked this afternoon, the other thing that is necessary is to increase the levels of affordable housing and social housing in London, the south-east and elsewhere, because that is one of the things that will relieve the pressure on homelessness and avoid what I agree is the wholly unacceptable situation in which families are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for long periods of time.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Prime Minister aware that all the members of the Ulster Democratic Unionist party in this House have received a warning from the police of a threat to their lives? Does he know that each one of us has had attempts on our lives in the past, by both bomb and bullet? Is he aware that the authorities have not only refused, in some cases, to make any provision of security for these Members of Parliament, but lavishly given security provision to many members of paramilitary organisations? Further to my letter to the Prime Minister of 4 July, delivered by hand, will he now agree to meet the Democratic Unionist Members of the House to discuss this issue?
    The Prime Minister: I shall be perfectly happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his delegation—of course I will. In relation to protection, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has just indicated to me that, if the hon. Gentleman has particular concerns, he would be happy to meet him to discuss them. We
    884
    obviously put forward protection for people on the basis of the advice that we receive, and I cannot really say any more than that about it. I do not think that it would be very sensible of me to speculate on levels of threat. I would simply say that, for all of us who have been Members of Parliament for many years, but not in Northern Ireland, it is sometimes difficult to understand the degree of courage that it takes to be a politician of any democratic description there. Even though the hon. Gentleman and I disagree on many things, I think that he and all his colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party and elsewhere who are democratic politicians deserve our thanks for persevering with the democratic commitment in the face of such threats.
    Mr. Iain Luke: Given the Prime Minister's visit to Dundee earlier in the year, I am sure that he shares my joy at the announcement two weeks ago by a Canadian company called Arius 3D on the creation of 250 high-tech jobs in Dundee. The decision was taken, according to the president of that company, on the basis of Dundee's growing international reputation as a centre of innovation and expertise in life sciences and other technologies. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the two universities and to companies such as NCR and Michelin, which have done so much to give Dundee that position and the growing added value from such jobs?
    The Prime Minister: I well remember my visit to Dundee and to Cyclacel, which is a new technology company in my hon. Friend's constituency. The two things that are most important at the moment are, first, carrying on the relationship between universities and business—Dundee university and Abertay university have been pioneers in the link between business and universities—and, secondly, the significance of science and biotechnology for the future of this country. I hope that the investment that we are making in science and the Government's strong commitment to science ensure that many more companies come to my hon. Friend's constituency and to others up and down the country.

Speaker's Statement
3.32 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a statement to make. Several Members have written to me expressing concern that Members of the House who were or who are members of the RMT union might have been, or might be, subject to improper pressure on the part of the union. I have considered whether such information as has been brought to my attention justifies me in giving precedence to a motion to refer the union's actions to the Standards and Privileges Committee. On the information that I now have, I am unable to give Members the precedence they seek.
Let me, however, draw the attention of all Members to part of the House's resolution of 6 November 1995, which states that
"it is inconsistent with the dignity of the House, with the duty of a Member to his or her constituents, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, for any Member to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting the Member's complete independence and freedom of action in Parliament, or stipulating that he or she shall act in any way as the representative of such outside body in regard to any matters to be transacted in Parliament".
The full text of the resolution is set out on page 33 of the code of conduct.
No evidence has been submitted to me that arrangements between Members and the union have been of that contractual nature. The House expects at all times that Members will take the greatest care to ensure that their relationships with all outside bodies will be in strict conformity with our rules.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does it relate to this matter?
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Yes. I thank you for that ruling, Mr. Speaker, as one of those who wrote to you. Right hon. and hon. Members will have heard your judgment. Would we be right to assume that your statement should be seen as a warning to outside bodies to stay well clear of any behaviour that might raise even the suspicion of a breach of privilege in the minds of hon. and right hon. Members?
Mr. Speaker: Those bodies must interpret my statement as they think fit.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am one of the other Members who drew this matter to your attention. Can you confirm that the letter you have seen is the reply to the union on behalf of a number of Members of the House, but that you have not yet seen the letter from the union to Members, which made the apparent threats to which the Leader of the House and other Members have referred?
Will you also confirm, Mr. Speaker, that following my request for the full correspondence to be put in the Library—a request to which the Leader of the House agreed—only part of the correspondence was put there?
Mr. Speaker: I will not go into detail about the correspondence that I have received. That last matter is a matter not for me, but for the Leader of the House.

Drugs Strategy
3.35 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, I wish to make a statement responding to the Home Affairs Select Committee's report on drugs. In doing so, I wish to make it clear that I will publish a substantial update of the 1998 drugs strategy this autumn.
On 23 October, in my evidence to the Select Committee, I set out a number of key themes that are reflected in the Committee's report. I am grateful for the excellent work done by the Chair and members of the Committee, and to all who have assisted both the Committee and me, including my drugs unit. I also thank the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and the many agencies and authoritative bodies that have contributed.
I cannot imagine that there is a Member of Parliament who does not wish to ensure that those whom we represent are free of the misery that is caused by drug abuse. Class A drugs are the scourge of modern time, and are potential killers. Over the last 30 years the huge increase in the use of drugs, particularly hard drugs, has caused untold damage to the health, life chances and well-being of individuals. That has undermined family life, fuelled criminality and damaged communities. The estimated social and economic costs of drug misuse are well in excess of £10 billion. Around three quarters of crack and heroin users claim to be committing crime to feed their habit.
I am grateful for the considerable progress made by my predecessors. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health for the announcement that we are to make today of an additional investment, totalling £183 million over the next three years, in treatment services and harm minimisation.
The number of people beginning treatment has increased by an average of 8 per cent. each year since 1998. In 2000, seizures worth £780 million were made. Last year 3.4 tonnes of heroin and 10.9 tonnes of cocaine were seized, which exceeded the targets.
Today I want to inform the House of the overall direction of the review of the drugs strategy, and the Committee's report. There will be an increased focus on class A drugs. The message is clear: drugs are dangerous. We will educate, persuade and, where necessary, direct young people away from their use. We will not legalise or decriminalise any drugs, nor do we envisage a time when that would be appropriate.
As recommended by the Committee, there will be a better focus on those whose drug addiction causes the most harm to them and to society—those described as problematic drug users. In the last two years we have established the National Treatment Agency, and invested more than half a billion pounds. We have begun to fill the gap in services relating to crack addiction.
We will continue the rapid expansion of offenders' referral for treatment. We accept that expansion in managed prescribing for heroin addiction will be necessary for the most appropriate cases—that there must be the right treatment for the right patient. But more than treatment is required: after-care and rehabilitation must become part of the package of care for those ending

887
treatment or leaving prison. Harm minimisation will be given greater priority. However, in the form in which the term is normally used, we are not persuaded that shooting galleries would be helpful at this time. We will use the powers in the Proceeds of Crime Bill to confiscate the assets of those whose lifestyle depends on the misery of, and danger caused to, others, and to target the regional or "middle" drug market.
We will clamp down on dealers who prey on the young. We will increase the sentences for trafficking and dealing in class B and C drugs to 14 years. This will avoid sending mixed messages to those dealing in more than one drug, and will establish a new lead in Europe-wide discussions. However, we do not agree that it is necessary to introduce supply for gain offences. We will support parents and families to help them cope with the effects of addiction. In line with the Committee's recommendation, we will ensure that carers and families are involved in the development of services.
We will launch an education campaign, targeted at young people, with the message that all drugs are harmful and class A drugs are killers. We are not persuaded that ecstasy should be downgraded: it kills. However, the message to young people and families must be open, honest and believable. That is why I asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the classification of cannabis. It has recommended that the current classification is disproportionate in relation to the harmfulness and nature of other controlled drugs. It was clear, and so am I, that cannabis is a potentially harmful drug, and should remain illegal. However, it is not comparable with crack, heroin or ecstasy. The council made it clear that greater differentiation between drugs that kill and drugs that cause harm would be both scientifically justified and educationally sensible.
I have considered this advice, along with the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. I have taken account of the Metropolitan police experiment in Lambeth, which has seen a 10 per cent. increase in arrests of class A drug dealers. The Metropolitan police will today announce that the pilot will be adjusted, and that the new model will be applicable across London in the coming months. I can tell the House that I will seek to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug by July of next year.
Let me be clear: cannabis possession remains a criminal offence. I am determined that the police be able to control the streets and uphold order. That is why I will instate the ability to arrest for possession where public order is threatened, or where children are at risk. The Association of Chief Police Officers will shortly issue national guidance to ensure that in the vast majority of cases, officers will confiscate the drug and use warnings. Police time saved will be refocused on class A drugs.
Where communities are strong, drugs do not take hold. Drug-related crime and disorder devastates communities. That is why last year, we launched the communities against drugs fund, which will provide £220 million over three years to enable communities to become part of the solution. It is the vulnerable who suffer most through drugs, and statutory and voluntary agencies, families and communities all have a role to play in protecting them.
Through education, harm minimisation, treatment, and tough action against dealers and traffickers, we have a winning strategy. It will require positive commitment, rather than grandstanding. Last October, I called for a
888
mature and intelligent debate, and in making today's statement, I hope that we continue that sensible approach. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I thank the Home Secretary for his usual courtesy in giving me an early sight of the statement.
The House will recognise that this was an extraordinary statement, made on an extraordinary day. There are two coherent alternative strategies on cannabis, but in his statement today, the Home Secretary has not adopted either of them.
A serious argument can be made for complete legalisation of cannabis, with sale being taken out of the hands of the drug dealers and the substance being treated like tobacco or alcohol—licensed and taxed. Alternatively, as we prefer, policy can be constructed—as it is in Sweden, for example—to make serious efforts to lead young people away from cannabis use. The Home Secretary has not adopted either of those courses. He is giving control over cannabis to the drug dealers, with the police turning away.
This is not just the day on which the Home Secretary has made a statement about a muddled and dangerous policy. Today is also the day when the Home Secretary's chief adviser on drugs, Mr. Keith Hellawell, has resigned in protest at that muddled and dangerous policy, telling the "Today" programme:
"this is causing a great deal of problem on the streets. It's causing a great deal of problem for parents who just don't know where they are".
Commenting later on the Home Secretary's Brixton experiment, Mr. Hellawell went on to say that it has led to an "open season" for those peddling drugs.
There are some hard questions that the Home Secretary needs to answer. He needs to explain to the House whether he intends the police to arrest people who are openly selling cannabis—as they are on the streets of Brixton today—or whether he is asking the police to look away. He needs to explain to the House why, if he is effectively decriminalising cannabis use, he still wants young people to buy their cannabis from criminals. He also needs to explain how it can be right to tell one set of people that it is half okay to smoke cannabis, but to tell another set of people they may be put in prison for 10 years if they sell it. In short, the Home Secretary needs to explain how, with a policy that consists of deeply confusing mixed messages, he can conceivably expect to reduce drug dependency and criminality in this country.
The saddest thing about this policy is that it owes it origins not to the advice of the Government's chief adviser on drugs, not to a well considered examination of the results of the Brixton experiment, and certainly not to the views of people whose children's lives are being destroyed by drugs, but to a political stratagem. The Home Secretary adopted this policy—[Interruption.]—oh yes, and he told people so—because he believed that he could wrong-foot all his opponents, buying off the libertarians with increasing liberalisation, and the anti-drugs lobby with a show of toughness.
However, as his own adviser said today,
"there is just a sort of repackaging, a respinning of the issue to appear as if something has been done".

889
The Home Secretary's clever stratagem has disintegrated in 24 hours. It has presented the Government with a massive liability. Much more importantly, it will present many of our most vulnerable communities with the prospect of social disaster.
I admire the Home Secretary on many counts. One of his most admirable features has been his willingness on repeated occasions over the past few months to withdraw from ill conceived policies and legislative proposals. It is not too late for him to display that same admirable quality in the coming days. He has time to think again before this disastrous Order in Council is implemented. In the interests of the Government, and in the interests of the young people of this country, he should do so.
Mr. Blunkett: I am very sad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the view that he has this afternoon. It is right to believe that the issue is not a political football, but he is right to point out that there is a stratagem—as he would have it—from the political right that advocates complete legalisation and a free market. I have read that in the leaders of The Daily Telegraph and elsewhere.
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to make cheap remarks about policy being withdrawn. Yes, I lost the vote on religious incitement in the Lords and, yes, we have sought to find sensible compromise if we can achieve the same goal by a different route. However, the House should make no mistake that the right hon. Gentleman would be wrong if he thought that he could get away with pretending that a sensible move to protect the lives of young people, and to provide credibility for the educational message to them, can be summed up as a cheap political stratagem. It is not.
The policy has been adopted after receiving the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, scientific evidence, the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee—which has members from all parties and has heard scientific, medical and other evidence over the past six months—as well as advice on what works from those working with young people involved with drugs. Families were mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and I can confirm that we also listened to families. It was the families who convinced me that the measure would be right. They told me of how they had told their children that all drugs were the same and had the same impact and effect. When their young people had tried cannabis and found that that was not the case, they did not believe their parents when they told them of the dangers of crack and heroin. Families have told me that we need credibility in the message that we give young people. We need to be able to educate them in the dangers that exist. We need to tell them that hard drugs kill but that cannabis, like other class C drugs, is dangerous but not widely dangerous to one's future and mortality.
Let me answer the questions directly. Are we keeping cannabis as an illegal drug? Yes. Are we decriminalising it? No. Do we believe it is harmful? Yes. Are we educating young people to that effect? Yes, we are. Do we think that we can lead young people away from moving on to hard drugs by being honest with them? Yes, we do and so do those who work with young people. Should we malign the police for taking a similar stance
890
in the Met or through the Association of Chief Police Officers? The right hon. Gentleman uses that organisation against me time and again. When he wants me to give them total independence, I am to believe its word, not mine. Let us have some consistency.
That consistency was not exhibited by the former drugs tsar, Mr. Keith Hellawell, who ceased to be the tsar when I took over as Home Secretary. He has been given part-time roles advising on international drugs matters over the past nine months. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame on you."] No, not shame on me. I shall not stoop to argue Mr. Hellawell's case this afternoon except to say this, so that it is on the record. When I told Keith Hellawell last October—not August as he said at lunchtime—that we would refer the matter to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, he agreed that it would be a good idea. We have a minute to that effect. He has changed his mind three times, as he is entitled to do.
I have changed my mind once. Until two years ago, I was against reclassification, but I have been convinced by the evidence, by the need to target hard-drug dealers, and by the way in which we can clamp down on those who are threatening the lives of young people. It is for those reasons that I have chosen to back the police in their request that if people are dealing in drugs, including cannabis, if they are causing or potentially causing disorder by the flagrant use of those drugs, or if they are threatening the lives of young people, they will be arrested. Those dealing will get not 10 years but 14 years, as I said in my statement.
This is a strategy that is aimed at securing harm minimisation, proper treatment and education. Above all, we want to get across the message that we know what we are doing. If young people understand that, they will get the message. Drugs are dangerous, and class A drugs kill. That is the message this afternoon.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Although there may be one or two differences between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and me, may I say at the outset that it is obvious that he and his advisers have taken the Select Committee's report seriously? I am grateful for that.
In addition, I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to reclassify cannabis. It is plain common sense, and he should take no notice of the uncharacteristic nonsense from the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not misunderstand me if I say that we must not get too hooked on cannabis. He is right to say that heroin and crack cocaine are overwhelmingly the drugs that cause the most problems. We must concentrate on them, and I was disappointed that the Opposition spokesman had nothing to say about them.
How does my right hon. Friend envisage that the increase in managed prescribing to which he is committed will be achieved? He said that safe injecting houses would not be helpful at this moment, but does that mean that he might be prepared to consider them in the future?
Finally, will he say why it has not been possible to agree that the National Treatment Agency should audit drug treatment services in prisons, as well as outside them?
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for what he

891
has said. He has worked very hard on this matter, and the Select Committee has taken a lot of evidence, as I said earlier.
The Government are not convinced that shooting galleries, as they have been described, would be helpful at the moment. We want to build a consensus around the rapid development of heroin prescribing for the right patients. We want to do so in association with the country's medical services so that there is confidence in such prescribing. That confidence was undermined when the experiments that began in the early 1970s were misused, and drugs were sold on.
We believe that careful, managed and overseen prescribing will help enormously in reducing the terrible pyramid selling by users who capture others in their lair. Such prescribing will help to reduce the terrible harm and misery experienced by people injecting in the most violent and unhealthy circumstances, and to lessen the harm that that brings to them and to the community.
We are not turning our faces away from providing safe and clean areas: in fact, we are developing, together with the health service, new policies on what is known as the paraphernalia, to minimise the harm that people suffer. However, we need to build a consensus. We must make sure that people are secure in accepting that we are not simply setting up shooting galleries outside clubs, where people can use needles and drugs in an unsupervised and unordered fashion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South made a final point about the audit of drug treatment services in prison. I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is present, as we must ensure that there is a much more coherent approach to health policies in prisons in general. Mental health in particular relates to the misuse of drugs. We must make sure that there is a coherent policy that spans not only what happens to people inside prison, but above all what happens to those who leave prison.
Simon Hughes: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement. I share his view that drugs policy is a difficult, sensitive but very important issue. If we are honest, we must admit that there are differences of view on the matter among members of all political parties.
Will the Home Secretary accept that, even though hon. Members will not have identical views, it would be a good idea to conduct consultation with people across the political divide over the next few months? In that way, the maximum consensus can by achieved before the strategy is finalised in the autumn, as the right hon. Gentleman said that he intends. I offer the services of the Liberal Democrat party to ensure that that conversation takes place, even if, in the end, we do not agree on all the outcomes.
Although the Home Secretary was right to identify the successes and progress that have been achieved, does he agree that the major national tests show that we are still failing in this area? The statistics show that addiction to drugs is rising, as are the numbers of people for whom drug use brings harm and death. If those statistics are the product of past policy, then the policy must be changed to try to turn matters around.
I think that the Home Secretary was effectively saying that he shares the view that this is a health issue for the user and the addict for which we should seek a health
892
remedy. For the dealer and the trafficker, the appropriate remedy is the criminal justice system—the courts and punishment.
I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said about heroin, which is hugely important. If he rejects the shooting gallery option, does he agree that we must find a way of taking the heroin addict out of the clutches of the criminal profiteers and into the safe hands of the health service professionals? [Interruption.]
Does the Home Secretary agree with me that all the evidence is that although it is appropriate to lock up dealers and traffickers, doing so is entirely inappropriate as a way of dealing with the repeated habits of addicts? It adds thousands of people to the prison numbers, it is of very little use to them and does the Prison Service no good.
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the new logic behind having different classifications of drugs yet the same maximum penalty for people dealing in those drugs, as will happen now with amphetamines and cannabis?
The Master of Rolls, among many others, says that the law on cannabis is not working. We, like others, have argued for a long time that cannabis should be reclassified as a category C drug. We also welcome the announcement of a common police response across London. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on"] However, does the Home Secretary accept that there is a horrible danger of sending a muddled message if the national policy means that people are not normally stopped for cannabis use and possession while if it is a public order matter, it becomes an arrestable offence? That sends a muddled message about whether or not it is acceptable to use cannabis.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, let me say that I was reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman as he is the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman, but I want shorter contributions in future.
Mr. Blunkett: I will try to be short and snappy in reply, Mr. Speaker. For the first time in quite a few months, I agreed with everything that the hon. Gentleman said, except for his final point. If there is a will for people to come together and look at developing a consensus on the attack on drugs and drug abuse, we would be very happy to take that up.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's final point. I do not think that there is a mixed message in saying that if a drug is flagrantly displayed, used to provoke, in danger of causing disorder and makes the police's job more difficult, they have every right to arrest the people responsible. That will also help in respect of dealers. There has been some concern and misgiving about having differential penalties for dealers of different drugs, given that there is often confusion about whether dealers peddle one drug to lure people into taking another. We are intending to deal with the issue by raising the penalty to 14 years. However, we entirely agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says about developing harm minimisation programmes and prescribing for heroin. The real danger in many of our most deprived communities, and the cause of criminality, is the growth of crack. We have a major national and international challenge on our hands, and I think that we should agree to tackle it together.
Kali Mountford: Can the Home Secretary tell the House what implications there are from

893
his announcement for the many multiple sclerosis sufferers in my constituency—some grow their own cannabis while others buy small quantities to relax their muscles—while they await the outcome of the NHS review on cannabinoids?
Mr. Blunkett: The only comfort that I can give my hon. Friend is that the Secretary of State for Health and I have seen the results of the early phases of the tests. They have proved successful and, as with the use in medical applications of heroin derivative, so it will be with cannabis derivative. As soon as the final phase is completed and we have the results, which I hope will be very soon, we will give the Medicines Control Agency the opportunity to ensure that that derivative can be used and the benefits accrued to patients such as my hon. Friend's constituents.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: May I ask the Home Secretary what consideration he gave to creating an offence of substantial possession? If those in possession of cannabis will not now be arrested unless they deal to children or cause a public order offence, what will be the position of those in possession of substantial amounts of cannabis? Where the police do not have quite enough evidence to prove intent to supply and therefore cannot make an arrest for dealing, what is the position of those people? Will he consider the law in those countries that have an offence of substantial possession under which people carrying unlikely supplies of cannabis for personal use can be arrested?
Mr. Blunkett: This is a serious and difficult issue. As with so many issues that, unfortunately, have become adversarial in recently days, there is a very fine line to tread. The fine line in this circumstance is whether dealers distribute and therefore disseminate small amounts of the drug to avoid being arrested as dealers and therefore whether a specific amount of the drug would be a reasonable trigger to determine whether they are dealing or merely possessing the drug. The jury is out on that. We are not convinced that it would be wise to create such an offence at the moment, but the right hon. Lady has hit on a reasonable point. If we and the police became convinced that it would help, we would certainly consider such an offence.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Many hon. Members will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today, but I have to tell him that I am not one of them. I very much appreciate what he is seeking to do, but I am very concerned about the mixed messages coming from today's statement. May I raise an issue that has not been mentioned so far? The greatest killer drug in this country is tobacco. Young people are becoming increasingly addicted to tobacco, and that is a great problem for all parents. If we make it easier to consume cannabis, the only way to consume cannabis is through tobacco, so there will be a greater temptation for younger kids to try cannabis by smoking cigarette tobacco. That can be more damaging to our young people, by dragging them into tobacco addiction as well. I understand what the Home
894
Secretary is seeking to do, but I am not convinced that his statement will help to achieve it. My great fear is that it will increase tobacco addiction.
Mr. Blunkett: There is a general feeling that, if we were starting from scratch, we would take much more draconian measures against tobacco use than are possible in society today. Some of us fought very hard to ensure that tobacco advertising was banned and that young people were dissuaded from using tobacco in public places and elsewhere. I sympathise with the points that my hon. Friend makes because they cross fine lines. For example, the evidence on gateway access using tobacco, alcohol and, yes, cannabis to class A drugs is very mixed, but it is clear that all three play a part in taking young people on to the killer drugs. All I can offer my hon. Friend is this: the strategy that we have adopted so far has not worked. It is estimated that 46 per cent. of those under 30 have used cannabis at some time, so seeking to criminalise them or to pick them up for mere possession or use—
Mr. Letwin: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman said that it is still criminal.
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, it is criminal, but picking up, arresting and charging young people for possession would not be sensible. The right hon. Gentleman giggles. My view as a parent is that, if youngsters of 18 or 19 are found in possession of cannabis, a warning signal has to be sent to them, but arresting and charging them would not be in the interests of themselves or society. That is why we are taking these steps.
Mr. John Maples: The Home Secretary must be right to want to worry less about soft drugs and more about hard drugs; it therefore seems illogical to equate the penalties for selling both. If people are to suffer the same penalty, whichever they sell, they will be more inclined to sell the more profitable one. His statement fails to recognise, however, that for many years, well before 1997, this country's drugs policy has been a complete failure. Fifty per cent. of property crime is drug related, nearly three quarters of our jail population are in for drug-related offences, and millions of pounds and masses of police and customs time are spent on the problem, yet drugs are readily available close to every school, even in a rural constituency such as mine, and even in the most secure buildings in the country—the jails run by the Home Office—where drugs are apparently easily obtained.
Far more fundamental consideration needs to be given to this problem. As part of that, will the Home Secretary consider making it general practice to treat hard drug addicts not as criminals but as addicts, as we would treat alcoholics or others with a health problem? Provided that they entered some sort of rehabilitation programme, drugs should be available to them on prescription. That would reduce crime and enable us to concentrate resources on education and rehabilitation.
Mr. Blunkett: On a small point of clarification, the sentence for trafficking in class A drugs is life. On a lighter note, I hope that it remains so, whatever the Lord Chief Justice thinks about the Home Secretary and Parliament.

895
The hon. Gentleman is right about treating addicts as opposed to punishing them—that must be the direction in which we move, and drug testing and treatment orders and arrest referral are designed to do that. The establishment of the National Treatment Agency in April last year and the development of sensible drug policies in prison were necessary to start the process of reversing years of neglect. I do not wish to make a silly party political point this afternoon—[Interruption.] I will not do so. A concerted effort inside and outside prison is necessary. The modest progress that has been made so far in reducing the availability of drugs inside prisons needs to be accelerated. On that issue, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman.
Kate Hoey: Is the Home Secretary not aware that, whatever he says today, and whatever the experts are saying, a stark and uncomfortable message is going out to families across the country that cannabis is okay, no matter how strong it is and no matter how it is taken? In my view, the experiment in my constituency was not a success. There are more drug dealers than ever and there are more people using cannabis. That is the message. Is the Home Secretary certain that, in 10 or 20 years' time, we will not look back on this day as the one when we got it wrong?
Mr. Blunkett: I want to say to the hon. Lady, whose views I respect and whose campaign has been vigorous, that there are no certainties in dealing with drugs policy. There are no certainties in finding a way forward. If there were, we would have found them, and I would be much less modest than I am this afternoon about putting forward the policy.
All I can tell the hon. Lady is that, first, the facts that she has enunciated—I do not mean the assertions that have been made by certain members of the community—are in doubt. The 10 per cent. increase in the capture of class A drugs dealers is a fact. The 10 per cent. drop in the last six months in robbery on the streets in Brixton is a fact.
Kate Hoey: It is nothing to do with cannabis.
Mr. Blunkett: The re-use of police time is certainly making a difference. Robbery in Lambeth is now at almost a two-year low. Those may be uncomfortable facts as they do not back up the rhetoric, but they are facts that I have taken into account in making the statement this afternoon.
Lady Hermon: Will the Home Secretary enlighten us all about his consultations with Ms Jo Daykin, who is—and remains, I am pleased to say—Northern Ireland's drug and alcohol strategy co-ordinator? I ask about the consultation because of the concern that she expressed on the record today:
"My concern is that young people will get a mixed message that cannabis is now harmless, which it is not."
She pointed out that the changes announced by the Secretary of State today
"would not take into account the prevalence"—
of cannabis—
"in Northern Ireland. Whereas in England there are major problems with class A drugs like heroin, the main drugs of choice here are cannabis and ecstasy."
896
Will the Home Secretary confirm that he has taken into account Jo Daykin's representations? Can he confirm that the substantial additional investment that the Secretary of State for Health announced will be extended to Northern Ireland?
Mr. Blunkett: I can confirm the latter point.
On the hon. Lady's earlier points, I understand the issues that have been raised. Representations were made, which is one reason why I decided to increase the penalty for traffickers and dealers—a particular problem in Northern Ireland—to 14 years. I did that specifically in response to a request and to ensure that the implementation of the new recategorisation will take place next summer and will take account of the particular problems of Northern Ireland.
I want to make a substantive point. The only people who will be giving the wrong message are not me, Ministers or those putting forward the policy, but people out there who are now telling young people that cannabis is legal or has been decriminalised. That is why I was genuinely disappointed that the shadow Home Secretary fell into just that trap.
Dr. Brian Iddon: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his willingness to listen and to think about a very serious problem and shift policy in a very pragmatic manner. It was not, and it is not, right to criminalise very young people who possess trivial amounts of cannabis, often on a first-time basis. However, like me, I am sure he understands that in the few months since he made the provisional announcement there has been considerable confusion about the policy. It concerns me that it will take until next July for the recategorisation from B to C to occur. Will he tell us why that is so? Will he also assure the House that the change in policy on prescribing heroin to the more chaotic heroin users, who cause the most criminal problems, will take immediate effect and that we will not have to wait that long for the heroin policy to change?
Mr. Blunkett: Where we do not have to change the law, we will act swiftly but by consensus. As I said earlier, we should move as quickly as we can towards prescribing and towards tackling problem users. The allocation of resources will help with that. The delay will allow us to have a debate in the House on recategorisation, to change the trafficking and dealing penalties and to be able to put in place the necessary changes in the models that the Metropolitan police and then, under the Association of Chief Police Officers guidance, police across the country will operate.
Mr. Peter Lilley: I wanted to welcome any liberalising measure from the Home Office, following a series of illiberal measures, but I fear that the Home Secretary's proposals may land us with the worst of all possible worlds. Surely steps effectively to depenalise the use or possession of cannabis at the same time as retaining or reinforcing the penalties for its supply will do nothing to reduce demand for cannabis while continuing to drive soft drug users into the arms of hard

897
drug providers. What does he propose to do to break the link between the supply of cannabis and that of heroin and cocaine?
Mr. Blunkett: I respect the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been interested in and committed to such issues for some time. I am disappointed, therefore, to hear what many of his hon. Friends have to say. They claim that a differential rate for trafficking and dealing would lead to people receiving a lesser penalty for dealing in cannabis—they would get away with it and encourage people to get involved in class A drugs. We now hear the reverse argument: that by having a similar penalty, we make it more likely that people will turn to class A drugs. We cannot have it both ways. It has to be one or the other. [Interruption.] We have used the word "confusion" a great deal this afternoon. I will examine Hansard and the public statements to ensure that we are clear about where the confusion has arisen.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point on traffickers. We said that we will target the middle-market dealers. The assets recovery agency will assist with that when the Proceeds of Crime Bill completes its stages—tomorrow, I hope, if it is not blocked in the House of Lords. We also intend to use the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies more effectively, as we have been doing, to work in combination to break the trafficking route, but that is the biggest challenge of all.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement is important because he is concentrating on the hard drugs, which do enormous damage not simply to the individual but to the fabric of society? I urge him, however, to look carefully at the practice of prescribing heroin for the chaotic users. Breaking the link between money and heroin or crack use is important if we are to have an effect across society, and prescribing has a significant role to play.
I hope that the Home Secretary will return to the issue of cannabis because I think that he needs to move further on it. In cities such as Manchester, the use of cannabis is so widespread that it no longer makes sense to take even the approach that he outlines. However, I strongly welcome the emphasis on hard drugs, which are the real issue.
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on harm minimisation through prescribing. The Netherlands and, recently, Portugal found that without legitimising fully the world supply of those drugs, which breaches every international convention, and the trafficking, by which I mean dealing and selling across the counter, the same conflict is faced all the time. There will be a contradiction whatever steps we take. If we were all prepared to examine that problem and be honest about it, we would have a much more rational debate.
Ann Winterton: I pay tribute to the work of Keith Hellawell, with whom I had contact in the previous Parliament. His work was valid and his views were sound.
I and many parents believe that not enough emphasis is put on drug prevention, especially on education. I am not merely talking about harm reduction, which is often
898
what is proposed. If drug education is to be effective, clear and unequivocal messages must be sent to the young. The Home Secretary's statement means that those messages are now extremely mixed. I leave him with the thought that virtually no crack cocaine or heroin addict in this country did not start first on cannabis.
Mr. Blunkett: I might be prepared to accept that, with some exceptions, there is not a hard-drug user who did not start on either tobacco, alcohol or cannabis. If we were all more rational in what we think and say, we could have a more reasonable debate. I agree that the education campaign is critical. It is why we are stepping it up and seeking tenders for an entirely new approach. We accepted the hard-hitting approach recommended by the Select Committee.
I pay tribute to Keith Hellawell, who gave his time, energy and commitment for many years.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Having rubbished him.
Mr. Blunkett: I am being heckled. I have not rubbished Keith Hellawell; he rubbished me. He, not I, went on the "Today" programme. He decided that he would announce today in an extraordinary fashion the resignation that he had tendered a month ago. On a lighter note, I thank him also for the drug targets that he set for us all. They were described as inspirational: they inspired him; they perspired him; and they appear to have expired him.
Mrs. Janet Dean: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I welcome the extra money for treatment because, as I am sure everyone will agree, when treatment is requested, it should be made available. It is right that we should have a credible drugs message. I welcome my right hon. Friend's reassertion that all drugs are harmful because that is the message that we should get over to young people.
I welcome the proposal to increase the maximum sentence for dealers, but I am concerned that my right hon. Friend does not believe that there should be a supply for gain offence—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. MacKay, let me chair the proceedings.
Mrs. Dean: I would welcome any further information and views that my right hon. Friend could give on a supply for gain offence. I also ask for reassurance—
Mr. Speaker: Order. One question is sufficient for the Home Secretary.
Mr. Blunkett: We believe, as do our lawyers, that the supply for gain offence can be dealt with under the existing discretion, particularly with the new clarity about the offence of dealing.
Mr. David Cameron: As someone who sits on the Home Affairs Committee, may I thank the Home Secretary for his statement and for accepting some of our recommendations? It might have been more coherent if he had accepted all of them, but perhaps that is too much to ask.

899
Does the Home Secretary agree that the biggest prize is to get the 270,000 heroin users into treatment? With that in mind, will he consider a specific suggestion made to me by police in Oxford, which is to speed up the operation of the drug treatment and testing order because the wheels of justice turn slowly and it takes a long time for people to get to court? Will he consider making the start of treatment a condition of police bail in some circumstances? Will he ensure that all forms of treatment are available on DTTOs, including methadone replacement? Will he ensure also that, as the Select Committee suggested, if someone starts treatment outside prison, they are able to continue it in prison because stopping treatment can be damaging for the health and it increases crime?
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with the latter point, and it is a serious issue. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his open mind and his willingness to engage with these issues on the Select Committee. These are difficult and sometimes dangerous questions to deal with in politics, and I respect him for doing so. We should examine the commitment to ensure that we use treatment as a clear incentive, whether that concerns bail, referral or the question of whether someone will be sent to prison. In the broader statement that will be issued in the autumn, I hope to be able to deal with that more thoroughly.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being the first Home Secretary in 30 years to stand at the Dispatch Box and argue for a drugs policy based on evidence rather than prejudice and emotion. It was a great disappointment to see the shadow Home Secretary argue so uncomfortably a case in which he clearly does not believe. Will the right hon. Gentleman look to his own Front Bench and recognise that seven of its Members have admitted to using cannabis—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is to the Home Secretary, not the shadow Home Secretary. If the Home Secretary can answer the hon. Gentleman's question, that will be fine, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that it is late in the day.
Mr. Blunkett: I am keen to maintain our privacy, as the shadow Home Secretary knows because he is always chiding me about it. I shall not ask anybody to reveal what they took, and I hope that the papers will not. I have not taken anything, by the way, just in case that answer evokes the question, but after being Home Secretary, who knows? I thank my hon. Friend for his words, which I greatly appreciate.
Angela Watkinson (Upminster): I was the only member of the Home Affairs Committee not to sign the report. I was implacably against the declassification of cannabis and I am grateful to the Home Secretary for not accepting the other recommendations to declassify ecstasy from class A to class B or to set up a network of heroin shooting-up galleries throughout the country. If the Home Secretary is in any doubt about the gateway theory relating to cannabis, will he please speak to any police officer, who will confirm it to him?
Colleagues have rightly referred to treatment for existing addicts. Does the Home Secretary agree that unless measures are put in place to prevent the
900
ever-increasing flow of new addicts, the treatment for existing addicts will become unachievable and unaffordable? Our resources, such as they are, should be focused on prevention and education. I have been horrified by some of the examples that pass for education in our schools and some of the leaflets that are circulating, which teach children how to avoid being caught, rather than stopping them taking drugs.
Mr. Blunkett: There is a big distinction between advising children how to avoid being caught, and advising young people, for instance, on fluid intake and on the way in which they can protect themselves in clubs. That distinction must be made. I agree entirely that the task of education, preventing people from drifting into drugs, building confidence, self-esteem, self-belief and hope for the future and early intervention are all critical in this regard. I do not accept that the evidence on the gateway to hard drugs is overwhelming; otherwise I would not have made the statement that I made. I accept that the evidence is incredibly mixed, as I said earlier.
Mrs. Irene Adams: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on taking head-on what is probably the scourge of our time. However, there are aspects of his speech with which I disagree. I represent a constituency that has very strong communities, but it was almost destroyed in the mid-1990s by drugs, and I have to say that cannabis was a part of that. The only way in which we tackled the situation was by all the agencies coming together—the politicians, the police, the medical services, the educationists and the whole community. Using that approach, we reduced violent crime by 56 per cent. within a year.
My main concern today—my great fear—is that much of the Home Secretary's statement will be lost, and the only part of it that will be reported is the downgrading of cannabis. It is almost tantamount to telling a child that he may not have a sweet, but that if he takes it from the drawer behind our back, that is all right. We are sending extremely mixed messages that will worry many communities. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that there is a wide-ranging debate in the House and outside it before the proposals are enacted.
Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to give that assurance, and to offer my congratulations on the enormous amount of work that my hon. Friend put into building the community as a solution, to which I referred in my statement. The risk to which she put herself at one time in doing that, I understand, is greatly respected. Organised criminals—those intent on destroying the lives of others and making money—are at the heart of the challenge that we face. I believe that what we are trying to do today by sending the right message—the proportionate message—will help. All of us with children of our own deal differently with the commission of an offence or some deed that we know to be wrong. We deal with it differently not just in terms of how often it happens, but what it is. That is what I am trying to do in aiding the police to do their job.
Pete Wishart: I, too, welcome the move to reclassify cannabis from class B to class C, but has the Home Secretary given any thought to how the measure will apply across the United Kingdom? Such are the vagaries of the devolution settlement that drugs laws

901
are reserved to this House, but criminal justice and police matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. For instance, in Scotland we have no system of caution, and all drugs offences will still be referred to the procurator fiscal. The Police Federation of Scotland has already said that the measure is irrelevant to Scotland. How does the Home Secretary envisage that it will apply to the whole United Kingdom, and does he agree that, as matters stand, it is irrelevant to Scotland?
Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That is one of the joys of devolution. As we talk to Ministers in the Executive, we need to ensure that there is clarity and continuity. I am sorry that people in Scotland have reacted in a different fashion, but I hope that we can get very similar messages across so that we are all batting on the same wicket in terms of reducing drug trafficking and drug use.
Paul Flynn: Will not today be remembered as the day when we started to get it right? The Secretary of State is to be commended for being the first with the courage and sense to change a policy that has failed every year since 1971. Then, there were 1,000 heroin addicts and no drug crime, and drug-related deaths were very rare. Every other Government's continuing with more and harsher prohibition has resulted in 250,000 addicts and record crime and deaths compared with any country in Europe.
The Home Secretary has introduced a policy that changes direction and is pragmatic, rational and courageous. May I urge him to look at the drug injection rooms throughout Europe, which are a very distressing sight? I suggest that he go to the Paulus Kerk in Rotterdam to see people injecting. The needles are clean, and people are in hygienic surroundings with support, education and training for jobs. That is infinitely better than being on the streets.
Mr. Blunkett: I accept that there is a debate to be had about managed prescribing and whether that spills over into unsupervised or alternative prescribing, but I am clear about the fact that it would not help that debate if we allowed people, unmanaged and unsupervised, to set up so-called shooting galleries around the country. That said, as regards the so-called paraphernalia—sterilised water, pads and needles—it is critical that we are able to develop policies to minimise harm and to ensure that we take those things out of the hands of the dealers and organised criminals who are destroying people's lives.
Matthew Green: I listened carefully to what the Home Secretary said, and I welcome it as an initial
902
step forward. He stressed the importance of the credibility of the message to young people, but all the organisations and committees that he consulted represent the great and the good, and he made no mention of any consultation with users—young people themselves. Is he concerned that the whole debate may end up sounding like the great and the good patronising young people and not listening to their concerns about drugs?
Mr. Blunkett: There is a danger in every area of policy that we end up debating with ourselves, those whom we meet, and those who influence us through the newspapers and other media. That is why the first-past-the-post constituency and the constituency work that we do are so crucial—we meet people in our surgeries every day and we have to respond to them.
The hon. Gentleman made a serious point about listening to young people. All Departments need to pull together forums to listen to young people, hear their message, weigh it and give advice where we can. Young people do not necessarily expect diktats or life by example—God forbid that we should preach that—but they expect us to establish a structure having heard what they have to say.
Clive Efford: My right hon. Friend has not proposed a perfect solution today, but, sadly, we do not live in a perfect world. Does he agree that those who oppose the proposal deny the sheer scale of the problem of crack and heroin throughout the country? Does he accept that the appointment of Mr. Hellawell, with the ridiculous title of "drugs tsar", raised expectations, which were not met in the communities that we represent? Does he also accept that today is a watershed and that it will also raise expectations?
The success of my right hon. Friend's proposal will be determined by whether the police use the opportunity to target dealers in class A drugs. That is crucial. People know the houses and cars from which people deal. The proposal will be successful only when people see action against those individuals.
Mr. Blunkett: I agree. There will be change on the streets in the years ahead. Expectations are often raised and dashed, and democracy is thus damaged. I have tried to raise expectations not of immediate change but of long-term investment. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I were able to announce additional resources, and I hope that they will be complemented by further resources, consequent on next week's comprehensive spending review.

Points of Order
4.41 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from a Work and Pensions Minister, or, indeed, from the Minister for Pensions to come to the House to correct a serious error on the record about the treatment of elderly and vulnerable pensioners? On 20 May, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), the Minister for Pensions said:
"Older people will have the choice of doing their business through pension centres … or receiving home visits … By providing that choice, we will make improvements for the older pensioners who need to access such services from time to time."—[Official Report, 20 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 4.]
It has become apparent since the Department produced a briefing in late June that pensioners will not have the choice of a home visit before using the service. Most of them will have to take themselves to pension centres, many of which are located in places that are inconvenient for them. That constitutes a serious deceit of many elderly and vulnerable people. Have the essential steps been taken for the Government to rectify the impression that they gave the House?
The Minister for Pensions (Mr. Ian McCartney): In normal circumstances, that would be treated as a partisan, political point. However, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) has questioned my integrity and I have come to the House to set the matter straight; I have nothing to correct. I thank the hon. Gentleman for at least advising me that he intended to raise the matter in the Chamber.
I want to make it crystal clear that the process of developing the Pension Service and the pension credit has been open and transparent. I have kept hon. Members informed of progress and I shall continue to do that. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions took evidence from the Pension Service on 12 June. After that session, the Committee asked for additional information on a range of issues, including the scope of the local service. The chief executive provided that on 2 July.
Last Friday, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who chairs the Select Committee, wrote to me personally to ask for fuller clarification of the local service, especially the availability of home visits for Pension Service customers. He requested a response in seven working days. I provided a fuller explanation through the Clerk to the Committee. I sent it well within the deadline, which does not expire for a day or so. I believe that it will fully tackle any remaining queries that the Select Committee may have. I shall place all the correspondence in the Library.
I facilitated a visit to a Pension Service site for the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Select Committee. I have extended a similar invitation to all hon. Members who participated in the debates on the State Pension Credit Act 2002. Furthermore, this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have written to all hon. Members to set out our plans for presentations to hon.
904
Members and their staff on pension credit and the Pension Service. I intend to keep my promise. I did not mislead the House at any time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It sounds as if the Speaker does not need to rule on that point of order.
Mr. Paul Goodman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have gone too far down that road.
Mr. Goodman rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Goodman: I simply seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Please sit down. Perhaps you will get my guidance if you come to the Chair at a later stage, but the matter was not really a point of order.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman raised the case and the Minister replied. I do not want to hear any more about it at this stage.
Mr. Mitchell rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.

BILLS PRESENTED
  ANIMAL SANCTUARIES (LICENSING) (No. 2)
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, supported by Mr. John Randall, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Dr. Julian Lewis, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mr. Charles Hendry and Mr. David Wilshire, presented a Bill to make provision for the licensing and control of animal sanctuaries: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 168].
  ORGAN DONATION (PRESUMED CONSENT AND SAFEGUARDS) (No. 2)
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, supported by Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Dr. Julian Lewis and Mr. Desmond Swayne, presented a Bill to provide for the removal of organs for transplantation purposes, after death has been confirmed in a person aged 16 or over, except where a potential donor previously registered an objection or where a close relative objects; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 169].
  LITTER AND FOULING OF LAND BY DOGS (No. 2)
  Mr. Desmond Swayne presented a Bill to make further provision relating to litter and the fouling of land by dogs and to allow a local authority to retain the revenue from fixed penalty notices for such offences issued in its area for the purposes of enforcement: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 170].

Traveller Law Reform
4.46 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the law in England and Wales as it applies to gypsies and travellers.
Last month, my local paper, the Bournemouth Daily Echo, reported the following story under the headline "Traveller Invasion":
"Travellers continue their invasion of the conurbation"—
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole—
"with the arrival over the weekend of 18 caravans and assorted vehicles on to Iford playing field. This is the latest incursion on to public open spaces and follows the arrival of 15 caravans at Redhill Common. These are in addition to the existing traveller encampments at Throop, Fleetsbridge and Castle Lane."
Although you will not have read such local news, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps you will have read about what happened in Bournemouth last Christmas, when the national media gave widespread coverage to the occupation of a public park, King's park in my constituency, by a group of up to 200 caravans and 800 people of all ages. The travellers indicated that they intended to stay for the entire holiday period. The council sought a county court order for their eviction and the requisite notices were served on them, but to no avail. They left in their own time when they said they would: 12 days later, after new year's day.
The chief executive of Bournemouth council said in his letter to the Home Secretary that that experience resulted in costs to the council of £50,000 and to the police of £40,000, together with severe detrimental effects on local businesses and the community. He said that those effects included a huge increase in the fear of crime in the neighbourhood; businesses and voluntary organisations being forced to close because their entrances were blocked; the closure of public houses and other facilities due to intimidating behaviour from large groups of travellers; a reduction in the credibility of the police force; severe damage to community relations—for instance, a number of pubs and hotels attempted to exclude Irish visitors, many of whom had nothing to do with encampments—and health and safety risks associated with criminal damage caused by the travellers.
I shall not go into any further detail about what my local council's chief executive said in his extensive letter to the Home Secretary about our experience. Although the letter is entirely accurate, to continue to record these facts in the House would not be in keeping with the constructive spirit of the remedy for which I am seeking support today. The fact is that this was the largest such invasion of travellers experienced by our borough, it ended the year that had seen the largest number of such occupations of our parks and open spaces experienced by the borough and, as I have said, such occupations have now been happening almost every week this year.
Lest the House should conclude that travellers come only to Dorset, I point out that the columns of Hansard clearly indicate that such experiences are taking place throughout much of the country. More hon. Members than ever before are tabling questions about travellers, gypsies and unauthorised encampments, provoked, no doubt, by similar experiences in their constituencies. Indeed, some hon. Members have already gone further than that this year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell
906
(Mr. MacKay) described in his Westminster Hall debate of 15 January on the law of trespass how the police had not acted against travellers who had invaded his constituency.
On 26 March, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) described similar experiences in his constituency, when he successfully sought the leave of the House to bring in his Trespassers on Land (Liability for Damage and Eviction) Bill. On 11 June, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) described his constituents' experience of travellers as a "living hell" in his Adjournment debate on unauthorised encampments.
The response of Ministers to these concerns continues to be that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides remedies for local authorities to ask the police to use section 61, and for the police to ask local authorities to use section 77, whichever is most appropriate. As the House knows, last Friday the Home Office announced new powers for police and local authorities to deal with unauthorised encampments.
The reality is that, in many cases, not a lot of progress is made. When travellers eventually move off one unauthorised site, they move on to another. Councils are now deploying a variety of barriers and obstacles such as earth mounds, concrete boulders, locking posts and reinforced railings to keep travellers out of public parks and open spaces, at great cost both to the taxpayer and to the visual amenity. As the deputy chief constable of Dorset told me, in explaining why the use of available powers is not practical:
"We need to work to identify more effective levers or incentives to persuade travellers to act responsibly."
That is the aim of the Bill for which I am seeking the support of the House today.
The Traveller Law Reform Bill would establish for the first time within a legal framework the rights of gypsies and travellers to live a nomadic way of life. It would also establish the obligations that they owe to others in exercising that right. The Bill would create a new body, the gypsy and traveller accommodation commission, whose principal task would be to ensure that there was adequate accommodation for gypsies and travellers in England and Wales. The commission would be representative of the communities concerned, as well as of interested public bodies and voluntary organisations. It would also be expected to respond to problems of antisocial behaviour and unauthorised encampments following the implementation of the Act.
The Bill would require local authorities to facilitate the provision of sites for gypsies and travellers. This responds to the repeated complaints of the police that there are insufficient sites to which to direct travellers who are intent on occupying public land. The Housing Corporation would be empowered to make grants to registered social landlords to enable them to provide and manage such sites.
The Bill would require local education authorities to develop strategic programmes to improve the educational attainment of gypsies and travellers and their children. It would also clarify the scope of the Race Relations Act 1976 by acknowledging that Irish travellers constitute a racial group, as do Scottish and Welsh gypsy and traveller communities. There would also be other appropriate provisions in the Bill.
The Bill is based on the work of the Cardiff law school and is the culmination of four years of consultation between gypsies' and other travellers' organisations,

907
statutory and voluntary bodies such as the police and local authorities, and lawyers and planners who face the problems that arise. A schedule to the Bill would propose a code of conduct for travellers, based on best practice and on consultation with local authorities and travellers' groups.
I submit that my Bill represents a carefully considered approach that provides equality of opportunity and equal access to civic life and social services for travellers and gypsies. It acknowledges that the threat of continuous eviction does nothing for the health and welfare of families, or for the education of children; that only 2 per cent. of travellers live to see the age of 65; and that the traveller infant mortality rate is nearly three times the national average. It recognises that where local authorities have offered suitable land sites, good relations have developed and school attendance and health have improved. Telford and Wrekin council is an example of such good practice.
The Bill responds to the recommendation that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed in April, for member states to resolve the legal status of gypsies and travellers. The alternative is to continue to rely on laws to prevent unauthorised encampments, which the police and local authorities are at their wits' end trying to enact.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Andrew MacKay, Mr. Terry Davis, Mrs. Annette L. Brooke, Julie Morgan, Mr. John Butterfill, Andrew Mackinlay, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Nick Harvey, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Bill Rammell.

Traveller Law Reform
  TRAVELLER LAW REFORM
  Mr. David Atkinson accordingly presented a Bill to reform the law in England and Wales as it applies to gypsies and travellers: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 171].

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)),
That—

1. The matter of the draft National Health Service (Wales) Bill be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;

2. The Committee shall meet on Tuesday 16th July at half-past Ten o'clock and between Four o'clock and Six o'clock at Westminster to consider the matter of the draft National Health Service (Wales) Bill, under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales))—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Question agreed to.

Police Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)
4.56 pm
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): I beg to move,
That the Order of 9th July 2002 (Police Reform Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)) shall be varied as follows—
in the Table, in the entries in the second column relating to the second day, for the first 'Six o'clock' there shall be substituted 'Seven o'clock'.
Briefly, there was discussion yesterday on allowing flexibility because of today's statement. The motion will achieve that.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise, as I did yesterday, to speak to the timetable motion.
This is the third programme motion relating to the Bill. The previous one was discussed yesterday, when I set out my objections to timetable motions, both in general and in particular. Therefore, I do not intend to repeat my arguments at any great length. However, it would not be right to give the Government any credit for this timetable motion, notwithstanding the fact that it moves one of the knives from 6 to 7 o'clock.
The reason why it would not be right to give the Government any credit is as follows. If there were no timetable motion in the first place, we would not have needed the supplementary second and third motions. Owing to the intolerable habit of imposing timetable motions, the Government are obliged to come back and waste yet more time with a further such motion.
The first decision was wrong in principle and unnecessary in practice for the reasons that I set out yesterday. Furthermore, it showed incompetence on the Government's part, because they must have known full well yesterday, when we debated the No. 2 timetable motion, that the Home Secretary would make a statement today. I was in government for many years and I have been a Member of the House for even longer, so I know perfectly well that the Government knew yesterday that the Home Secretary would make a lengthy statement today. Why on earth did yesterday's timetable motion not make proper provision, if that be what this is, for today's debate? So, we are dealing with incompetence as well as wrongness in principle.
In any case, why should we assume that the time permitted under the No. 3 timetable motion is sufficient? On any view of the matter, the issues that we are debating are important, but we are being given just two hours in which to discuss significant constitutional measures involving a raft of amendments. Who has decided that such time is sufficient? Not us. Oh no, the Government have decided.
What we have here is the Government coming to the House to tell us how long we, the legislature, should spend scrutinising their activities. There is absolutely no point saying that hon. Members make those decisions, because having regard to the strength of the party whip in this place, we know full well that the Executive made this decision. So, we have the profoundly unattractive

909
spectacle of an Executive telling the legislature how long it may spend on constitutional matters of some importance.
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be kind enough to inform me whether he expressed any of his concerns to any member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill?
Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Lady had heard my speech yesterday, she would appreciate that I was extremely concerned not just about the terms of the Bill but about the underlying legislation to which it refers. If she was not here yesterday, she would do well to read Hansard. If she had already done so, she would not have made an intervention that she thought would entertain the House.
The plain truth is that this is yet another case of an oppressive and incompetent Government coming here, demanding a bit of credit, and deserving none—and we should give them none.
5 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: Your predecessor in the Chair yesterday, Mr. Deputy Speaker, kindly directed me to Hansard for the purposes of calculating the amount of time the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has wasted in complaining about programme motions. A very rough calculation suggested that it was 12 hours 56 minutes, but I think I should now amend that to 13 hours.
910
I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He complains about the House's time being wasted, but he is the main culprit. I wish he would be quiet and let Members get on with the Bill.
5.2 pm
Norman Baker: I thank the Minister for responding positively to suggestions made yesterday by both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers. He moved the programme motion in just one sentence, but he has been accused of wasting yet more time, whereas the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) took three or four minutes to make a point he had already made on a number of occasions.
5.3 pm
Mr. John Gummer: I would have had no intention of bothering the House but for the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).
No job done by a Member of Parliament is more important than that of reminding the Executive that the House is supposed to scrutinise it. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has written a book—I have started reading it, but have not got very far—about how we need a House of Commons and a system more redolent of the needs of the people. He might start by asking the House to do its proper job, and provide enough time for us to talk about the issues that really matter. He should be ashamed of himself for attacking my right hon. and learned Friend for performing a public good and a public service.
Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Police Reform Bill [Lords]
    2ND ALLOTTED DAY
    As amended in the Committee, further considered.
    New Clause 1

      IMPROVEMENT ACTION PLANS
      'After section 41 of the 1996 Act there shall be inserted—
      "41A Improvement Action Plans
      (1) This section applies where the Secretary of State, as a consequence of a report under section 54, is satisfied in relation to any police force maintained for any police area—

      (a) that the whole or any part of the force is, whether generally or in particular respects, not efficient or not effective; or

      (b) that the whole or part of the force will cease to be efficient or effective, whether generally or in particular respects, unless remedial measures are taken.

      (2) The Secretary of State shall send a copy of the report prepared under section 54 to the police authority which maintains the force in question, together with his reasons for considering that the conditions of subsection (1) are satisfied.
      (3) The police authority on receipt of the report, shall require the chief officer to prepare a plan ('an Improvement Action Plan') for taking remedial measures in relation to anything contained in the report.
      (4) An Improvement Action Plan shall not relate to any matters other than those in relation to which functions fall to be discharged by the chief officer of the force in question.
      (5) Any plan produced under subsection (3) shall include—

      (a) provision for setting targets for addressing the issues raised in the report under section 54;

      (b) provision for setting time limits in achieving those targets;

      (c) provision for the making of progress reports to the police authority maintaining the force in question; and

      (d) provision for the duration of the plan.

      (6) The chief officer shall provide a copy of the plan to the police authority within twelve weeks of the issuing of the requirement by the authority under subsection (3).
      (7) Within twelve weeks of the end of the duration of the plan the chief officer shall report to the police authority who shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.
      (8) Any report under subsection (7) shall include—

      (a) an assessment of the performance of the force, in whole or in part as appropriate, against the targets set in the plan; and

      (b) an assessment of the impact of the plan on the efficiency or effectiveness of the force.".'.—[Mr. Letwin.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      5.3 pm
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 6, in clause 5, page 5, line 35, leave out clause 5.
      Government amendments Nos. 109 and 110.
      912
      Government amendment No. 111, in clause 5, page 6, line 1, leave out
      "chief officer of police of"
      and insert—
      "police authority responsible for maintaining".
      Amendment (a) to the amendment, in line 1, before "chief', insert "may direct the".
      Amendment (b) to the amendment, in line 1, before "police", insert "shall inform the".
      Amendment No. 173, in page 6, line 1, leave out from "force" to end of line 5 and insert—
      'of the contents of the report and the reasons for the statements made under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1)'.
      Government amendments Nos. 112 and 113.
      Government amendment No. 114, page 6, line 8, at end insert—
      '(3A) If a police authority is directed to submit an action plan, that authority shall direct the chief officer of police of the force in question to prepare a draft of it and to submit it to the police authority for that authority to consider.
      (3B) The police authority, on considering a draft action plan submitted to it under subsection (3A) may submit the plan to the Secretary of State, with or without modifications.
      (3C) If the police authority proposes to make modifications to the draft of the action plan submitted under subsection (3A), it must consult with the chief officer of police.'.
      Amendment (a) to the amendment, in line 1, leave out from "(3A)" to "that" and insert—
      'When a police authority is informed by the Secretary of State under subsection (2)'.
      Amendment (b) to the amendment, in line 3, leave out "of it" and insert—
      'a plan ("an action plan")'.
      Amendment (c) to the amendment, in line 5, leave out subsection (3B).
      Amendment No. 174, in page 6, line 9, leave out lines 9 to 16.
      Government amendment No. 115.
      Government amendment No. 116, in clause 5, page 6, line 17, leave out "chief officer of any" and insert—
      "police authority responsible for maintaining a".
      Amendment (a) to the amendment, in line 1, before "chief", insert—
      'giving a direction under this section to the'.
      Amendment (b) to the amendment, in line 1, before "police", insert "informing the".
      Government amendment No. 117, in clause 5, page 6, line 18, leave out "police authority maintaining" and insert—
      "chief officer of police of".
      Amendment (a) to the amendment, in line 1, after "maintaining", insert—
      'that force that he has given that direction.'.
      Amendment (b) to the amendment, in line 2, after second "of', insert—
      'that force that he has so informed the authority.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 118 to 129.

      913
      Amendment No. 8, in schedule 1, page 106, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 33 on page 107 and insert—
      31 A NCIS Improvement Action Plans
      (1) This section applies where the Secretary of State, as a consequence of an inspection report, is satisfied—

      (a) that the whole or any part of NCIS is, whether generally or in particular respects, not efficient or not effective; or

      (b) that the whole or part of NCIS will cease to be efficient or effective, whether generally or in particular respects, unless remedial measures are taken.

      (2) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with Scottish Ministers, send a copy of the report to the NCIS Service Authority together with his reasons for considering that the conditions of subsection (1) are satisfied.
      (3) The Service Authority, on receipt of the report, shall require the Director General of NCIS to prepare a plan ("an Improvement Action Plan") for taking remedial measures in relation to anything contained in the report.
      (4) An Improvement Action Plan shall not relate to any matters other than those in relation to which functions fall to be discharged by the Director General of NCIS.
      (5) Any plan produced under subsection (3) shall include—

      (a) provision for setting targets for addressing the issues raised in the report under section 54;

      (b) provision for setting time limits in achieving those targets;

      (c) provision for the making of progress reports to the NCIS Service Authority; and

      (d) provision for the duration of the plan.

      (6) The Director General shall provide a copy of the plan to the Service Authority within twelve weeks of the issuing of the requirement by the Service Authority under subsection (3).
      (7) Within twelve weeks of the end of the duration of the plan the Director General shall report to the Service Authority who shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.
      (8) Any report under subsection (6) shall include—

      (a) an assessment of the performance of the force, in whole or in part as appropriate, against the targets set in the plan; and

      (b) an assessment of the impact of the plan on the efficiency or effectiveness of the force.

      (9) In this section 'an inspection report' means a report under section 54 of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16), section 33 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77) or section 41 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c. 32).".'.
      Government amendments Nos. 131 to 149.
      Amendment No. 9, page 107, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 109 and insert—
      '76A NCS Improvement Action Plans
      (1) This section applies where the Secretary of State, as a consequence of a report under section 54 of the Police Act 1996, is satisfied—

      (a) that the whole or any part of the National Crime Squad is, whether generally or in particular respects, not efficient or not effective; or

      (b) that the whole or part of the National Crime Squad will cease to be efficient or effective, whether generally or in particular respects, unless remedial measures are taken.

      (2) The Secretary of State shall send a copy of the report to the NCS Service Authority together with his reasons for considering that the conditions of subsection (1) are satisfied.
      (3) The Service Authority shall require the Director General of the National Crime Squad to prepare a plan ("an Improvement Action Plan") for taking remedial measures in relation to anything contained in the report under section 54.
      914
      (4) An Improvement Action Plan shall not relate to any matters other than those in relation to which functions fall to be discharged by the Director General of the National Crime Squad.
      (5) Any plan produced under subsection (3) shall include—

      (a) provision for setting targets for addressing the issues raised in the report under section 54;

      (b) provision for setting time limits in achieving those targets;

      (c) provision for the making of progress reports to the NCS Service Authority; and

      (d) provision for the duration of the plan.

      (6) The Director General shall provide a copy of the plan to the Service Authority within twelve weeks of the issuing of the requirement by the Service Authority under subsection (3).
      (7) Within twelve weeks of the end of the duration of the plan the Director General shall report to the Service Authority who shall send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.
      (8) Any report under subsection (7) shall include—

      (a) an assessment of the performance of the National Crime Squad, in whole or in part as appropriate, against the targets set in the plan; and

      (b) an assessment of the impact of the plan on the efficiency or effectiveness of the National Crime Squad.'.

      Government amendments Nos. 150 to 168.
      Amendment No. 10, in page 109, line 21, leave out "or 31A".
      Amendment No. 11, in page 109, line 23, leave out—
      'and the Director General of NCIS have each'
      and insert "has".
      Amendment No. 12, in page 109, line 29, leave out—
      'and the Director General of NCIS have each'
      and insert "has".
      Government amendments Nos. 169 and 170.
      Amendment No. 13, in page 109, leave out lines 36 to 40.
      Amendment No. 14, in page 109, line 45, leave out "or 31A".
      Amendment No. 15, in page 111, line 11, leave out "or 76A".
      Amendment No. 16, in page 111, line 13, leave out from "Authority" to "been" in line 14 and insert "has".
      Amendment No. 17, in page 111, line 19, leave out from "Authority" to "been" in line 20 and insert "has".
      Government amendment No. 171.
      Amendment No. 18, in page 111, leave out lines 26 to 30.
      Government amendment No. 172.
      Amendment No. 19, in page 111, line 35, leave out "or 76A".
      Mr. Letwin: As that formidable list amply confirms, we are in the presence of a Government who have made considerable progress towards a position for which we have long argued in relation to the Home Secretary's efforts—originally in clause 5—to control the operations of police forces and parts of police forces.
      We strongly welcome the Government's move; what we must ask now is whether it is sufficient, and I have to say that I do not think it is. I hope that the spirit in which

      915
      we engage in today's discussion will be reflected in further consideration by the Government once the Bill returns to the House of Lords, whence it emanated. I also hope that we will reach a consensus in a very few days, and that it will achieve what both we and the Liberal Democrats have sought to achieve throughout. Indeed, that is consistent with the Government's explanation of their intentions. That fact alone gives me hope that we will reach a consensus.
      I should make it clear at the outset that I do not wish to press new clause 1, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, to a vote, given where we stand today. Rather, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will find the means to allow the House to vote on amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 111, which can stand for the other amendments to the Government amendments.
      We are talking about a matter that relates in part to practice and in part to principle. It is important to restate briefly the principle at the heart of the matter and to rehearse the reasons why, from the point of view of practice, the Government have not come quite close enough to establishing the principle in law. The fundamental principle that we are dealing with is the operational independence of chief constables. The Minister and the Home Secretary have repeatedly said that they have no intention of compromising the operational independence of chief constables. It is therefore important that we explain what we mean by such operational independence, and why it is important in the sense in which we mean it.
      A chief constable holds an office the importance of which has been reiterated not in the past few years alone, but over decades and centuries. In fact, that office stretches back far beyond the beginnings of the formal police forces with which we now deal. The fundamental principle of the operational independence of a chief constable is that a subject of Her Majesty will always be subject to the attentions of those acting in pursuit of enforcing the law, and never to the attentions of those acting in pursuit of a political decree. That is the single most important principle of the rule of law in this country; indeed, it is common ground on which the Opposition, Ministers and Labour Members do not disagree.
      Mr. Graham Allen: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his usual courtesy in giving way. Will he address the very important question—he may well be coming to it—of the distinction between operational and non-operational? The concept of an operational requirement has been respected by politicians for many years, but is it respected by senior police officers? The boundary between what is and is not operational is increasingly being pushed back. It is not defined in the Bill or in any of the amendments, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will turn his mind to where that boundary should lie, and whether it should be defined in law.
      Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is on to something deep and important. It is also very relevant to my discussion, but if I may, I shall make a slight excursion in order to discuss it. I recognise that there is a difference between issues of general strategy relating to a police force, and operational issues relating to, say, the arrest of, or surveillance of, a particular individual. That is an
      916
      enormously important distinction. Of course, a police force's general strategy is not at the core of our rule of law; it is a practical matter, so to speak. However, the assertion of the right of every subject of Her Majesty not to be interfered with on the basis of a particular politically originated attack by the police is at the centre of our rule of law.
      I recognise the distinction that the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw between operational and non-operational issues. However, we can see why Ministers have not attempted to define that difference, which is why, despite having considered the issue, we have not sought to do so either. If we could define a proper distinction, we could address at least part of the problem of principle in a way that might have achieved consensus at an earlier stage.
      It is difficult to establish a proper definition because strategy melds into operation in a way that is difficult for legislation to disentangle in advance. Let us take the case of a particular frustration that a particular Home Secretary at some future date might have about the prevalence of a particular kind of crime in a particular place. That would be a reasonable preoccupation for a Home Secretary. Local Members of Parliament and others might be lobbying him to do something about the situation, and that situation might affect large numbers of people, which would require the local police force to have a strategy to address it.
      A Home Secretary who felt that he could determine the strategies of that police force might reasonably take steps to ensure that those strategies were, in his view, appropriate. However, there might also be specific ringleaders of the disturbance that the locals were complaining about, and the Home Secretary might feel that as part of defining the strategy, he ought to define the targets of the strategy, because otherwise it might be almost impossible to assert that the strategy should be thus, rather than otherwise.
      So we move almost invisibly from the strategic, or non-operational, to the operational. I dare not have confidence that we shall be able so to define it—[Interruption.] The Minister, from a sedentary position, seems to be suggesting that he has achieved that miracle. I, however, dare not imagine that we, sitting in this House this evening, are capable of envisaging all the circumstances that could make that definition so slippery.
      I should therefore prefer to place my faith—and I hope that the House will do the same—in an effort to distance politicians from all the actions of police forces, both operational and non-operational. That is a sure way of achieving the goal of principle, which is to distance politicians, always and irrevocably, from operational matters.
      Mr. Allen: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, but will he forgive me for pursuing the matter a little further? Unless we put into the Bill a definition of at least part of what we all agree is operational and non-operational, the very thing that he fears will happen. Home Secretaries of all political colours will not only set targets, but will ensure that money is allocated to meeting them, so it is almost inevitable that chief constables and local police officers will have to pursue those targets. In that way there is interference, almost by stealth, in the operational

      917
      objectives of local police forces. If we were now to debate honestly what is operational and what is not, the difference would be clearer not only to us but to officers on the ground and senior officers in local constabularies.
      Mr. Letwin: I take the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but perhaps we should continue that argument at another time. I certainly take his point about grants; indeed, it leads to the argument that I am about to advance. Because of their grant-making powers, Ministers, alas, almost inevitably have at their disposal the ability to exercise considerable direction over the activities—if I may use that neutral term—of the police forces of England and Wales.
      I know that the Minister will say that this is merely a matter of offering a helping hand in co-ordination, or some such stuff, but even today we can see that in pursuit of the particular goal of fulfilling the Prime Minister's commitments about reducing street crime by September, a group of Ministers—a posse, if that is the appropriate collective noun—has been put on to the job of trying to ensure that specific bits of specific police forces live up to the standards that the Prime Minister has set them. That was not achieved by the use of statutory powers. Incidentally, it is an interesting question whether that was ultra vires, and that may be subject to review by the judges. However, it is clear that it was achieved by informal means. Things were said or implied that suggested to the police forces concerned that it would be to their benefit to co-operate, and co-operate they have. That could be extended more widely.
      5.15 pm
      The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): The right hon. Gentleman is on the verge of making what I would regard as a very serious allegation—that in some way chief constables in the 10 forces have been intimidated or bullied into taking part in the street crime initiative. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to leave the House with that impression, but it is certainly the impression that he has created in my mind.
      Mr. Letwin: I would not say "intimidated" or "bullied", because the Home Secretary and the Minister are much too charming for that. However, the fact is that Ministers have an enormous degree of power over police authorities and forces. Those authorities and forces are not naive. As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, they know where the money comes from. Nothing can be done about that and I do not propose that we should suddenly remove the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers from their role in funding police forces. I recognise that that would require long debate and vast reorganisation.
      Under current circumstances—and for many years, because present Ministers did not invent the system—Home Secretaries and their Ministers wield vast influence over police forces. That does not have to be a matter of intimidation. Subtle hints about direction from Home Secretaries over many years lead to significant responses
      918
      by police forces. It is from that starting point that we need to examine the likely practical effect of measures in this Bill.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, but is he actually saying that under no circumstances should the Home Secretary or Parliament have any control over a chief constable or a local police authority? If that is the case, how are chief constables or police authorities to be democratically accountable to Parliament?
      Mr. Letwin: I fear that the hon. Gentleman and I have different views on the current arrangements. Indeed, I fear that his view differs from that of Ministers and, indeed, the progress of our history. It is not the case that police chief constables or their forces are democratically accountable to Parliament. They are not. Nor are they, and nor have they ever been, accountable to Home Secretaries under the law or any constitutional theory. Police forces are accountable to police authorities, and that is why they are called police authorities. Those police authorities are accountable, to a degree—although not, in my view, to a sufficient degree—to their local communities.
      The tripartite structure so carefully established gives the Home Secretary strictly circumscribed statutory roles, which I know he finds frustrating. However, because he is the de facto possessor of the purse strings, he has a wider degree of influence than his statutory role would suggest. The issue that we have been debating for some months is whether we should include in the Bill a statutory platform that will tend to increase what is the already great influence of the centre over the police forces of England and Wales.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: Was not it the previous Conservative Government who put in place the current structure of police authorities, which previously had a larger democratic element in the numbers of local councillors who sat on them? Is the Conservative party now proposing directly elected police authorities and chief constables?
      Mr. Letwin: It is perfectly true that the Conservative party is reviewing its policies on and attitudes to the local accountability of police forces. As we do so, we are conscious of the need to maintain the operational independence of chief constables from their authorities—that is another important point—because we are desperately keen for the professionals to be able to get on with the job.
      We recognise that the degrees of decentralisation and local accountability need review. Although those questions are germane, we are, alas, considering a provision in the Bill that proposes the reverse: the establishment of a platform upon which the centre can do more to influence the police forces of the country. That is what we need to debate.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As usual, he argues his case carefully and succinctly. He made a point about control and power from the centre, but I did not perceive that he was saying that any threat or undue influence was being imposed. He said, rightly, that it is a question of finance. Does he agree that the

      919
      crime fighting fund is a good example of the way in which finance seems to control the issue, as police authorities will not be able to tap into it unless they maintain a few extra officers?
      Mr. Letwin: I agree that that is a good example. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept, and that the Minister will take the point also, that I am not asserting that everything that the Home Secretary—either the present one or any of his predecessors—has sought to achieve as a result of using that influence is bad. Such an assertion would be false. In fact, I am rather in favour of some of the effects of the crime fighting fund. The problem is that good effects that are brought about by means that may be questionable can have long-term, unanticipated effects. That is my fear.
      Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, but he is talking about structures and the relationship between the Home Office and police authorities and chief constables. However, people in my constituency and in many others throughout the country are primarily concerned with the efficiency of the police force that serves them. The most recent available performance indicators show that his police authority is doing remarkably well in comparison with mine. I wish that my constituents were as fortunate as his. Is not the aim of new clause 1 simply to improve the service that I get? Would not it challenge my police authority to provide services that are similar to those provided elsewhere—specifically in his constituency?
      Mr. Letwin: I recognise that the motives that the hon. Lady ascribes to the Home Secretary and to the Minister are correct. Throughout this important debate, I have acknowledged that the sole desire of the Home Secretary and the Minister is to exert pressure for what will be, in their view, better and more efficient policing in parts of the country where it is less good than it should be. I accept that, and I have never asserted anything to the contrary.
      I understand that Home Secretaries occupy a high office and feel frustrated when they pull levers and little appears to happen quickly at the other end. That frustrates them, not least because gadflies like me accuse them of failing to produce good results, and they do not understand why we should then deprive them of the means to achieve those results.
      I understand that logic, but the problem is that that approach does not work in the long run. That is partly because it compromises the principle that politicians should be kept out of the process, which is more precious than anything else.
      There are also practical reasons why the approach will not work, which I will address briefly. Our assertion—we may be wrong, but it is based on deep intuitions—is that the professionals will become progressively demoralised, and that policing in England and Wales will get worse as a result. That will happen if efforts, however well intentioned, are made by the central bureaucracy to control—through targets, monitoring and interference from the centre—how those police forces go about their work.
      There is a charge sheet to be answered, not of disreputable motive but of effect. When the Home Secretary was Secretary of State for Education and
      920
      Employment, he had a genuine passion to improve education. He sought to achieve that through subjecting the teaching profession to vastly increased targets, monitoring and interference from the centre. I do not doubt his motive, but the result has been catastrophic. Teachers the length and breadth of England and Wales are leaving the profession because they are worried about the level to which they are forced to become creatures of bureaucracy rather than independent professionals. I know that there is a disagreement, but it is genuine—this is our passionately held view. We believe that the same will happen to our police forces if the same attitude is taken to governing them. There is an issue of principle and of practice here.
      Mr. Allen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Letwin: Before I give way, which I shall for the very last time, I should add that one has to ask how effective the Home Office will be in carrying out this task, even if one were to assume away the issue of principle and the question of whether the professionals will be demoralised.
      There are many extremely intelligent and hard-working people in the Home Office. I know that they will do their best, but the record is not good. The Home Office has not proved good at administering matters, and until it improves I do not believe that there are grounds for putting our faith in that body to administer the police forces of England and Wales. Those are the three essentials of our argument.
      Mr. Allen: The right hon. Gentleman is very generous in giving way. I wish to pursue the same point and ensure that he is as rigorous in his argument as he usually is. We all concede that politicians should not interfere in some operational matters. The right hon. Gentleman must surely concede that it is also just and proper for this House, its representatives and Ministers to have a hand in non-operational or strategic policing matters. To ensure that his argument is as coherent as he would like, it is incumbent upon him at some point, whether he is in opposition or even in government, to define the areas that are non-operational and strategic. Will he consider that issue, because Members on both sides of the House must confront it at some point, particularly when chief officers are consistently pressing back the boundary?
      Mr. Letwin: I hope to satisfy the hon. Gentleman with this: we will consider that issue further. However, in the context of how far central control has already exceeded its limits, how far we need to rebuild local control and reassert independences already eroded, I accept that we need to think about the distinction between operational and non-operational issues.
      I apologise to the House for taking so long, but I have tried to handle objections as they arise. Let me come briefly to why we remain dissatisfied with the admittedly beneficial moves that the Government have already made. We are concerned that the Bill creates a platform that will enable the Home Secretary of the day to establish greater and greater control over the police forces. The danger seems to lie not so much in the narrow interpretation of the wording, but in whether the process that is being established draws Ministers closer to the scene of the action and inevitably means that forces increasingly look to them as soon as the process is triggered.

      921
      We have no problem with the principle of the Secretary of State triggering an action plan or a report. We have had some hesitations about that, but we have got over them. In our new clause and, more germanely, in our amendments to the Government amendments, we have accepted that the Home Secretary should be able to trigger an action plan for a force that is failing in the Home Secretary's reasoned opinion. That is common ground between ourselves and Liberal Democrat Members.
      5.30 pm
      The difficulties arise from the fact that the way in which the Government have constructed the provision, even in their new amendments, will give the initiative throughout to Ministers and will not give the police authority a separate statutory initiative. That is the critical difference between our constructions—whether in new clause 1, or in the amendments to the Government amendments—and those of the Minister. The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps we will be persuaded by his arguments, but the Secretary of State will remain at the centre of the web to a considerable degree given the way in which he has drafted his amendments.
      In the Secretary of State's new version, proposed new section 41A of the Police Act 1996 will read:
      "The Secretary of State may direct the police authority responsible for maintaining the force to submit to the Secretary of State a plan for taking remedial measures."
      What is going on here—the Minister has said this on the radio—is that he is using the concept of direction to make the police authority send something to him. The initiative will lie with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will continue to be a party with whom the authority—hence, indirectly, the police chief—will negotiate.
      Subsection (7) will state:
      "On considering an action plan submitted to him in accordance with a direction under this section the Secretary of State may if he is of the opinion that the remedial measures contained in the action plan…are inadequate, notify the police authority and the chief officer of the force in question of that opinion and of his reasons".
      Yet again, the Secretary of State will take the initiative. If he does not like what he gets, he will go back for more. I am not saying that any of that is malign. I am saying that the Government amendments will not quite distance Ministers from the preparation of the action plans, which is what we are trying to achieve, in contrast to the Government.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am following my right hon. Friend's argument. I do not want to be unduly critical of him, but even if he considers new clause 1, does he not realise that, in fact, the initiative lies with the Home Secretary and that on receipt of a copy of the report from the Home Secretary, the police authority
      "shall require the chief officer"
      to carry out remedial work of various kinds? Surely it would be better by far to give the police authority only an ability to direct the chief officer. In other words, the police authority should not be obliged to act on the Home Secretary's instructions.
      Mr. Letwin: My right hon. and learned Friend usefully chides me. We have long and hard considered that issue.
      922
      I have to admit, to my undying shame and before the conscience that my right hon. and learned Friend constitutes, that we have made concessions to the positions that Ministers have taken in pursuit of consensus. I accept that, but I am conscious that this is an important Bill and that ping-pong between the House and another place is to be avoided if at all possible.
      We have consciously gone out of our way in drafting the new clause to make moves towards the Government's position, as they have tried to make moves towards ours in their amendments. I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's point that we have perhaps gone further than we would have wished as a result, but my point is that the Government amendment presses that issue further. It is more true in their amendments than in our new clause or than in the clause as amended by our amendments to the Government amendments that the Secretary of State is a player, an actor in the drama.
      Our fear is that a Secretary of State, who is already endowed with great powers to influence by virtue of the powers of the purse string, will be able, if he is an actor in the drama, to be the playwright or the producer, too. Rather than merely being an actor, we fear that he will turn himself, by dint of his great financial powers, into—if I may adopt another metaphor—the puppeteer.
      That danger takes us straight back to all three questions that we raised: the question of principle; the question of deprofessionalisation; and the question of whether the Home Office will be good at administering. We want to try to make sure that we do not let the Bill become a platform for the Secretary of State to become involved, as the puppeteer, in a vital dimension of policing. When Ministers consider the matter further, as we progress to the next stages of the Bill, I hope that they will go one step further and accept either our amendments to the Government amendments or something very similar.
      Mr. Denham: As this is a substantial group of Government amendments, it may help—although I am never quite sure about the conduct of this type of debate—if I set out the Government's position, so that the parameters of the debate are clear. It is probably true that the level of personal respect between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is about as high as one gets between two different Front-Bench teams. This has not been one of the right hon. Gentleman's best afternoons so far, however, and I cannot say that he brought to these issues the clarity to which we have often been used in previous debates.
      In summary, the right hon. Gentleman did two things. He spent about 20 minutes—albeit that he spent much of it answering interventions—dealing with a figment of his imagination: the fantasy that everything in the Bill, by implication, represents the Home Secretary's desire to run everything from Whitehall, nationalise the police force and so on. By and large, he avoided dealing with the issue of substance in the narrow circumstances that are covered by the Bill. I will return to that in a moment. Nothing in the issues that we are debating or in the Government amendments provides the platform that the right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to resist. They deal with a narrow set of circumstances, and do not enable a Home Secretary to build on that outside them.
      The right hon. Gentleman was concerned about deprofessionalisation. One reason why there is such widespread support in the police service for the great

      923
      thrust of the police reform White Paper and the Bill is that it will bring about the best and most widespread professionalisation—and further professionalisation—of the police force for many years. Everything in the reform programme—the support for the police service and for the national centre of policing excellence, which is part of Centrex, the agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers about how it will chair the steering committee that oversees its work programme and professionally validates codes of practice, and our commitment to the development of professional skills in investigation, leadership development and training—points to a Government who admire the professionalism of our police service and who want to work with it to extend that professionalism. We need to be judged by what we are doing rather than by the right hon. Gentleman's fears, which I do not accept.
      I want to address the specific issue, as the Opposition's position on it is still far from clear. The entire purpose of the intervention power is to cater for the exceptional circumstances in which a force or part of a force fails to provide the quality of service that local communities have the right to expect. It is common ground that the chief officer and the police authority are in the front line of addressing problems of poor performance. We would expect them to take the necessary remedial action. We have made it clear that the measures in clause 5 would be a last resort or long stop if existing mechanisms had failed to deliver the required improvements in service.
      I suppose that the one thing that I can be pleased about after this long parliamentary deliberation is that, in the new clause, the Opposition have at last accepted, after months of denying it, that circumstances could exist in which local remedies had failed and further measures needed to be taken.
      Mr. Llwyd: Although I do not expect the Minister to name names, will he tell us how many police forces in England and Wales he deems to be under-performing or not doing their work properly?
      Mr. Denham: There is no list of under-performing police forces. Despite the travesty of a report in a national newspaper today, we are seeking with the police service to find a much more balanced way of assessing the performance of police forces. They frequently tell us that they are measured over only a narrow part of the wide range of activities and services that they are required to provide to the public. I will not stand here and say that I have a list of failing police forces; I do not.
      When local remedies and other available mechanisms have failed, the basic principle is how we create an effective mechanism for intervention.
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill's purpose is to try to improve performance across all police authorities in a variety of areas? I have criticised my police authority on aspects of its operation but, in others, it is an exemplar and offers a beacon of excellence for other police authorities to follow.
      Mr. Denham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The police service is committed to delivery and, in general, if a force recognises that its performance in a particular area is not as good as that of another force, its first instinct is
      924
      to find out what the other force is doing and to go off and do it. The whole thrust behind the national centre of policing excellence and, if necessary, the codes of practice, is to have proper structures to enable a force to do that. We also want to construct something that we do not have at the moment, namely a robust system of enabling a police force or basic command unit to compare itself with another. That is lacking in the current performance indicators, and we are working on such a system.
      The dilemma that we sought to address in clause 5 was what would happen in circumstances of the deep and persistent failure that I described. The Bill originally proposed a mechanism for the Home Secretary to direct a chief officer to prepare an action plan to address the identified failings. I did not, and do not, share the belief that that fundamentally challenged the tripartite structure, not least because the mechanism could come into play only when it was clear that the two local legs of the structure had failed to tackle the problems. Furthermore, given the safeguards in the original clause, which are repeated in the amendments, I do not think that the proposal was a fundamental threat to operational independence. It certainly does not—this is explicitly ruled out—involve the type of targeting of individuals that the shadow Home Secretary implied in his speech.
      None the less, we need to find a way forward and we want to try to accommodate the concerns that have been raised. Provided that the House applies the following test, we can move forward: in the case of failure, will the Home Secretary have the capacity to take effective action and the ability to ensure that effective action is taken? The proposed changes, although quite radical in relation to some of our original proposals, ensure that such action can be taken. That is critical, because we must be fundamentally concerned about those members of the public who, by definition, do not receive the standard of service that they have a right to expect.
      The amendments make significant changes. We accept that the trigger for intervention must be a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. It will sometimes delay action if adverse information has to be confirmed by the HMIC, but it is clearly a reassurance that none of the powers—the right hon. Gentleman did not mention this—can be used unless the seriousness of the situation is confirmed by the independent inspectorate. It is not a case of the Home Secretary taking open-ended powers to intervene in a force because he does not think that things are going well or he has read an adverse report in a newspaper. The independent inspectorate has to confirm the problem, and that is important.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Letwin: I accept that that is an important safeguard, but can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee, in the light of the powers that we are discussing, that no informal arrangements would be made under which the Secretary of State could suggest to the police force in question that it would be a good idea to provide an informal action plan in advance of requesting the formal action plan, much as the acceptable behaviour contract is informal and the antisocial behaviour order lies behind it

      925
      as a threat? Is he maintaining that the Home Office will never try to use such an apparatus to widen the scope of the powers?
      Mr. Denham: I do not think that that could be done. Nothing can happen without confirmation of the problem by the inspectorate. If a Home Secretary went to a police force and said that the Department did not like what it was doing, any chief constable who was confident about the service that he was delivering and the competence of his force would know that the inspectorate would back him against the Home Secretary. We argued earlier for flexibility. The defence that has been built in is profound for a chief constable who thinks that he might be bullied, coerced or whatever—not that I think that that would happen. The chief constable knows that the Home Secretary has no power to act unless the inspectorate confirms the nature of a problem. That is important.
      Mr. Allen: I hope that my right hon. Friend and hon. Members who served on the Committee will forgive me if I ask a simple question, which I am sure was covered in Committee. The action plan applies to failing police forces. It does not address the problem of forces that are failing not in an operational sense, but in a non-operational sense with regard to the strategic decisions that they take which fly in the face of the Home Secretary's responsibilities; hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that he can rightly say certain things.
      My right hon. Friend will be aware that I am referring to community policing. That is a strategic, non-operational matter in its generality, yet a police force could decide not to do it. It may not be failing—operationally, it may be an effective force, and the one I have in mind is—but the chief constable of that force can happily cast community policing aside. Am I correct in saying that the Bill does not cover that problem?
      Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is not right to say that the issue is not covered in the Bill, although it is not addressed in clause 5. The clause is not intended to be used if there is genuine disagreement on how the chief constable chooses to police Nottingham. We are talking about failure arising from serious problems in the performance of a force.
      The Bill allows for the development of evidence-based codes of practice. If they are given legal status, the chief officer would have to have regard to them. He would not have to follow them to the letter, however, and would have the discretion to ignore them if he felt that that was appropriate. The development of those codes of practice, agreed in the House, can take place only if evidence exists to support them. We would not want to codify the idea of having a lot of police beat officers unless there was evidence that a particular way of policing delivered that.
      It is important to make it clear that our conception of intervention has always been based on the idea that a failure of outcomes by a force would concern us, and intervention is not, a priori, an attempt to regulate the inputs made by a police officer. In every part of the system in the Bill, the point at which attention will focus on how a police force operates is when there are concerns
      926
      about what is being achieved for the public in reducing crime, tackling criminality and dealing with the fear of crime.
      Mr. Allen: If I understand my right hon. Friend correctly, the matters that we all accept are the Home Secretary's responsibility because they are non-operational and strategic cannot be interfered with when a chief constable chooses to fly in the face of concerns, but the matters that many of us feel are operational may be interfered with, through a local action plan, if the outcomes are not those that we would like.
      Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is not following what I am saying. From its very inception, clause 5 has ruled out interference in operational matters concerning particular individuals or operations. It contains a reserve power—the power of last resort—to be used if a force, or part of it, persistently under-performs. We have to separate that in our minds from the question of whether Nottinghamshire, for example, chooses to adopt a particular pattern of community policing. The clause is not designed to enable the Home Secretary to interfere in that, nor does the Home Secretary aspire to make such decisions.
      In future, where best practice is clearly set out on the basis of evidence, as would be the case with the ACPO firearms manual, for example, it will have the potential to become a code of practice, with a legal status, to which the chief constable will have to have regard. However, he will have discretion about the extent to which he wants to take it into account. I hope that I have made that point. It is important to understand the narrowness of this issue.
      Simon Hughes: Ministers have always had informal contacts with ACPO, chairs of police authorities and senior police officers. Has any work been done that shows either that such dialogue has failed to deliver the changes in particular authorities that Home Secretaries have looked for—the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) cited one example—or that the intervention of the inspectorate has not, of itself, produced the improvements desired by the Home Secretary and the wider community? [Interruption.]
      Mr. Denham: I am not going to follow the suggestion of the right hon. Member for West Dorset and name police forces. There is a recognition that circumstances can arise where, as a last resort, this type of intervention is necessary. I agree that one would expect intervention, the support of professional colleagues and the sharing of best practice to come into play in the vast majority of cases. Clearly, we should all rely on that process to be in the front line in improving performance. Indeed, the biggest drive towards improving performance will come from the sharing of best practice in the police force.
      Mr. Llwyd: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Denham: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and I must make progress. I am taking even longer than the right hon. Member for West Dorset did. [Interruption.]He says that it is not possible, but we will see how long I continue. I may take more interventions later.

      927
      There is a narrow way into the power, and its use has to be confirmed by the inspectorate. That probably protects the Home Secretary, but it certainly protects the chief constable, and we have been happy to concede that change.
      It is our view that the Home Secretary should be able to direct the police authority, which will in turn direct the chief officer to draft an action plan. As the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to recognise, the principle of the Home Secretary having the power to direct the police authority was established by the previous Conservative Government in section 40 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994.
      Mr. George Osborne: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Denham: I should like to make a little progress before we hear a quote from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman is ready to go with that quote, and ultimately I will not disappoint him as he has taken the trouble to carry it around ever since the Bill was in Committee in case he got the opportunity to use it again.
      As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has pointed out, the Opposition themselves have conceded that the police authority should have the right to direct the chief officer.
      I confess to some confusion about the intent of new clause 1. It appears that the Opposition want to say that the Secretary of State should not direct the police authority, but that on receipt of a brown envelope containing an HMIC report from the Secretary of State, the police authority would have to direct the chief officer. I am not sure whether that is deliberate ambiguity or pure sophistry. Simply by cause and effect, the new clause would mean that the Home Secretary was directing the police authority. It would be better to say so, and that is what we have said in the Bill.
      If the Opposition amendments are intended to create a situation where the Home Secretary can put the HMIC report in the post but the police authority can decide whether to require the chief officer to take action, that would be unsatisfactory in the narrow circumstances that we are talking about—those in which the police authority and the chief constable have, between them, failed to deal with the local problem of performance in the force. The right hon. Gentleman has got himself and his party into a tangle over the new clause.
      Mr. Hogg: I rather share the Minister's criticism of the new clause. None the less, he will keep it in mind that the powers that we discussed yesterday included a power for the Home Secretary to suspend a chief officer or to cause his resignation or retirement. That, taken in conjunction with the power that we are discussing, gives the Home Secretary considerable powers to impose on the police authority an improvement plan or a change in regime.
      Mr. Denham: As we discussed yesterday, I do not share that analysis because the power to seek to remove a chief officer has been in legislation since the 1960s, and suspension deals merely with the period before that process. I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman at all, although I recognise the concern as one
      928
      that was raised by the Chief Police Officers Staff Association and that we need to try to address in discussions about the protocol. The measure does not achieve that fundamental shift in power to the Home Secretary which critics have identified.
      Mr. Letwin: I have to say, regrettably, that the Minister's analysis of the logic begins to persuade me that we have gone too far towards his position in using the word "shall" in our amendments. Perhaps "may" would be the better word. We had hoped that we could go as far as "shall" and still preserve the idea that, because the direction from the Secretary of State would be absent, a whole series of sub-directions that could be contained in the direction would also be absent, and that we would at least have an independent police authority that was the sole source of direction.
      If the Minister, on the advice that he has been able to receive, takes the view that if the police authority were given a statutory duty to direct, the Secretary of State would in effect have the same power to circumscribe the character of that direction as he would have if he had the power of direction itself, I fear that we may have gone too far. We may have to ask our colleagues in another place to move back from the position that we have established. I hope that the Minister will reflect on whether what he said was meant, or whether he was merely engaging in a playful piece of debate, because if that is the way that he reads the Bill, I will not rest content with the way in which we have tried to amend it.
      Mr. Denham: This is an important exchange. It is important to clarify exactly what the Opposition are saying. I fear that if we had formulated our clause as the right hon. Gentleman has formulated his, we would have been attacked by him for attempting to take a power of direction without being clear about it.
      It seems to follow logically from the right hon. Gentleman's position that, on receipt of the report, the police authority shall act. That is how we understand what he said. I do not take that to mean that the Secretary of State is dictating the content of the action plan.
      I now come on to the nub of the issue. Clearly, it would be nonsense for the Home Secretary to be aware of a major problem in a police force, for that to be confirmed to him by HMIC, for HMIC to say, "I can't think of anything else to do about this force other than for us to intervene", for the Home Secretary to send all that off in an envelope to the police authority, and for the police authority to refuse to do anything about it. That would not be a tenable sequence of events.
      6 pm
      The issue, then—this is the third area in which we have made a significant change to our original proposal—is the content of the plan. It is clear in our proposals that the plan should be produced by the chief officer, and that it should undergo the normal consultation with the police authority that would be involved in producing, say, an annual plan, which is written by the chief officer in consultation with the police authority. If the authority wants to make changes, those must be discussed with the chief officer. That has been in the legislation for some time in respect of annual plans.

      929
      The amendments that we tabled remove any suggestion that the Home Secretary can dictate what is in the plan or rewrite it. They bring this part of the Bill into line with the legislation on the three-year policing plans that we discussed in Committee. The Home Secretary could comment, but could not rewrite the plan. That is extremely important. It means that the Home Secretary can make his position clear, although he could presumably always get his hands on a copy and comment. It would be much better if there were legislative provision for that. The police authority would have to consider the Home Secretary's comments, but there would be no binding instruction for the Home Secretary to specify the form in which the plan must be written.
      Given that there is now common ground that, in the event of a problem being confirmed by HMIC, action must be taken, our proposals should be acceptable to the Opposition. Yes, the police authority will require an action plan, but it will have the same involvement with the action plan as it would with an annual plan. The Home Secretary will be able to comment—after all, he initiated the action—but not rewrite the plan.
      That will achieve the purpose of making sure that something is done for the public. We hope that hon. Members will accept that that is a reasonable move away from the position in the original draft of the Bill, and that they will support it.
      Mr. Letwin: Of course we accept that that was a major move, which we welcomed. May I draw the Minister's attention back to subsection (2) and ask him to clarify how, in his version, he imagines the original direction from the Secretary of State will be couched? As I read subsection (2), in stating that the "Secretary of State may direct" and that in that direction he may direct the force in question
      "in relation to anything that the Secretary of State considers relevant to the matters as to which he is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1)",
      the subsection legitimises the Secretary of State giving a specific and detailed set of directions to the police authority about exactly what is to be contained in the action plan.
      I accept the Minister's point that the action plan may not conform to that direction, and that he has removed the power that previously existed for the Secretary of State to force a revision, but he surely sees that, endowed with the powers that the Secretary of State otherwise has, a detailed and specific set of provisions about what is to be contained in the action plan is quite a different thing from circumstances in which the Secretary of State merely triggers the preparation of an action plan under the aegis of the authority.
      Mr. Denham: The debate is proving useful. We have focused on a set of words that has not previously been the focus of particular attention. In drafting this part of clause 5, and in clause 4, which we discussed Upstairs, we were able to point out that we had significantly constrained the Secretary of State's powers to direct a police authority, compared with the powers given by the Conservative Government.
      930
      As we pointed out in Committee, those powers did not even require the Secretary of State to require action relevant to the problem identified by HMIC. HMIC could identify a problem relating to a collapsing drugs strategy, and the Secretary of State would be able to use the powers in the Police Act 1996 to direct the police authority to urge the chief constable to do more about road traffic. We have narrowed the remit of the Secretary of State to make sure that it is relevant to the problems identified by HMIC.
      I envisage that the Home Secretary would be in receipt of a report from HMIC. It is always dangerous to speculate on such occasions, but, to help the discussion, let us assume that HMIC has concluded that a particular area is awash with class A drugs, that the chief constable refuses to devote any resources to tackling the problem, that all the interventions have failed to alter the situation, and that an effective response by the police force was therefore required. The report from HMIC would presumably analyse the problem, and probably indicate the areas in which action should be taken to address the problem.
      It has been our assumption that that would be the basis of the Secretary of State's direction to the police authority. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be worried that the wording of the clause would allow the Secretary of State to add an eight-page codicil elaborating on the strategy that the police force should adopt. The right hon. Gentleman knows the evolution of the clause. Earlier drafts of this and other clauses contained explicit powers for the Secretary of State to do just such a thing. We have removed those.
      We may not be able to resolve the matter sensibly on the Floor of the House tonight, but if we have narrowed that down as the area of concern, there should be a way forward that will enable the problem that has been identified to be conveyed with the power of direction to a police authority, and which enables the Secretary of State to look to the chief officer and the policy authority to respond to the report and the problems that have been identified, and subsequently allows the Secretary of State to comment, but not to rewrite the plan.
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: On a matter of clarification regarding HMIC, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Home Office meets members of HMIC to discuss possible audits or reviews that they might undertake?
      Mr. Denham: There are now three or four elements to the inspection process carried out by HMIC. First, there are routine inspections of forces. Those seek to cover all forces over a period of time, but there is a professional process undertaken by HMIC based on what could be called risk analysis—a look at indicators to suggest where certain forces may not be performing as well as others. Secondly, there is the programme of basic command unit inspections, which are usually peer-led and carried out by another command unit's chief superintendent seconded to the inspectorate.
      Thirdly, there are programmes of thematic inspections—for example, on diversity. Fourthly, there is the potential for the Home Secretary to ask for a specific inquiry into a particular area. It is fair to say that in each of those areas, there is discussion with Ministers, although in practice the basic command unit programme and the

      931
      normal force programme are left to the professional discretion of HMIC. In the thematic area, there is generally some discussion. For example, discussion is currently taking place about the possible examination of domestic violence prosecutions, which would involve both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate.
      I hope that we have had a useful discussion so far. Before I sit down, I shall give way briefly to the right hon. Member for West Dorset.
      Mr. Letwin: We have indeed had a useful discussion, which justifies the existence of such debates in the House. We believe that it would be extremely productive to discuss subsection (2). Perhaps we can find a route that will establish consensus by constraining the power of direction to being a power of triggering, not a power of specifying. Of course, we shall have to discuss that outside the present congregation, but I hope that we may be on the verge of a solution.
      Mr. Denham: That would be helpful. We had understood subsection (2) simply to ensure that a plan leading to remedial measures would be prepared. Indeed, we removed from earlier drafts and clauses a whole set of provisions about targets, performance measures, time scales and so on, which were very much part of the power to direct what was in the plan. I will now sit down for fear of saying anything that could unravel the good progress that we have made in the past half an hour.
      Norman Baker: I have been happily listening to that interesting and useful exchange across the Floor of the House. From a neutral point of view—if one can call Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches neutral—I perceive the distinct possibility that there could be all-party agreement on how we go forward. The Minister responded thoughtfully. It was the second thoughtful statement by a home affairs Minister this afternoon. To be fair to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), he also approached the matter thoughtfully, so plaudits all round. I am not sure whether the Government's change of heart is based on a conversion to the approach advocated by Opposition Members or on a calculation based on mathematics, a word that the Minister used yesterday in relation to the Henry VIII clause. That may be an academic point, but it is important because it underlies the Government's intentions, and those intentions will affect their legislation and their whole approach to the police reform package.
      It seems a long time since we started talking in Committee about the tripartite structure. Hon. Members in all three parties agree that that is important and needs to be retained, but there is division between us on how much weight should be placed on each leg of the tripod. Under the proposed system, the tripartite structure will allow one piece—the Home Secretary—to conclude that two other pieces have failed, then to trigger action. I do not dissent from that, but it nevertheless shows that the tripod may not be evenly balanced.
      As the right hon. Member for West Dorset said, when the Home Secretary moved from the Department for Education and Skills to his new post, his initial motivation was his identification of a number of problems that needed to be dealt with and his desire to deal with them in way that meant better policing and less crime. He also brought with him a sense of frustration that when matters
      932
      went wrong he was the one who got it in the neck, but he did not always have the lever to pull—the phrase that he regularly uses—to correct the situation. That is a very human response. However, his subsequent logic has displayed a fundamental error—namely, that if there is a problem the answer is to take more power to the centre. That is not the answer. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) also falls into that trap. There is no proof whatsoever that taking power to the centre will lead to better policing or a better criminal justice system. In fact, devolving power to police authorities, making them more accountable at a local level and involving communities more in the administration of the police and the criminal justice system in their area, might be far more effective in achieving the improvements that we all want.
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Just to clarify what I said, I am not a centralist at heart; I believe that people are best directed to run their own affairs. However, I have only to look at statistics for all the police authorities for it to be manifestly apparent that some are much more able to run their affairs than others. I fear that without external intervention that situation will continue, to the detriment of my constituents.
      6.15 pm
      Norman Baker: I understand the hon. Lady's position exactly, but in this case taking more power to the centre would not lead to a better situation. The fount of all knowledge does not lie in Whitehall with Home Office civil servants, no matter how elegant and elevated they may be, and nobody would suggest that they are necessarily the best-placed people to sort out the problems of Dorset, Sussex or anywhere else, which should be dealt with locally.
      Ian Lucas: But is not the point that comparative information is held in Whitehall? It is not possible for police authorities in one part of the country to be aware of information that is held by police authorities in other parts of the country. There has to be some input from central Government to clarify comparative information.
      Norman Baker: Of course it is important that best practice is shared—nobody disputes that—and that the Home Office has a role in collecting and disseminating information. It is a good idea for it to be able to say, for example, "Have you noticed what is happening in Derbyshire?"
      Mr. Kevan Jones: That is not a very good example.
      Norman Baker: I am not familiar with Derbyshire, so I shall instead say Sussex, which is my part of the world. There is nothing wrong with the Home Office doing that, but that is not what clause 5 proposes. The hon. Member for Crosby must recognise—
      Mr. Jones rose—
      Norman Baker: I am still answering the previous point, if I may. The hon. Lady must recognise that police statistics vary. There has not been consistency in the way in which information has been collected and collated, and the statistics may not be entirely reliable. To be fair to the Government, they are dealing with that, but we are not there yet. So it is a false premise to say that the divisions

      933
      that the hon. Lady mentions are as wide as she says. Moreover, local policing in local areas throws up different problems. The problems of Brixton are very different from those of Sussex, so it is not fair to try to compare like with like. To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who is no longer in the Chamber, a chief constable may decide that the priority for his or her area is rather different from that for a chief constable in a different area. It is not for us as politicians to impose from the centre a blanket solution that may be inappropriate for certain parts of the country.
      Mr. Jones: I asked the hon. Gentleman this question in Committee, and I shall do so again. Under what circumstances, in the Liberal Democrat wonderland in which he appears to live, would it be appropriate for the Home Secretary to intervene in a local police authority? Is he telling the House that a Home Secretary should never intervene in a police authority that was failing its local public? If so, I do not want to hear any more of his colleagues criticising the Home Secretary when local police authorities are failing.
      Norman Baker: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman associates Liberal Democrats with wonderland, since wonder is something wonderful to be enjoyed. At least he recognises that. I have never said that the Home Secretary should not intervene—I would not use that word, but advise, certainly—in respect of police authority matters. Indeed, the Home Secretary can already intervene in a whole range of matters—the Police Act 1996, the Police Act 1964 and other legislation. We are not querying that—we are querying the projected extension of his powers in the Bill. That is the answer that I gave the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) in Committee, and I give it again today. I am sorry if he does not like it, but that is the fact of the matter. It is not black and white—there is a middle road to tread, and we are arguing about how far it should go.
      Simon Hughes: Further to the comments made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), does my hon. Friend agree that we need to consider whether police authorities are adequately responsive to their communities? Perhaps, rather than expecting the Government to solve every problem across every Department, we should look again at whether police authorities require an alteration to their structure. Already, greater influence is exerted at borough and local command unit level, which may be because people feel that the police authority structure is too remote for local community needs, which differ even within one police force area.
      Norman Baker: I agree. I referred to police authorities earlier. We need to make them more accountable; that would lead to better local policing. To introduce a note of discord, a Conservative Government changed the constitution of police authorities to remove local councillors. That was a regressive step.
      Local crime and disorder partnerships work well, and they have included the community. That means that local people own the agenda, and the partnerships have been successful. They constitute one of the Government's better initiatives on crime.
      934
      Let me consider the substance of the new clause and the amendment before I become too distracted and take up too much time. I have not taken as much time as the other two Front-Bench spokesmen, and I shall not try to match them. I genuinely welcome the Government's attempt to tackle the problem through the amendment; it would be churlish not to do that. Whether it constitutes tactics or a change of heart, they have proposed a solution that is better than the original proposal, and it would be wrong not to say that.
      It is especially welcome that the Government have taken account of points that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and I made in Committee about triggering the intervention. That is important. As the Minister knows, I was worried that the police standards unit, which is an offshoot of the Home Office and therefore not independent, could trigger the mechanism. That was wrong, and the Government have limited the power to Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which is widely perceived as independent, responsible and serious. That is welcome and I thank the Minister.
      Involving the police authority is also welcome. The train continues to go from London to Newcastle, but it now stops at York on the way. It did not do that previously. That is a welcome change.
      The right hon. Member for West Dorset mentioned clause 2. It was not discussed extensively in Committee, but perhaps the value of Report is the opportunity that it grants to reflect on the progress of the measure up to a specific point. There is not much to sort out to make the provision acceptable, and I hope that the Minister will accept those comments as a positive sign.
      I was about to say that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North made a speech that was punctuated by remarks from both Front-Bench spokesmen, but that would be unkind because he is not here. He knows that I have tremendous respect for him. He talked about operational measures, which, to some extent, go to the heart of the Bill. It is proper for the Home Secretary or any other Member of Parliament to try to influence the chief constable of a specific area and draw matters of public anxiety to his or her attention.
      Any chief constable who has not taken note of exchanges on the Floor of the House on street crime, for example, in a recent Prime Minister's Question Time, is unwise. The public are worried about street crime and it is legitimate to expect the chief constable to respond to the agenda and take account of it operationally. However granting the Home Secretary power to require the chief constable to take action, especially action that the latter believes to be inappropriate for the area, is a different matter. It is a good move to remove that power.
      I want others to have the opportunity to contribute and I have therefore kept my remarks brief. The new clause has merit and the issues should be considered further. One or two matters need to be ironed out before we are completely happy, but I welcome the steps that the Minister has taken through the amendments, which go a long way towards tackling our legitimate anxieties.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: This afternoon and in Committee, we heard much from Conservative Members about political control of operational policing. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made the

      935
      extraordinary statement that it was important to keep politics out of local policing. In Committee, the Opposition tried to suggest that the Bill was all about giving the Home Secretary more direct control over local policing and police authorities. It is not; the Bill's purpose is to improve standards and solve the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) highlighted earlier: the disparity between different police authorities. People are asking about the reasons for the disparities and why people are not acting locally to tackle the matters that worry them.
      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments. He appears to lack confidence in the power of local opinion. Perhaps he has some ideas about ways in which to strengthen it. Throughout our proceedings, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and I have emphasised the need for more consultation. Through more effective consultation on all the strategic plans and empowering the local community more, we can strengthen local people's power to get the policing that they believe they need. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?
      Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that intervention. I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that we should discuss reform of local police authorities, but the Bill does not cover that. The Liberal Democrats try to present a utopian vision of local police authorities that are somehow in touch with what happens locally or are representative. I cannot accept that.
      The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) is a genuine person, who comes over as my favourite aunt Mabel because she views the world through rose-tinted spectacles. However, life is a little harsher. People disagree about the way in which areas should be policed.
      Let us revert to political control of the police, which has constituted the main opposition to the Bill. We need to remind Conservative Members of their origins. I accept that they are on a long political journey in the wilderness and that they have to devise policies on a range of issues, but the right hon. Member for West Dorset talked about taking politics out of policing.
      Like the hon. Member for Lewes, I remind Conservative Members that a Conservative Government interfered directly in police authorities in 1994, when they reduced the number of county councillors who served on them. They also provided that the Home Secretary had a direct influence on appointments to police authorities. We need look no further than 1994 and the Conservative Government for an example of introducing politics into local policing.
      Mr. George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. He will recall that the Opposition spokesman was the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), now the Prime Minister, who said that
      "the Bill represents the most determined and least popular attempt ever made to centralise policing in Britain".—[Official Report,26 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 122.]
      936
      The powers that the Bill grants the Home Secretary go far beyond those in the 1994 Act. The hon. Gentleman talks about the origins of the Conservative party; what are those of the Labour party?
      Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that intervention because the hon. Gentleman gave an example of a Conservative Government changing local operational methods and placing political appointees on police authorities to control the direction of local policing. Those provisions were far stronger than the measure that we are considering. We are discussing not political control, but improving standards. That will be popular with the public, certainly in my constituency.
      We must accept the Government amendment and ensure that the Home Secretary rightly has the power to intervene to help local people when police authorities are failing. It is no good Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for West Dorset, criticising the Home Secretary or any Minister when people complain about local policing.
      Mr. Hogg: I shall comment briefly on new clause 1. Subject to an amendment, which I shall support and at which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) hinted, new clause 1 offers a way forward.
      I do not believe that it is right to grant the Home Secretary the right to impose an action plan on a police authority. Many years ago, I had an opportunity to perform the functions that the Minister now undertakes. For some 12 months, I was responsible for the police service. In any event, I worked at the Home Office for almost two years, or slightly longer. Much as I hold Home Office officials in my regard, I do not think that they are terribly well placed to determine local policing needs. They have a remoteness and, indeed, a lack of accountability that seems to me to constitute an objection both in practical terms and in principle. On the other hand, I have no objection at all to the Home Secretary responding to advice from the inspectorate and drawing to the attention of the police authority problems that have been highlighted in an inspector's report.
      6.30 pm
      I would therefore draw on new clause 1 to enable the Home Secretary to send the relevant papers to the police authority and perhaps make suggestions in a form of notice, but allow the authority the ability to determine whether an action plan should be introduced and the contents of such a plan. In other words, the essential decisions should be made by the police authority, albeit that its attention should be directed to the issue by the Home Secretary.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: I accept the logic of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, but what would happen if the police authority decided to do nothing and take no action?
      Mr. Hogg: That is a perfectly fair point. Indeed, I was about to deal with it, but before I do so, I should like to back-track for a moment and draw attention to the fact that, as I told the Minister, we have given the Home Secretary power to require the resignation, retirement or suspension of the chief police officer. I would be rather

      937
      surprised if the circumstances that we are contemplating as justifying the triggering report from the Home Secretary would not also justify serious consideration in terms of the desirability of causing the chief police officer to retire or resign. In other words, there will be a second sanction if the police authority simply refuses to act.
      The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) asked what would happen if the police authority decided to do nothing. I should like now to do something that I do not usually do and take up a point made from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I notice that he is making faces; I share his sense of distaste. However, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), with whom I do not generally agree or associate myself, made a point of some substance in saying that the police authority's accountability to the local community should be reinforced. I agree with that view. I think that this House should seriously, but perhaps in slower measure, debate how the police authority can be made more accountable to the local community. It is increasingly my belief that in order to deal with such problems, we should not take more centralised powers, but try to devolve decision-making processes downwards.
      I am not being dogmatic—at least, not on this occasion, you will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker—but I would have thought that some process of election should seriously be considered. Whether one would confine it to the chairmanship or membership of the police authority is a matter for debate. However, in answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Durham, I point out that, if the police authority did nothing, it would have to account to the local community for that decision. If it felt that its local community would support such a decision, the proper process of accountability and local government would be involved.
      Mr. Jones: This would be a horrible moment in anyone's political career: I think that I agree with right hon. and learned Gentleman, about the need for local police authorities to be more accountable. I have argued previously for the introduction of direct elections, but he was a member of a Government who introduced measures to reduce the number of local councillors on the authorities. Did he argue against the policy at that time?
      Mr. Hogg: I suspect that I was a Minister at the time and that I did not have any particular responsibility for that decision. The truth is that as a Minister or a party member, one is associated with many decisions that are made collectively and of which one does not wholly approve. I have argued many opinions in my party both now and in the past which have not accorded with the general view. I usually just get along with it. I do not spend my time resigning; I am a practical man. I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, but I am not in the least embarrassed to say so.
      I should like to wrap up my remarks, mainly because I want to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and, indeed, that of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas). New clause 1 provides the way forward, but the word "shall" should be
      938
      removed from proposed subsection (3) and replaced by the word "may". I hope that, in due time, we will be in the business of making police authorities more accountable.
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I welcome the amendments that relate to directions to chief officers. I make my speech not only as the Member of Parliament for Crosby, but as chairman of the all-party group on abuse investigations.
      In the past few years, I have lost count of the number of complaints that I have received about policing in my area. In the past four years, I have received hundreds of complaints about police practices and procedures in relation to abuse cases throughout the UK. As a consequence, I have made it my business to find out about the huge variation of police performance throughout the UK.
      I should like to refer to a remark made by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who asserted that the Home Office was seeking to create a platform on which it would have greater control over police operations. I cannot accept that phraseology, as I regard the amendments related to chief officers as a development of section 40 of the Police Act 1996, which was, as he will be aware, introduced by the previous Conservative Administration. Indeed, that Act established the relationship between the Secretary of State and the inspection.
      It has been suggested that the enhanced relationship that will flow from the provisions will not enable police authorities to resolve performance inefficiencies or ineffectiveness. I wish that I had found substantial evidence in every police authority to show that either the police, the chief constable or the authority had undertaken of their own volition significant process review or analysis, but I am afraid that that is not the case; otherwise, I believe that we would see year-on-year improvements in areas of operational effectiveness. We do not see such improvements, however, as the limited statistics available on police performance clearly indicate.
      I accept the view of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who is not currently in his seat, that the statistics may not be accurate. Frankly, however, no other information is available to me at this time that I can use to compare and contrast what is happening in police authorities throughout the UK. Furthermore, I do not believe that the measures will undermine police authorities that are striving continuously to improve. The measures are being introduced to facilitate improvements in authorities that give cause for concern.
      I regard the amendments as absolutely vital and as an important step towards ensuring that my constituents receive the very best of services, given that the police precept on Merseyside is one of the very highest in the UK.
      Mr. Llwyd: I shall address the House very briefly, as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
      I fully support what the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said. I do not have any sense of shame in expressing my agreement with people who speak sense; perhaps I am not tribal enough for this place.
      Mr. James Paice: But you are Welsh.
      Mr. Llwyd: Perhaps I am different from the norm; my wife says so occasionally.

      939
      Much has been said about the Home Secretary's tenure of the education brief. Yes, there was a shake-up; league tables were introduced, heaven knows how many forms had to be filled in and so on. Last week, there was a huge lobby of Parliament by teachers who feel that they are doing far too much paperwork and far too little teaching. Parts of the Bill are good, but there is a tendency towards centralisation and allowing the centre to become too involved in policing.
      I was interested in the Minister's response to a question that I asked, in which he said that there was no list of under-performing forces. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said in an intervention that we need some form of procedure to collect and collate information, but the Home Office can already do that. There is no doubt about it; it not only already does so, but it tries to compare like with like. It is not a perfect science, but the north Wales forces are linked with another eight or nine semi-rural forces. That is what currently happens.
      A note of caution has to be sounded. Policing difficulties will vary from one area to another. It goes without saying that the problems of rural areas are quite different from those of populous areas. Strains occur when there is an unusually high incidence of violence or of class A drug use, for example. It is, therefore, difficult to compare like with like. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, we need to bring more pressure to bear to democratise police authorities. That is the way forward.
      We heard from the Minister about codes of practice, but they can be ignored by a chief constable, using his or her "discretion". It seems bizarre that any code of practice can be ignored at someone's discretion. If a chief constable decides to employ that discretion and regularly ignore a code or codes of practice, who will decide whether that discretion is well founded and has been properly exercised? This proposal is a bizarre notion.
      Although the Bill contains good parts that I fully support, I cannot do other than to say that, under its provisions, as Lord Carlisle of Bucklow said in the other place, we shall be
      "moving by stealth…unnoticeably and slowly towards a national police force".—[Official Report, House of Lords,5 March 2002; Vol. 632, c. 156.]
      That will be of no use to any of us. Different policing areas of the United Kingdom have different priorities. Those priorities vary widely within Wales and within England, and so it will be. It will not be possible to introduce any real uniformity. No hon. Member in any part of the House can possibly be against driving up standards. Common sense dictates that we need to maintain proper standards, that we need proper scrutiny of the processes, and that we have the highest possible standards, but bringing the dead hand of central Government to bear will do nothing to achieve that.
      The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) referred to the historical perspective. I am not viewing this just from an historical perspective; the system seems to have worked fairly well up until now. Yes, some police forces do better than others, but the solution is more a question of people putting their heads together, of educating—in the proper sense; I do not want to be offensive in any way—and of ensuring best practice.
      940
      That is the way forward. Allowing too many powers of intervention from the centre will achieve nothing at all. Indeed, it is a worrying tendency.
      Mr. George Osborne: I have enjoyed this debate, and I can certainly testify to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) often disagreed with other members of the Government when he was a Minister, and that they often disagreed with him, because I was his special adviser and sometimes had to pick up the pieces. As a new Member in this place, I have enjoyed watching the negotiations taking place across the Dispatch Box. It has been like watching a Fischer-Spassky chess game. I am not sure who has been checkmated at the end of it, but I have enough confidence in my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) to hope that it is not us.
      The Government have introduced some significant and welcome concessions on issues that were the subject of lengthy discussions in Committee, particularly those involving the police authorities and, above all, those involving the trigger mechanism for the power of the Home Secretary to intervene and direct chief constables. The concessions significantly improve the relevant clause, and, indeed, the whole Bill, which would otherwise—according to virtually every organisation in the country—have given the Home Secretary sweeping powers to direct the police and undermine the now-famous tripartite relationship that guarantees the independence of the police from the politicians of the day.
      To return to the point that I made earlier to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), the fact that the Government introduced the clause in the first place says much about the way in which the Labour party has changed. I have been reading the Second and Third Reading debates of what became the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994—they have been close to my bed as I have gone to sleep each night—and it is remarkable to see how the Government have changed their tack. The Opposition spokesman at the time, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), now the Prime Minister, said on Third Reading:
      "The difference between the two of us is that, while the Home Secretary wants objectives to be set centrally by central Government, the police, the Opposition and virtually everyone else believe that they should be set by local people."—[Official Report, 5 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 272.]
      He also said, on Second Reading:
      "The people of this country do not want a centralised police service, under a Conservative or any other Government."—[Official Report, 26 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 130.]
      He was right, at the time. He was a pretty good shadow Home Secretary, as Conservatives remember to our cost. The Labour party seems to have forgotten all that in the intervening years, amid the pressures of government.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Kevan Jones: I know that, back in 1994, the hon. Gentleman was just a humble spin doctor, but, if he had been a Member of Parliament, would he have voted to reduce the number of councillors on police authorities and to allow the Home Secretary to have a direct input into the appointment of independent members of those authorities?
      Mr. Osborne: I would probably have voted in the way that my Whips had instructed me to do—as, indeed,

      941
      will the hon. Gentleman tonight. I remember—as I am sure he does, because he was a spin doctor for a trade union; there are different career paths for those in the Labour and Conservative parties—that, at the time, the Labour party was advocating wholly elected police authorities. I do not see a provision for that in the Bill, but times change and we move on.
      I still fear that the Bill is a little too interventionist and centralist, but it is in the nature of politics to compromise and make concessions to make progress, so I shall wait to see the outcome of the negotiations. I have been interested to watch the chess game taking place across the Dispatch Box, and I shall await instructions from my pager.
      Mr. Letwin: I should begin by repeating the statement that I made in response to the exchange that the Minister and I had a little while back, which was that these proceedings have justified the process that we go through in Parliament of gradually teasing out the issues. It is enormously welcome that the Minister has suggested the possibility of having at least a circumscribed discussion about alterations to his proposed amendments. I hope that, by those means, we can achieve some consensus—if not here tonight, at an early date in another place—that will enable the Bill to move forward.
      The other feature of this evening's discussions that has been very interesting was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) a moment ago. There is no doubt that the underlying theory here—so far as both the principle and the practice are concerned—has reversed itself. There was a time when the Labour party believed that there was a real argument for localism—at least in the context of policing, if not of many other issues. There was also a time when the Conservative party believed that there was much to be gained—on this issue, if not on many others—by trying to bring about more effectiveness from the centre.
      The present Labour Government have become more and more disenchanted with long-term strategies to create sustainable structural solutions that will bring about sustainable improvement through local pressure and professional independence. They have also become more and more enchanted by the idea of taking action from the centre. At the same time, as the Conservatives look back on the many difficulties that we experienced in achieving results from the centre, on the great advances that we made in the many areas that we liberated to operate more independently of the centre, and on the sustained failure of the Government over five years to achieve improvements in many domains—stretching from education to the Home Office—through increased intervention, we have become increasingly sceptical of the value of centralised intervention and increasingly attentive to the long-term sustainable advantages of localism. That is a most interesting shift in the character of politics. The only difference is, to my mind, that we were once mistaken in this area and generally right, although we are now right in this area, whereas the Government, having been generally wrong but right in this area, have added this area to their list of wrongness.
      That is a pity, although it is interesting as a matter of reflection. The good news is that we may be able to reach a consensus on a position very far removed from that at which the Government began, as the Minister rightly and
      942
      gallantly said. We may be able to achieve enough to prevent the Secretary of State from being what I described as the puppeteer, though one will have to consider the matter in practice. We shall know whether we have done enough to guard against that only when we see how the thing plays out, and we may have to return to the issue.
      Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to the fact that both parties have changed their view and to the relative merits of centralism and localism. The truth is that all Governments find that it is difficult to delegate downwards because they get blamed for the mistakes made by the devolved authorities. Should not all Governments be ready to distance themselves from decisions made locally simply by saying that such is the nature of devolved administration? Governments should not seek to control the minutiae of policy where that is properly left to local authorities of one kind or another.
      Mr. Letwin: I am persuaded by my right hon. and learned Friend's argument. That is a logic that we, in government, amply demonstrated and implemented in another sphere. There is no doubt that we leapt over how the Department of Trade and Industry could take responsibility for the performance of the whole of British industry, or a substantial part of it, without controlling or owning it by denying the validity of that question through privatisation and the removal of the Department's effort to take responsibility for the performance of any large part of British industry. In doing so, we admitted the long-term sustainable advantages of the marketplace compared with the long-term unsustainable disadvantages of centralised control. That is where we are now in relation to the new clause, in a quite different domain in terms of policing.
      I might say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have been peculiarly forbearing in not stopping me during that excursion, which was a propos the precise details of the new clause, although it is relevant to understand the conceptual framework being discussed in this interesting and useful debate. I hope that you will permit us to press not new clause 1—much as I am attached to it, I recognise that it represents a position that the Minister is unlikely to accept, all the more so in respect of "shall" rather than "may"—but amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 111 to signify that, as it stands, we are not satisfied that the amendments go far enough.
      However, we enter the proviso that we are more than willing to discuss with the Minister, in some detail and in the spirit of co-operation, and as he so generously suggested, how we could further amend the amendments to the amendments to reach the point at which there is consensus in another place.
      Mr. Denham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I do not accept his description of the debate's conceptual framework. I do not accept that one political party started on a journey from Newcastle to London while the other started on a journey from London to Newcastle and that they are about to cross somewhere in the vicinity of Grantham.
      One of the myths surrounding the Bill is that it is overbearing centralism from a party that used to believe in localism. Once the Bill is out of the way, once we see how the police reform process works in practice and as we develop a more effective performance assessment

      943
      system—my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) mentioned that—and best professional practice in the police service, we shall see the virtue of the highest quality of local professional leadership supported by police authorities in a national framework that provides a clearer, more coherent approach to national policing priorities and the need for forces to work together. That is what we have set out to achieve, not overbearing centralism. In any case, the debate on the new clause is essentially about a much narrower set of circumstances.
      Provided that the Secretary of State is able to direct a police authority to take action, there is room to discuss the wording of the direction, as we suggested earlier. That is helpful. It is important to remember that there is a real advantage in making progress on the Bill. People out there in local communities, local police forces and local authorities want to be able to implement many measures at the earliest possible opportunity, not least those on antisocial behaviour orders and on community support officers, which the Metropolitan police are already recruiting. The debate on such issues and on how we can proceed has been valuable, and we shall discuss those other measures in more detail in a few moments.
      Interesting concepts have been introduced to the debate. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) referred to the non-tribal nationalist, which is a new one on me, but we shall work on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby referred to performance assessment in the police service, and she will follow events with interest as we develop the broader and more balanced approach to it that was flagged up in the White Paper and which is being discussed with the police service.
      The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) tried to set out how the Government have changed their position since the Bill was introduced. I must say in return that when the Bill was introduced the Conservative party was denying the existence of any problems that might require the powers of intervention that we have discussed tonight, so there has been movement on both sides.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and others took us into an area of debate that is not, strictly speaking, to do with the new clause, as it involves the nature of police authorities. That debate will continue, but it is the Government's view that this is not the time to change the composition of police authorities. However, let me say on the record once more that we recognise their important role in the tripartite structure. If the changes that we propose provide reassurance that there is no threat to that structure—undoubtedly, the Association of Police Authorities and police authorities themselves will see the matter that way—that is welcome.
      We have had a useful debate on an important and controversial part of the Bill. It is good that we continue to make progress even at this late stage, and the powers that the public want to be available should be available in, I hope, the not too distant future. With that, I urge the House to resist the new clause. In turn, I hope that our amendments will be accepted, as we need them so that they can be reconsidered in another place. Otherwise, there will be no change to address. We recognise, however, that we need to examine some of the drafting.
      Mr. Letwin: I hope that the Minister accepts that it has never been our intention to have the Bill jettisoned.
      944
      We have always sought to achieve a consensus sufficient to allow the legislation, which is, in the main, beneficial, to proceed.
      Mr. Denham: I accept that. Although the elected Government enjoy a considerable majority in the House of Commons, they do not enjoy a majority in the House of Lords, which gives the Lords majority real power and a real say. That should not be pushed to the point at which Bills are destroyed, however, so sensible discussion of these matters is very helpful indeed.
      Mr. Letwin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

    Clause 5

      DIRECTIONS TO CHIEF OFFICERS
      Amendments made:No. 109, in page 5, line 38, leave out from "where" to first "the", in line 41, and insert—
      'a report made to the Secretary of State on an inspection under section 54 states, in relation to a police force for a police area—
      (a) that, in the opinion of the person making the report,'.
      No. 110, in page 5, line 43, after "that" insert—
      `, in that person's opinion,'.[Mr. Heppell.]
      Amendment proposed:(a) to Government amendment No. 111, in line 1, before "chief", insert "may direct the".
      The House divided:Ayes 190, Noes 305.

      Division No. 303]

      [7 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Cash, William

      Amess, David

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Chidgey, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Chope, Christopher

      Bacon, Richard

      Clappison, James

      Baker, Norman

      Collins, Tim

      Baron, John

      Conway, Derek

      Barrett, John

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Beggs, Roy

      Cotter, Brian

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cran, James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Bercow, John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Boswell, Tim

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Brady, Graham

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Brake, Tom

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

      Brazier, Julian

      Evans, Nigel

      Breed, Colin

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Fabricant, Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fallon, Michael

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Bumside, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burt, Alistair

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Butterfill, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Gibb, Nick

      Cameron, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      945

      Goodman, Paul

      Paterson, Owen

      Gray, James

      Pickles, Eric

      Grayling, Chris

      Price, Adam

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Prisk, Mark

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Greenway, John

      Randall, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Hammond, Philip

      Rendel, David

      Hancock, Mike

      Robathan, Andrew

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Harvey, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewkb'ry)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Hayes, John

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Heald, Oliver

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Heath, David

      Ruffley, David

      Hermon, Lady

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Hoban, Mark

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Holmes, Paul

      Selous, Andrew

      Horam, John

      Simmonds, Mark

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

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

      Hunter, Andrew

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Spink, Bob

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

      Spring, Richard

      (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Key, Robert

      Steen, Anthony

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Stunell, Andrew

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Swayne, Desmond

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Swire, Hugo

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Syms, Robert

      Lamb, Norman

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lansley, Andrew

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Laws, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Letwin Oliver

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Thurso, John

      Lidington, David

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Tredinnick, David

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Trend, Michael

      Loughton Tim

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Luff, Peter

      Tyler, Paul

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Watkinson, Angela

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Webb, Steve

      Malins, Humfrey

      Weir, Michael

      Maples, John

      Whittingdale, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Wilkinson, John

      Mercer, Patrick

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Moore, Michael

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Norman, Archie

      Wishart, Pete

      Oaten, Mark

      Yeo, Tim

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Öpik, Lembit

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Osborne, George (Talton)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Page, Richard

      Mr. Charles Hendry and

      Paice, James

      Mr. David Wilshire.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Ainger, Nick

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Allen, Graham

      Austin, John

      Bailey, Adrian

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Banks, Tony

      Barnes, Harry

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

      946

      Battle, John

      Edwards, Huw

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Efford, Clive

      Bell, Stuart

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bennett, Andrew

      Etherington, Bill

      Benton, Joe

      Fisher, Mark

      Berry, Roger

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Blackman, Liz

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Blizzard, Bob

      Flint, Caroline

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Flynn, Paul

      Borrow, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Foster, RI Hon Derek

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Foulkes, George

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Gapes, Mike

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Bryant, Chris

      Gerrard, Neil

      Burgon, Colin

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Burnham, Andy

      Gilroy, Linda

      Caims, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Grogan, John

      Casale, Roger

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Caton, Martin

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Challen, Colin

      Hanson, David

      Chaytor, David

      Clapham Michael

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Havard, Dai

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hendrick Mark

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Heppell. John

      Clelland, David

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clwyd, Ann

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heyes, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoey, Kate

      Coleman, lain

      Hood, Jimmy

      Colman, Tony

      Hope. Phil

      Connarty, Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cooper, Yvette

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Corston, Jean

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cox, Tom

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Crausby, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Cummings, John

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Illsley, Eric

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Johnson. Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      David, Wayne

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Joyce, Eric

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dismore, Andrew

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Khabra, Piara S

      Doran, Frank

      Kidney, David

      Dowd, Jim

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lammy, David

      947

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Laxton, Bob

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Lepper, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Purchase, Ken

      Levitt, Tom

      Pumell, James

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Rammell, Bill

      Linton, Martin

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Lloyd, Tony

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Love Andrew

      Robertson, John (Glasgow, Anniesland)

      Luke lan

      Luke lain

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Lyons, John

      Rooney, Terry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Roy, Frank

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ruane, Chris

      McCafferty, Chris

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Ryan, Joan

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Savidge, Malcolm

      MacDonald, Calum

      Sawford, Phil

      McDonnell, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      MacDougall, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McFall, John

      Sheridan, Jim

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McKechin, Ann

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Singh, Marsha

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Skinner, Dennis

      McNamara, Kevin

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mann, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marris, Rob

      Soley, Clive

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Southworth, Helen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Martlew, Eric

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Meale, Alan

      Stringer, Graham

      Merron, Gillian

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Miliband, David

      Tami, Mark

      Miller, Andrew

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mole, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Moran, Margaret

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Morgan, Julie

      Tipping, Paddy

      Morley, Elliot

      Todd, Mark

      Mountford, Kali

      Touhig, Don

      Mudie, George

      Trickett, Jon

      Mullin, Chris

      Tumer, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul(Torfaen)

      Tumer, Neil (Wigan)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Tynan, Bill

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Vaz, Keith

      O'Hara, Edward

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Olner, Bill

      Walley, Ms Joan

      O'Neill, Martin

      Wareing, Robert N

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Watson, Tom

      Watts, David

      Owen, Albert

      White, Brian

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Pearson, Ian

      Williams, R Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Picking, Anne

      Pickthall, Cohn

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Pike, Peter

      Winnick, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Woodward, Shaun

      Pond, Chris

      Woolas, Phil

      Pope, Greg

      Worthington, Tony

      Pound, Stephen

      Wray, James

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      948

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Wyatt, Derek

      Mr. Jim Murphy.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made:No. 111, in page 6, line 1, leave out—
      'chief officer of police of'
      and insert—
      'police authority responsible for maintaining'.[Mr. Heppell.]
      Amendments made:No. 112, in page 6, line 2, leave out "prepare and".
      No. 113, in page 6, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 8.
      No. 114, in page 6, line 8, at end insert—
      '(3A) If a police authority is directed to submit an action plan, that authority shall direct the chief officer of police of the force in question to prepare a draft of it and to submit it to the police authority for that authority to consider.
      (3B) The police authority, on considering a draft action plan submitted to it under subsection (3A) may submit the plan to the Secretary of State, with or without modifications.
      (3C) If the police authority proposes to make modifications to the draft of the action plan submitted under subsection (3A), it must consult with the chief officer of police.'.
      No. 115, in page 6, line 10, leave out from "may" to end of line 16 and insert—
      ', if he is of the opinion that the remedial measures contained in the action plan submitted to him are inadequate, notify the police authority and the chief officer of the force in question of that opinion and of his reasons for it.
      (4A) If a police authority is notified under subsection (4)—

      (a) it shall consider, after consultation with the chief officer of the police force in question about the matters notified, whether to revise the action plan in the light of those matters; and

      (b) if it does revise that plan, it shall send a copy of the revised plan to the Secretary of State.'.

      No. 116, in page 6, line 17, leave out "chief officer of any" and insert—
      'police authority responsible for maintaining a'.
      No. 116, As Amendments to Mr. Secretary Blunkett's proposed Amendment (No. 116) (Page 6, line 17 [Clause 5]):
      No. 117, in page 6, line 18, leave out "police authority maintaining" and insert—
      `chief officer of police of'.
      No. 117, As Amendments to Mr. Secretary Blunkett's proposed Amendment (No. 117) (Page 6, line 18 [Clause 5]):
      No. 118, in page 6, line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 and insert—
      '(6) The period within which a direction to submit an action plan must be complied with is such period of not less than four weeks and not more than twelve weeks after it is given as may be specified in the direction.'.
      No. 119, in page 6, line 23, leave out "or resubmitted".
      No. 120, in page 6, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 29 and insert—

      '(a) provision setting out the steps that the police authority proposes should be taken in respect of the matters to which the direction relates and the performance targets the authority proposes should be met;

      949

      (b) provision setting out the authority's proposals as to the times within which those steps are to be taken and those standards to be met and the means by which the success of the plan's implementation is to be measured:'.

      No. 121, in page 6, line 30, after "reports" insert—
      'to the Secretary of State'.
      No. 122, in page 6, line 31, leave out from "plan" to end of line 32.
      No. 123, in page 6, line 37, leave out—
      `to direct the inclusion in an'
      and insert—
      'or a police authority to direct the inclusion in an action plan or draft.'.
      No. 124, in page 6, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 44.
      No. 125, in page 6, line 46, leave out "or resubmission".
      No. 126, in page 6, line 47, leave out "or resubmission".
      No. 127, in page 7, line 2, at end insert—
      '(10A) A police authority shall comply with any direction given to it under this section:.
      128, in page 7, line 4, at end insert—
      `(11A) Nothing in this section or in section 40 prevents the Secretary of State in the case of the same report under section 54 from exercising (whether in relation to the same matter or different matters or at the same time or at different times) both his powers under this section and his powers under section 40.'.
      No. 129, in page 7, line 16, leave out "chief officer" and insert "police authority".—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Schedule 1

      POWERS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN RELATION TO NCIS AND NCS
      Amendments made:No. 131, in page 106, line 2, leave out from "where" to first "the", in line 4, and insert—
      'an inspection report made to the Secretary of State states—
      (a) that, in the opinion of the person making the report,'.
      No. 132, in page 106, line 6, after "that" insert—
      `, in that person's opinion,'.
      No. 133, in page 106, line 10, leave out—
      'Director General of NCIS to prepare and'
      and insert "NCIS Service Authority to".
      No. 134, in page 106, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 18.
      No. 135, in page 106, line 18, at end insert—
      '(3A) If the NCIS Service Authority is directed to submit an action plan, that authority shall direct the Director General of NCIS to prepare a draft of it and to submit it to the NCIS Service Authority for that authority to consider.
      (3B) The NCIS Service Authority, on considering a draft action plan submitted to it under subsection (3A) may submit the plan to the Secretary of State, with or without modifications.
      (3C) If the NCIS Service Authority proposes to make modifications to the draft of the action plan submitted under subsection (3A), it must consult with the Director General of NCIS.'.
      No. 136, in page 106, line 20, leave out from "may" to end of line 27 and insert—
      ', if he is of the opinion that the remedial measures contained in the action plan submitted to him are inadequate, notify the NCIS Service Authority and the Director General of NCIS of that opinion and of his reasons for it.
      (4A) In forming an opinion for the purposes of subsection (4), the Secretary of State must consult with the Scottish Ministers.
      (4B) If the NCIS Service Authority is notified under subsection (4)—

      (a) it shall consider, after consultation with the Director General of NCIS about the matters notified, whether to revise the action plan in the light of those matters; and

      (b) if it does revise that plan, it shall send a copy of the revised plan to the Secretary of State.'

      No. 137, in page 106, line 28, leave out "Director General of NCIS" and insert "NCIS Service Authority".
      No. 138, in page 106, line 29, leave out "NCIS Service Authority" and insert "Director General of NCIS".
      No. 139, in page 106, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 33 and insert—
      '(6) The period within which a direction to submit an action plan must be complied with is such period of not less than four weeks and not more than twelve weeks after it is given as may be specified in the direction.'.
      No. 140, in page 106, line 35, leave out "or resubmitted".
      No. 141, in page 106, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 41 and insert—

      '(a) provision setting out the steps that the NCIS Service Authority proposes should be taken in respect of the matters to which the direction relates and the performance targets the authority proposes should be met:

      (b) provision setting out that Authority's proposals as to the times within which those steps are to be taken and those standards to be met and the means by which the success of the plan's implementation is to be measured;'.

      No. 142, in page 106, line 42, after "reports" insert—
      'to the Secretary of State'.
      No. 143, in page 106, line 43, leave out from "plan" to end of line 44.
      No. 144, in page 107, line 4, leave out—
      'to direct the inclusion in an action of'
      and insert—
      'or the NCIS Service Authority to direct the inclusion in an action plan or draft action.'.
      No. 145, in page 107, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 10.
      No. 146, in page 107, line 12, leave out "or resubmission".
      No. 147, in page 107, line 14, leave out "or resubmission".
      No. 148, in page 107, line 15, at end insert—
      '(10A) The NCIS Service Authority shall comply with any direction given to it under this section.'.
      No. 149, in page 107, line 33, at end insert—
      '(15A) Nothing in this section or in section 30 prevents the Secretary of State in the case of the same inspection report from exercising (whether in relation to the same matter or different matters or at the same time or at different times) both his powers under this section and his powers under that section.'.
      No. 150, in page 107, line 36, leave out from "where" to first "the", in line 39, and insert—
      'a report made to the Secretary of State on an inspection under section 54 of the Police Act 1996 states—
      (a) that, in the opinion of the person making the report,'.
      No. 151, in page 107, line 42, after "that" insert—
      ', in that person's opinion,'.
      No. 152, in page 108, line 1, leave out—
      'Director General of the National Crime Squad to prepare and'
      and insert "NCS Service Authority to".
      No. 153, in page 108, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 9.
      No. 154, in page 108, line 9, at end insert—
      '(3A) If the NCS Service Authority is directed to submit an action plan, that authority shall direct the Director General of the National Crime Squad to prepare a draft of it and to submit it to the NCS Service Authority for that authority to consider.
      (3B) The NCS Service Authority, on considering a draft action plan submitted to it under subsection (3A) may submit the plan to the Secretary of State, with or without modifications.
      (3C) If the NCS Service Authority proposes to make modifications to the draft of the action plan submitted under subsection (3A), it must consult with the Director General of the National Crime Squad.'.
      No. 155, in page 108, line 11, leave out from "may" to end of line 17 and insert—
      ', if he is of the opinion that the remedial measures contained in the action plan submitted to him are inadequate, notify the NCS Service Authority and the Director General of the National Crime Squad of that opinion and of his reasons for it.
      (4A) If the NCS Service Authority is notified under subsection (4)—

      (a) it shall consider, after consultation with the Director General of the National Crime Squad about the matters notified, whether to revise the action plan in the light of those matters; and

      (b) if it does revise that plan, it shall send a copy of the revised plan to the Secretary of State.'.

      No. 156, in page 108, line 18, leave out—
      'Director General of the National Crime Squad'
      and insert "NCS Service Authority".
      No. 157, in page 108, line 19, leave out "NCS Service Authority" and insert—
      'Director General of the National Crime Squad'.
      No. 158, in page 108, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 and insert—
      '(6) The period within which a direction to submit an action plan must be complied with is such period of not less than four weeks and not more than twelve weeks after it is given as may be specified in the direction.'.
      No. 159, in page 108, line 25, leave out "or resubmitted".
      No. 160, in page 108, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 and insert—

      '(a) provision setting out the steps that the NCS Service Authority proposes should be taken in respect of the matters to which the direction relates and the performance targets the authority proposes should be met;

      (b) provision setting out that Authority's proposals as to the times within which those steps are to be taken and those standards to be met and the means by which the success of the plan's implementation is to be measured;'.

      No. 161, in page 108, line 32, after "reports" insert—
      'to the Secretary of State'.
      No. 162, in page 108, line 33, leave out from "plan" to end of line 34.
      No. 163, in page 108, line 40, leave out—
      'to direct the inclusion in an action of
      and insert—
      'or the NCS Service Authority to direct the inclusion in an action plan or draft action.'.
      No. 164, in page 108, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 47.
      No. 165, in page 109, line 2, leave out "or resubmission".
      No. 166, in page 109, line 4, leave out "or resubmission".
      No. 167, in page 109, line 5, at end insert—
      '(10A) The NCS Service Authority shall comply with any direction given to it under this section.'.
      No. 168, in page 109, line 16, at end insert—
      '(13A) Nothing in this section or in section 75 prevents the Secretary of State in the case of the same report under section 54 of the Police Act 1996 from exercising (whether in relation to the same matter or different matters or at the same time or at different times) both his powers under this section and his powers under section 75.'.
      No. 169, in page 109, line 32, leave out from "Authority" to "has" in line 33.
      No. 170, in page 109, line 36, leave out from beginning to "; and" in line 40.
      No. 171, in page 111, line 22, leave out from "Authority" to "has" in line 33.
      No. 172, in page 111, line 26, leave out from beginning to "; and" in line 30.
      No. 52, in page 112, line 5, leave out "of the 1997 Act".
      No. 53, in page 113, line 5, leave out "of the 1997 Act".[Mr. Heppell.]

    New Clause 8

      CONTINUED DEPLOYMENT OF TRAFFIC WARDENS
      'Police authorities shall continue to appoint persons to discharge, in aid of the police, functions normally undertaken by the police in connection with the control and regulation of, or enforcement of the law relating to, traffic or stationary vehicles unless—

      (a) notwithstanding regulations under Part VIII of the Road Traffic Regulations Act, the police authority passes a resolution by 1st January 2004 not to continue deploying traffic wardens; and

      (b) that police authority informs the chief officer of police for that police force and the Secretary of State of its decision.'.—[Norman [Baker.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 308.

      Division No. 304]

      [7.15 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NEFife)

      Baker, Norman

      Barrett, John

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Chidgey, David

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Cotter, Brian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Doughty, Sue

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      953

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Gidley, Sandra

      Pugh, Dr John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Hancock, Mike

      Rendel, David

      Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Harvey, Nick

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

      Heath, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Holmes, Paul

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Thurso, John

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Tylar, Paul

      Webb Steve

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

      Weir, Michael

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Lamb, Norman

      Wishart, Pete

      Laws, David

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Moore, Michael

      Tom Brake and

      Oaten, Mark

      Bob Russell.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clelland, David

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Ainger, Nick

      Coaker, Vernon

      Allen, Graham

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Cohen, Harry

      Coleman, lain

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Colman, Tony

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cooper, Yvette

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Corston, Jean

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cousins, Jim

      Austin, John

      Cox, Tom

      Bailey, Adrian

      Crausby, David

      Banks, Tony

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bames, Harry

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Battle, John

      Cummings, John

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Beggs, Roy

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Bell, Stuart

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bennett, Andrew

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Benton, Joe

      David, Wayne

      Berry, Roger

      Davidson, Ian

      Betts, Clive

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blackman, Liz

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Borrow, David

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dismore, Andrew

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dobbin, Jim

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Dodds, Nigel

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M

      Bryant, Chris

      Doran, Frank

      Burgon, Colin

      Dowd, Jim

      Burnham, Andy

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Bumside, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Caims, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Edwards, Huw

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Efford, Clive

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Caplin, Ivor

      Etherington, Bill

      Casale, Roger

      Fisher, Mark

      Caton, Martin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Cawsey, Ian

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

      Challen, Colin

      Flint, Caroline

      Chaytor, David

      Flynn, Paul

      Clapham, Michael

      Follett, Barbara

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Foulkes, George

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Gapes, Mike

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      954

      Gerrard, Neil

      McDonnell, John

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      MacDougall, John

      Gilroy, Linda

      McFall, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Goggins, Paul

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McKechin, Ann

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Grogan, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hanson, David

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Healey, John

      Mann, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marris, Rob

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hepbum, Stephen

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hermon, Lady

      Martlew, Eric

      Hesford, Stephen

      Meale, Alan

      Heyes, David

      Merron, Gillian

      Hodge, Margaret

      Miliband, David

      Hoey, Kate

      Miller, Andrew

      Hood, Jimmy

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hope, Phil

      Mole, Chris

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moran, Margaret

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Morgan, Julie

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Morley, Elliot

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mountford, Kali

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Mudie, George

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hurst, Alan

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Olner, Bill

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Neill, Martin

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Owen, Albert

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Joyce, Eric

      Pike, Peter

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Plaskitt, James

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pond, Chris

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pope, Greg

      Kidney, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Purchase, Ken

      Lammy, David

      Pumell, James

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Laxton, Bob

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lepper, David

      Rammell, Bill

      Leslie, Christopher

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Levitt, Tom

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Linton, Martin

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Lloyd, Tony

      Rooney, Terry

      Love, Andrew

      Ross, Emie

      Lucas, Ian

      Roy, Frank

      Luke, lain

      Ruane, Chris

      Lyons, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ryan, Joan

      McCabe, Stephen

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McCafferty, Chris

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Sawford, Phil

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sedgemore, Brian

      MacDonald, Calum

      Shaw, Jonathan

      955

      Sheridan, Jim

      Trickett, Jon

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Tumer, Neil (Wigan)

      Singh, Marsha

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tynan, Bill

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Vaz, Keith

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Watson, Tom

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Watts, David

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      White, Brian

      Soley, Clive

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Southworth, Helen

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Winnick, David

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stringer, Graham

      Woolas, Phil

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Worthington, Tony

      Tami, Mark

      Wray, James

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Todd, Mark

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Touhig, Don

      Mr. Jim Murphy.

      Question accordingly negatived.

  DEFERRED DIVISIONS
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I now have to announce the results of the Divisions deferred from a previous day.
  On the Question on the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Human Intelligence Sources: Code of Practice) Order 2002, the Ayes were 312, the Noes 195, so the Question was agreed to.
  On the Question on the draft Regulation of investigatory Powers (Covert Surveillance: Code of Practice) Order 2002, the Ayes were 312, the Noes 195, so the Question was agreed to.
  [The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Police Reform Bill [Lords]
As amended in the Committee, further considered.
Police Reform Bill [Lords]
  New Clause 9

    POLICE POWERS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES
    ().—(1) The chief officer of police of any police force may designate any person who is a local authority employee as an community support officer, subject to the agreement of the local authority concerned.
    (2) A chief officer of police shall not designate a person under this section unless he is satisfied that that person—

    (a) is a suitable person to carry out the functions for the purposes of which he is designated;

    (b) is capable of effectively carrying out those functions; and

    (c) has received adequate training in the carrying out of those functions and in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties to be conferred on him by virtue of the designation.

    (3) A person designated under this section shall have the powers and duties conferred or imposed on him by the designation.
    (4) A designation under this section shall confer powers and impose duties on the designated person by means only of provisions specifying the provisions of Part I of Schedule 4.
    (5) An employee of a local authority authorised or required to do anything by virtue of a designation under this section—

    (a) shall not be authorised or required by virtue of that designation to engage in any conduct otherwise than in the course of that employment; and

    (b) shall be so authorised or required subject to such restrictions and conditions (if any) as may be specified in his designation.

    (6) Where any power exercisable by any person in reliance on his designation under this section is a power which, in the case of its exercise by a constable, includes or is supplemented by a power in reliance on that designation shall have the same entitlement as a constable to use reasonable force.
    (7) Where any power exercisable by any person in reliance on his designation under this section includes power to use force to enter any premises, that power shall not be exercisable by that person except—

    (a) in the company, and under the supervision, of a constable; or

    (b) for the purpose of saving life or limb or preventing serious damage to property.

    (8) In this section local authority means—

    (a) in relation to England, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly; and

    (b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council.'.—[Norman Baker.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    7.27 pm
    Norman Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following: Amendment No. 67, in clause 9, in page 10, line 34, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
    '(d) he is a person in relation to whom a designation under section (police powers for local authority employees) is in force.'
    Amendment No. 64, in clause 38, in page 39, line 6, after "force", insert—
    ', after consulting the principal local authority for that area,'.
    Amendment No. 63, in page 39, line 14, at end insert—
    '(2A) At the end of the first year the police authority maintaining that police force shall give its approval for the continued designation of persons under section 38.
    (2B) If a police authority maintaining that force does not give its approval, it shall inform—

    (a) the Secretary of State; and

    (b) the chief officer of police for that area who shall withdraw all designations under section 38 and make no further designations for a period of not less than one year.'.

    Amendment No. 65, in page 41, line 37, leave out Clause 40.
    Government amendments Nos. 27 to 29
    Amendment No. 66, in page 42, leave out Clause 41.
    Amendment No. 69, in clause 42, page 43, line 38, after second "or", insert—
    'section (police powers for local authority employees).'.
    Amendment No. 68, in page 43, line 38, leave out—
    'his accreditation under section 41'.
    Amendment No. 70, in page 43, line 39, leave out from "or accreditation".
    Amendment No. 72, in page 43, line 42, after second "or", insert—
    'section (police powers for local authority employees).'.
    Amendment No. 71, in page 43, line 42, leave out—
    'his accreditation under section 41'.
    Amendment No. 73, in page 43, line 45, leave out "or accreditation".
    Amendment No. 74, in page 43, line 46, leave out "or accreditation".
    Amendment No. 75, in page 44, leave out lines 1 to 4.
    Amendment No. 76, in page 44, line 5, leave out "or accreditation".
    Amendment No. 78, in page 44, line 6, after "or", insert—
    'section (police powers for local authority employees).'.
    Amendment No. 77, in page 44, line 6, leave out "41".
    Amendment No. 79, in page 44, line 7, leave out "or accredited person".
    Amendment No. 80, in page 44, line 7, leave out "or accreditation".
    Amendment No. 81, in page 44, line 15, leave out subsection (6).
    Amendment No. 82, in line 37, leave out subsection (10).
    Amendment No. 83, in page 44, line 44 leave out Clause 43.
    Government amendment No. 33
    Amendment No. 84, in clause 45, in page 46, line 17, leave out "or 5".
    Amendment No. 85, in page 46, line 18, leave out from "in" to the end of line 19 and insert "that Schedule".
    Amendment No. 86, in page 46, line 20, leave out from first "of to end of line 21 and insert "that Schedule".
    Amendment No. 88, in page 46, line 34, after "or", insert—
    'section (police powers for local authority employees).'.
    Amendment No. 87, in page 46, line 34, leave out "41".
    Amendment No. 89, in page 46, line 35, leave out—
    'or, as the case may be, 5'.
    Government amendments Nos. 36 to 38
    Amendment No. 90, in clause 47, in page 47, line 43, leave out paragraph (b).
    Amendment No. 91, in page 48, line 1, leave out "or accredited".
    Amendment No. 92, in page 48, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).
    Amendment No. 93, in page 48, line 15, leave out "or an accredited person".
    Amendment No. 94, in page 48, line 17, leave out—
    'or that he is an accredited person'.
    Amendment No. 95, in page 48, line 19, leave out "or accredited".
    Amendment No. 96, in page 48, line 24, leave out "or accredited person".
    Amendment No. 97, in page 48, line 26, leave out "or accreditation".
    Amendment No. 98, in clause 48, page 48, leave out lines 29 to 33.
    Amendment No. 99, in page 157, line 38, leave out Schedule 5.
    Norman Baker: I promise not to address each amendment in this group; otherwise we would be here for some considerable time. Indeed, I shall be reasonably brief, as I am conscious of the hour. and also of the following groups of amendments, which we want to reach tonight. I do not want to repeat last night's debate, except to remind hon. Members that our vision for policing is not—unfortunately, from our point of view—the vision set out in the Bill.
    Our vision is based on simplicity, accountability, efficiency and effectiveness, and having in post people who are properly trained. We are not convinced that the configuration proposed by the Government achieves those ends. Our vision is to have both police officers as we have at present, full-time, part-time or specials, and community support officers—an idea that, I might remind the Minister, we suggested in our manifesto and have always supported in principle.
    We believe that for the purposes of simplicity and effectiveness, and of ensuring that as many people as possible are used to tackle the issues that we have been discussing under the Bill, the category of community support officers should include traffic wardens, and vice versa, because of their powers. That was the point that we were making when we voted on new clause 8.
    That would provide a simplicity and an accountability that I believe are lacking in the Government proposals. Last night the Minister said he thought that we might get there in the long run, but that the question was whether we should try to create that structure from the start. There is a genuine disagreement across the Floor of the House on how we should approach that matter. We are clear that the Government proposals will provide not simplicity. but a plethora of different people with different powers, according to where they are in the country. Indeed, the powers could be different on different sides of the street when people crossed from one borough or district to another.
    Accountability will be missing, especially from accredited officers who are not even employed by a public authority. There is also a question mark over whether they will be efficient and effective—two of the Government's key tests—if people do not even know what powers they have, and there is no clear relationship, in the public's mind at least, between the various bodies created and the people who staff them.
    With that in mind, we have tried to address some of the issues. New clause 9 is an attempt to ensure that community support officers, as well as being employed by the police, could also be employed by local authorities. That would ensure accountability, because local authorities are democratically elected. It would also build on the Government's welcome initiative of crime and disorder partnerships, which are clearly working.

    959
    7.30 pm
    The sorts of powers that we, and the Government, wish to give to CSOs would fit in well with those partnerships, and it is proper that local authorities should play a role in them. I speak as a former council leader, and I see another, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), in his place on the Treasury Bench. Such measures would be simpler and more understandable, not to mention closer to the community—to pick up the point made in the last debate about ensuring accountability and community involvement. We already have a precedent, because traffic warden powers have been exercised locally. That Government initiative is working well in those areas in which it has been deployed. The Government have conceded that principle: we seek to extend it to CSOs. That is the gist of new clause 9.
    I hope that the Government will recognise the value of giving local authorities a clearer role in the sorts of powers that they wish to give to CSOs. That appears to me to be an uncontroversial suggestion. The CSOs would, of course, have to be approved by the local chief constable, and they would have to be properly trained. The chief constable would also need an input into what the CSOs were doing. I shall not discuss those caveats at length, but I do recognise the need for some police involvement.
    It is impossible to address all these amendments, but I shall turn now to the other main issue of concern, which is the issue of accredited officers. It may not be widely known outside the House, but the Bill presages the suggestion that a whole range of people should be given police powers, without being accountable to the police or to local authorities. That strikes Liberal Democrats as a dangerous precedent. It would mean that companies—including those that are highly regarded, or otherwise—could have employees with police powers. The Government have introduced amendments to include the railway industry, so that could mean that employees of companies such as Jarvis or Tesco could have police powers. That would be dangerous. Without overstating my case, I suggest that it would amount to a part-privatisation of policing, and we would resist that. I am surprised that a Labour Government have made such a suggestion.
    The measures would also open the door to policing for profit. Those companies who employ the accredited persons will clearly wish to have them act in the interests of that company rather than of the general public, and those interests are not necessarily the same.
    As we discussed in Committee, to make matters worse, those employees of private companies would undertake public police functions without being subject to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which the Bill will rightly set up and of which everybody approves. That body will deal with police officers and with CSOs, but it will not deal with those private sector accredited persons. Not only will they have dubious powers, but they will not even be accountable in the same way. We have tabled an amendment, which appears in the next group, on that point.
    I am sorry if I am being hard on the Minister when I say that in Committee he at no stage gave a philosophical justification for giving private sector employees these powers. He explained why it was necessary to have some people who exercised low-level police powers—nobody
    960
    disagrees with that—but he has not explained why it is acceptable that they will not be democratically accountable in the way that CSOs will be and police officers clearly are at present.
    The Minister has also failed to address the point that members of the public may resent being confronted by a private sector employee who wishes to exercise police powers. That will cause further problems for policing at a time when we are trying to make it more acceptable and better rooted in the community. A member of the public who would be prepared to accept a ticket for littering or some other minor offence from a police officer, or even a CSO, may not be prepared to accept it in the same spirit from a Tesco employee. The Government must address the point that they will create problems in understanding the chain of accountability and the possibility that people will resist tickets and other enforcement measures that will form part of the powers that will be given to those accredited officers. The Minister is in danger of undermining respect for the law through allowing private sector employees to exercise those powers.
    Simon Hughes: Connex, the railway company, has shown that it is possible to train staff to be police officers, because some of its staff have been sworn in as special constables. They have proper authority because they have had proper training. If the private sector wants to make a contribution, that is a much more legitimate, acceptable and effective way to do it. We have not heard much about that alternative, which, I suggest, the public would prefer.
    Norman Baker: I am grateful for that intervention. The Connex experiment is an interesting one that perhaps the Government could build on, instead of seeking to create a new tier of accredited persons, who will not have that accountability.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I raised the same point in Committee. I said to the Minister that it was extraordinary that one Minister should suggest that the proposals in this Bill are the right way forward, at the same time as his colleague the Minister for Transport was doing lots of media work about the Connex experiment and claiming that specials were the way forward. I suggested that the Government were all over the shop on that point.
    Norman Baker: I fear that that is so. In Committee, it also became clear that scant attention has been paid to the opportunity to increase the number of specials, when we should have concentrated on that approach. The number of specials has dropped dramatically in the past five years, and we now have only some 12,000. I put on record the fact that Ministers rejected attempts to improve conditions and provide a bounty payment for specials that my colleagues and I proposed in Committee. We made constructive suggestions in that area, and it is odd that the Government have rejected those suggestions while choosing to employ private sector employees in a quasi-policing role.
    I will not develop my arguments further because of the time factor, but this issue is of key importance, both practically and philosophically. It is wrong for private sector employees to be given police powers. Apart from the principle of the issue, they will act in the interests of the private company, not of the public. The measure will

    961
    not be conducive to good policing, and the fact that the accredited persons will be outside the complaints procedure only underlines our determination to oppose the proposal. I give notice of our intention to divide the House on amendment No. 65, which relates to that proposal.
    Mr. Paice: The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) places my colleagues and myself in a slightly difficult position. While we agree with much of what he has said, we do not agree with the substantive content of his amendments. We have never made any secret of our concerns about the concept of accredited community support officers. That is not because—as Labour Members have suggested—we oppose the involvement of the voluntary sector. I have seen, as others have, countless examples of street wardens, neighbourhood wardens and ambassadors—there are many different names for them—voluntarily helping the police. Some of them wear uniforms, and some do not. I have spoken to many people who provide that service and, without exception, they are happy to do so, but they do not want the powers envisaged in schedule 5.
    We strongly support those schemes, and I want them to be expanded and enlarged. I have no objection to the concept that there should be some form of accreditation to prove that the employees are worthwhile, that they meet certain minimum standards, and that the chief constable of their authority is happy with what they do.
    We were very worried about the proposal to give those employees police powers. I shall not repeat the Committee debate, but I have some sympathy with the proposition from the hon. Member for Lewes that schedule 5 should be abolished. I have slightly less sympathy with the proposal that all ACSOs should therefore come under schedule 4, although there is a clear logic in suggesting that only one set of powers should be granted to civilians, regardless of whether they are employed in the police service or outside it.
    However, we are concerned that the amendments would allow only local authority employees to become ACSOs. I suspect that, in that respect, I shall find that I am all square with the Minister. As he said in Committee, such a measure would place 35 per cent. of street warden schemes outside the requirements that have to be met by accredited community safety organisations. Ruling out such organisations seems a very short-sighted approach. I have therefore told the hon. Member for Lewes privately that the Opposition cannot support that proposal.
    The problem goes deeper, as Conservative Members do not share the Liberal Democrats' philosophical objection to using people who are not employed by local authorities. We would obviously be pleased if social landlords and other charitable organisations were to be involved in the scheme, but we are also happy in principle with the idea that private-sector bodies—car park operators, or the operators of large shopping malls, for instance—should be involved. There is some logic in getting them involved, whether or not their operatives are given powers by the chief constable.
    I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Lewes about special constables, however. When the Bill first appeared in the other place, we opposed the proposals on this matter, on the ground that using special constables would
    962
    avoid all the problems about who had what powers. People know exactly who and what special constables are, and what powers they possess. Although we recognise the reality of the situation—as the Minister did in a different context last night—and accept ACSOs as a concept, I entirely share the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman that, as yet, little seems to have been done to revitalise the special constabulary. However, that is a debate for another time, and the Committee did consider the matter.
    I am afraid that I must tell the hon. Member for Lewes that the Opposition will not support him if he presses the new clause to a Division. However, we have immense concerns about how ACSOs will settle down, not least because of the problem of accountability. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that in his speech earlier, and the matter arose in Committee.
    There are also difficulties with regard to uniforms, and whether the officers will be readily recognisable. Other problems include training, and the way in which organisations that employ street or neighbourhood wardens become accredited. The Minister referred to that matter in Committee, but we are still worried about the transitional process involved before ACSOs can use the powers that their chief constable decides to allocate to them.
    Most street wardens get only a day or two of training. They may have some experience, but that is no substitute for training if they are to start using police powers. We expressed our major concerns about ACSOs in Committee: the Minister is well aware of them, and I hope and trust that he will have taken them on board. Our concerns are serious, and they need to be dealt with under the regulatory aspects of this part of the Bill.
    We accept that ACSOs will be introduced, and we welcome the concept of accrediting the many existing schemes. We retain reservations about the powers to be given to ACSOs, but we accept the situation in Parliament for what it is.
    Therefore, although I have much sympathy with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Lewes in moving the amendments, I am afraid that we will not be able to support him in the Lobby.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Llwyd: I am ad idem with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on this matter, and believe that he made some important points in his speech.
    I do not know why the Government have not expanded the role of special constables over the past few years, or why they have not tried to recruit properly. The Police Federation, the Association of Chief Police Officers and other bodies fully support extending the recruitment of special constables, but I suspect that the Government have set their face against that idea because they do not want to pay for extra special constables, or accord them proper employment rights.
    I am not holding my breath, therefore, that there will be an expansion in the numbers of special constables in the foreseeable future. I am not alone in that belief. I hope that I am wrong, for the sake of good policing in the future, but I suspect that I may be right.
    I also agree that CSOs could cause resentment and confusion. Traffic wardens are very often subjected to abuse nowadays, even though they are not a recent

    963
    innovation. They have been around a good many years, and are readily recognisable, but they are nevertheless abused constantly for carrying out their lawful duties.
    Policing is a highly specialised occupation. It is a tall order just to expect someone to understand the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, yet that legislation is a basic tenet of police practice.
    I believe that the police service as a whole will be brought into disrepute when the ACSOs fail, as they unfortunately will. Police officers will be tarred with the same brush. The proposal smacks of policing on the cheap.
    Police officers ask who will train these people. Who will be with them out on the beat, training them in the proper practice of policing? It is appalling that such people will not be subject to independent scrutiny. For the life of me, I cannot understand why that is so.
    We do not ask police officers to treat injuries or diagnose illnesses, any more than we ask doctors to be police officers. Both careers are important, and deserve proper respect.
    Finally, the notion of hobby bobbies is an awful one.
    Angela Watkinson: Will the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) clarify new clause 9(1), which states:
    "The chief officer of any police force may designate any person who is a local authority employee as a community support officer"?
    It does not say that the employee should be designated as an ACSO. Is that intentional, or is it a drafting error? Is it the intention that the person involved should continue to be employed by the local authority? The Bill makes it clear that CSOs will be employed by the police.
    Norman Baker: I am happy to clarify that we want CSOs to be employed either by local authorities or by the police. We are not in favour of the accredited scheme for the private sector, which is quite different, but I had to deal with both issues in one new clause.
    Angela Watkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. The reservations that I had before are even greater now.
    My local authority is the London borough of Havering. It already employs community wardens, and the scheme is working well. The wardens have good relationships with the local police and with members of the community. Their red jackets make them instantly identifiable, and no one mistakes them for police officers. However, the introduction of another tier of officers employed by local authorities would cause a great deal of confusion.
    Simon Hughes: I know, in general terms, the arrangements that exist in Havering, and other London boroughs have similar schemes. We do not want to undermine those arrangements. However, if a firm such as Sainsbury's wishes to have community support officers or neighbourhood wardens, for example, we propose that, instead of employing those officers itself, the firm should pay money to the police or the local authority. In that way, the police or the local authority would have a contract with the firm, but the officers would be police or local authority employees. We want to determine where
    964
    the accountability lies, but we do not want to prevent bodies other than the local authority from helping with policing.
    Angela Watkinson: That is several steps too far for me, and I regret that I will be unable to support the new clause.
    Mrs. Brooke: I was rather hoping that more Members would share our vision, particularly as in the previous debate speakers on both sides of the House agreed with our basic premise about giving police authorities more accountability. This proposition is largely about accountability and effectiveness.
    There is confusion over all the categories in the Bill. People frequently use the wrong terms—a CSO could mean community support officer in one context, with accreditation in another. Confusion is not the best way to support the police and give the public what they want. The different powers are very confusing. The Government's response to the report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs refers to the various uniforms and badges that might be worn and says:
    "Both designated and accredited people will be expected to carry with them details of any powers they have been given."
    One is tempted to ask whether that is because they need to remember their powers.
    I recall a fictitious example in Committee, which was very amusing at the time. A member of the Committee suggested that how he was treated would depend on which side of the road he stood, which would be confusing. If he were on one side, he might feel reassured that he could simply ask the appropriate officer to empty his or her pockets.
    The main thing about deterrence is certainty, but these people will not be easily recognised because different uniforms could be worn. I do not think that the different layers will be immediately understood by the public. The resulting uncertainty will mean that the important deterrent effect is lost. If everybody is clear about the role of the people walking around, that will deter people from committing antisocial behaviour.
    My local authority has just taken over the powers of traffic wardens from the police. The council wanted to widen the jobs that they might do. If a traffic warden who sees broken glass on the road picks up the phone and tells someone about it, that is sensible. However, there were difficulties with the transfer of powers. I do not think that it will be as easy as the Minister suggested last night to re-engage with a different title. Our amendments would improve matters, giving genuine support to the police and, fundamentally, giving the public the support that they want.
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: I welcome the Bill and oppose new clause 9. In common with most Members who represent urban constituencies, I have, over the years, seen the balance of complaints and concerns expressed at my advice bureau change from those of housing to those of quality of life, including neighbour nuisance, vandalism committed by young people and harassment. It has become obvious to me that

    965
    even with the scheduled increase in police numbers, we need a force out there to deal with the low-level nuisance that can have such an effect on people.
    Norman Baker: I agree.
    Mr. Bailey: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's agreement. It is a question of how we set up the organisations to deal with that, and I will come to that shortly.
    It has also been obvious to me that whatever we spend on education and health will count for nothing if we cannot address these specific quality of life issues.
    Mr. Llwyd: Would the hon. Gentleman be opposed to expanding the special constabulary? Would that not deal with the problems that he describes?
    Mr. Bailey: I welcome that intervention. The short answer is no, but I should like to deal with it in a little more detail later.
    All other improvements in public services are meaningless if people are frightened to leave their home in case they are harassed or mugged. That is particularly true of elderly people. The irony is that, statistically, elderly people are far less likely to be involved in a mugging or a burglary than young people, but the fear of crime among them is far greater and has a far greater impact on their quality of life.
    I am sure that other Members agree that when we knock on doors and see people at our advice surgeries, the overwhelming demand is for more bobbies on the beat. We have all heard the slogan. However, a highly trained policeman walking around an area is probably the least effective way of combating crime. Professional hardened criminals are hardly likely to carry out their activities within sight of a policeman and they have the means of moving on rather more quickly than a bobby on the beat.
    What people really want is a person with authority, in a uniform, to offer reassurance, which is the key. I remember, as a child, playing on a football pitch in the local park when I should not have been. When I saw the park keeper approach in his uniform, I was off, to engage in more licit activities, as it were. That is the sort of reaction that we want from young people who may be engaged in activities that impair quality of life, that are not illegal but need to be countered. The prospect of a person in uniform having a presence in areas where that sort of activity takes place is immensely reassuring and, conversely, acts as a deterrent to antisocial behaviour.
    We are recruiting more police, but it is questionable whether in urban areas such as mine, even with a huge increase in police numbers, we would have sufficient numbers to carry out that role or even whether it would be an effective use of officers.
    Norman Baker: I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far. However, does he believe that the group of people whom we both want could be employed by local authorities as well as the police, as new clause 9 suggests? Secondly, does he believe that it is right for private sector companies to employ people with police powers?
    Mr. Bailey: I will deal with those points very quickly. The various agencies involved in curbing the problem
    966
    must work together. That involves local authorities, and I think that accreditation schemes are very worthy because they take partnership working, which has been built up at local level, another step forward. However, I cannot see why that should be confined to local authority employees. In different circumstances, it may be necessary to involve private sector employees. The example of a shopping mall has already been given. The more organisations that have an interest in social supervision, training people and working together with the police, the better it will be.
    I shall briefly deal with the issue about the specials raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). Yes, I do believe in the specials—they do a grand job—but the hon. Gentleman missed the essential point that most of them already have a full-time occupation and do the job because of their commitment to the community and the ideals of the force that they wish to serve. They do not necessarily want to do that job full-time. To suggest that such problems could be dealt with simply by expanding the special constabulary is to believe a myth.
    Mr. Llwyd: That is exactly why I said that special constables should be paid. There would then be more recruitment and, although part-time, they would be fully trained. They would also accrue employment rights, which is want the Government do not want.
    Mr. Bailey: Whether they should be paid is part of a bigger debate, but the payment issue would not substantially alter the need for community support officers, the thrust of the Bill and our reasons for opposing the new clause.
    8 pm
    Simon Hughes: I want to make a brief point to support the case that my hon. Friends have put in Committee and in the Chamber. One of the reasons why I am disappointed that the Government do not understand the merit of our argument that such people should be accountable is that there will be no common standards and practices if different organisations and private companies employ security officers to do the police's support job in any local authority in the land.
    In reality, there will be different codes of conduct and those involved will work in different ways. No one can possibly manage to get them all to work in a similar way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) said, various organisations will have different powers, and those organisations will sometimes have to check which powers they have.
    However, there is another civics and citizenship point If we are trying to get youngsters—secondary school children and teenagers—to pay respect to authority, it is far better that they understand that authority resides in people who are publicly accountable and have status in society. I do not know what the experience of colleagues has been, but security guards in shopping centres and car parks are not shown that respect. They are seen not as the

    967
    representatives of law and order in society, but as looking after the private interests of those with cars in the car parks or shops in the shopping centres.
    If we want young people to respect authority, we will mitigate the chances of that by having all sorts of people sharing all sorts of self-defining authority. That will significantly reduce youngsters' respect for the law. I am sad that the Government do not believe that it would be better for the police to police and for them to be accountable only to police authorities or local authorities so that complaints can be raised with properly accountable citizens.
    Mr. Denham: I shall try to reply briefly because many of the issues were aired in Committee. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) asks for a philosophical argument. I think that a Victorian, Edward Whimper, when asked why he climbed mountains, was the first to answer, "Because they are there." That is part of the answer to this question. Neighbourhood wardens, street wardens, security guards and those responsible for co-ordinating security in major shopping centres are playing the role today.
    The accreditation scheme is intended to enable those various people to be effectively co-ordinated by and with the police, but Liberal Democrat Members wish to pass up that opportunity. Indeed, they would go further than simply passing it up; they wish to exclude, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, a third of all the neighbourhood and street warden schemes because they are run by registered social landlords or other similar bodies. They would be taken out of accreditation. Ironically, the police would undoubtedly still wish to work with those organisations because they exist, but they would be outside any standards and accreditation framework. It is very difficult to understand how that is an advantage over the system that we propose.
    The lines of accountability are clear. For example, chief officers will have responsibilities with regard to the accreditation scheme, including the responsibility to ensure that there are clear lines of accountability, complaint systems and so on. There clearly is flexibility about the powers that can be deployed. We discussed that issue last night, but I merely point out that we are discussing the power to make people give their names and addresses, to issue a fixed-penalty notice for riding on the pavement, or to do the same things as local authority dog wardens. In a sense, it is right to say that those are police powers. They certainly conjure up an image of normal policing powers, although they are pretty low-level, but important, public disorder issues.
    The amendments would have a serious consequence: they would exclude a large number of very good schemes and make it quite impossible to co-ordinate effectively and properly with private sector providers. They would have the effect of ensuring that anyone from a local authority had to exercise the full powers of a community support officer. We have taken the view that the higher powers should be exercised only by those who work for the police service and are directly employed and accountable to the chief constable.
    The hon. Member for Lewes wishes to give local authority employees—they may well be dog wardens or litter wardens—the full powers of CSOs. Even though
    968
    they work for a local authority, there would not be the accountability to the chief officer that exists under our proposals. Finally, the hon. Gentleman wants the local authority to approve every single named individual appointed as a CSO by a chief officer. What a recipe for bureaucratic nonsense and disaster that would represent.
    I refute the idea that we are not interested in the specials, but the point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) that we cannot expect those in what is essentially a volunteer force working in their own time to fulfil the patrolling and reassurance duties carried out by full-time employees during their working week. It would be a mistake to do that.
    In Committee, I clearly set out—I shall not do so again now—our commitment to reverse the decline in the number of specials and the measures that we are taking to encourage the further recruitment of specials. Those hon. Members who have sought to say that, somehow, the promotion of CSOs or accredited community safety officers represents an alternative in the Government's view to the promotion of specials are, frankly, wrong, and I say that quite genuinely. The advantage of specials has been undersold for many years and to some degree I regret the perhaps inevitable fact that all the focus on the new issue—CSOs and ACSOs—has overshadowed the importance that the Government give to specials as part of the police reform process.
    I briefly want to say a couple of other things. This has not been the subject of debate, but I should point out that the Government amendments will involve the Mayor of London in a limited consultation role in relation to ACSOs. That is in line with the type of consultation powers with other local authority bodies that were introduced in another place. It is limited to ACSOs because that parallels other legislation.
    Finally, I want make an important point, which has been only touched on, about police authorities and the appointment of CSOs. Police authorities have been concerned about their right to consultation on the appointment of CSOs. In common with other support staff, the right to engage and dismiss civilians lies with chief officers and has been considered as an operational matter. However, I want to make it clear that the Government will expect chief officers fully to consult police authorities before embarking on the employment and designation of CSOs. I cannot imagine that any chief officer would not wish to do so, but I would certainly cover that issue in the code of practice under clause 46 when it is issued if such problems become apparent.
    Norman Baker: I certainly welcome the last point that the Minister makes, as the issue was raised in Committee. I also agree with him on consulting the Mayor of London, although I am not sure whether I agree on very much else in his contribution. I shall try to respond very briefly, given the time pressures that we are under.
    First, there is nothing wrong with having street wardens. I continually said in Committee that they are a jolly good thing and that they do a very useful job. There is nothing wrong with treating them as we treat bouncers. They should have a code of practice to ensure that they behave in a certain way and that they meet common standards. There is nothing wrong with trying to pull them into the crime and disorder partnership. However, I disagree with the Government because they want to give police powers to such wardens. The essential difference is that we think that they should not have police powers.

    969
    The Government view those people as a cheap to produce alternative arm of policing from the private sector. We do not accept that; it is a philosophical difference. Why should I be given a ticket for riding a bike on a pavement by an employee of Jarvis? That is what the Bill will specifically allow. I cited that example in Committee, and the Minister accepted that that will be the case. In fact, he said that it was a good idea that organisations such as Jarvis and those in the railway industry would have the power to issue tickets for cycling on pavements. That is what we face—the Government's proposals do not make sense. The Minister says that he did not say anything of the sort, but the Hansard report of the Committee will show that he did. Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment to try to remove those powers from railway accredited persons.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: If ACSOs are not going to stop the hon. Gentleman from riding on a pavement, who is?
    Norman Baker: Perhaps a community support officer with those powers who is an employee of the police or the local authority—someone who is democratically accountable and properly trained; not an employee of Jarvis or Tesco. That is the answer to that point.
    The Minister is right that we want to give all CSOs full powers. We want them to be properly trained, and we want to ensure that a traffic warden, for instance—or someone else who has been properly trained—can deal with an incident on the street. They should not have to ring up someone else because they do not have that power. They should be able to deal with it there and then. We do not want a situation in which people have different powers in their pockets according to which side of the street or which borough they happen to be on or in. That is a recipe for confusion, and the Minister has not addressed that point.
    As I am conscious of time, I shall not pursue this matter further. I am not satisfied with the Minister's response, however, and I shall want to divide the House on amendment No. 65 at the appropriate juncture. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 9

    THE INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
    Mr. Chris Mullin: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 10, line 23, after "Majesty", insert—
    'on an address presented by the House of Commons and proposed by the Secretary of State with the agreement of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.'.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in clause 12, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
    '(d) he is a person accredited under section 41.
    (e) he is a person accredited under section 43.'.
    Mr. Mullin: The amendment was tabled by me and colleagues from all parties on the Select Committee. It is
    970
    a modest little amendment that gives effect to one of the recommendations in our recent report on the Bill. It requires only the tiniest touch of the tiller in the direction of Parliament and away from the Executive.
    Clause 9 currently provides for the chairman of the new Independent Police Complaints Commission to be appointed by Her Majesty, which, in effect, means the Secretary of State or on his recommendation. My amendment would make no difference to the selection process, which would continue to be carried out in line with the procedure set out by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, with the sole exception that once a candidate had been chosen, the Home Secretary would have to secure the agreement of the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.
    We must bear it in mind that the Independent Police Complaints Commission is supposed to be independent—the word is in the title. One of the reasons the Police Complaints Authority has lacked credibility in the past is that in the eyes of many people it was not sufficiently independent of those whose activities it was supposed to scrutinise. With all due respect, it is no good the Minister saying, "We've always done it this way." The very reason we are having to revisit the subject is the widespread recognition—by both police and public—that the body suffered from a credibility problem in its previous incarnation. The purpose of the proposal is to draw a line under the past and to give the Independent Police Complaints Commission some street credibility. My little amendment seeks to enhance that credibility by giving Parliament a say in the final choice of chairman.
    Lady Hermon: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, under legislation passed by the House—the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998—a police ombudsman was set up for Northern Ireland. The Act states:
    "The Ombudsman shall be appointed by Her Majesty."
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not suggest that the independence of the police ombudsman, having been appointed by Her Majesty, is in any way belittled by that appointment procedure.
    Mr. Mullin: No, I am not suggesting that, but there is always room for a little improvement here and there. As I said, I am making a modest suggestion, a tiny touch on the tiller in favour of Parliament and away from the Executive.
    There are those who believe that Parliament should take a far closer interest in public appointments made by Ministers. Five years ago, the Treasury Committee went so far as to propose that it should be allowed to conduct confirmation hearings for members of the Monetary Policy Committee. One of those who pressed that view was the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who was then a rising Back Bencher. I take comfort, therefore, from knowing that the idea that Parliament should have a say in some public appointments is not entirely without friends in the higher reaches of Government.
    There will be those who say that there are no precedents. There is a precedent of sorts, however, although the parallel is not precise. Section 1 of the National Audit Act 1983 provides for the Comptroller and Auditor General to be appointed by the Queen on an

    971
    address presented by the House of Commons and proposed by the Prime Minister with the agreement of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. All I am suggesting is that an arrangement along those lines be devised for appointing the chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
    8.15 pm
    There will be those who see this as the thin end of a wedge. I hope that it is the thin end of at least a small wedge. Clearly, most of the appointments made by the Home Secretary are not suitable for this kind of treatment. When such posts involve executive functions on behalf of the Government, such as the head of the Prison Service or the chief executive of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, there is clearly no case for the involvement of Parliament. However, inspectors, regulators or ombudsmen depend for their credibility on being able to demonstrate their independence of Government. It is, therefore, in the interests of everyone, including the Home Secretary, that Parliament should have a role in their appointment. I am sure that, when the Minister reflects on the matter, he will be overwhelmed by my argument.
    Mr. Hawkins: I can be brief in referring to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Chairman of the Select Committee, and, moving ahead, to amendment No. 3, to which I anticipate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) will speak in a moment.
    We understand the basis of both amendments. We have added our names to amendment No. 3, although the Liberal Democrat names appear first, and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has added his name. Three Opposition parties therefore support amendment No. 3.
    We carefully considered the Select Committee's recommendation. We can see that there is merit in having parliamentary involvement in the appointment, and we will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.
    The hon. Member for Sunderland, South will be aware that we expressed the same kind of concerns in Committee about parliamentary scrutiny of the IPCC. I am sure that he has considered what was said then. We raised similar concerns about the House having a role in the way in which the IPCC should operate. We therefore see much merit in the Select Committee's suggestion of an advise and consent procedure for the appointment of the IPPC's chairman, which would be a further guarantee of the chairman's independence.
    On amendment No. 3, we sought to support what the Liberal Democrats had to say. I do not wish to take up the time of the House, however, so I shall let the Liberal Democrat spokesman speak to it.
    David Winnick: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, of which I am a member. I have no doubt that the Minister will give reasons why the amendment should not be accepted. I am more than happy to be disappointed, but I would be most surprised were the answer affirmative, as I would wish.
    As my hon. Friend said, there is a strong case for the chairman of the new Independent Police Complaints Commission to be seen as independent in every respect.
    972
    The difficulty is not that the wrong person would be appointed as the chairman—the choice of chairman is likely to be a good one; I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, the suspicion would be—not necessarily among Members of Parliament but in the outside world—that the Government would choose a person who can be relied upon not to be too independent. In a sense, he would be perceived as the Government's nominee.
    I am sure that such suspicions would have no foundation, but it is important that the chairman is seen as independent in every possible way. One way of doing that is to follow the suggestion in the amendment. The person would be appointed in the normal way, but confirmed by, among others, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
    An important factor should not be overlooked. The House of Commons or the Select Committee would not make the appointment. They would not put advertisements in the newspapers and would not be responsible for vetting the candidates and drawing up a shortlist. That power will remain with the Home Office. The only difference would be that the person appointed would go through a slightly different procedure. The amendment refers to
    "agreement with the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee."
    In practice, that would mean that the person appointed would appear before the Select Committee, but it is not a question of its Chairman just saying yea or nay.
    What is wrong with someone appointed by the Home Office appearing in front of the Select Committee before the appointment is confirmed? I find it difficult to believe that anyone of quality who wants to do the job and recognises its importance would be deterred by the fact that he would have to appear before the Committee. I accept that there is a theoretical possibility that the appointment would not be confirmed, but that is extremely unlikely.
    The amendment is a step forward. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). I have no doubt that, if the positions were reversed and he were the Minister and not the shadow spokesperson, he would make exactly the same arguments as, I am afraid, my right hon. Friend the Minister will make.
    We have yet to recognise the important role that Parliament could play in appointments to important jobs such as chairing the new complaints commission that will examine allegations against the police. Sometimes such allegations are serious, which is all the more reason that the person appointed to head the commission not only has integrity and authority to carry out the work, but is seen as independent. If that person is simply appointed by the Home Office in the usual way, the danger is that his independence will not be recognised outside the House. That would be most unfortunate.
    Norman Baker: On amendment No. 1, I am always happy for the power of Parliament to be extended at the expense of the Executive. I am therefore content to support the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). His amendment is a modest affair and, like him, I cannot imagine how the Government could find a reason to reject it. I await to hear the Minister's response.

    973
    Equally, I cannot see how the Minister could possibly reject the very modest amendment in my name, those of my colleagues and of those on the Conservative Front Bench. It relates to the IPCC and the Minister will know that everyone has supported that aspect of the Bill. Everyone recognises that it is an important innovation. There have been problems with the public believing that investigations into the police have not been carried out properly or independently, and the Minister and his colleagues have acted to remedy such problems in a way that we all support. They have recognised the problem and have found the right solution, so it is difficult to understand why they have decided to exclude from the process the very people who are furthest from democratic accountability, namely those who are employed by the private sector. That makes no sense at all.
    The Minister is in danger of re-creating the position that applies now. The Bill wishes to get rid of that by introducing an independent element into the process so that people have confidence in those exercising police powers. He is re-creating the problem in a very unfortunate manner.
    The answer that the Minister gave in Committee and in response to the previous debate was, "Well, the chief officer of police sets up the complaints procedure or oversees it." He may set it up, but that is about the end of it. The Minister has said that, when there is a complaint against a person from Tesco, that person will be investigated by Tesco—not by anybody else. Is Mr. Tesco going to say to that person, "You've done something terribly wrong. You are a disgrace to the company. Yes, we'll tell the local newspapers that you've brought our name down in the public mind"? Or will Mr. Tesco say, "That was not very wise. We had better hush it up because it is not in our commercial interest to let people know what has happened"? In other words, those policing the complaints system in such circumstances are judge and jury of their employees and have a direct interest in concluding matters in a way that benefits their companies and not necessarily the public interest.
    I honestly do not understand why the Minister resists that argument. Of course, the IPCC will not investigate every single complaint; we do not expect it to investigate every single complaint against a police officer. However, it must have the opportunity to call complaints in, examine processes that are not working and consider what needs to be done. It must have that option. If it does not, the message will go to Tesco, Jarvis and other employers that they can do what they like, because there will be nothing to control them or alter what they do when they consider complaints.
    I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter either here or in another place. The Minister is simply wrong on this issue.
    Mr. George Osborne: I shall briefly respond to the persuasive speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). I also want to take the opportunity to say how useful members of the Standing Committee found the Select Committee's report. It was an extremely useful guide, and it is a shame that only one member of the Select Committee served on the Standing Committee. Perhaps Parliament should consider that point.
    974
    The Executive's powers of patronage and appointment are among their least-scrutinised powers. Those, such as Lord Norton of Louth and the Hansard Society, who have considered reform of this place have drawn attention to way in which the House should scrutinise appointments. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is a good one.
    I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee and I am aware of the precedents that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. As he conceded, the amendment would create a slightly broader precedent. Indeed, it would be the thin end of a very good wedge.
    Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman briefly explain what would happen if there were a disagreement between the Home Secretary and the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee? Would not the Chairman, in effect, have a veto over an appointment?
    Mr. Osborne: That probably would be the case. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee has a veto over the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Such a veto would be a good thing, but its use would be unusual. It would be a check of last resort.
    I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment and will put himself in the great tradition of Cromwell and Simon de Montfort and expand the powers of the House of Commons. No one is paying any attention at the moment, so all he has to do is nod the amendment through and put himself in the annals of history.
    Mr. Denham: I have some sympathy with the amendment, although not quite enough.
    Leaving aside the constitutional issue, I share the fundamental aim of securing the reputation of the independence of the IPCC, but the case has not been made that an appointment by Her Majesty through Ministers undermines confidence in the independence of the system. By far the greater part of the credibility of the IPCC will come not from the appointment system for the chairman, but from the transparency of the system. Complainants will have many more rights and there will be fewer opportunities for their complaints to disappear out of the system without being addressed. That is the most important proposal in this part of the Bill.
    8.30 pm
    The issue is whether Parliament wants to embark on a wholesale change of the nature of accountability for a great many appointments. I accept that that argument is the thin end of the wedge. The appointment of the chairman of the IPCC cannot be dealt with as a one-off. I refer the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee to the conclusions of the Nolan committee in 1995, which no doubt he knows well. It carefully considered whether Select Committees should be given a role and came down firmly against such an alternative concluding:
    "We did not feel that any of our witnesses or correspondents has presented a convincing proposal for providing public accountability other than through the established route of Ministerial accountability to Parliament."
    The Home Secretary will, of course, have overall accountability to Parliament for all matters relating to the IPCC.

    975
    It could be argued that the committee's conclusion was not right or will not last for ever and that a profound change in the relationship between Select Committees and public appointments should take place. I am interested in debating that, but the chairmanship of the IPCC should not be picked out at random and used as the example on which we base that change.
    On the complaints system, it is important that the IPCC can concentrate on the vast bulk of its work, which is to deal with complaints against police officers. It is worth remembering that people such as dog wardens, park keepers and environmental health officers have for years been exercising police powers, as described by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). I am not aware of anyone arguing that they should be brought within the remit of the Police Complaints Authority or that there have been examples of abuses of those powers that have not been dealt with satisfactorily. The chief constable will have the important responsibility of ensuring that an adequate complaints procedure is in place for anyone who is an accredited organisation. That does not necessarily have to be the internal complaints procedure of the organisation concerned. However, that decision would have to be resolved at local level.
    I fear that extending the IPCC's coverage at this stage to a range of new people in accredited organisations who operate low-level disorder and nuisance powers would divert the attention of the IPCC from the business that it has to do for the public to have confidence in the police service. Our measures will ensure that there is adequate public protection and an adequate system for dealing with complaints wherever there is an accredited community safety officer.
    Mr. Mullin: I found the Minister's speech unsurprising and not entirely convincing. The Select Committee will take a close interest in the work of the IPCC when it is established and no doubt its chairman will visit us. I hope that Parliament will return from time to time to the general issue of the extent to which it should have a say in some public appointments of regulators. However, I do not intend to press the matter and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Schedule 3

    HANDLING OF COMPLAINTS AND CONDUCT MATTERS ETC.
    Amendments made: No. 54, in page 138, line 28, leave out from "duty" to "a", in line 29 and insert—
    'to give a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (9) notification of the findings of the report by sending that person'.
    No. 55, in page 139, line 46, leave out from "duty" to "a", in line 29 and insert—
    'to give a person mentioned in sub-paragraph (7) notification of the findings of the report by sending that person'.—[Mr. Denham.]

  Clause 38

    POLICE POWERS FOR POLICE AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES
    Amendment made: No. 24, in page 39, line 29, leave out from beginning to second "the", in line 30, and insert—
    'Powers and duties may be conferred or imposed on a designated person by means only of the application to him by his designation of provisions of'.—[Mr. Denham.]

  Clause 39

    POLICE POWERS FOR CONTRACTED-OUT STAFF
    Amendment made: No. 25, in page 40, line 37, leave out from beginning to second "the", in line 38, and insert—
    'Powers and duties may be conferred or imposed on a designated person by means only of the application to him by his designation of provisions of'. —[Mr. Denham.]

  Clause 40

    COMMUNITY SAFETY ACCREDITATION SCHEMES
    Amendment proposed: No. 65, in page 41, line 37, leave out Clause 40.—[Norman Baker.]
    Question put, That the amendment he made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 287.

    Division No. 305]

    [8.34 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

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

    Baker, Norman

    Barrett, John

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Beggs, Roy

    Lamb, Norman

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Laws, David

    Brake, Tom

    Llwyd, Elfin

    Breed, Colin

    Moore, Michael

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Öpik, Lembit

    Bumett, John

    Price. Adam

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Pugh, Dr John

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Rendel, David

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Sanders, Adrian

    Chidgey, David

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

    Cotter, Brian

    Stunell, Andrew

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Doughty, Sue

    Thurso, John

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Tyler, Paul

    Gidley, Sandra

    Webb, Steve

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

    Hancock, Mike

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W

    Willis, Phil

    Harvey, Nick

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Heath, David

    Hermon, Lady

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Holmes, Paul

    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke and

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Bob Russell.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Berry, Roger

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Betts, Clive

    Ainger, Nick

    Blackman, Liz

    Ainsworth, Bob (Covtry NE)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Alexander, Douglas

    Blizzard, Bob

    Allen, Graham

    Borrow, David

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Brennan, Kevin

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Bryant, Chris

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Burgon, Cohn

    Austin, John

    Burnham, Andy

    Bailey, Adrian

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Banks, Tony

    Caims, David

    Barnes, Harry

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bndge)

    Battle. John

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Caplin, Ivor

    Bennett, Andrew

    Casale, Roger

    Benton, Joe

    Caton, Martin

    977

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hodge, Margaret

    Challen, Colin

    Hoey, Kate

    Chaytor, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clapham, Michael

    Hope, Phil

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Clelland, David

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hurst, Alan

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Cohen, Harry

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Colman, Tony

    Illsley, Eric

    Corston, Jean

    Irranca—Davies, Huw

    Cousins, Jim

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cox, Tom

    Jamieson, David

    Crausby, David

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cruddas, Jon

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Cummings, John

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Jones, Lynne (Selty Oak)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Joyce, Eric

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Kemp, Fraser

    David, Wayne

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Davidson, Ian

    Khabra, Piara S

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kidney, David

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Lammy, David

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Dismore, Andrew

    Laxton, Bob

    Dobbin, Jim

    Lepper, David

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Leslie, Christopher

    Dodds, Nigel

    Levitt, Tom

    Doran, Frank

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Dowd, Jim

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Linton, Martin

    Edwards, Huw

    Lloyd, Tony

    Efford, Clive

    Love, Andrew

    Ennis, Jeff

    Lucas, Ian

    Etherington, Bill

    Luke, lain

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Lyons, John

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

    McCabe, Stephen

    Flint, Caroline

    McCafferty, Chris

    Flynn, Paul

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Follett, Barbara

    MacDonald, Calum

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McDonnell, John

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    MacDougall, John

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    McFall, John

    Gapes, Mike

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Gardiner, Barry

    McIsaac, Shona

    Gerrard, Neil

    McKechin, Ann

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Gilroy, Linda

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Godsiff, Roger

    McNamara, Kevin

    Goggins, Paul

    McNulty, Tony

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McWalter, Tony

    Grogan, John

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hanson, David

    Mann, John

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Marris, Rob

    Healey, John

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Heppell, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Heyes, David

    Miliband, David

    978

    Miller, Andrew

    Sheridan, Jim

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Singh, Marsha

    Mole, Chris

    Skinner, Dennis

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    Moran, Margaret

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Morgan, Julie

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Morley, Elliot

    Soley, Clive

    Mountford, Kali

    Southworth, Helen

    Mullin, Chris

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    O'Hara, Edward

    Stringer, Graham

    Olner, Bill

    Tami Mark

    O'Neill Martin

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Owen Albert

    Taylor Davld (NW Leics)

    Palrner, Dr Nick

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Pickthall Colin

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Pike, Peter

    Tipping, Paddy

    Plaskitt, James

    Todd, Mark

    Pollard, Kerry

    Touhig, Don

    Pond, Chris

    Trickett, Jon

    Pope, Greg

    Turner Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Tynan, Bill

    Vaz, Keith

    Purchase, Ken

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Purnell, James

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Quin,Rt Hon Joyce

    Wareing, Robert N

    Rammell, Bill

    Watson Tom

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Watts David

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    White, Brian

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Winnick, David

    Rooney, Terry

    Woodward, Shaun

    Ross, Ernie

    Woolas, Phil

    Roy, Frank

    Worthington, Tony

    Ruane, Chris

    Wray, James

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Wright Tony (Cannock)

    Sawford, Phil

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Joan Ryan and

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mr. Ian Pearson.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Amendments made: No. 26, in clause 40, in page 41, line 40, leave out from "Scheme")" to "police" in line 41, and insert".
    (1A) A community safety accreditation scheme is a scheme for the exercise in the chief officer's'.
    No. 27, in page 42, line 2, after "force", insert—
    '(other than the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis)'.
    No. 28, in page 42, line 4, at end insert—
    '(3A) Before establishing a community safety accreditation scheme for the metropolitan police district, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis must consult with—

    (a) the Metropolitan Police Authority;

    (b) the Mayor of London; and

    (c) every local authority any part of whose area lies within the metropolitan police district.'.

    No. 29, in page 42, line 5, leave out "subsection (3)(b)" and insert "subsections (3)(b) and (3A)(c)".—[Mr. Denham.]

  Clause 43

    RAILWAY SAFETY ACCREDITATION SCHEME
    Amendments made: No. 30, in page 44, line 46, after "Police" insert "Force".
    No. 31, in page 45, line 3, after "Police" insert "Force".
    No. 32, in page 45, line 38, after "Police" insert "Force".
    No. 33, in page 45, line 43, after "authorities;'insert—
    '(ea) the Mayor of London;'.
    No. 34, in page 45, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 47—[Mr. Denham.]

  Clause 44

    REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON POWERS CONFERRED ON TRAFFIC WARDENS
    Amendment made: No. 35, in page 46, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line and insert—
    '(1) Section 96 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (additional powers of traffic wardens) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In subsection (2)(c) (powers under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) which may be conferred on traffic wardens), after sub-paragraph (i) there shall be inserted—
    "(ia) section 67 (3) (which relates to the power of a constable in uniform to stop vehicles for testing);".
    (3) In subsection (3)'.—[Mr. Denham.]

  Clause 45
    POWER TO AMEND CHAPTER 1
    Amendment made: No. 2, in page 46, line 16, leave out Clause 45.—[Mr. Denham.]
  Clause 46

    CODE OF PRACTICE RELATING TO CHIEF OFFICERS' POWERS UNDER CHAPTER I
    Amendments made: No. 37, in page 47, line 33, after "police;" insert—
    '(fa) persons whom he considers to represent the interests of local authorities;
    (fb) the Mayor of London;'.
    No. 38, in page 47, line 39, at end insert—
    '(6) For the purposes of subsection (3)(fa), "local authorities" means district councils, London borough councils, county councils in Wales, county borough councils, the Common Council of the City of London and the Council of the Isles of Scilly.'—[Mr. Denham.]

  Schedule 4

    POWERS EXERCISABLE BY POLICE CIVILIANS
    Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 145, line 15, leave out paragraph 2.
    I do not intend to detain the House long. Those who have followed the proceedings of the Bill know that what the Minister says is more important than the amendment. The House knows that the power of detention to be given to civilians is highly controversial. The other place rejected it; it was re-inserted by the Government in Committee, and the amendment seeks to reverse that and restore the schedule to the state in which it returned to this place.
    The heart of the matter is whether we should allow civilians to be so intrusive into civil rights as to detain somebody for 30 minutes. There are many practical issues, such as what happens if a police officer does not arrive within 30 minutes, and what happens if, when he does arrive, he does not agree with the decision to detain the individual. There are issues such as the principle of policing whereby after a person is detained or arrested, he is removed from the street as soon as possible, so that he does not become the focus of further agitation, disruption or disorder. All those are serious problems.
    I shall not rehearse the arguments, as they have been thoroughly rehearsed before. When we debated the matter in Committee, I acknowledged that at least one sector of the police force—the Metropolitan police—wants to be able to give the power to some of its civilian officers. We have made a point of listening to the various voices of the police throughout the country. We recognise that there is a demand for the power of detention, but we remain immensely concerned.
    I suggested that if the Minister were prepared to consider some sort of pilot arrangements, we would view them favourably. I am anxious to hear whether, after much deliberation, he intends to present such proposals. We remain of the view that the power of detention generally should not be available to civilians, but we are prepared to consider some form of test process.
    Mr. Denham: I shall not speak long, as a number of Back-Bench Members wish to speak in the debate. It would be helpful to place on the record the intention-indeed, the commitment—of the Government with regard to the introduction of community support officers with the power to detain with reasonable force, and how we will approach the matter of piloting. I do not wish to rehearse the debate about the powers themselves other than to say that I fully recognise that concerns have been expressed about CSOs' power to detain with reasonable force.
    In the light of those concerns, the Government have considered how we can ensure that the power is introduced in a controlled manner. We want to allow for it to be tested in practice in a sufficient number of varied forces to gain experience of its operation before it is made available to all police forces in England and Wales. First, we invited Sir Keith Povey, Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary—and he agreed—to monitor and to take responsibility for evaluating the use of the power in the first two years after the commencement of this part of the Act. Secondly, during the first two years after the commencement of the Act, the maximum number of

    981
    forces that will be allowed to deploy CSOs with the power to use detention with reasonable force will be six. We settled on that number following consultation with the chief inspector of constabulary. We will use the commencement powers in clause 103 to enforce that limit. Thirdly, no other forces will be allowed to deploy CSOs with the power of detention until the report of the chief inspector's evaluation has been published and laid before the House, allowing chief officers in particular—as well as others, of course—to consider its conclusions before deciding whether to deploy CSOs with those powers. I should make it clear that that approach would not preclude other police forces from employing CSOs, but without the power of detention with reasonable force.
    One of the forces that wishes to deploy CSOs with that power is the Metropolitan police service, which in itself constitutes a significant part of the police service in England and Wales. I have discussed with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis how widely he expects to deploy CSOs with that power over the next two years. Understandably, he does not wish to impose an arbitrary limit, especially given the interest shown by a number of boroughs in working with the MPS to provide additional CSOs. To avoid confusion, the commissioner wishes all CSOs based in the community in London to have the same powers. With the exception of those employed on transport routes in conjunction with Transport for London, CSOs will normally be deployed in one particular borough by agreement with the local authority. It is difficult at the present time to estimate the level of take-up, but there is nothing to suggest that any more than half the boroughs—that is, 16—will take up the option within the next two years, and I believe that the figure may be somewhat lower than that. That is the best indication that I can give of the position in London.
    I hope that in the light of such undertakings hon. Members will feel that rather than delete the power entirely from the Bill, this framework will allow the pilots to take place and to be evaluated independently of Ministers, and for the results of that evaluation to be released before the power is made more generally available across the police service, which would itself depend on the outcome of the evaluation.
    Norman Baker: The Minister will know that there has been considerable disquiet about the suggestion that non-police officers should have the power to detain. That has been expressed not only by Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members, but by the Association of Chief Police Officers and by police officers around the country. It is therefore welcome that the Government have listened. It is welcome that they have removed detention powers from accredited officers. It is also sensible that they have decided not to go hell for leather in going as far as they can with CSOs in the initial stages. It may seem churlish to say that we cannot support what the Government have done because we would like them to go further. We are in favour of a pilot scheme, but one that tries out CSOs without the power of detention, and then allows police forces to say that they have not worked without the power of detention. That would be a safer route than trying them with the power of detention.
    The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) rehearsed some of the arguments as to why there is significant opposition to giving the power of
    982
    detention to people who are not police officers. There is insufficient time to go through those arguments again, as there is only five minutes to go before the guillotine comes down. However, the fact that neither the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire nor I have rehearsed the objections does not undermine their validity because they are serious and widely held. By giving non-police officers the power to detain, we cross the rubicon, and we are unhappy about that.
    The Minister said that there would be some safeguards. I welcome the involvement, as far as it goes, of the chief inspector of constabulary. That is a sensible move. I also welcome the fact that a maximum number of forces will be involved. However, I am bound to say that the opposition to CSOs generally, which chief constables throughout the country have expressed, means that it is unlikely that more than six forces will wish to have them, let alone those with the power to detain. The Minister scrabbles around, mentions the Met and Northamptonshire and subsequently runs out of places that have expressed a wish for CSOs without having their arms twisted. He will be hard pushed to find more than six forces to accept them; he has not therefore made that much of a concession.
    The Minister has accepted some of the legitimate arguments against the power to detain. I acknowledge that he has tried to devise a compromise that allays anxieties. I welcome the distance that he has travelled, but I regret that he has not gone far enough for my Liberal Democrat colleagues and me. We cannot accept the principle of giving non-police officers the power to detain.
    Mr. Llwyd: I agree with the comments of the hon Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), although I welcome the pilot scheme and fact that it will be evaluated. However, the possible conflicts that CSOs with the power of detention will face may prove overwhelming. They will often have to deal with antisocial behaviour and drunkenness, from which aggression and violence can emanate. That is a mistake, and I believe that the pilot scheme will show that. However, I give the Government due credit.
    Any practitioner in criminal law will say that reasonable force is a difficult concept. There are so many precedents and cases determined on the phrase that it will be difficult for a person with less training than an ordinary police officer to decide when to "balance it to a nicety", in the words of an established case. The power of detention will give rise to court cases, and I believe that it may fall into disrepute. It involves great dangers and I am therefore wary of it. It will not be widely used and it will ultimately die, but I am pleased that the Government are prepared to consider it in pilot form.
    Mr. Paice: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said that he believed that the power of detention by non-police officers would prove a mistake, and he may be right. Like the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), we have always maintained that it is not necessary to give CSOs the power to detain. However, I acknowledge that there are those in the Met—and probably only in the Met—who want such powers, and I do not want to deny them the opportunity of at least trying them out.
    I welcome the Minister's comments. However, I suspect that we have won what may prove to be a pyrrhic victory. The hon. Member for Lewes is probably right that

    983
    the Government will not find more than six forces that want the powers. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that the Minister has listened to the arguments and recognised the genuine anxieties that not only Conservative Members but the Police Federation and almost everyone in the police, apart from the Met, have expressed. I am now placed in something of a quandary, because in my view, the Minister has given me what I wanted to get out of this debate: a very clear pledge for pilot schemes. What he has said is all on record, and I welcome his comments. I also welcome the role of the chief inspector of constabulary.
    Throughout our proceedings on the Bill, as the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition have taken the same view on the issue with which the amendment deals. I do not wish my colleagues to support the amendment, as I believe that the Minister has gone far enough, but in deference to its fellow signatories, I shall not ask leave to withdraw it, as I know that they wish to pursue the matter and I would rather not be put into the position of having my request for withdrawal opposed. That may sound pusillanimous, but I am trying to be fair to everybody, and I conclude by thanking the Minister, as I welcome the commitments that he has made.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 54, Noes 294.

    Division No. 306]

    [9 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Baker, Norman

    Lamb, Norman

    Barrett, John

    Laws, David

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Brake, Tom

    Moore, Michael

    Breed, Colin

    Oaten, Mark

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Öpik, Lembit

    Burnett, John

    Price, Adam

    Calton, Mrs Palsy

    Pugh, Dr John

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Rendel, David

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Chidgey, David

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Cotter, Brian

    Sanders, Adrian

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Doughty, Sue

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigbn)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Thurso, John

    George, Andrew (St lves)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Gidley, Sandra

    Tyler, Paul

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Webb, Steve

    Hancock, Mike

    Weir, Michael

    Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Harvey, Nick

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Heath, David

    Willis, Phil

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Holmes, Paul

    Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

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

    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke and

    Sir Robert Smith.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Ainger, Nick

    Austin, John

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Alexander, Douglas

    Banks, Tony

    Allen, Graham

    Barnes, Harry

    Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

    Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

    Battle, John

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Begg, Miss Anne

    984

    Beggs, Roy

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Bennett, Andrew

    Flint, Caroline

    Benton, Joe

    Flynn, Paul

    Berry, Roger

    Follett, Barbara

    Betts, Clive

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Blackman, Liz

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    Blizzard, Bob

    Gapes, Mike

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Gardiner Barry

    Borrow, David

    Gerrard Neil

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Gibson Dr lan

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Gilroy, Linda

    Brennan Kevin

    Godsiff, Roger

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Goggins, Paul

    Bryant, Chris

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Burgon, Colin

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Burnham Andy

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Burnside, David

    Grogan, John

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Hall Patrick (Bedford)

    Cairns David

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Hanson, David

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Healey John

    Caplin Ivor

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Casale, Roger

    Hendrick, Mark

    Caton, Martin

    Heppell, John

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hermon, Lady

    Challen, Colin

    Heyes, David

    Chaytor, David

    Hodge, Margaret

    Clapham, Michael

    Hoey, Kate

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Hope, Phil

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Clelland, David

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cohen, Harry

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Coleman, lain

    Hurst, Alan

    Colman, Tony

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Corston, Jean

    Iddon Dr Brian

    Cousins, Jim

    lllsley Eric

    Cox, Tom

    Irranca—Davies, Huw

    Crausby, David

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Jamieson, David

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Jenkins Brian

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Jones Helen (Warrington N)

    Cummings, John

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Joyce, Eric

    Dalyell, Tam

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & lsleworth)

    Daivd, Wayne

    Kemp, Fraser

    Davidson, lan

    Kennedy Jane (Wavertree)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Davies, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Kidney, David

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Dawson.Hilton

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Lammy, David

    Dismore Andrew

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Dobbin, Jim

    Laxton, Bob

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Lepper, David

    Dodds, Nigel

    Leslie, Christopher

    Doran, Frank

    Levitt, Tom

    Dowd, Jim

    Lewis, lvan (Bury S)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Edwards, Huw

    Linton, Martin

    Efford, Clive

    Lloyd, Tony

    Ennis, Jeff

    Love, Andrew

    Etherington, Bill

    Lucas, Ian

    985

    Luke, lain

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lyons, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

    McCafferty, Chris

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Ross, Ernie

    MacDonald, Calum

    Roy, Frank

    McDonnell, John

    Ruane, Chris

    MacDougall, John

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McFall, John

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McIsaac, Shona

    Sawford, Phil

    McKechin, Ann

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Sheridan, Jim

    McNamara, Kevin

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McNulty, Tony

    Singh, Marsha

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Skinner, Dennis

    McWalter, Tony

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mann, John

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Marris, Rob

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Soley, Clive

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Southworth, Helen

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Squire, Rachel

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Martlew, Eric

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Merron, Gillian

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Miliband, David

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Miller, Andrew

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Tami, Mari

    Moffatt Laura

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mole Chris

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Morgan Julie

    Thomas' Gareth (Harrow W

    Morley, Elliot

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mountford.Kali

    Todd, Mark

    Mullin, Chris

    Touhig, Don

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Trickett, Jon

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Tumer Dr Desmon (Kemptown)

    Murphy Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Tumer, Neil (Wigan)

    Naysmrth DrDoug

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    O Hara, Edward

    Tynan, Bill

    Olner, Bill

    Vaz, Keith

    Olner, Bill

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Owen, Albert

    Wareing, Robert N

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Watson, Tom

    Picking, Anne

    Watts David

    Pickthall, Colin

    White, Brian

    Pike, Peter

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Plaskitt, James

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Pond, Chris

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Pope, Greg

    Winnick, David

    Pound, Stephen

    Woodward, Shaun

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Woolas, Phil

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Worthington, Tony

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Wray, James

    Purchase, Ken

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Purnell, James

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Rammell, Bill

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Reed, Andy (Loughbotough)

    Mr. Ian Pearson and

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Joan Ryan.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being after Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
    Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    9.11 pm
    Mr. Denham: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    We are quite close to the end of a process that began for me about a year ago, just after the general election, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I picked up the mantle of police reform. I thank all Members who contributed to debates during the Bill's passage through the House—in particular, the members of the Home Affairs Committee, whose report was extremely useful. The Committee carried out a valuable inquiry, which was perhaps not entirely pre-legislative scrutiny because the Committee did not have the full legislation to scrutinise in the way that it might have liked. None the less, it was very helpful in drawing out the major issues
    From the Opposition Front Benches, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) have contributed fully, particularly during discussions in the main Chamber. I especially want to acknowledge the work of the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), who carried the bulk of the debate in Committee—though not all of it, of course—for their respective parties. I am also grateful for the thoughtful and well-informed interventions from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who made a valuable contribution in Committee and, indeed, throughout proceedings.
    Several of my colleagues on the Government Benches took part, including, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) as well as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). I am particularly grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who ably took on part 2 of the Bill in Committee.
    The Bill arrived in the House much amended from discussions in another place, and it has been further amended here. I have no embarrassment in saying—no Minister ever should—that the Bill is better today than when the Government published it. I am one of those who believes in the role of parliamentary scrutiny. While one or two things that have happened in the closing stages reflect other realities, much change results from careful scrutiny in the House and in another place.
    As many Members have said, there is a great deal of agreement on the Bill. I shall outline briefly its main purposes and how we believe that it will work. It is worth acknowledging that, in addition to some initial aims, we have achieved significant changes that will help the police service and others to fight crime. In Committee there was a warm welcome for the provisions on sex offender orders, which will provide better protection for vulnerable people against convicted sex offenders. We have also brought police officers under the protection of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which was one of the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee. I feel that the Bill now has much to commend it.

    987
    In his introduction to the police reform White Paper published before Christmas, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said of the police reform process in general:
    "Our task is clear. We want to prevent, detect, apprehend and convict the perpetrators of crime. We need and will have a process that enables those undertaking the basic task of protecting our homes, our streets, and our persons, to do the job more effectively. Whether in dramatically slimming down bureaucracy and reassigning tasks in a way that frees up police officers to do their real job more effectively, or in extending what we are calling the 'police family' to engage others in policing, or in adopting more modern techniques: we will bring about change."
    My right hon. Friend concluded
    "In the end, it will not be the statistics on crime falling, or targets met for burglary or vehicle crime, but rather the difference felt in the neighbourhood and community itself which will be judge and jury of these reforms. It is time to focus on preventing crime and protecting the victims, and to place the weight of society behind this drive to reform the police."
    I think the Home Secretary was right to be realistic and honest when identifying the "judge and jury" of the reforms, not all of which require legislation but some of which have been dealt with in the Bill.
    We have set out to continue the reduction in crime, to tackle persistent offenders more effectively, to improve detection and conviction rates, to tackle antisocial behaviour, to reduce the fear of crime, to provide support for victims of crime, and to rebuild confidence in key aspects of the police service. The Bill contains a series of measures enabling us to do all that. It gives us a framework for the promotion of best practice through the introduction of a national policing plan setting out—after consultation—the Government's priorities for policing and how they are to be delivered. There is a three-tier approach to good practice with regulations, codes of practice and guidance to ensure that good operational and management policies for policing can be adopted throughout the service.
    The Bill meets a long-standing demand from many quarters for an Independent Police Complaints Commission, not to harry the police but to ensure that there is public confidence in them, and to ensure that they themselves feel they are being fairly treated if complaints are made against them. That is another important piece of work.
    We have modernised the system for the removal, suspension and disciplining of police officers. In a crucial part of the Bill that we have discussed at length, we have set a framework for the extended police family—not just through the creation of community support officers and accredited community safety officers, but by giving other civilians limited police powers so that police officers are free to perform wider duties. I think that in years to come the role of civilians properly designated to perform escort, detention and investigative work will be seen as an important innovation allowing much more flexibility in the deployment of police officers.
    Mr. Allen: Those were wise words from the Home Secretary. The Bill, or the process, will indeed be judged on the basis of its impact on communities and neighbourhoods in terms of their experience of policing.
    I hope my right hon. Friend will remember his political roots. I hope that not just the granting of more resources than ever before, and the presence of more police on duty
    988
    than ever before, but the number of officers visible on the streets and estates of our communities will, at a general election, provide the judge and jury mentioned earlier.
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend raises a significant point. Visibility is enormously important, but so is visibility with a clear purpose. Through the wider police reform programme, we are anxious to encourage the deployment across all police forces of the national intelligence model. Through that model officers can, in addition to being deployed in visible roles, bring method and focus to their work. Combining those two policing elements—good intelligence, information and deployment of officers, together with high visibility—is very important indeed.
    Of course, part of the background to the Bill is our substantial investment in police resources. We have reversed the long-term decline in police numbers that was initiated under the previous Conservative Government, and we now have record police numbers, which will rise to 130,000 next spring. Through local authorities, we have also invested substantially in crime and disorder reduction. The work of crime and disorder reduction partnerships—through which local authorities and other agencies work alongside the police—is also essential if we are to prove successful in the fight against crime, antisocial behaviour and the fear of crime.
    Party political views have been expressed throughout this debate, but in a constructive way, so I shall mention only in passing that crime doubled under the previous Conservative Government, and that police officer numbers fell steadily at the end of their time in office. That is an important consideration. We have committed ourselves to fighting crime in every way necessary. I am convinced that, by underpinning reform of the police service and ensuring that police officers have the support necessary to do the job, we are taking that fight forward in an effective way through the passage of this Bill.
    9.22 pm
    Mr. Paice: I am sorry that the Minister had to resort to party politics at the end of his otherwise well-thought-out and well-presented Third Reading speech, which, until that point, had followed many of the traditional patterns. I cannot but note that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is sitting on the Bench behind me—unlike the Home Secretary, who is doubtless touring every media studio, defending his drugs policy against the onslaught that he has unleashed from all those who, like us, recognise it as nonsense.
    As the Minister said, the Bill has had a very long passage, which is nearly—but not quite—over. It must go to the other place, and it remains to be seen what the Lords will make of the considerable number of amendments to it. Although virtually all of them are non-controversial, they will none the less have to be considered, and we will see what happens.
    I am pleased to say that, with a few notable exceptions, the debates on the Bill—at least, those in which I have participated—have been a good example of parliamentary scrutiny, through which we have discussed many issues. That contrasts with other, fairly torrid Bill proceedings in which I have participated in my time, both in opposition and in government. The Police Reform Bill has been much more enjoyable and constructive than many others.

    989
    It is certainly a very much better Bill now than the one that was introduced in the other place many months ago. It is much better because, to be fair, the Government have made several concessions in the light of arguments that we advanced in both Houses.
    I was slightly let down by the Minister's admitting last night that, at least in respect of the Henry VIII clause, he was acknowledging the arithmetic—or mathematics, as he described it—of the other place. I am sorry that he resorted to that admission; we like to believe that he was influenced by our strength of argument on the issues. Nevertheless, in the spirit of good will, I recognise that the Government have made significant compromises on the Henry VIII clause in particular, and on clause 5, which we discussed earlier this evening.
    Equally, as the Minister will accept, the Opposition have made significant concessions. It is no secret that had we started with a clean sheet of paper, we would not have invented community support officers. We would have preferred to adopt another route, using the special constabulary. However, we recognise the need for considerable assistance for the police through the civilian route, and we have supported CSOs throughout. The only issue has been what powers they should be given, and there, too, we accepted the inevitability that certain powers would be given. I again welcome the commitment that the Minister made on pilot schemes for detention.
    Many of the measures in the Bill have gone through almost without debate. Some hon. Members, and some outsiders too, may say that that shows that Parliament is not working. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is not here today; otherwise he might have something to say on the subject. I contend, however, that the reason why so many issues went through almost, although not totally, undiscussed supports the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset that we agreed with 98 per cent. of the Bill from the outset. I am sorry, I should not have called him my hon. Friend, because one of the things that has happened during the passage of the Bill is that he has become my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset.
    Norman Baker: Entirely unconnected.
    Mr. Paice: I like to believe that the two are connected; my job would not be worth doing if I did not.
    I shall remind the House of some of the issues that have gone through almost unnoticed: the plans for regulations on common use of equipment, the codes of practice, the principle of the independent commission, and the measures supplementing police powers, especially in connection with antisocial behaviour orders. We welcome the improvements to ASBOs; so far they have not been the raging success that the Government initially said they would be. We also welcome the changes to the legislation on sex offenders, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said when we discussed the matter last night, we look forward to the Government's further consideration of the whole panoply of issues relating to sex crime.
    I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) is here tonight, and we also strongly welcome the changes to the law on blood tests for people who are unconscious and unable to give consent.
    990
    As the Bill has progressed, the negotiations with the Police Federation on pay and conditions have been going on. The changes were all part of the great reform package that the Home Secretary announced last year, but then he had to go to the Police Federation conference and apologise for the tensions that he had caused with his proposals for alterations to pay and conditions.
    The Opposition have consistently accepted the need for, and wanted to see, improvements in police performance in many areas. The introduction to the White Paper that the Minister quoted in his speech was uncontentious. We entirely agree with the gist of it, about the need to detect and drive down crime, and improve police performance. We can never achieve the ultimate perfection; there is always room for improvement.
    Yes, we have had differences of opinion about how that can be done. We remain of the view that the independence of individual constabularies and chief officers is paramount, and we have sought to protect that throughout the debates on the Bill. We also believe that we need to consider further ways of increasing that independence and enhancing local accountability—but that is a debate for another time.
    Like the Minister, I want to thank those who have been so helpful and constructive during the passage of the Bill. I shall identify the outside organisations without which, as the Minister, having been in opposition, well knows, opposition would be even more difficult than it is. I thank the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Chief Police Officers Staff Association, the Police Superintendents Association, the Police Federation, the Association of Police Authorities and many individual police officers of all ranks for all the advice and assistance that they have given to the Opposition throughout the passage of the Bill.
    I also wish to recognise the constructive approach that the Minister has taken. Despite his occasional lapses into political rhetoric—including the example of a few moments ago—he has addressed the issue with considerable responsibility and command of his subject. I have immense respect for the Minister's command of his subject, and I congratulate him on it. I also recognise and respect the huge contributions made by the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker), for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who have driven the issue forward for the Liberal Democrats.
    I also endorse the Minister's comments about the Committee. On our side, we had my hon. Friends the Members for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and for Newark (Patrick Mercer), as well as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). All of them made significant contributions. I recall at one stage the Minister conjuring up the vision of a CSO attempting to apprehend my hon. Friend the Member for Henley when he was in a condition of disrepute, shall we say, after a good night out. It was one of the lighter moments in Committee.
    Most of the Bill is welcomed by the Opposition. Inevitably, we would prefer that some bits were not in it, and the vexed issue of clause 5 remains. I strongly welcome the Minister's remarks this evening and the amendments that he has proposed to clause 5. We are much closer to solving the outstanding problems and I look forward to a full resolution in the near future. The Minister will understand that, as that resolution has

    991
    not yet been achieved, I cannot undertake to support the Bill in the Lobby tonight, but I suspect that the opportunity will not arise. However, we would not dream of opposing the Bill, because it contains many measures that we wholly welcome and support. We hope that it will soon pass into legislation, and face the real test of whether all those hopes and expectations can be met by the police and the many civilians who will be brought into the police family. I thank the Minister and the House for the opportunity to consider the Bill. We look forward to seeing it in action.
    9.32 pm
    Mr. Kevan Jones: I concur with the sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary: the judge and jury on the success of the Bill will be the people in constituencies such as mine. One of the key issues is not the dry statistics—the public are now bored with politicians from all parties talking about those—but the effectiveness of the measures in local communities. Fear of crime is a major issue in my constituency, and many others. The CSOs will do much, judging by the experiment that has been carried out in my constituency, to allay that fear. The extension of powers and in the use of antisocial behaviour orders will make a real difference and will be very welcome.
    I have enjoyed serving in Committee and contributing to debate. I will miss the interventions of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and his quotations from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which the hon. Gentleman appears to have catalogued assiduously over the past few weeks.
    Mr. George Osborne: I've got more.
    Mr. Jones: As the hon. Gentleman's remark shows, the debate has been good-natured. If my questioning of the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) has seemed tough at times. I apologise, but I see it as my role to try to pin the Liberal Democrats down to a policy occasionally. I know that that is difficult for them.
    Mr. Paice: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the Liberal Democrats have managed to have two policies on one issue during the consideration of the Bill? He will recall that on the last day in Committee they tabled an amendment to abolish the Riot (Damages) Act 1886. Last night, in the House of Lords, they voted against abolishing that Act.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that intervention. On one occasion, Liberal Democrat Members had three different policies on the same day. They argued that the Home Secretary should have more powers, and then that the local authority should have independence. However, we will not dwell on that.
    This is a very good Bill, and it will make a difference in communities throughout the country. I hope that, when CSOs have proved to be electorally popular, they will be enthusiastically endorsed by Liberal Democrat Members.
    9.35 pm
    Norman Baker: I do not think that the Third Reading debate should be used to pick on Liberal Democrats. That is very unfair, although I must confess that I did not know about the Riot (Damages) Act 1886.
    The Minister can sit easy on his Bench, as we have no intention of dividing the House on Third Reading. The Government Whip will be pleased to know that, too. Those hon. Members enjoying the all-party parliamentary beer group dinner can continue to do so, while those of us assiduously carrying out our parliamentary duties here will miss it this year.
    I thank the Minister for his contribution to our debates, which has usually been good humoured. He has certainly been in command of his subject, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said. I thank Conservative Front. Benchers for their constructive approach. It has been useful to work with them and the Government team during the Bill's progress through the House. That shows that hon. Members can behave in a mature way to find common ground where possible, and yet not sacrifice the principles that they hold dear.
    I want to thank the Clerks and the other Officers of the House who have been so helpful throughout our deliberations, and the pressure groups outside the House. I must also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Poole and North Dorset—I apologise, it is the other way around: she is my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). There may be two policies on her constituency, but she has been of great assistance on the Bill.
    The Bill has been improved by the parliamentary process. That is a cliché, but in this case it is true. The Bill is markedly better as a result of the process, partly because of the force of the arguments deployed, and partly because of the arithmetic involved. Whatever the reason, the result shows that parliamentary scrutiny works. The House can take pride in the fact that the Bill has been improved, and hon. Members collectively can congratulate themselves that a Bill will reach the statute book that we all think will improve matters for policing and for law and order.
    I do not agree with 98 per cent. of the Bill, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) appears to, but I am pleased that the Government have introduced it. My approval rating for it is certainly in the 90s now, which is higher than it was originally.
    As has been said, the Bill contains many good things. I shall not go into detail now, but there is no doubt that much of the Bill will improve matters, nor that it commands support among hon. Members of all three main parties. The sex offenders orders were completely uncontroversial, and they will go along way towards dealing with a matter about which many hon. Members have had grave reservations. In addition, I am pleased with the introduction of the independent police complaints commission. Even if it does not cover Tesco-type police, it will deal with all other officers. It is a welcome innovation that will be support by the public at large. In the long term, it will go a long way towards improving public confidence in the police, as all hon. Members want.
    Few issues remain unresolved for the House of Lords to deal with. I suspect that my colleagues and I will not be entirely satisfied with the proposals on CSOs when the

    993
    Bill finally receives Royal Assent, but we can probably live with that. Overall, the Bill will improve policing and we are pleased to support it.
    I thank all those hon. Members in the Select Committee on Home Affairs and in Standing Committee A who have helped with the Bill, and those people outside the House who also made a contribution. I am pleased to have played a small role, along with other hon. Members, in producing legislation that will benefit the country at large.
    I have one small gripe with the ministerial team on this Bill, who were reasonably non-partisan in Committee and, to a lesser extent, on the Floor of the House. However, it is very rare that Opposition amendments are accepted, although those often tend to be produced by pressure groups that, equally, produce amendments that the Government are happy to accept. The Government would get more credit if they sometimes accepted Opposition amendments and showed more willingness to agree that the fount of all knowledge may not rest with them but that, occasionally, Opposition Members have good ideas that should be incorporated. If the Government say so, we should not exploit that by claiming massive victories but accept that we have gone forward in a spirit of compromise and good will.
    Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make these comments. I wish the Bill well in the House of Lords.
    9.40 pm
    Mrs. Angela Browning: I would like to use this opportunity to put on record my thanks and those of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Yeoman, the parents of a young nurse, Charis Yeoman, who was killed by a drunk driver while driving her car. On 6 June 2000, I secured an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, and the then Minister of State at the Home Office, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), said that he recognised that there was a loophole in the law, and pledged to close it. The Bill does just that.
    I thank all Home Office Ministers and officials for bringing about the very difficult negotiations between the police force and those in the medical profession. Having met the BMA ethics committee before I brought the matter to the attention of the House, I know how difficult it has been for those two bodies to reach a compromise. However, that has been achieved, and it would be remiss of me not to say thank you. I believe that this will enable the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to bring to justice people who, through their wanton behaviour of drink-driving, kill innocent people such as Charis Yeoman. So, on my constituents' behalf, I thank the Minister that this provision is in the Bill.
    Finally, I hope that when the Bill receives Royal Assent there will not be a long delay in implementing this part of it. Quite a long time can pass before certain parts of a Bill are implemented, and I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that matter.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): David Cameron. [Interruption.] I am sorry-George Osborne.
    9.42 pm
    Mr. George Osborne: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and I are often confused for each other. Indeed, he has taken an active part in these debates.
    I should like to take part in this mutual round of self-congratulation. It has been a great pleasure taking part in these debates. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for the way in which he has achieved exactly what he set out to achieve He is expert at filleting Home Office Bills and proves that opposition is sometimes more effective with a scalpel than a blunderbuss. Indeed, he is teaching that to the rest of my party.
    I also pay tribute to the Minister for the intelligent and gracious way in which he has steered the Bill through its stages. He dealt with some tricky interventions—usually from the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). She raised some tricky legal questions, which he dealt with pretty well.
    I pay special tribute to my Front-Bench team. Being a junior Front-Bench spokesman in any Parliament, whoever is in government, is a pretty difficult and miserable job, and my hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), as well as the Whip, who is not here at present, did it extremely well. Without them, there would be no proper parliamentary process.
    I have enjoyed sparring with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). I will now throw away my copy of the Second Reading debate of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 and the various quotes from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) before he was Prime Minister. I note in passing that it was the right hon. Gentleman who came up with the innovation of the Opposition not voting against major criminal justice legislation, for which he got a lot of credit at the time. So we remember that Act.
    As many hon. Members have said, the Bill is better than when it was first published. The best bits, such as the Independent Police Complaints Commission, have remained largely unaltered, although it is a shame that the chairman of the Home Affairs Committee could not do a bit of empire-building earlier this evening.
    Some new good bits have been added during the debates on the Bill, particularly the provisions that will give social landlords the power to issue antisocial behaviour orders, which will make a difference in my constituency and, I imagine, most others. The worst bits of the Bill have been considerably improved, particularly clause 5 and the powers for CSOs.
    All in all, good things have come from this process, which has been a pleasure to watch. The Bill is still more prescriptive and centralising than I would like, but there we go. I remain sceptical about CSOs, but as the hon. Member for North Durham said, the proof of the pudding will come later—on the streets of our country and we will all watch to see what happens.
    9.45 pm
    Lady Hermon: It is indeed a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne).
    On Second Reading, I warned the Minister that police reform is notoriously difficult to manage. I pay tribute to him for heeding the warning, as did the Home Secretary.

    995
    Our experience in Northern Ireland has been most unfortunate. When the Patten report was published, the issue was handled with great insensitivity. Reforms were necessary, but they were handled very badly, which resulted in widespread disillusionment among the police force.
    Patten recommended that our regular police force should stand at 7,500 over 10 years, but it has dropped dramatically to below 6,900 in less than two and a half years. I urge the Minister and the Home Secretary to continue their consultations with the rank and file members and the Police Federation throughout the land. It is important to maintain the morale of rank and file members.
    I pay tribute, as other hon. Members have done, to the Minister and his ministerial colleagues. They were very courteous, patient and efficient throughout the progress of the Bill, and I mean that most sincerely. In Committee on 20 June, I asked the Minister a question regarding the human rights training of community support officers. I should like to place on record the fact that he sent me a very full reply within days in which he explained:
    "The Metropolitan Police have confirmed that their CSO training will include training on the Human Rights Act."
    He continued:
    "The Human Rights Act is important legislation. All CSOs will be required to understand and act within it at all times, in the same professional manner as police officers do."
    I commend him on the speed with which he was able to follow up undertakings to write to hon. Members on that and subsequent occasions, and I am sure that I speak for other hon. Members who served on the Committee.
    The theme of human rights was mentioned by many hon. Members in Committee. After the Minister has had a good night's sleep—he has worked very hard this evening—I should like him to reflect on another example from Northern Ireland: the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The commission advises the Assembly on the adequacy and effectiveness of the laws and practice in relation to the protection of human rights. It staves off a lot of criticism and avoids problems before they end up in legislative form. I commend the good work of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Although there are differences about the appointment of its members, it need not be dreaded. Indeed, it could be very helpful in future.
    It would be most remiss of me to omit paying tribute to all hon. Members who served on the Committee. I very much regretted the fact that I had to absent myself on various occasions because of commitments in North Down.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) is not present. I did not agree with a word that he said on the vast majority of occasions, but we all found him exceedingly entertaining. I also pay tribute to the officials who were also involved in the Committee. They were exceedingly kind and helpful to me when I brought various drafting queries to their attention.
    May I leave the Minister or his officials with a little query? I hope that he will answer a question, and I am sure that he will write to me by tomorrow. This evening,
    996
    we voted through Government amendment No. 52, which amended paragraph 6(1) of schedule 1. I shall read, at this late hour, paragraph 6(1) as we have amended it:
    "Section 80 shall become subsection (1) of that section, and in that section, after that subsection, there shall be inserted—".
    I look forward to the Minister's response to and interpretation of that little amendment that we have voted through this evening.
    I commend the Bill to the House. There is much to be said for the police reforms that have been introduced. I repeat my plea that the Government carry the rank and file with them through consultation.
    9.50 pm
    Angela Watkinson: I am pleased to add my support to the broad cross-party support that the Bill has received. In a way, it is a shame that I am going to concentrate on the detention powers of community support officers, which has been the most controversial element of the Bill. As the Minister has said, however, the matter has been well rehearsed in Standing Committee but not on the Floor of the House.
    The Metropolitan police is one of the few forces to have supported this move. In a briefing note to the Home Affairs Committee, it described a hypothetical situation in which a community support officer has detained someone who refuses to give their personal details:
    "He tells the offender they must wait there with him until a police officer arrives, and puts in a call on his radio for a police officer to join him".
    I venture to suggest that that would be a very good moment for the suspect to make his escape. It continues:
    "The police dispatcher, knowing that having a person detained in a public place is a challenging situation with potential for disorder, gives the call priority and an officer arrives within a few minutes."
    A miracle indeed. If there were enough police officers available to respond so quickly, CSOs would not be needed. It continues:
    "Perhaps the offender objects to being detained and tries to leave … The CSO uses his or her training in the minimum use of force to prevent this, while, at the same time, putting in a further radio call to emphasise the urgency."
    That is pure fantasy. It would be funny if it were not so serious. I wonder whether the author of the briefing document has ever been on the streets.
    The detention of an unco-operative person is a difficult and possibly dangerous task. Will CSOs be required to inform the person that their powers of detention are limited to 30 minutes? What will happen on the 31st minute if a real constable has not attended the scene in time to make an arrest? Will it be necessary to let the suspect go? If so, the credibility of CSOs will be undermined in no time. What will happen if the CSO is assaulted or injured, as seems highly probable?
    The number of applications to the Metropolitan police from people wanting to be CSOs has been unexpectedly high, but the main reason given for not wanting to be a police officer is very worrying—they think that the job is too dangerous, and they do not want the responsibility. How, I wonder, will they cope?
    There is also a serious issue of recognition. The uniformed constable is easily recognised and impersonation of a police officer is an offence. CSOs would, therefore, need a uniform that is easily

    997
    distinguishable from that of a proper police officer. The public would need to know exactly what powers were invested in whom. I understand that the original plan for the Metropolitan police was to give them a uniform that was almost the same as, or barely distinguishable from, a police officer's uniform. I was reassured this week that they will wear a light blue uniform, and that they will therefore be easily distinguishable.
    In some areas, however, including Upminster in the London borough of Havering, community wardens are already employed by the council. They work in co-operation with the police, providing local intelligence and information. They are easily recognisable and nobody confuses them with the police. The introduction of yet another type of warden would cause confusion among members of the public.
    In evidence to the Select Committee, the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities all raised their concerns about CSOs. I share those concerns. The potential for problems with CSOs in dangerous and difficult situations is obvious, and the operational gain from four fully trained constables compared to six CSOs is enormous.
    Mr. Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Angela Watkinson: I am sorry, but I do not have time.
    I have been assured by the Prime Minister at Question Time and by the Minister in Select Committee that CSOs will not be imposed. However, the enthusiasm that the Prime Minister has subsequently shown for CSOs has made me less sure about the proposed funding arrangements. If the adoption of CSOs is to be truly optional, no form of ring-fenced funding should be used to penalise those police authorities that choose not to adopt them. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me and police authorities on that particular point in his summing up. The Metropolitan police is already busy recruiting CSOs.
    Mrs. Brooke: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Angela Watkinson: I am afraid that I do not have the time.
    The alarming rise in street and gun crime has added yet more urgent priorities to the tasks of the Metropolitan police. It is unable to respond to calls from the public about the youth disturbances, vandalism and graffiti that are low-level crime in police terms, but affect very seriously the quality of life of law-abiding people. The answer is not CSOs—it is more police constables. I would like the status of community policing to be raised within police forces with the reintroduction of beat policing, which my constituents ask for continually.
    The Metropolitan police in outer London boroughs also suffer from abstraction of their already inadequate numbers because of the need to help to police high-profile events in central London. That seriously affects the service to the public in constituencies, such as Upminster, where a visible uniformed presence cannot be sustained. Again, the answer is not CSOs—it is more police constables.
    998
    To stem the tide of rising crime, we need police forces that new recruits want to join and in which experienced officers want to stay. Morale was holed below the waterline by the accusation in the Macpherson report that the police were "institutionally racist"—an accusation that was deeply offensive to the vast majority of officers. If the police are to move forward and tackle the enormous increase in violent and drug-related crime, they need the confidence of the public and the backing of the criminal justice system and the Government. The Bill, in its amended form, will help them to do just that.
    9.58 pm
    Vernon Coaker: I briefly wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the Bill. I have followed it from afar and listened to one or two of the debates over the past couple of days. As he knows, the particular problem that I always raise is antisocial behaviour. Will he therefore undertake to keep under review the measures in the Bill that deal with that problem and ensure that we enforce the new provisions so that they work properly?
    9.59 pm
    Mr. Denham: With the leave of the House, I am pleased to say that we want to ensure that the new antisocial behaviour order provisions work effectively. To coincide with the commencement of the measures, we will introduce new guidance. I hope that it will also simplify procedures.
    I will not attempt to reply to the debate, but I am grateful to those hon. Members who thought that I was in command of my brief. This is the appropriate moment to thank my officials. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) will know, the difference between giving and not giving the impression that one is in control of one's brief depends largely on the work of the officials who keep us informed before our debates.
    I also wish to thank and pay tribute to the men and women who work in the police service. The debate is about them. They do a fantastic job, and we must be judged on whether the measures that we have agreed will help them to do their vital work in communities throughout the country in the weeks and months to come.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

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

  WORLD SUMMIT ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND AID FOR POVERTY DISEASES
  That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 7727/2/02, draft Council Conclusions for the preparation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development and No. 6863/02, draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on aid for poverty diseases (HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis) in developing countries; and welcomes the Government's approach to the World Summit and to discussions on differential pricing of medicines and other key issues.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

  GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD AND FEED
  That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 11576/01, draft Council Regulation on genetically modified food and feed and No. 11496/01, draft Council Regulation on the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms; and supports the Government's aim of securing practical, proportionate and enforceable legislation that also recognises the external impact, including that on developing countries.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) and Order [3 July],
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
  That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2002–03 and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2002–03 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  1000
  Division deferred till Wednesday 17 July, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001].
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the remaining motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the draft State Pension Credit Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
  INSOLVENCY
  That the draft Insolvency Act 1986 (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
  That the draft National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999 (Amendment) Regulations 2002. which were laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.
  FAMILY LAW
  That the draft Child Support Appeals (Jurisdiction of Courts) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.

  FAMILY LAW
  That the draft Child Support (Temporary Compensation Payment Scheme) (Modification and Amendment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 24th June, be approved.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Question agreed to.

Village Halls
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
10.1 pm
Matthew Taylor: I am delighted to have the opportunity to initiate this Adjournment debate. I have taken part in many such debates at two or three in the morning, but procedures have changed and tonight I cut short a dinner with my good friends, Martin and Miranda Thomas, because I was told that Third Reading would finish 45 minutes ago. Life never quite works out as planned.
The issue is important to Cornwall and other rural areas. Bugle village hall was built by volunteers at the end of world war one to commemorate those who died in the war. It is extremely well used. Everything from the panto, the Darby and Joan club, the toddlers group and bingo take place there, but all improvements are carried out by voluntary labour. It now needs a disabled toilet and disabled access, which alone will cost £20,000. The hall struggles to find even a small proportion of that in what is one of the poorest communities in Cornwall, which is itself one of the poorest communities in the country.
Penwithick has spent five or six years putting together fundraising events locally to get a community centre, but it cannot get the land because land prices have taken off in the past few years. The project has huge support. The community has held car boot sales, jumbles, sponsored swims and so on. It has the support of the local community council and St. Austell college, but the various funding organisations will not provide the funding for land so it is unable to proceed.
Village halls in Cornwall and across Britain are facing a crisis in funding that threatens their continued existence. Traditional sources of funding have gradually been eroded. Funding bodies that offered assistance have now withdrawn or changed the basis of their support in ways that create real difficulty for many vital institutions. I have primarily been alerted to the issues by Cornwall rural community council, which has done extensive work researching the situation in Cornwall. My concerns are also shared by Action with Communities in Rural England, the national body representing the rural community councils, which has done extensive research on the problem nationally.
I raised the problem with the former Secretary of State at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on 28 May. My concerns have been transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I await a reply. However, I am sure that the Minister will respond to the issues tonight.
Mr. John Burnett: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. It would be worth his knowing that in Devonshire some 60 halls are waiting, in vain it seems, for—11 million of assistance, which they are finding it impossible to get.
Matthew Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend. In a moment I will give the House some figures about Cornwall that will make a similar point.
I know that the Countryside Commission put out a press release today about some of its sources of funding, and I shall return to that later, but there is one issue that
1002
I want to pre-empt. The press release suggests that there has been a substantial increase in the number of village halls. That is purely a statistical change. It is not that there are more halls; it is only that the commission is including more buildings as halls. Sadly, we are not getting more halls. A great many are under threat of closure and some are in the process of closing.
To respond to my hon. Friend's point, the extensive village halls survey by the Cornwall rural community council shows that about £10 million of investment is required simply to bring village halls up to present day standards. We are talking not about expansion, great improvements or new services but about basics such as toilets that work, kitchens that meet current hygiene standards and, perhaps most fundamentally, roofs that do not leak. Approximately £6 million of that work is classed as urgent, and if the remaining £4 million of work does not take place, much of it will become urgent.
In addition to the rural community council research, we have the results of a similar survey conducted in 1998 by the Cornish millennium projects, which found that £13 million of investment was needed. Since then. £3 million of investment has come from that fund. That suggests that the more recent research is pretty accurate.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk): I have received similar representations from the Norfolk rural community council and from ACRE. Is my hon. Friend aware that, as well as the costs that he has mentioned, village halls face the 2004 implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? Its provisions on access to public places are creating additional concern because they come with a substantial price tag that many village halls simply will not be able to meet.
Matthew Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to raise similar concerns.
I do not want this debate to be only about Cornwall. If we take the figures for Cornwall and Devon and look at the ACRE research, we can extrapolate a figure of some £400 million of necessary capital investment. No one pretends that it is all needed overnight, and of course local fund-raising committees will run their jumble sales and bring-and-buy sales and access local funding. However, much of that funding cannot be put together without substantive Government support.
We should not forget that village halls are worth protecting as an asset. Their total value is estimated at over £1 billion. The average lifespan is already over 50 years and more than half are over 60 years old. As my hon. Friend suggested, current facilities are inadequate for modern use. Nationally, annual capital investment of roughly £20 million is required to cover replacement costs and another £20 million is needed to meet the rising demand for quality in facilities. That is on top of the figure of £400 million that I have already given for the backlog of urgent fundamental repairs to the structure of the buildings.
The problem, and the reason that I bring the matter to the House, is that the money available to village halls is being eroded just as their age is making the work far more urgent. That has not happened only under the present Government; it has been a process over many years. It reflects cuts in funding, some of which perhaps were necessary,

1003
but the overall effect has been to store up problems in an ageing asset. Many halls were built after the first and second world wars and now need that major capital investment, but there is no funding for it.
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a tremendous urgency about the situation? It affects the fabric of social life and the sustainability of village life. With the funds drying up at such a critical point, we need a package quickly, not in the next 10 years.
Matthew Taylor: For many village halls, the need is immediate. If communities cannot raise £50,000 or £100,000 to replace the roof, their only option is to allow the village hall to close. Once closed, it will not reopen. We all know the truth of that. The building will rapidly deteriorate and in most cases it will be sold.
I shall deal briefly with the sources of funding. Local authority funding to village halls in England has remained static at just over £5 million annually between 1981 and 2000. By definition, that is a significant decrease in the real value of that funding. At the same time, legislative requirements on health and safety and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Lamb) mentioned, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 must be met.
Almost half the county councils—16 of them—provide no funding at all. It is not and never has been a statutory duty, and as councils have had to focus on their statutory duties in respect of education, social services and so on, we all know that whichever parties have been running local authorities, many non-statutory duties have been drastically cut or have come to an end. The same is happening in the district and unitary authorities. The relevant figures are given in the ACRE "Status of Funding for Village Halls" report of January 2002.
Many local communities have sought national lottery funding. The millennium grants were a significant source of funding, but they have come to an end. The lottery's community fund national grant aid, which might have provided some funding, is coming down. Its grants strategy, as is the case generally, is focused on limited geographical areas or smaller amounts aimed at the delivery of specific functions or feasibility studies on expanding services. However, my concern is not the extension of services provided in village halls. I am worried about the existing structure or the loss of that structure, and the statutory requirements that must be met. Grants for that are no longer available from the community fund.
Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the Minister for kindly agreeing to allow me to intervene.
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that I have been contacted by Bedfordshire Rural Communities Charity. We look after some 100 village hall committees in Bedfordshire. The charity tells me that some £31 million was available a few years ago, and now only £13 million is available. Is the hon. Gentleman reassured—I am not
1004
sure that I am—by a recent letter that I received from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, which I have shown to the Minister? The letter tells me:
"Distributors confirmed that they were now finalising details on a trial scheme for the funding of multi-purpose community facilities which would be applicant-friendly with a single front door application system."
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that that may mean that village halls have some priority in that funding, or is he confused by the possibility that that wonderful single front door application system might conceal the fact that funding for village halls is rather less than it used to be?
Matthew Taylor: It is undoubtedly true that funding for village halls is somewhat less than it used to be. If we can bring funding schemes together and have a single front door—there has been such a scheme in the west midlands—it may be easier for the village hall committee to access it. That would be good news. However, if the money is not available once one goes through the door, it will not get the building work done.
The national village halls grants scheme was operated by the old Rural Development Commission. I was one of those who regretted the loss of the Rural Development Commission, which had a targeted role that worked extremely well in support of rural communities. It was replaced by the Countryside Agency and the national village halls grants scheme was axed. It has been replaced by community service grants, but those limit funding improvements to facilities that allow new services to be introduced, which is great in its own right, but does nothing to keep the hall open if the roof is falling in. That fund is down to £600,000, which is a drop in the ocean, compared with the sum that is needed. There is also a loans fund, which is even smaller—just £250,000 has been given out—but it attracts an 8 per cent. interest rate. For an agency tasked with strengthening rural communities, that is not much of a solution for anybody.
Andrew George: On funding for the future of village halls, I can speak from experience, having worked in that area in the period immediately before I was elected. Does my hon. Friend agree that over a period of years a fad has developed among grant schemes that are supported by Government or have Government involvement whereby they support not established, much appreciated services that people know and love, but only new innovations—and that only on the basis of being the funding of last resort.
Matthew Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend, who is extremely experienced in this area, having worked with Cornwall rural community council in the past. I know that he shares my concern that there has been a great move away from the fundamental capital funding that is needed to keep halls open when they are most in need of it.
I have let several hon. Members intervene, and I hope that they accept that I cannot let any more do so. I hope that the Minister will allow me an extra minute or two to make up for the time that I lost through interventions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): Injury time.
Matthew Taylor: I thank the Minister for that.

1005
Another problem with the Countryside Agency is its rather rigid definition of services—it will fund only services, and that does not include the basic structure of the hall. I know of a community in Cornwall in the next-door constituency to mine. It has a population of 220. They have managed to secure the shell of the building, but the Countryside Commission will not allow them to get it into a state to operate as a village hall because that is not in itself a service. That is nonsense; it is juggling with words.
Very few other sources of grant are available. The South West of England regional development agency provides no funding for village halls unless they can illustrate economic outputs—so they could put in a suite of computers for training, but could not repair the roof to keep the computers in working order. That is despite the fact that, as the rural community council survey shows, village halls can demonstrate that there are genuine economic outputs as a result of their basic day-to-day work, not least through the staff who are employed in helping to run them. Yet the RDA is simply unwilling to recognise that contribution, and this form of support from the Countryside Agency does not exist. European funding and other economic development funding is extremely hard to access for such basic services. In Cornwall, funding is wrapped into objective 1, which has not made a single grant to village halls on the ground that they do not fall within the economic development criteria with which objective 1 is charged.
These halls have scores of fundamental uses within the local community. One hall picked at random from the Cornwall survey had 72 separate uses, including sports, arts, cultural events, community events and meetings, lunch clubs, post offices, polling stations, wedding receptions, school events, Women's Institute events, farmers' markets, conferences, doctors' surgeries, blood transfusion services, police liaison, religious services and private hire. The list goes on, but time does not allow. The fundamental fact is that for many rural communities village halls are not a luxury—they are essential to their well-being. The venues create a valuable sense of community and help to prevent rural communities from being isolated.
If the buildings are allowed to fall into ruin, there is little chance of their being replaced. Lottery funding has introduced a regime whereby capital is readily available for most things, but running costs are not. Yet in the case that we are considering, capital is needed but not available. That is ironic. The village hall's basic revenue costs are next to nothing because it is run by volunteers, but it finds it almost impossible to gain access to the capital funding that it needs.
The problem is not new and, in some ways, the Minister is in the difficult position of having to catch up and resolve a funding difficulty that has been allowed to grow for far too long, but is now urgent. The Action with Communities in Rural England report, the Cornwall rural community council report and the wide support from hon. Members show that the problem requires immediate action. Rural Members of any party from any part of the country express the same anxieties.
I do not want village halls in my constituency to close, but I cannot tell them where they can find the money that they need. I hope that the Minister can do that.
10.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on securing the debate and making an important case about the role of village halls and community centres. The Government acknowledge that they are often the hubs of village life. We understand their importance and the hon. Gentleman's case.
I read the Cornwall village hall survey with interest. It contained much that is important for all rural Members to note. Although it confirms the importance of village halls, the survey also stated that many are not achieving their potential as community resources. For example, it mentioned that they are often under-utilised, especially during the day.
Matthew Taylor: Because of poor facilities.
Mr. Morley: There are several reasons that we need to consider. The report provides important lessons, and I have a great deal of respect for ACRE and its work. We give its submissions careful attention.
We have supported the development of active communities, and village halls provide a location for a range of community services and activities. They are generally eligible for some funding towards necessary improvements or modifications. The available evidence shows an increase in village halls and meeting places, as reported in the Countryside Agency's rural services survey in 2000. It shows that 85 per cent. of parishes had such a facility in 2000, compared with 72 per cent. in 1997. That shows the impact of lottery money. It also demonstrates that community centres and village halls have increased rapidly in the past few years.
Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman has squeezed me, but as it is his Adjournment debate, I shall give way.
Matthew Taylor: I am sure that the Minister believes that the statistics that he cited show an increase in halls. I ask him to query that, because the definition has changed to include other community centres. If the Minister asks his officials after the debate, I am sure that they will confirm that. I do not want to make a political point, I simply want him to check afterwards.
Mr. Morley: I agree, but it is important that communities have a centre, whether it is a hall or a community centre. The facility rather than its exact definition is important. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees. That does not detract from the fact that the survey shows that village halls and meeting places are increasing. That is due to a substantial increase in the money that has been made available.
We are discussing the problems. There is a need to improve data collection and consider the funding for village halls to establish need. I take the hon. Gentleman's point that we are considering a capital issue. In many cases, it is easier to support through capital rather than through running costs.
I live in a village, where support from the town council and the local council meant that it could buy a redundant school and convert it into a village hall. That was

1007
achieved mainly through activities in the community. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that people should depend on outside funding. There is a role for active communities in raising money, but that is not to say that there should be no such support. In recent years, there has been a big increase because of the lottery. In the 1980s, about £10 million was spent, compared with about £50 million at the peak in the mid-1990s. There has been a slight fall, but the most recent figure that I have, which is for 2000, is £31.4 million.
Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister give way very quickly?
Mr. Morley: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am afraid that I cannot.
That is a significant increase. Indeed, ACRE's report on the financing of village halls, which I have in front of me, shows that the increase in the funds made available in the past few years has been dramatic.
Mr. Burnett: It has dried up.
Mr. Morley: It has fallen back, but the suggestion that it has dried up is misleading. The 2000 figures are six times greater than those for the beginning of the 1990s, which bumped along at a very low level. I commend the report to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell and suggest that he look at the situation that it describes. Although I am not saying that no issues are involved, anyone seeking to make a big case about the fact that there has been a gigantic increase in funding that has fallen back a bit in comparison with very low funding for very long periods should put the matter in perspective. Record sums have been going in in comparatively recent times and the number of facilities for villages has increased since 1997.
Those are the figures that we have. As the hon. Gentleman said, the village halls loans fund is available for use and is administered by ACRE on behalf of the Countryside Agency. The fund can provide loans towards capital improvements such as maintenance, extensions or rebuilding costs. The Countryside Agency can also offer assistance through the community service grants scheme, which he mentioned. That assistance is delivered through the vital villages programme and can help to fund an alteration or extension of a village hall or other community building where it will provide a new or extended service to the community.
The community fund, a lottery distribution body that distributes lottery funds on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is the main source of funding
1008
for village halls, and accounts for the significant increase in recent years. That funding alone accounts for about £18 million of the £31.4 million that was available in 2000. Other sources of public funding include local authorities, regional development agencies and the Sports Council.
I accept that there are caveats. Of course, the criteria must be met and the process depends very much on the nature of the application. However, that is all part of community activity and of local communities determining priorities and activities in the halls and centres where those activities are focused. None the less, considerable funds are still available. Even though there has been a decline in lottery money, the amount provided is still a considerable improvement on what was given in the past.
There has been a meeting with the DCMS. Indeed, it was dealt with in the letter cited by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt); I accept that the use of language was interesting. The meeting was held to consider the detail of the analysis provided by ACRE in relation to the £50 million shortfall—or, rather, the amount that it has identified as being needed for modernisation and repairs. There is a feeling inside the DCMS and among lottery fund providers that, although they do not dispute the justification for funding, repairs and maintenance, especially on large capital programmes, the £50 million figure needs to be broken down. There needs to be some examination of how the figures have been arrived at, so that we can have a more accurate picture of the needs of village halls and communities.
In conclusion, there is no disagreement in the Government with the case made by hon. Members about the importance of village halls, community centres and community meeting places. Such places are a focus and hub for communities and we want to support them. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is sometimes easy to overstate the case about a fall-back on what has been a very large increase in the funds available. A number of Government bodies and Departments are involved in relation to the lottery providers and distributors, and they include DEFRA in respect of its various rural action programmes. It is not unreasonable that they need to discuss with ACRE and other interested bodies the scale of the problem and decide what action can be taken to deal with the matter through a partnership approach that recognises that the strength of the facilities is measured by the strength of the support that they have in communities in making them work and ensuring that they are part of the community and a focus for community activities.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

Deferred Divisions

  INVESTIGATORY POWERS
  That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Human Intelligence Sources: Code of Practice) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 194.

  Division No. 301]

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Crausby, David

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Allen, Graham

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Cummings, John

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Austin, John

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bailey, Adrian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Barnes, Harry

  David, Wayne

  Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

  Davidson, Ian

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Beggs, Roy

  Dawson, Hilton

  Benton, Joe

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Berry, Roger

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Betts, Clive

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Blackman, Liz

  Dismore, Andrew

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Blizzard, Bob

  Doran, Frank

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dowd, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Edwards, Huw

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bryant, Chris

  Etherington, Bill

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Burden, Richard

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Burnham, Andy

  Hint, Caroline

  Bumside, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Cairns, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foulkes, George

  Caplin, Ivor

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Casale, Roger

  Gapes, Mike

  Caton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Challen, Colin

  Gilroy, Linda

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chaytor, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clelland, David

  Hanson, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coleman, lain

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Heppell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hermon, Lady

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hill, Keith

  Corston, Jean

  Hodge, Margaret

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoey, Kate

  1010

  Hood, Jimmy

  Meale, Alan

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Merron, Gillian

  Hope, Phil

  Miliband, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mole, Chris

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moran, Margaret

  Hume, John

  Morgan, Julie

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Morley, Elliot

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Illsley, Eric

  Mullin, Chris

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jamieson, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Organ, Diana

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Owen, Albert

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Joyce, Eric

  Pearson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Perham, Linda

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Picking, Anne

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kelly, Ruth

  Pike, Peter

  Kemp, Fraser

  Plaskitt, James

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pond, Chris

  Kidney, David

  Pope, Greg

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworih)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Lammy, David

  Purnell, James

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Laxton, Bob

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lepper, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rapson, Syd

  Levitt, Tom

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Linton, Martin

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  Lucas, Ian

  Roy, Frank

  Luke, lain

  Ruane, Chris

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCabe, Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Ryan, Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  MacDonald, Calum

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McDonnell, John

  Sawford, Phil

  MacDougall, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McFall, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sheridan, Jim

  McIsaac, Shona

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McKechin, Ann

  Singh, Marsha

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Soley, Clive

  Mann, John

  Southworth, Helen

  Marris, Rob

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  1011

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Stringer, Graham

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Sutclitfe, Gerry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Tami, Mark

  Ward, Claire

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Watts, David

  Taylor. David (NW Leics)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Wilson, Brian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Winnick, David

  Todd, Mark

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Touhig, Don

  Woodward, Shaun

  Trickett, Jon

  Woolas, Phil

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Worthington, Tony

  Truswell, Paul

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Flook, Adrian

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bacon, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Baker, Norman

  Francois, Mark

  Barker, Gregory

  Gale, Roger

  Baron, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Barrett, John

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gibb, Nick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gidley, Sandra

  Bercow, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Goodman, Paul

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gray, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Grayling, Chris

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Brady, Graham

  Greenway, John

  Brake, Tom

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Brazier, Julian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Breed, Colin

  Hammond, Philip

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Hancock, Mike

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Harvey, Nick

  Bums, Simon

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burstow, Paul

  Hayes, John

  Burt, Alistair

  Heald, Oliver

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Heath, David

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Hendry, Charles

  Cameron, David

  Hoban, Mark

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Holmes, Paul

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Horam, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Chidgey, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Collins, Tim

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Conway, Derek

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

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

  'Cotter, Brian

  Cran, James

  Key, Robert

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dodds, Nigel

  Lamb, Norman

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Laws, David

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, Nigel

  Letwin, Oliver

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lidington, David

  1012

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Sanders, Adrian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Loughton, Tim

  Selous, Andrew

  Luff, Peter

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Simmonds, Mark

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Spink, Bob

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Spring, Richard

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mercer, Patrick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Swire, Hugo

  Moore, Michael

  Syms, Robert

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Oaten, Mark

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Page Richard

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Paice, James

  Tyler, Paul

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Paterson, Owen

  Walter, Robert

  Pickles, Eric

  Waterson, Nigel

  Price, Eric

  Watkinson, Angela

  Prisk, Mark

  Webb, Steve

  Prisk, Mark

  Weir, Michael

  Pugh, Dr John

  Whittingdale, John

  Randall, John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wiggin, Bill

  Reid, Alan

  Wilkinson, John

  Rendel, David

  Willetts, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Wilshire, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wishart, Pete

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  INVESTIGATORY POWERS
  That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Covert Surveillance: Code of Practice) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.
  The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 194.

  Division No. 302]

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Borrow, David

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brennan, Kevin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Austin, John

  Bailey, Adrian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Barnes, Harry

  Bryant, Chris

  Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Burden, Richard

  Beggs, Roy

  Burgon, Colin

  Benton, Joe

  Burnham, Andy

  Berry, Roger

  Bumside, David

  Betts, Clive

  Cairns, David

  Blackman, Liz

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  1013

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Hanson, David

  Cawsey, Ian

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Challen, Colin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Chaytor, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Heppell, John

  Hermon, Lady

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Hill, Keith

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clelland, David

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hope, Phil

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Coleman, lain

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hume, John

  Corston, Jean

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Cranston, Ross

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Crausby, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Cruddas, Jon

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  David, Wayne

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Joyce, Eric

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kelly, Ruth

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M

  Khabra, Piara S

  Doran, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Dowd, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Drown, Ms Julia

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Efford, Clive

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lammy, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Etherington, Bill

  Laxton, Bob

  field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lepper, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Levitt, Tom

  Flint, Caroline

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Flynn, Paul

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Follett, Barbara

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Love, Andrew

  Foulkes, George

  Lucas, Ian

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Luke, lain

  Gapes, Mike

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCafferty, Chris

  Gilroy, Linda

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Godsiff, Roger

  MacDonald, Calum

  Goggins, Paul

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  MacDougall, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McFall, John

  Grogan, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McIsaac, Shona

  1014

  McKechin, Ann

  Roy, Frank

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Ruane, Chris

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McWalter, Tony

  Ryan, Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sawford, Phil

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mann, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marris, Rob

  Sheridan, Jim

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Miliband, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mole, Chris

  Soley, Clive

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Southworth, Helen

  Moran, Margaret

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morgan, Julie

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mountford, Kali

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mullin, Chris

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Tami, Mark

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Olner, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Organ, Diana

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Owen, Albert

  Todd, Mark

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Touhig, Don

  Pearson, Ian

  Trickett, Jon

  Perham, Linda

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Picking, Anne

  Truswell, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pike, Peter

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pond, Chris

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pope, Greg

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pound, Stephen

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Ward, Claire

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Watts, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Pumell, James

  Wilson, Brian

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Winnick, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rammell, Bill

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rapson, Syd

  Woolas, Phil

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Worthington, Tony

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wyatt, Derek

  Rooney, Terry

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Bellingham, Henry

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Bercow, John

  Atkinson, David (Bour"mth E)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Bacon, Richard

  Boswell, Tim

  Baker, Norman

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Barker, Gregory

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Baron, John

  Brady, Graham

  Barrett, John

  Brake, Tom

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Brazier, Julian

  1015

  Breed, Colin

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Goodman, Paul

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gray, James

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Grayling, Chris

  Bums, Simon

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Burstow, Paul

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, John

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Cameron, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

  Hancock, Mike

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Harvey, Nick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Chidgey, David

  Hayes, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Heath, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Collins, Tim

  Hoban, Mark

  Conway, Derek

  Holmes, Paul

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Horam, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

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

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon lain

  Key, Robert

  Evans, Nigel

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Fabricant, Michael

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Fallon, Michael

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Flook, Adrian

  Lamb, Norman

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Laws, David

  Francois, Mark

  Leigh, Edward

  Gale, Roger

  Letwin, Oliver

  Garnier, Edward

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lidington, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Gidley, Sandra

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  1016

  Loughton, Tim

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Luff, Peter

  Selous, Andrew

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Simmonds, Mark

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

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

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Spink, Bob

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Spring, Richard

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mercer, Patrick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Moore, Michael

  Swire, Hugo

  Moss, Malcolm

  Syms, Robert

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Oaten, Mark

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Öpik, Lembit

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Page, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Paice, James

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Tyler, Paul

  Paterson, Owen

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Walter, Robert

  Price, Adam

  Waterson, Nigel

  Prisk, Mark

  Watkinson, Angela

  Pugh, Dr John

  Webb, Steve

  Weir, Michael

  Randall, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Reid, Alan

  Wiggin, Bill

  Rendel, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Wilshire, David

  Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macdesfield)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Wishart, Pete

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sanders, Adrian

  Qusestion accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Female Prisoners
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Caplin.]
9.30 am
Claire Ward: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister established the social exclusion unit because he recognised the clear link between the lack of housing, opportunity and education and the high levels of poverty suffered by some people in our society and the degree of crime and lawlessness. I want to draw attention to those people who are among the most socially excluded in our society—girls and young women from disadvantaged, deprived and depressed environments who become victims under our criminal justice system. I do not condone the crimes that they commit, be they shoplifting, robbery or serious assault, or query why they are being punished, but I question the response of a criminal justice system that takes vulnerable children—as many of them are—and puts them in prison, which cannot possibly meet their needs or help them to build a better life.
We will always need prisons. It is right that society should be able to remove the freedom of those who commit serious crimes, as a punishment and to protect the public from harm. However, wherever possible, prison must also offer offenders the chance to be rehabilitated back into the community. The concept of rehabilitation is all the more important when the offender is only 15 or 16 years of age, having committed a crime perhaps a year earlier. Such young people have their lives ahead of them and, with help and guidance, they may become good and valuable citizens in our community. Without that guidance, however, they may spiral further into the depths of lawlessness.
It is particularly important to consider the needs of young women and girls within the criminal justice system and distinguish them from the needs of male prisoners. Females are less likely to commit crime than men and when they do, their crimes tend to be less violent and they are less likely to be a risk to the general public. For example, many of the assaults committed by women are on people they know and are often a reaction to having suffered prolonged periods of sexual or physical abuse. That is not an excuse for the crime, but we must understand the motives and the difference between those crimes and violent crimes committed by men.
The state has provided a limited number of penal establishments for women because so few women, especially young girls, commit crimes that require custodial sentences. Consequently, women prisoners tend to end up further away from their families and homes than male prisoners. They suffer much greater isolation in custody because access to their families may be more restricted. It is worth noting that more than half
244WH
of the women in our prisons have children, who are often left behind when their main carer is taken into custody.
Women prisoners tend to display more symptoms of depression and mental health problems. Many suffer from mental illness. Self harm or cutting up is fairly common among women prisoners, but few prisons can cope with it. Such women need help, not incarceration. Their crimes are often the result of their mental instability. In addition to mental health problems, women prisoners show high levels of drink and drug dependency.
Ann Owers, the chief inspector of prisons, suggested in her recent report that a crisis is brewing because of the lack of capacity and poor standards in women's prisons. The Youth Justice Board designated 12 places at Eastwood Park prison to hold girls under 18 years of age. Inspectors describe that prison as an establishment in crisis. In one month, there had been 47 cases of self harm and more than 50 cases of people having been identified as at risk from suicide. Despite the commitment and dedication of the staff, few were qualified to deal with young girls or with the high levels of mental illness and vulnerability that are so common in women 's prisons. The chief inspector commented that the fact that the number of those prisoners was increasing was nothing short of scandalous. Although designated to hold 12 girls, Eastwood Park had 14 girls in its care in March this year. Although the numbers fluctuate, it is frequently overcrowded. Girls are then accommodated with adults, which is a clear breach of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and, in all likelihood, unlawful in English law following the Flood judgment.
The inspectors met all 12 girls under the age of 18 at Eastwood Park and concluded:
"it was impossible not to be struck by the profound personality disturbance and mental health problems that many presented and by the inappropriateness of prison, or indeed any other custodial placement for them."
Eastwood Park is not the only prison taking more young girls than it can properly accommodate. On Monday, I visited Bullwood Hall in Essex—a women's prison and young offenders institution. The Youth Justice Board funds 28 places at Bullwood Hall for girls aged 15 to 18. However, the governor confirmed this week that, due to increased demand, he had unlocked 50 units and was now accommodating 22 more juveniles. Consequently, some of the young girls will be accommodated on wings with adults over 18 where prison officers may not have the experience or training to deal with vulnerable juveniles.
Holloway prison has no operational capacity for juveniles, but last Friday it was accommodating seven sentenced girls and another six on remand—further evidence that our prison system is ill-prepared for the increasing number of young girls being imprisoned by our courts.
I was impressed by the commitment of the staff and the governor of Bullwood Hall. They try to provide the best possible environment for the juveniles within the limits of their funding and the power that they have. However, it does not matter how committed and genuine the prison staff are if the environment is unsuitable for young girls.

245WH
I had the opportunity to talk to some of the girls during my visit, and what struck me most was the common thread that ran through each of their lives. Miss A is 16 years old. She spent the first few days of her sentence in Holloway prison, which she described as disgusting—a view shared by all the girls that I met. Bullwood Hall is keen to take girls who have been sentenced straight from court. Unfortunately, they often spend the first few days in the adult women's prison in Holloway, in which the regime is extremely harsh and where the conditions are especially difficult for those serving their first prison sentence.
Having been moved to Bullwood Hall, Miss A. was understandably missing her family. Her mother is trying to raise the other children, does not drive, and is unable to fund the cost of travel by train to visit her due to low income. The isolation from their families that prisoners experience makes it difficult to maintain close contact. Although many of the girls at Bullwood Hall come from London and the home counties, some come from as far away as Liverpool or Manchester. Some co me from Wales, which has no women's prisons. It is no wonder that their families find it difficult to keep in touch.
For many of the young girls, however, home is the last place that they should or could be. Miss B., for example, is also 16. Her father is in prison and her mother, who suffers from depression and alcohol dependency, is being evicted. Miss B. does not see her family and found it difficult to cope when she first arrived at Bullwood Hall. Officers tried to explain the procedures and rules to her and she was given an information booklet, but with her limited education—she was expelled from school—she admits to not understanding much of it. She told me that being left to cry alone in her cell on those first few nights was horrible.
Miss B. described her daily routine, which included being locked in a cell from 8.15 pm to 8 am and having to ask permission to go to the toilet during the night. When she is finally discharged, the accommodation arranged for her by the probation service will be crucial to her ability to escape the life that she has led so far. Her most striking observations of prison life were about what she had witnessed—girls of her own age on hard drugs such as crack cocaine and heroin, which she had never seen before. She had gained a new knowledge of drugs and other crimes. Girls would relate stories of offences that they had committed and for which they had not been caught, which suggested that it was possible to commit a crime and get away with it. Further exposure to crime was not helping the girl, but expanding her knowledge of crime.
All the girls said that being away from their family and friends was the hardest part to endure. However, questioning revealed that some of them could not return to their families on release. They also knew that if there was to be a chance of their leading a better life, they had to be away from the neighbourhood and environment that had influenced their criminal behaviour in the past.
Many of the girls have received little guidance in their young lives. Their parents have not set boundaries, and they have not been allowed to grow up with the rules that most of us accept as fundamental to the structure
246WH
of our lives. As one girl said, she found it hard in prison because, "I am not used to people telling me what to do. I am used to doing what I want."
Many of the girls are first offenders. Their crime may be sufficiently serious to warrant detention, but evidence suggests that courts do not always take into account all alternative forms of punishment before considering a custodial sentence, which should always be the court's last resort. If detention is appropriate, people in that age group—15, 16 and 17-year-olds—should be held in local authority secure accommodation, where they can receive appropriate help and support under a regime that provides strict boundaries while recognising that such people are teenagers, not adults.
The Youth Justice Board requires that all girls under the age of 18 be provided with a minimum of 15 hours of education a week. For some of the girls, that is the most intensive education that they will have received for some time. One 16-year-old girl to whom I spoke had not attended school since she was 11. Is it any wonder that she found life difficult?
Although accredited work and education must be provided to under-18s, it is not a requirement for young offenders. Therefore 18 to 21-year-olds can be required to undertake work that will do little to further their education and training opportunities. There is no requirement for the staff who look after them to have any specialist training in dealing with young people. Young offenders are an equally vulnerable group who are at a point in life at which the right support, education and training opportunities could ensure that following their discharge from prison they lead a valuable and law-abiding life.
Many of the girls are serving sentences of less than six months, and some just a few weeks. Such sentences are too short to make a real difference to their education and training opportunities, but are long enough to create an obstacle to their future employment. The very fact that they have been in custody may deter future employers, landlords and others from offering them assistance.
On 14 December 1999, the Minister then responsible for prisons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, reiterated a commitment made by a previous Home Secretary that from
"April 2000, 15 and 16 year old girls will be placed in local authority care, not in prison. In the longer term sentenced young women aged 17 will also be placed outside Prison Service custody."
That commitment was reinforced by the Youth Justice Board's plan to make it a priority to place all young women outside adult prisons by mid-2002.
The latest Home Office figures for May this year suggest that that has not yet happened: eight female 15-year-olds, 29 16-year-olds and 81 17-year?olds were being held in prison. Indeed, since 1999, the number of girls aged under 18 in prison has risen, from 86 to 120 this year. The rise in custodial sentences should be contrasted with the fall in recorded crimes committed by 15 to 17-year-old girls. By continuing the practice of holding juveniles with adults in adult prisons, the Government breach the UN convention on the rights of the child. That cannot be right.

247WH
The evidence about the unsuitability of prison for girls and young women has been known for some time. In 1997, the Howard League for Penal Reform—for whose support I am grateful and of whose advisory council I am a member—published the results of a year-long inquiry into the use of prison custody for girls. I urge the Minister to read that report, digest the case studies and consider implementing the recommendations. Surely those vulnerable young people should be afforded the protection of the Children Act 1989. Why do we continue to operate a policy in contravention of the United Nations convention?
I started my speech by referring to the social exclusion unit, which is incredibly important. It shows how the Government think that we should tackle the real problems in our society. If we are to reduce crime, we have to consider the factors that create an environment in which people commit crime, and those are the very issues being addressed by the social exclusion unit. Poverty, homelessness, debt, mental illness, unemployment and drug and alcohol misuse are factors that can have an influence. Many of the young girls that I am talking about are vulnerable, misguided children, not evil calculating adults. They need help as well as punishment. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
9.45 am
Paul Flynn: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward) on securing this debate on a subject of great importance. I was made aware of the issue by a book by Angela Devlin called "Invisible Women: What's Wrong with Women's Prisons". It revealed the dreadful situation in our women's prisons. That book was published in 1998, and the issue was then raised in Parliament in several ways. I think that we are aware that there have been improvements since then.
The increasing prison population is inexplicable and extremely worrying. Only a few years ago, the prison population was 42,000, and it is now a record 71,000. That means that 132 people per 100,000 of the population are in prison. It puts the United Kingdom in the top two or three of the 43 countries of the Council of Europe. The only country with a worse record is the United States, where the figure is 700 people per 100,000. The average figure among the Council of Europe countries is about 50 per 100,000, but our prison population goes on increasing, expensively and to the detriment of the country, although few of us believe that prison works.
An extremely worrying feature of life in prison, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, is the number of young women who react to their plight by mutilating themselves. That is a common reaction to abuse. Young women who go to prison are likely to have been abused by society, their partners or their families. The almost universal treatment for those who mutilated themselves used to be neuroleptic drugs, which are overused in residential homes for the elderly, and are meant for the deeply psychotic. Their use was so common in prisons that young women on those drugs were known by the cruel epithet of "muppets", because they walked strangely. I hope that that practice has ended, but it was difficult to break through the closed
248WH
communities in which everyone supported everyone else. The prison doctor, the governors and so on tended to work together.
In Holland there have been many reforms that we could copy, one of which is that when women are sentenced to prison, they can, if they choose, have a period of about a fortnight before they start their sentence. Nothing could be worse than when a mother kisses goodbye to her children in the morning and does not appear when they come home from school. Many sentences are unexpected, and the chaos and disruption that results from that is completely unnecessary. Very few women prisoners are violent or dangerous in the way that many male prisoners are. That reform could—and, I believe, should—be introduced as an urgent priority.
A report by the chief inspector of prisons has been mentioned. Time and again, the previous chief inspector reported I hat there was no need for most of the women in prison to be there. Reports have given examples of women who had committed the most trivial offences and, because they had a long record of previous convictions, were imprisoned.
Most women are in prison for reasons such as debt, and our society encourages debt. Idiotic advertisements saturate daytime television, telling people that if they have debts, they should not worry because they can ring a certain advice firm, and solve all their problems. Those firms actually multiply debt and increase the period of indebtedness, but they lull people into a false sense of thinking that debts do not matter. Often, the debts are not magicked away, but people who have got into debt—often for loving reasons because they have been looking after their families—find themselves in prison. Our record on that is dreadful.
Communities in prison are often dominated by gangsterism. Prison society used to be run by tobacco barons, but it is now dominated by drugs. Many prisons have a dreadful atmosphere, and there are practices that I would not want to go into today. The punishments that we mete out, especially to women prisoners, are often cruel and barbaric because we separate mothers from their toddlers and babies. We have heard that women react to imprisonment more seriously than most men do and find it more damaging. We hear about women entering prison as shoplifters and leaving as drug addicts. Some women enter prison as cannabis users. People are complaining that we are about to announce today a change in the law that allows people to be sentenced to 14 years in jail for some cannabis crimes—murder carries an equivalent sentence. We have sent women to prison for using soft drugs, and they have come out addicted to hard drugs. We cannot provide a single prison—for women or men—that is free from illegal drug use. There are occasionally drug-free wings, but we put people into prisons in which it is often easier to obtain drugs than on the streets.
This debate is very important. The Minister has talked about the dreadful record on not only mutilation, but suicide attempts by women in prison and the way in which they suffer. We have a very poor record as a Parliament and a country on the increasing female prison population.

249WH
The ninth commandment of Back Benchers is that we should neglect the rich, the obsessed and the articulate, and seek out silent voices. Few voices are quieter than those of women in prison. The situation is an awful example of man's inhumanity to women.
9.52 am
Jean Corston: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward) on securing the debate. I am grateful for being able to participate.
Between 1995 and 1997, I was a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. During one of the Committee's inquiries, I visited many prisons in both this country and the United States. Owing to my interest in the subject, I have visited other prisons including, notably, Eastwood Park, with my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). We were both very worried about the conditions of the women who were held there. We made that visit before 1997, and I attest to the truth of what my hon. Friends have said about the conditions of women in prison, the reasons why they are there and the catastrophic effects that prison has on them and their children.
I shall confine my remarks to two narrow subjects, but first I congratulate the Government on setting up the women's policy group in January 1998. The matters that it is considering show that several lessons have been learnt.
An occasion in the Chamber that I shall never forget was when the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) attempted to justify the shackling of pregnant women prisoners. It is fair to say that she got a pretty severe roasting from female Labour Members. She found the position hard to defend. I am pleased by the new arrangements for the treatment of pregnant women when they go into labour that have been introduced since we came to power. I understand that now all restraints should be removed when they are in hospital, and replaced only when they leave. I was amused to discover that prison officers can be present in the delivery room, or during an intimate examination, only if that is requested by the prisoner. I cannot imagine that such a request would be made, but at least it is no longer required that a prison officer should be present at all times.
Women who are pregnant and have their babies in prison face considerable difficulties. Throughout the country, there are only 64 places for them in mother and baby units, although I gather that 24 further places are planned—two 12-bed units. As a result, they have to travel great distances.
In Holloway and New Hall, women can keep their babies with them for up to nine months, whereas in Askham Grange and Styal they can keep their children with them until they are 18 months old. After that time, if the women have not completed their sentences, their babies are taken away from them—an 18-month-old child is still a baby. It is only when one talks to inmates in prisons such as Holloway that one realises what that means. Many of the women prisoners have had babies
250WH
when they were very young. I will never forget talking to one young mother as I went around the unit at Holloway. I asked her how old her baby was. She replied, "Eight months." She looked haunted and traumatised. I asked her if she had other children, and she said that she did. That was when I realised that she would have to decide in four weeks' time whether to give up the baby at nine months so that she could stay in Holloway and be near her other children, or apply to go to either Askham Grange or Styal so that she could stay with the baby until eighteen months but risk losing contact with her other children who lived in the southeast. That is an intolerable position to put anyone in. If that does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, I do not know what does.
It is impossible for women who are in that position to discharge their responsibilities as parents in a meaningful way. I acknowledge that they are in prison because they have committed crimes but, as several of my hon. Friends have said, the types of crimes for which women are imprisoned are generally quite trivial. I met women in Holloway who had been imprisoned for not paying their bills; they were in prison because, eventually, debt becomes a criminal offence—although there are conventions that say that nobody should be imprisoned for debt.
Reference has also been made to self harm. I wish to recount an unpleasant incident that happened when I was at Eastwood Park, because I want people to understand what self harm can mean to the prisoners who harm themselves, their fellow prisoners and prison staff. Several years ago, there was a young woman who was severely psychotic at Eastwood Park. She had had an abdominal operation some time before. One night, she took off her bra and used its hook to open up the wound and disembowel herself. The other prisoners realised that this was happening, and the prison officer who went into her cell to see what the noise was about, was, as anyone could understand, utterly traumatised by what she saw. That woman should not have been in prison. She was severely mentally ill. She had been convicted of a crime and I can only presume that that had something to do with her illness.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Cook—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I would be remiss in my responsibilities were I not to remind hon. Members that the House, in its wisdom, took the decision when establishing this parallel Chamber that the four senior members of the Chairmen's Panel be appointed Deputy Speakers of Westminster Hall. While occupying this Chair, they should be referred to in those terms.
Jean Corston: I am grateful for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In concluding my remarks, I quote from this year's prisons handbook an article headed, "Viewpoint: Women Prisoners". It is by Lisa Edwards, a serving prisoner at Cookham Wood, and says:
"The penal system is geared to men, not women; this needs to be addressed. There are several courses on offer in the male prisons that are not available in the female prisons. This is not good enough. Female lifers have as much right to be rehabilitated as men do."

251WH
She continues:
"We need more education, courses on drug and alcohol awareness, anger management, relationships, offending behaviour and victim awareness, as well as life and social skills."
At this point, I declare an interest as one of the trustees of an educational charity called Award Scheme Development Accreditation Network, known by its acronym, ASDAN. It provides education in life skills to thousands of students in schools and colleges all over the country. I have seen the effects of its work and can only say to my hon. Friend the Minister that that kind of education should be more widely available in prisons.
Lisa Edwards goes on to say:
"We need help to help ourselves once released. Give us jobs in prison that will actually aid us outside, not mind numbing jobs like packing plastic spoons! Teach us new skills that we can use … Don't place us in prisons hundreds of miles away from family and friends. It is so important to maintain the bond with your children. Just because you are in prison, it doesn't mean you stop being a mother."
Of course, when those women leave prison, they could be sitting on the bus alongside any of us, or serving us at a supermarket checkout. They could be working in all kinds of jobs where we could come face to face with them. Surely it is in our interests, if those women are to be imprisoned, to make that an experience that allows them some opportunity for reform and life-chance, not just one that focuses on retribution.
10.3 am
Lynne Jones: I have not had an opportunity to prepare for this debate. I am disappointed to come into this Chamber and discover that so few Members are interested in this very important subject. I want to emphasise the point that some hon. Friends have made about the large proportion of women prisoners who are in prison simply because they are poor and cannot afford to pay their debts.
I did a great deal of research on that pre-1997, and introduced a private Member's Bill that would have removed the option of sending fine defaulters to prison simply because they could not pay their debts. So many women are sent to prison not because they are wilfully refusing to pay debts but because they are unable to meet their commitments. That is termed culpable neglect by the courts, but much research has been done that shows that it happens simply because people are poor and unable to face up to their commitments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) graphically illustrated how people can get into debt when they are desperate and fall prey to loan sharks and other temptations that more robust and less poor individuals might be able to avoid. I am very disappointed that women in particular—but also men—are being sent to prison because they are poor and cannot afford to meet their fines. Of course, such individuals should receive some punishment, but I do not see why that could not take place in the community where they could repay society. It costs hundreds of pounds a week to send people to jail because they are poor. However, if we helped them to manage their finances better, and provided for some kind of punishment in the community so that people could contribute to society through work and other
252WH
endeavours, we would be a more civilised society. We would also prevent further decline, such as lapses into mental illness and family breakdown, which occurs as a result of so many poor women with mental health difficulties being sent to prison.
Only last week another private Member's Bill was introduced to prevent people from being jailed for debt and fine default. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will dwell to some extent on that issue. I would like a commitment from the Government that they intend to bring in legislation to prevent fine defaulters from be ng sent to prison and introduce alternative community punishments. Even if it is not possible to introduce legislation in the near future, signals from Minister; and guidance to magistrates courts on the issue of culpable neglect would be very welcome. I invite the Minister to respond to that point.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps it would be useful if I were to advise the House of an opinion registered collectively on the Chairmen's Panel. Let me start by reminding hon. Members that this debate is scheduled to go no longer than 11 o'clock. The common convention in the past has been that the three winding-up speeches start 30 minutes before that, with those 30 minutes split equally between the three concluding speakers. In this event, Members will see that there are 53 minutes remaining, and the Chairman's Panel has been anxious that that equality of apportionment be maintained because it has been known for some speakers to run over quite a bit, thereby creating a situation that is considered unfair. Might I make it clear that Front-Bench speakers, of whom there are three, will be admonished if they exceed a third of that time. They do not have to take all of it, but they are not to overrun, if I might put it in those terms. I am grateful for your attention.
10.8 am
Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I do not think that I will be taking a third of the time because I do not intend to speak for the sake of it.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward). She has raised issues of extreme importance this morning, and the moving stories from the case studies to which she referred contributed greatly to the whole debate. We have had many other contributions that to me, as a new Member, have been stark and frightening, but underline what the debate is really about.
I started considering the issue by looking at the prison population as a whole. The latest figure that I have, which is perhaps not the actual latest figure, is 71,360 people in prison, sadly. I started to think about the different, overlapping subsets within that total. I was wondering how many would be left if one identified all prisoners with sentences less than 12 months, and all those with mental health difficulties. Perhaps the Minister knows better than I do. That highlights the wider issues of appropriate placements and sentences, of which much has been made in the debate.

253WH
Before turning to female prisoners, it is important to consider the subset of children. The annual report of the Youth Justice Board was published yesterday. It is an interesting and excellent report in which Lord Warner, the chairman, states:
"Despite these successes it has not so far been possible to reduce the use of custody as much as the Board would like."
He goes on to say that
"the use of longer sentences by the courts … can only make it more difficult to maintain improvements".
I believe that a press article in The Independent yesterday stemmed from the launch. Under the headline "Youth Justice Board protests at rising children locked up",
Lord Warner was quoted as saying:
"'You have the bizarre situation where you could be putting into custody for quite short periods of time school-age kids who are in desperate need of education, who are under-performing educationally, and you have made the whole problem of getting them back into education more difficult.'
The youth crime chief called for courts to consider alternatives to custody."
Ministers and the Lord Chief Justice have dealt with the issue. Clearly, it will be an important matter during the next few weeks with a White Paper coming out, which, I hope, will cover sentencing.
In addition to the Youth Justice Board's report, this weekend a prominent children's charity described the Government's policy on youth crime as an abuse of children's human rights. An example was given of a child with learning disabilities who was remanded in custody for the theft of toffees from a jar of sweets and criminal damage to the lid of the jar. Among the children in custody are those who are in prison. A book about them entitled "Vulnerable Inside" will be published this week by the Children's Society. It includes an example of a 16-year-old telling of a child who committed suicide after bullying and how the others in prison reacted:
"This morning when we came out for breakfast the screws said that he had tried to kill himself and he was in hospital on a life support machine. At dinner they said he was dead. Everyone was quiet."
That is horrendous. Children's charities are voicing serious concerns to the Home Secretary.
I am also concerned by the Home Secretary's April announcement that suspects as young as 12 will be remanded in custody for persistent petty crimes. I fear that younger children are taking up local authority accommodation places, and that that is pushing 15 and 16-year-olds back into prison. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us how that all comes together, because it would be dreadful if we were actually making the situation worse. I wonder if this is why the £250 million initiative announced in March 2001, a four-year programme to ensure that no teenage girls and fewer 15 and 16-year-old boys are held in prison and that 80 per cent. of offenders are located within 50 miles of their home—all changes that are needed—does not seem to be on target.
As the hon. Member for Watford reminded us, the Government have been promising to remove girls from prison. Unfortunately, for various reasons, they
254WH
continue to be placed there. I would like to refer to an Adjournment debate held on 29 January this year, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and focused on a tragic case in his constituency of a girl who had gone from one institution to another and fallen through every gap it is possible to fall through. In reply, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, now the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, stated:
"At the moment, about 170 girls are in custody. The hon. Gentleman may know that there is a ministerial commitment to remove all 15 and 16-year-old girls from Prison Service custody by the summer."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 29 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 63WH.]
We seem to be slipping behind the targets. Girls are not committing more crimes, so is sentencing the problem? Those issues hugely concern me.
Before I conclude, I should like to move on to a topic with which I have tussled for some time: whether we should be concerned about men as well. I have been convinced by this morning's contributions on that matter. I found a useful reference to the issue by Anne Dunne in "Safer Society" from summer 2001. She says:
"In the majority of cases the best way to promote resettlement and prevent reoffending is not to send women to prison in the first place. This is not preferential treatment for women. It takes account of the principle that treating men and women equally does not mean treating them the same. Imprisonment has a different and more damaging impact on women. We need policies which recognise that women's offending is different and which responds appropriately and proportionately. Way back in 1991 NACRO suggested Community Houses."
More recently, the Prison Reform Trust issued a piece of work called "Justice for Women", which suggests:
"A network of centres should be established to provide effective supervision and rehabilitation to offenders serving community sentences."
It is vital that we introduce such local centres.
We keep focusing on mental health issues, the nature of sentencing and the appropriateness of placements. When the inspectorate visited prisoners at Eastwood Park it commented:
"It was impossible not to be struck by the profound personality disturbance and mental health problems that many presented."
In the Adjournment debate to which I referred earlier, the Minister commented on the shortage of places with adequate psychiatric treatment. I should like to refer to a recent report by the social exclusion unit, which does so much vital work, on reoffending that includes an annexe on juveniles. One of its many points is:
"Too many young people remain in custody when they need in-patient mental health care and the vast majority of those with diagnosable mental health problems but who do not require mental health admission do not receive adequate management and care from custodial or community-based services."
We know what the problems are and need to address them. I recognise that the Government have gone a long way by setting up so many initiatives. It seems as though the problem is increasing and we are not keeping up with it. We have to reflect on whether that is due to crime or sentencing and take appropriate action. We cannot turn our backs on a problem with which we need to get to grips. There are positive outcomes and yesterday's report from the social exclusion unit was also positive. However, the report lists all the enormous issues relating to young offender teams that still have to be tackled. It

255WH
is a huge task and the Government need to put resources into the area to match their commitment. They need to stand up and be proud to say that they have tackled the issue of the socially excluded and that we have a prison system that works.
10.19 am
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) on obtaining the debate.
This is undoubtedly a serious subject and all the contributions have referred to serious issues. Some of the Government's responses are at odds with the views that have been expressed this morning by Labour Back Benchers. I shall quote what one Government spokesman said in a major report:
"I also reject any call for preferential treatment for women offenders. The current system does impact differently on women and men, because women are usually the primary carers for their children, and because their small numbers in the system can mean prison places further from home. However, there is also evidence that women are in some respects treated more leniently than men by sentencers. Research suggests that women are less likely than men to get sent to prison, even within the same offence groups and when offenders have similar criminal records, and women tend to get shorter sentences on average."
Those were the words of the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), as he came to the end of his term in that office.
Not everyone in the Government necessarily speaks with a single voice, and many of those who spoke in today's debate, including the hon. Member for Watford, were critical of the current position. I agree with those hon. Members. When the right hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) said that the record in this field was dreadful—I carefully wrote down what he said—I agreed with him. The hon. Member for Watford stressed that the Government, through the former Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), made various promises about changes in prison accommodation for young women that have not been kept.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) stressed in a debate in December 2001 that there were many problems at Downview—a prison in his constituency. Other hon. Members have been critical of what has been happening at Holloway, and there have been further criticisms of other prisons for women, such as Bullwood Hall.
I am the first to accept that the area is difficult. Some women have committed extremely serious offences. Many hon. Members who have spoken this morning said in parenthesis that they accept that some women must be given custodial sentences. I would have been happier however had they said more about the victims of crimes. Too often in this place, concern is shown for the offender and not the victim. I have spent much of my career, both during my 10 years in this House and previously, working with organisations such as Victim Support. In any debate on prisons and custody one should always mention the fact that some of those who have committed offences have had the opportunity to continue their lives, whereas the victims have not been given that chance.
Claire Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hawkins: In a moment.
256WH
It has been stressed by several speakers, including the hon. Member for Watford, that some people are in prison simply because of debt. The hon. Member for Newport. West rather overstated the case when he said that moss: women in prison are there because of debt. The figures from the House of Commons Library do not support that contention—I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newport, West did not stay in the Chamber to hear the responses from the Front Benches, but I have no doubt that what I say will be reported to him. If one examines the offences that have led to women being in prison, only a minority are there for non-payment of fines or for debt.
Claire Ward: I should stress that I said during my speech that I did not condone any of the actions of those who are held in prison, whether they are young offenders, juveniles or women prisoners. There are occasions on which detention is appropriate. However, there has not been a discussion about the victims of crime because this debate is about prisoners. In future, I might apply for a debate on the victims of crime, but we are discussing prisoners, and issues such as whether the conditions in which they are held are appropriate. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman has made a point about victims on this occasion.
Mr. Hawkins: I accept that the hon. Lady mentioned that she does not condone in any way the crimes that have been committed. I was simply making the observation that we have heard a lot of speeches on the main subject of the debate, and until I spoke nobody had mentioned the victims of crime. When we debate prisoners, there should also be some mention of victims.
Another significant matter that should be referred to when we talk about women in custody is the recent huge controversy about the short custodial sentence that was imposed on a lady whose children had persistently failed to attend school. There were howls of protest when that sentence was announced, particularly in the liberal press, but those howls were immediately silenced when, having served a very short custodial sentence—it had been reduced on appeal—the lady said that it was the best thing that could have happened to her because it was the only thing that could have forced her to concentrate her mind on how important it is that children should go to school. I think that it was the hon. Member for Newport, West who said that very few people think that prison works, but this prisoner felt that it had worked for her. Her sentence also sent a valuable signal to other feckless and irresponsible parents who were not ensuring that their children get the benefits of education. I have no doubt that persistent truancy—which is quite often aided and abetted by parents—will fall significantly as a result of that deterrent sentence.
However, the custody of women and girls raises extremely important issues that must be addressed. The Government have promised to tackle the shortcomings in the system, but so far—after more than five years in power—they have failed to do so. I hope that the Minister will tell us today that some of those shortcomings have a greater prospect of being addressed in the immediate future.
There are continuing concerns about the rise in the female prison population. I was surprised that many hon. Members said that it would be better if young

257WH
women prisoners were in local authority secure accommodation. I have considerable experience of the criminal justice system from my career at the Bar and the 10 years or so that I have spent in this place, and local authority accommodation has a dreadful record. It would not be advantageous if more young women were to be in the care—which is the official description, but it is very often inappropriate—of local authorities. What we need are humane prisons. People who have committed serious offences and have to receive a custodial sentence are sent to prison as a punishment, rather than for punishment; that has always been the mantra of the Prison Service.
We hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that further progress is being made. I accept several of the points that have been made about the tragic events that happen to some young women and girls who are in custody, and I recognise that more must be done to address them. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
10.28 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Stale for the Home Department (Hilary Benn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward) on securing this debate. It addresses an important issue. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on the clarity with which she put her argument, and the passion with which she related and reflected upon the experiences of girls and young women in custody. In so doing, she has done the House a great service.
Running as a thread through all the contributions is the extent to which the young people whom we are discussing have suffered a lifetime of lack of care in its broadest sense. That strikes me most forcefully. There is really no other way to describe it. The social exclusion unit report published last week makes the point all too clearly for juveniles—boys as well as girls. Nearly 90 per cent. miss significant periods of education in their lives. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford mentioned meeting one young woman who had hardly been in school since the age of 11. Nearly two-thirds have previously been looked after by local authorities, so have not had the benefit of the love, care and support that families are able to provide. Nearly half have literacy and numeracy levels below those of the average 11-year-old. HM chief inspector of prisons undertook a survey that found that two out of five girls reported having experienced violence at home and one in three said that they had experienced sexual abuse.
I am sure that all hon. Members would acknowledge that the young people we are talking about are damaged human beings who cause damage to others as well as to themselves. We should acknowledge the damage done to others, and I recognise the point made by my hon. Friend about the nature of this debate. However, one reason why we are discussing the consequences of the rise in the number of young people sentenced to custody is the general debate that is taking place and is reflected in my own surgeries, as it is in those of other hon. Members.
People are concerned about the impact of crime on their lives. They feel frustrated, frightened, angry and bewildered about the damage caused by the
258WH
consequences of crime. As a society, we are trying to work out how to deal with that. The debate about custody and its effective alternatives is at the heart of the debate about how to tackle the problem, not least because of the size of the prison population.
The challenge is how to prevent further damage being done to others by the significant proportion who go on to reoffend, while trying to address the legacy of the social exclusion that many of the young offenders experience in their short lives For that reason one of the first priorities of the Government since being elected in 1997 has been to reform the youth justice system: by establishing the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, introducing the youth offending teams, and providing courts with the powers to intervene earlier and more effectively when young people get into trouble.
I am pleased to tell the Chamber that that there have been two real successes as a result of the work that the Government have done. The first has been to meet our pledge to halve the time between commission of the offence and young people appearing before the courts for sentence in some shape or form. That is the product of much hard work done by people within the criminal justice system.
Secondly, the first indications of reconviction figures since the implementation of those reforms, show a 14.6 per cent. reduction in reconviction rates compared with juveniles dealt with in 1997, which was the reference period. That has been achieved in one year with the first cohort. We shall have to see whether that progress is maintained, but it is set against the Government's target of a 5 per cent. reduction in four years. That is progress.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) criticised the Government for what he felt they had failed to do—as he would, because it is his job. Being a fair man, I am sure that he would acknowledge those two real examples of progress that have occurred as a result of the reforms introduced by the Government.
I agree with all hon. Members who said that juveniles should be sent to custody only as a last resort. That is precisely why we have provided the courts with a wide range of community-based penalties and introduced a range of new disposals that are specifically targeted at young people who might otherwise face custodial remand or sentence. Those new court orders have been augmented by the intensive supervision and surveillance programme, which targets the most persistent juvenile offenders and provides intensive monitoring for up to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, together with a highly structured programme of education, training and reparation to victims. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Watford acknowledged, there are some girls—and boys—whose offending is so serious or persistent that a custodial sentence is the only appropriate response. Lord Warner acknowledged that yesterday when talking about the publication of the Youth Justice Board annual report.
It is, of course, for the courts to make those judgments, but my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor—and, indeed, the Lord Chief Justice—have recently made it clear that they have asked courts to consider carefully the

259WH
decisions that they take about the sentences they impose, and to reserve custody for violent, sexual or persistent offenders.
There has been much debate this morning about why the figures for young women and girls in custody have been increasing. If we look at the statistics, we can see that it is due to a combination of factors. The first is that more girls and young women are appearing before the courts. Secondly, more of those who appear before courts are sentenced into custody, although they are still a tiny minority—some 96 per cent. of juveniles who appear before the court are not made subject to a custodial sentence. However, it is undoubtedly the case that girls who are sentenced to custody are receiving longer sentences than those given in, say, 1985. I was looking at those figures this morning.
My hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), and for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), raised the issue of the imprisonment of women and girls for debt offences. At the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), I looked at the figures on that subject about three weeks ago. It is worth looking at those statistics, and I shall write to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends about them. The number of those sentenced to prison for non-payment of council tax or television licences has declined sharply in recent years, and I welcome that greatly.
It is not the case that hundreds of people—and certainly not women—are being sent to prison every week for fine defaulting. In 2000, an average of three women per week were sent to prison for that offence; that is roughly 150 people in that year. The average stay in custody for those women was only five days. I acknowledge the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak made about the difference between those who genuinely cannot pay and those who will not pay.
If we were to say that under no circumstances would non-payment of a fine result in a custodial sentence, it would create difficulties as regards those who persistently refuse to pay although they can, and there are such people. I refer to my earlier point about the concern in the wider community about the effectiveness of the penalties available under the criminal justice system. There is concern when people see that those who have been given a fine as an alternative to custody can pay but seek not to do so. That goes to the heart of the credibility of the system.
Paul Flynn: I should like to return to the subject of numbers. The Minister's explanation was not convincing and did not make sense. We know that the increase in women prisoners is three times the increase in male prisoners. The female prisoner population has doubled since 1996. Also, one in four women prisoners are placed on remand, although when they go to court, 65 per cent. of them do not receive custodial sentences. Those comments have been made by chief inspectors of prisons over the years. The courts seem to have the inclination to put more women than men on remand. Why on earth is that?
Hilary Benn: I would need to check the figures to find out whether the courts put more women than men on
260WH
remand, but my hon. Friend is undoubtedly correct to say that the rise of the female prison population and the increasing sentence length are features of what has occurred over the past 15 years. I was making a specific point about fine defaulting and imprisonment of people who do not pay other debts. Numbers of people in those categories have declined sharply, and I have promised to write with those figures.
Lynne Jones: I acknowledged the Minister's point in my speech. Courts distinguish between wilful refusal and culpable neglect. I am asking him to give a commitment that the Government will introduce legislation so that it is not possible to send people—especially women—to jail because they are poor and cannot manage their debts. Such action cannot be right, however many people are involved. When I last examined the matter, about a third of women who were sent to prison were sent because they had not paid fines.
Hilary Benn: I cannot give my hon. Friend that undertaking, but if she examines the figures now, she will find that the proportion has reduced significantly. I shall write to her because she raised an extremely important point.
Girls and young women have particular needs that require special attention, and I turn to the placement of young women and girls in custody. We have made it clear that we ideally wish to hold girls in units that are close to their homes, and sufficiently large to provide the high-quality regimes about which hon. Members spoke and to keep them separate from over-18s. Owing to the small number of Prison Service establishments that are able to cater for girls, the Youth Justice Board tries, whenever possible, to place girls aged under 17 in non-Prison Service accommodation: local authority secure children's homes or secure training centres.
The Youth Justice Board embarked last year on a four-year plan to provide several hundred new places by extending existing centres and providing brand new centres in places where there is a lack of provision. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) reminded us, a key part of that plan is to improve provision for girls and vulnerable 15 and 16-year-old boys, with a view to removing all sentenced 15 and 16-year-old girls from Prison Service accommodation.
However, hon. Members will be aware that the juvenile secure estate has been under much pressure recently because of the trends that we have discussed, and the increase of juveniles in custody has affected the board's ability to meet its specific targets. However, achieving the objective to which my predecessors committed themselves remains our clear aim. Indeed, the number of non-Prison Service places available for girls has increased from 36 in April 2000 to 113 today. An additional 32 secure training places will come on stream later this year at the Medway secure training centre. During the past three months, the number of girls held in Prison Service places has started to decline. In April, 128 girls were held, and in May, 118 girls were held. Last month, 109 girls were held. That is an encouraging movement in the right direction.
People in the Prison Service sometimes voice concern about under-18s mixing with adults, which occurs for reasons to which I have referred. For example, there

261WH
might be too few under-18s to accommodate them in juvenile-only accommodation while keeping them close to home and providing appropriate educational and recreational services. We are trying to balance the three objectives of meeting educational need, providing appropriate placements and keeping young offenders as close to home as possible. The three objectives must be juggled together.
The Youth Justice Board tries to avoid mixing as much as possible, and it supports the development of under-18 wings in larger women-only establishments such as New Hall and Bullwood Hall, which my hon. Friend the Member for Watford visited recently.
My hon. Friend expressed worry about what happens to girls and young women who are in custody, and we are trying to address that in two ways. We have created the new detention and training order, which is a sentence that combines a period of custody with a period spent in the community under supervision. The order's aim is to focus on planned and constructive use of time in custody and on effectively supervision and support after release. We have improved regimes, and the Youth Justice Board is now responsible for commissioning and purchasing all forms of juvenile secure accommodation throughout England and Wales. Prison Service order 4950 sets out regimes for prisoners under 18 years old and applies equally to men and women. Three-year development plans are now in place at two women's prisons, Bullwood Hall and New Hall. The Youth Justice Board intends that they will be the only Prison Service establishments for girls by November this year, providing that the demand for juvenile places stabilises.
It has been acknowledged that this morning's debate about women and girls in prison goes to the heart of the debate that society must have about the balance between custody and effective alternatives. The lesson to be drawn from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford is that we are dealing with the problem late in the day, when young offenders present themselves to the criminal justice system. If one thing has come across more clearly than any other this morning, it is that we must do even more to support families and to intervene at an earlier stage. Our work with sure start and the provision of extra support for families on low incomes will make a bigger contribution to minimising the damage that the young people have experienced, which leads them to cause damage to others. That, in the long term, is the greatest investment that we can make.
People can only give out to society what they themselves have been given. If they have never been given love, encouragement and support, it is difficult for them to show those qualities to others. If a person's only experience of human relations is being banged on the head, it is not surprising that that person responds to other human beings in a similar way. In our society today, it is difficult to achieve the proper result for all our young people. We must really work harder to ensure that we provide that sort of upbringing, because it is the best crime reduction measure in the long term.
10.46 am
Sitting suspended.

Northern Ireland Peace Process
11 am
Mr. Hugo Swire: I am pleased to have secured the debate, as this is a particularly relevant time to discuss the future of the Northern Ireland peace process.
Last week, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach chaired discussions with pro-agreement parties at Hillsborough. On Sunday, the world witnessed once again the dark side of Northern Ireland with the now almost ritual violence at Drumcree, and there have also been heightened tensions and serious sectarian clashes in parts of east and north Belfast.
Virtually everyone in Northern Ireland agrees that, as we approach the crucial Assembly elections in May next year, there is an urgent need to end the current drift and restore some momentum to the process. Otherwise all the hope and optimism that surrounded the signing of the Belfast agreement in April 1998 risk evaporating.
Like most other hon. Members, I warmly welcomed the agreement. After so many years of appalling terrorism and stalled political progress, it finally seemed as though Northern Ireland really was putting the past behind it. At long last, it seemed as though the organisations, both loyalist and republican, that were responsible for inflicting so much misery and suffering were intent on making the transition from violence to what the agreement describes as
"exclusively democratic and peaceful means".
Many aspects of the agreement are working well. The Executive and the Assembly are demonstrating the benefits of having locally elected politicians who are accountable to the Northern Ireland electorate and responsible for the key decisions that affect people's everyday lives. Even those who oppose the agreement do not want devolution to end. Indeed, the two Democratic Unionist party Ministers are regularly cited as two of the most effective members of the Executive.
The north-south bodies are showing that practical, common-sense co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic does not, despite the fears of some, necessarily represent a slippery slope towards a united Ireland. We now have an agreed constitutional framework. Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Republic's constitution have been amended, and Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom is guaranteed for as long as that is the wish of the people who live there.
Those developments might reassure the broader community in Northern Ireland were it not for the fact that, unfortunately, that represents only part of the overall picture. One area in which the agreement is clearly not working or living up to expectations is the ending of the cycle of paramilitary violence.
For many people, in particular the Unionist community, it was the prospect of an end to paramilitarism that convinced them to back the agreement. That persuaded them to set aside their revulsion at the sight of prisoners walking free from jail early; to take Sinn Fein on trust and tolerate its inclusion in the Government of Northern Ireland despite the fact that the decommissioning of illegal weapons had not even begun; and, reluctantly, to accept

263WH
painful changes to the police. Yet the end to violence and paramilitarism has not happened. That fact is the biggest single factor undermining confidence in the agreement, and it threatens to destabilise the peace process.
Under the agreement, decommissioning was supposed to have been completed by May 2000. Instead, we had to wait until last October for the first batch of arms to be put beyond use, and that happened in response to the events of 11 September and pressure exerted by the resignation as First Minister of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
In April, there was a second act of decommissioning, and this time it was clearly designed to increase Sinn Fein's prospects in the Irish general election. Without questioning the integrity of General de Chastelain, neither act of decommissioning was carried out in such a way as to maximise public confidence, which was the promise made by the IRA in its statement of 6 May 2000. Any remote hope that those two acts represent a genuine conversion to exclusively democratic politics has been completely devalued by subsequent events that have seriously called into question the credibility of the ceasefire on both sides.
We have had continuing revelations of IRA activity in Columbia, and its involvement with the narco-terrorists FARC—the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia—including, if recent reports are to be believed, the testing of new weapons. It has also been reported recently in Washington that techniques passed by the IRA to FARC may have been responsible for 117 deaths in a bombing that took place as recently as 9 May.
The break-in at Castlereagh police station is widely believed, by the police and others, to be the work of the IRA. Documents discovered during an arrest in connection with Castlereagh showed that the IRA are continuing to target politicians and military bases on the mainland. Only last week we learned that several leading Northern Ireland and Westminster politicians and others have been warned by the police of a serious threat to their lives.
There is continuing street violence in areas such as the Short Strand and Cluan place, which is being orchestrated by paramilitaries, loyalist and republican alike. Many hon. Members no doubt met the Short Strand residents last week, who came over to put their catalogue of despair. So-called punishment beatings, shootings and mutilations continue almost daily. There are other manifestations of paramilitarism, such as the smuggling, racketeering and organised crime that was highlighted by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs in its report published last week.
So extensive is the criminal network that we now have evidence that it has outgrown the Irish market. The paramilitaries are seeking to set up legitimate businesses on the mainland as fronts for their activities. Of particular concern to me as a west country Member of Parliament is the fact that their tentacles may be spreading to the west country. I have heard reports suggesting that such criminals are targeting the west country and trying to launder their money through legitimate pubs and tourism-related businesses.
I welcome the Government's attempts to address that very worrying development through the formation of the organised crime taskforce for Northern Ireland and
264WH
the proposal for an assets recovery agency, but I ask the Minister to respond to the concerns of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that that agency is substantially under-resourced if it is to tackle the problem seriously. Will the Minister make a commitment to provide it with the resources it needs from day one?
Quite apart from the misery that organised crime is causing many people in Northern Ireland, there is also the cost factor. Dr. Silke has calculated that for every £1 raised by paramilitaries in Northern Ireland in 1993 and spent in the pursuit of terrorism, the average cost to the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland in countering and repairing terrorist damage was £130. Based on those figures, Dr. Silke estimated that the overall cost of Northern Ireland terrorism to the Government in 1993 was in the region of £2 billion. No doubt the figure is now substantially higher.
Faced with all the evidence of ongoing activity, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, when the Government say that in their view the ceasefire remains intact, they are using the paramilitary definition rather than that set out so clearly by the Prime Minister during the 1998 referendum campaign. It seems that, for the Government, the meaning of a ceasefire is a period in which soldiers and police officers are no longer killed, but virtually anything else goes. The Prime Minister casually refers to the transgressions of the ceasefire as imperfections, but he cannot argue that they are consistent with maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire.
The clear and urgent task of the British and Irish Governments now is to take action to restore confidence. The university of Ulster published a report on 9 July based on the annual Life and Times survey. It found that Protestants had less confidence in the peace process than six years ago, and that fewer people thought that relations between Protestants and Catholics were better.
Restoring confidence was supposed to be the purpose of the meeting with the pro-agreement parties at Hillsborough last week. Regrettably, little progress seems to have been made, and little progress will be made until those parties in breach of their obligations under the agreement finally face up to their responsibilities.
Surely the time has come to introduce into the process some sanctions against parties that are failing to fulfil their obligations under the agreement. That is true of all parties, but particularly of Sinn Fein, because it has Ministers serving in the Northern Ireland Executive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), the shadow Secretary of State, has made clear in the past, that does not necessarily require the pressing of the nuclear button that could bring the whole Assembly crashing down. Rather, it could be done on an escalating basis, beginning with the ending of Sinn Fein's special status in this House, not proceeding with the proposed amnesty for the so-called "on the runs" and not allowing those with terrorist convictions to sit on district policing partnerships.
If none of those measures works, the Government must seriously reconsider, as the Prime Minister promised in his famous side letter to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann on the morning of the Belfast

265WH
agreement, the exclusion mechanisms in the agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. They must be prepared to take on the power to exclude, rather than leaving it to a cross-community vote in the Assembly.
One thing is certain: it cannot be right for Ministers belonging to a party that is, in the Government's own words, inextricably linked with an active terrorist organisation to sit on the Executive indefinitely. Last Wednesday in the House, the Prime Minister repeated his assertion that there can be no halfway house between democracy and violence. He now needs to show that that is no longer simply empty rhetoric, and that he is prepared to act on his words.
Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I want this process to succeed. I believe that it retains the potential to bring lasting peace and stability to Northern Ireland, yet we cannot go on giving concession after concession, in what already appears to many people in Northern Ireland to be a one-way street. A peace process or any other process, suggests ongoing progress. I contend that it is currently difficult to see what progress is being made along the lines envisaged in the Belfast agreement.
All those who desire the cessation of violence and long-term peace in Northern Ireland have invested much in the peace process and, necessarily, taken a lot on trust. Unionists have taken a number of risks, not least in being prepared to sit in government with Sinn Fein before the completion of decommissioning. Some might argue that they have been stretched to the limit in order to keep the process alive. However, unless something is done as a matter of urgency to restore credibility to the process, it potentially faces its biggest crisis and most difficult test so far. There is a narrow window of opportunity through which the current underlying lack of confidence can be tackled. I urge the Government not to squander it.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to remain standing so that I can gauge how many want to speak in the time left. I can inform those who have not participated in debates in this Chamber before that it is customary to commence the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the end of the debate. Comments from the Floor must therefore have finished before 12 o'clock. I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind when making contributions and when making or receiving interventions, which should be crisp, clear and to the point.
11.14 am
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). I should like him to cast his mind back to five years ago today when 20,000 Orangemen assembled at Drumcree. A nationalist from Belfast sent a relief convoy to the Garvaghy road and five Catholic families received bullets marked Ballymoney through the post. Sky TV broadcast scenes of hand-to-hand fighting across the barricades. In the middle of the night of 11 July 1998, three Catholic children—Richard, Mark and Jason Quinn—died in their bedroom. Victims of loyalist firebombs, their young lives were snuffed out.
266WH
By the following weekend, Drumcree IV had resulted in 2,561 public order incidents: 144 homes and 165 other buildings attacked; 178 hijackings; 467 vehicles damaged; 615 attacks on security forces; 24 stonings; 45 blast bombs; 284 arrests; 632 petrol bombs and 837 plastic bullets. Last weekend, there were nasty scenes at Drumcree, but one cannot compare that with five years ago and say that no progress has been made—this time there were three plastic bullets. Progress has been made, and it has been made on security.
We all deplore knee-cappings, punishment beatings and what is going on in the Short Strand and north Belfast, but progress has been made. The hon. Member for East Devon repeatedly referred to the role of the IRA. The IRA is doing more to undermine the peace process than to support it. It allows the hard men to say that they are not doing anything in an organised manner, and thus claims that it has honoured its ceasefire. However, every time we make progress it is belittled.
Like everyone else present, I have no desire to see private armies. I want them all to decommission their arms. I believe that there should be only one security force, but it must have and retain the support of the whole community. However, we will betray the people of Northern Ireland if we continually harp on about decommissioning and its associated problems.
We should consider what has been achieved by the parties and the Executive in Northern Ireland. An Assembly elected by fair proportional representation has created its own institutions and procedures, and it has adopted the symbol of the flax flower to reflect inclusive ideals across both communities. The Assembly Members have debated the most contentious issues of the day with passion and feeling. They have drawn up and begun to implement a programme of government for Northern Ireland, and have targeted social need wherever it is identified. New bodies for co-operation between the peoples of Ireland have been created. All-Ireland institutions have already demonstrated their practical value for the people of Ireland. Long overdue reforms in health, education and social services have begun. Progress has been made towards the abolition of the 11-plus and selective education—Northern Ireland is many years behind us in that, but is doing well. A Children's Rights Commission has also been established.
The Northern Ireland Executive have already started to address the chronic under-resourcing of the infrastructure, and are focusing on stable economic progress. Their programme of government is based on a vision of partnership, equality and mutual respect. Northern Ireland is building on its dynamic business community, its resourceful voluntary sector, cooperation in its industry and its vibrant and creative cultural heritage. On policing and criminal justice, a start has been made towards creating a representative and accountable criminal justice system in which all, sides of the divided community can share a sense of ownership. On the values of a divided society, we have created new institutions for the protection and promotion of equality and human rights. Every public body has a positive duty to promote equality and fair treatment.

267WH
Those are great marks of progress, but there are still obstacles to overcome. Let us consider what is happening while those obstacles are being overcome. The vast majority of former political prisoners are helping to rebuild their communities. The Parades Commission is regulating provocative marches, surveillance towers and army checkpoints are being dismantled and the decommissioning of terrorist weapons has begun. Decommissioning has been slow, and there has not been enough of it. We all want decommissioning, because there is no place for private armies. Those who have visited Northern Ireland in the past year will have noticed that one has to look hard to find a policeman or Land Rover on the streets of Derry and Belfast. [Interruption.]The reason for that is that people have confidence. The streets are crowded with shoppers in the villages, towns and cities, and it is a great sight.
Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the low number of police officers available for duty in Northern Ireland? He will be familiar with the recommendation in the Patten report that the number of regular police officers should drop to 7,500 over 10 years. In the two and a half years since the Patten report, the number of police officers has dropped to 6,900. Will he comment on that?
Mr. McNamara: Yes, and the comment that I would make is that some members of the old Royal Ulster Constabulary did not like the new set-up and took advantage of the generous redundancy terms. I should like more people from both communities in the police force, as recommended by the Patten committee. Everyone wants a full police force in their society. There are still problems with implementing the reforms in the Patten report and taking proper control over special branch. Indeed, the oversight commissioner has indicated to the Government that extra progress must be made quickly.
Enormous problems exist on the streets, and nobody should deny that. The fear and insecurity felt by parts of both communities in Belfast has to be recognised. Some leadership is being given, but leadership is not provided when people constantly threaten to resign. Leadership is not given when people say that concessions are only being made to the IRA and the SDLP. The original Police (Northern Ireland) Bill and the Patten report were gutted. We were unable to debate on the Floor of the House the changes to the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, which was also gutted. Concessions have gone both ways.
Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McNamara: I shall finish my sentence and then I shall be delighted to give way. I want security measures that both communities support. The SDLP, with tremendous courage, joined the Police Authority. It had the right to expect that the reforms that were promised in the Patten report and elsewhere would be carried through to the letter, and there is disappointment that that has not yet been achieved.
Lady Hermon: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman halfway through his sentence, and I
268WH
appreciate his giving way to me a second time. Will he clarify what he means when he says that the Patten report was gutted? He will recall that last autumn the American, Irish and British Governments and the Catholic Church with one voice said that the implementation plan and the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 represented the spirit and letter of Patten. How can he say that it has been gutted?
Mr. McNamara: I understand what the hon. Lady is saying. The Weston Park agreement—
Hon. Members: It was not an agreement.
Mr. McNamara: The Weston Park meeting—as hon. Gentlemen said, it was not an agreement. At a conference at Weston Park, undertakings were given that what had been left out of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill would be inserted and that the necessary legislation would be introduced. I want the Government to tell us when that will happen.
It is wrong to keep picking up the agreement as though it were a flower in a garden and looking at its roots to see how it is developing. It has developed strongly and well due to the courage of people in this Room who have represented opposing traditions for years but who met together for the good of Northern Ireland. The agreement is the possession of the parties in Northern Ireland but, more particularly, of the people of Ireland, north and south. We must make it our duty to ensure that, whatever the shortcomings, we work towards constructive, purposeful elections to the Assembly next year and that we defend the peace process and not just the position of individuals, no matter how eminent they may be.
11.26 am
Mr. David Trimble: I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on securing a debate on this important topic. I never thought that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) would portray himself as a latter-day Dr. Pangloss, but that is what he has done in the past few moments.
There has been considerable political progress in Northern Ireland, and Members of the Assembly and I are happy to take credit for it. However, the difficulty that we are in at the moment is entirely because the paramilitary organisations—I use the term collectively—have not made the progress that we wished. In the past few months there have been very serious problems at street level, mainly in Belfast, which have largely been caused by paramilitary organisations. Loyalist paramilitaries have been partly responsible, but the greater share of the responsibility lies with the republican movement, in particular the IRA.
The hon. Member for Hull, North may not take my word for that. I refer him to the words of the Assistant Chief Constable responsible for Belfast, Mr. McQuillan, who said in an interview after a particularly vicious outbreak of rioting in east Belfast:
"And certainly, in terms of street disorder, on the republican side, we have seen large numbers of republicans, large numbers of members of the IRA, many of them from outside the area, and we believe that they're involved in organising the violence."

269WH
Mr. McQuillan was then asked about the shooting of five Protestants during the rioting. He was not prepared to rule definitively on who was responsible, but went on to say that
"people who know the Short Strand well will know that the IRA have huge influence in that area, they are the main republican paramilitary group in that area, and we see very clear evidence of orchestration of the riots in that area."
Hon. Members might like to reflect on what would have happened if any of the five persons who were shot by republicans on that occasion had died and where the peace process would have been in that situation. The process was that close to collapsing. For that reason, we must reflect again on these matters.
The hon. Member for East Devon referred to the definition of a ceasefire that the Prime Minister gave in May 1998. I shall not read it out, because hon. Members should be familiar with it. It is very different from the definition given recently by Martin McGuinness, who said that a ceasefire is when they are not shooting soldiers or policemen and everything else to be permissible. Unfortunately, it seems that the Northern Ireland Office operates largely by reference to Mr. McGuinness's definition rather than that of the Prime Minister. The matter should be carefully reconsidered.
One good thing that came from the Prime Minister's visit last week was that he made it clear in his press conference that the transition that should be occurring needs to continue. He said:
"Transition means transition, full transition from violence to democracy. Now, we've got to look therefore at the ways that we make that clear, that we lay down the clear principles that we have to abide by, and what happens if people don't abide by them."
He also said that he would make proposals and declare the position that he set out before Parliament rises. We are expecting that, between now and the rise of Parliament, the Prime Minister will return to the matter and spell out more precisely what a ceasefire means, how that transition should progress and what happens if the paramilitaries breach those lines. It may take the form of a redefinition of "ceasefire", and I hope that it will be closer, if not identical, to the definition given by the Prime Minister in May 1998.
However, we need more than just that. We need a procedure by which the definition has credibility and there is popular confidence in it. Regrettably, there would be no confidence in the definition if the determination of whether the ceasefire had been broken was left to a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I do not think that there would be credibility in Northern Ireland, because of what has happened in the past.
David Burnside: My right hon. Friend will remember a policy submission that the Ulster Unionist party made to No. 10 to try to help the Prime Minister to define decommissioning. It suggested setting up a Privy Council Committee with representation from the Government, the Opposition, the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable to define whether the Provisional IRA was adhering to the Mitchell principles. Would he consider resubmitting that to the Prime Minister?
Mr. Trimble: My hon. Friend is close to my next point. I said that there would not be popular confidence in a judgment by a Secretary of State—I am speaking generally—because there has been lack of confidence in the successive occupants of that post. We need some objectivity. My hon. Friend referred to proposals for a rather elaborate procedure, and I note with regret that although we thought at that time that the Chief Constable and GOC should be part if it, I am not sure that in the present circumstances a procedure resting partly or wholly on the Chief Constable would command confidence or be effective. It is clear that the Irish Government have no confidence in the comments made by the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland and they showed that clearly concerning the Castlereagh raid. The former Chief Constable and the current acting Chief Constable have both said clearly and repeatedly that the police believe that the Castlereagh raid was the work of republicans, but the Irish Government still have their head in the sand and, like some hon. Members, refuse to accept that judgment. We must look further than that.
The precise objective mechanism is a matter for further consideration, but there is clearly a need for something that will give credibility to the ceasefire and the judgments that are made on it. There is also a clear need for a sanction, and that was foreshadowed in what the Prime Minister said about what happens if people do not abide by the ceasefire. The sanction must be credible. If there is no credible sanction, the present instability, which was caused by the paramilitaries, will continue.
I am concerned about the approach to some matters, particularly by the Prime Minister. During the press conference he commended the republican leadership and expressed confidence in its commitment to making the peace process work. I want the Prime Minister to reflect on that. I do not think that the republican leadership intends to return to a full-scale terrorist campaign at present, but it is clearly committed to a strategy of tension, not to exclusively peaceful means. That strategy is demonstrated in the orchestration of riots. The primary target for those riots is the SDLP, the party led by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). The republican leadership is trying to discredit policing and, through that, to discredit the SDLP's valuable support for policing arrangements in Northern Ireland.
Republicans are following the strategy of tension so that others carry the strains of the process, not themselves. They are moving as slowly and as grudgingly as they can, and are leaving it to the SDLP and my party to carry the strain. The Prime Minister must reflect on that, too. Indeed, the problem is highlighted in the comments made at that press conference by the man who was returned to serve as the Member of Parliament for Mid-Ulster, but failed to do so. He said:
"You see the big difference is this, Tony Blair has got to know us, David Trimble has yet to make that journey".
I would rephrase such sentiments. I have got to know Sinn Fein very well indeed. I hope that the Prime Minister gets to know Sinn Fein just as well and appreciates that things are not as simple as they seem. We shall wait for his judgments to be announced before Parliament rises, but I underline the need for the Government to get a grip of the situation and to recreate

271WH
confidence in the community. I say firmly to the Government that, if they do not now tackle the continuing instability and create the necessary confidence, the prospects for next year are not good at all.
11.37 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: We need to be honest about what is happening in Northern Ireland. That involves recognising the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who talked about the progress that has been made through the Assembly and the Executive and what it is like to shop on the streets now compared with what it was like previously. Such matters need to be at the forefront of our minds.
We must also realise that many serious problems have emerged in Northern Ireland as the process has developed. Many people are detaching themselves from the commitment to the Belfast agreement. There are reasons for that, some of which were explained by the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). We must be aware of them, because they lead to disillusionment within the Protestant camp. We must also bear in mind the behaviour of the paramilitaries, but to some extent they had an excuse for their actions. Their argument was that the means justified the end. They were either for a united Ireland or opposed to it.
The paramilitaries have degenerated from that unacceptable position into mafia-type organisations that operate for their own benefit. To some extent, the Real IRA has picked up the old mantle of the Provisional IRA and is raking money off for its own use. We must be aware of the lessons that we can learn from such problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North drew conclusions that were based on the arguments that he put forward. He does not want us to listen too much to other considerations, because he wants us to give great weight to the advances that have been made. Can we not recognise those advances while also recognising the difficulties? The problem with stressing the difficulties is that it encourages those who are trying to uncouple the whole agreement. We must try to exert pressure on paramilitary organisations in order to overcome the difficulties that exist in communities.
The report by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, of which I am a member, on the funding of paramilitary organisations shows part of the way forward. It points out that if it were possible to cut off the funding of paramilitary organisations, they would be destroyed because they would not be able to carry out their political agenda or their mafia activity. The report suggests developing the work of the organised crime taskforce and the asset recovery agency, and ensuring that those organisations have the back up and funding available to equivalent bodies in the Republic of Ireland. Such matters need great consideration.
The final report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the last Parliament was about paramilitary intimidation and the fact that many people are placed in exile. Some are exiled in the Republic of Ireland and some are in internal exile in Northern Ireland, but great wodges of people are exiled in Britain. That is unacceptable, and we must be concerned about such issues if we are to have a proper picture of what is occurring.
272WH
I suggest an action that the Government can take, which I hope is practical. They should have an all-embracing attitude to the situation in Northern Ireland. It is unfortunate that matters are too often left to the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Executive, with occasional interventions by the Prime Minister to nudge things along. Other Departments sometimes act as if Northern Ireland does not exist and should not be taken into account. The Treasury, in particular, has problems getting its head around the fact that Northern Ireland is a considerable section of the United Kingdom with massive problems.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee produced a report on the relatively minor issue of aggregate tax. It was obvious that the Treasury had not taken account of the impact of Northern Ireland's border on the introduction of aggregate tax. There have been many good arguments for the aggregate tax, but quarrying activities operate in the Republic and trade starts to transfer to Northern Ireland.
Current investigations by the Committee, which are based on a previous report, relate to the smuggling of petrol. Consideration should be given to the duty increases that affect Northern Ireland and the disparity that that causes with the Republic of Ireland. That is seen as a minor factor because only 3 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom live in Northern Ireland, and money is thrown at Customs and Excise to tackle the problem. We should grasp the wider issues.
It is important to pay attention to Northern Ireland, to be honest about what is happening, to listen to both sides of the argument, and not to use what is happening as a defence for the preconceived set of values that we happen to have.
Several hon. Members rose
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have little time left before the witching hour of 12 o'clock. Three hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, not all of whom heard the admonition that I gave earlier, which was that we need to hand over to the Front Bench spokespersons at midday. Moreover, not all of them have given prior indication to the Chair that they want to intervene. I shall try to give everyone a chance to speak, and I urge hon. Members to be brief, and to try to resist the temptation to make interventions.
11.45 am
Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I shall be brief. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made a point about the levels of violence, but his definition of that was very narrow as he referred to the situation around Drumcree. The statistics from the police service make the overall picture clear: the levels of violence in Northern Ireland were higher in 2001–02 than they were in 1998, which was the year that the agreement was signed. That is an indisputable fact, and if we gloss over such facts, we will not address the problems. We should acknowledge the extent of the problems.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the streets being free from police officers. In my constituency, crime is markedly up: pensioners are being brutalised in their homes, police stations are under threat of closure, and

273WH
patrols are being withdrawn from rural areas. Those are problems, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, as he must deal with policing matters in his own constituency. If the suggestion is that policing and crime issues have gone away, that is not the reality.
I have read the report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on organised crime. All the paramilitary organisations raise huge sums. I have a concern about that, which the Minister might wish to address. I understand that only 10 officers in the police service are assigned to investigate organised crime by paramilitaries—that is, to deal with the matter in general, rather than with specific cases. That figure highlights a huge inequity when it is contrasted with the fact that 103 staff are employed by the police ombudsman's office to investigate the police. Ten times more people are employed to investigate the police than to investigate organised crime by paramilitaries, even though that is acknowledged to be an enormous problem. I hope that the Minister will address that point. We have the organised crime taskforce, but we need to do even more to tackle this problem, because the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) is right when he says that it will do the paramilitaries enormous damage if we hit their funding.
At the heart of the peace process are the Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence, which were signed up to by all the participants in the negotiations that culminated in the Belfast agreement. The reality is that all the paramilitary organisations are in breach of those principles—by their actions and, in some cases, by their words. There is talk that we might need a new set of principles, or that we should beef up the Mitchell principles. I do not believe that we need to do that. I am entirely satisfied that the Mitchell principles are wholly adequate to deal with the issue of people moving from violence to peace and democracy. The difficulty is that the Government are failing to act on the breaches of those principles. That is at the heart of what the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) said in his opening remarks. It is time for the Government to take action on those breaches.
After the general election in the Republic of Ireland, the Irish Prime Minister said that he could not have Sinn Fein as a partner in his Government until the IRA disbanded. However, we in Northern Ireland are expected to accept a different standard: Sinn Fein can be in our Government while the IRA continue violence on the streets, engage in international terrorism in Colombia, and run guns from Florida and through Cuba. As the Assistant Chief Constable, Mr. McQuillan, said, it can orchestrate violence on the streets of Belfast, and yet the Government say that the ceasefire is intact, and that they need take no action. That is just plain wrong; the Government do need to act. If they are to restore confidence in the peace process, they have to sanction those parties and paramilitary organisations that are in default.
I recently heard the remarks of Richard Hass, President Bush's envoy, who suggested that we draw a line after events such as Colombia and Castlereagh, and create some new rules which we expect people to adhere to. I do not think that that is acceptable. We cannot draw a line after Colombia and other recent events,
274WH
because that goes to the heart of the republican movement's intentions and its commitment to exclusively peaceful means. It also concerns the actions of loyalist paramilitaries on the streets and their commitment.
On 22 April 1998, before the referendum on the agreement, the Prime Minister told the House of Commons:
"Meanwhile, it would obviously be a travesty of democracy if parties associated with paramilitary organisations"—[Official Report, 22 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 812.]
continued in the Government of Northern Ireland while they were threatening or using violence. I agree with him, but I think that he has forgotten his words. The situation is a travesty of democracy, and it is time that that was addressed.
11.51 am
Mr. Peter Robinson: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few comments. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on securing the debate, and welcome his interest in the subject. It is important to endorse the trailer for the business of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs that was given by my colleague from the Committee, the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), and its report on the funding of terrorism in particular. That report shows clearly that those organisations are active not just in getting funds but in the use of those funds for terrorist purposes.
The Belfast agreement is fatally flawed, and not simply on the basis of those features for which support is a matter of political judgment, such as the destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—brought about by the agreement—the release of terrorist prisoners who had not served their sentences, the setting up of unaccountable executive all-Ireland bodies, and the representatives of the terror machine of the Provisional IRA's entry into government.
I am talking about the central principle of the agreement, which is that there should be cross-community support. That does not exist, and I would argue that it never has, but no one can say so definitively, because no one knows precisely what each section of the community did in the course of the referendum. All we know is that it was remarkably close in terms of whether the Unionist community voted for or against the agreement.
It was clear that the majority of those elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly from the Unionist community were elected on a manifesto that was opposed to the Belfast agreement, and that is what they told their electorate. I see the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) shaking his head. That is because some of the colleagues who stood for his party made it clear to the electorate that they were opposed to the principles that he stands for, and his support for the Belfast agreement.
The reality is that many of us who have been involved in politics in Northern Ireland for a long time will have seen various structures set up, and will have seen them fall. The Unionist community was happy with the old Stormont Parliament; the nationalist community was not, and no matter how much it may have been liked by the Unionist community, it did not have sufficient cross-

275WH
community support for it to have life and be stable. It fell—a sad fact of life for Unionists. When the power-sharing Executive and the Council of Ireland were set up, the nationalist community received them happily, although the Unionist community did not. Again, for nationalists, the sad fact of life was that that process did not have the necessary cross-community support, and it fell.
I would have thought that that lesson would have been learned by the time that we entered into the current process. Indeed, the Deputy First Minister, Mr. Mark Durkan, and I travelled to South Africa with others to consider the experiences of that country, in particular the principle of sufficient consensus, which was built into its process. We tried to bring that back to Northern Ireland to ensure that whatever structures were set up would have sufficiently robust support from both sections of the community to be stable and lasting. That has not happened and, whatever the position might have been at the time of the referendum, the position now in relation to the Belfast agreement is overwhelmingly that the Unionist community does not give its support and has no confidence in the agreement.
The reality is all around us. The Unionist community does not support the agreement for a range of reasons, not simply because of the principles that I mentioned earlier which undermined that support, but in terms of the practice—how things have worked out on the ground. People can see that the Provisional IRA is not wedded to the peace process. Far from it: since its so-called ceasefire began, it has murdered 14 people, shot 160 people, carried out paramilitary beatings on 250 people, run guns in from Florida, carried out exercises in training narco-terrorists in Columbia, and raided the Castlereagh special branch offices to gather information so that it can better target people. It has even targeted members of the Conservative party.
In my own constituency, five Protestants have been shot by the Provisional IRA. We have seen the interface violence in which IRA members have been engaged as well as the ongoing rackets and other work at that level within the community. One would expect none of the activities that I listed from an organisation wedded to a peace process. We have a Minister of Education who is responsible for looking after young children in Northern Ireland. In his other capacity, he sits down as a member of the army council of the Provisional IRA and takes the decisions to do the things in my catalogue of activities. That can never inspire confidence within the community, and it is not acceptable.
Decommissioning has not happened. More guns have been coming into the IRA stockpile than have been going out at the other end. Clearly, there is no basis on which the Unionist community could have confidence in the process. We will never have a stable political structure in Northern Ireland until we renegotiate the basis of the agreement and have one that is balanced and capable of enjoying the support of Unionists as well as of nationalists.
11.57 am
David Burnside: I was not involved in the negotiation of the Belfast agreement—there is no reason why I should have been because I was not an elected Member of any House or an adviser—apart
276WH
from a telephone call that I had from Mo on Good Friday. She told me, "We've written a letter from Tony to David," because my party was having problems signing the agreement. She said, "Use whatever influence you have to send a message through to Castle buildings."
I do not think that my message went through, but when I read the content of Tony's letter to David, I thought, "That helps the ambiguities that are inherent within this agreement". The promises have not been delivered. I went along with the Blair promises and ambiguities. As a Unionist in Northern Ireland, I voted for the agreement along with almost the majority of the traditional Protestant community as well as the Catholics who vote unionist with a small "u", who should not be forgotten.
I humbly suggest to the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) that a better description for this debate would have been Northern Ireland political rather than peace process, because it is the political process that is failing. All the elected representatives in Northern Ireland—all who take our seats in the House—want the peace process and to get away from the past 30 years of tension, sectarian violence and terrorism from all directions. What emerges from the Select Committee report is the increase in criminality that happens through the front of the terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members should read the report if they have not done so. It has not been widely reported in the press, and should be reported much more widely.
We need a new political process. Decommissioning is now a farce. Under the Mitchell principles for the destruction of the paramilitary terrorist organisations, delivery should have been completed after two years. The Government have now disgracefully made the deadline 2008, which will have no effect because there is no sanction. Decommissioning is a farce, which is now more to the advantage of Sinn Fein-IRA than to the democrats in the political and peace process. The deadline has no sanction.
My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), referred to the Mitchell principles. We need nothing better; they are admirable. They need to be implemented, and they need sanction. They are not being delivered on. For Sinn Fein in government, please read the report. I wanted to believe that terrorists could move from terrorism and holding an Armalite in one hand and the ballot box in the other to holding just the ballot box, but that is not working. The system at Stormont is not as accountable as was promised.
The Secretary of State throws across in his Parkhead style to us on the Unionist Benches the message that there is no alternative, but there is. The alternative is involving Ulster Unionists, Democratic Unionists and the SDLP and excluding Sinn Fein from the process because it is not fit to be part of the democratic process or in government. Martin McGuinness has no remorse or regret for his involvement in terrorism and is still involved in it. He should not be put in that position. The process is not working. We need a fundamental renegotiation of the Belfast agreement.
12.01 pm
Lembit Öpik: I thank the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) for having made the discussion possible. I am pleased that his party has abandoned its short-lived withdrawal from the cross-party consensus on Northern Ireland. That always struck me as an unsustainable position, and it is to the Conservative party's credit that it is inside, rather than outside, that process.
Liberal Democrats have always been firm supporters of the Good Friday agreement, because it is necessary to use such an agreement to provide legitimate institutions of government in a deeply divided society. The agreement reflects many aspects of policies that Liberal Democrats have long felt to be important, including devolution, power-sharing institutions, accountable north-south structures, the principle of consent and civil liberties. By itself, however, the agreement amounts only to conflict management. Strategies must be developed to move from conflict management to conflict transformation, and ultimately conflict resolution, if the new dispensation is to prove durable.
Those deep divisions in Northern Ireland society have yet to be tackled. The difficulty is that in many ways the phrasing of the Good Friday agreement has institutionalised the assumption of two communities, an issue that I have often raised. It is all very well to say that the two communities are equal but separate, living in peaceful but separated co-existence. The state beyond that—true normality—is when we regard Northern Ireland as one community that is nevertheless diverse and when everyone in Northern Ireland respects the variations and different beliefs and creeds that it contains. Until we reach that point, we have a hostage to fortune that inevitably wells up as visible stress in the streets of the Province when divisions are manifested in face-to-face conflicts.
Nevertheless, huge progress has been made. I take a different view from that of the hon. Member for East Devon on Drumcree. It is closer to the position of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). We should praise the Orange Order for having taken a strategic, measured and sensible approach by de-escalating the issues.
Let us make no mistake. The troubles on Sunday were caused largely by maverick, anti-agreement loyalists mainly from east and south Antrim, not the Orange Order. It is important to emphasise that, because the Orange Order's actions show its willingness not only to move forward from the past but to take a sensible and measured approach towards grievances that it has the right to raise, but that it is now raising within a political framework. It is incumbent on nationalists and republicans in the Drumcree area to reciprocate, and I am optimistic that, if they do so, they will receive a positive response.
In that sense, I am more optimistic than the hon. Member for East Devon, but it is clear that there are flaws in the implementation of the agreement. Those flaws are manifested in the continuing strains and the intensity of conflict that we still see in certain places. Few, if any, of the outstanding issues are now matters of principle, and they are certainly not intractable.
There are matters ranging from how we interpret the Good Friday agreement right through to the degree to which various parties have been able to implement their
278WH
side of the bargain. Those issues remain tense. However, we should remember that all the pro-agreement parties have—nominally, at least—supported the goals of decommissioning, stabilising the institutions, police reform and security normalisation. There have been problems of interpretation and sequencing, debating who is responsible for implementing the actions and—to a degree—the absence of trust, which causes various parties to feel that if they do move, they will be regarded as losing to the victorious other side. The spirit of compromise and accommodation that made the Good Friday agreement possible is perhaps absent to some extent now.
Related to that is the inability of the paramilitaries to provide sufficient confidence in the durability of their ceasefires through the decommissioning of weapons and the ending of violence. The consequences of that are manifest for all to see. In effect, republican and loyalist paramilitaries need to demonstrate in a much more factual and practical way willingness to trust their political representatives in the political process. Until they do that, there is just cause for grievance on both sides as things fail to move forward. Although I have always felt that the decommissioning of weapons is primarily a symbolic action, I would say that it is very important. The paramilitaries need only consider the benefit that they received by doing that in a rational and organised way, to see that they would help their own side by continuing on that basis.
We have already heard during today's debate that there are pressures on parties, including the Ulster Unionists and—I suppose—Sinn Fein, with regard to how far they can push their hardline members without causing fractures in their organisations. There is no point pretending that that is not happening, but one of the challenges for the Government is to make it as easy as possible for the pro-agreement elements on all sides to negotiate in their own organisations and argue the case, as I attempted to just now, that an inclusive philosophy requires a degree of vulnerability resulting from the giving up of some of the traditional norms in the relevant organisations.
That means that the Government's proposal to handle "on the runs" in a particular way has to be considered in the context of what can be sold to the various parties in Northern Ireland. I am very concerned that what looks like a de facto amnesty for "on the runs" is not symmetrical. It does not take account of the pressures in the loyalist and unionist communities to see parity of treatment. The institutionalism of ethnic divisions is a danger because many people do not regard themselves as members of the Protestant or Catholic communities.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and others have felt that a fundamental renegotiation of the Good Friday agreement is required. I do not share that view. I feel that the agreement itself is not bad, as long as sufficient flexibility and trust is generated on both sides to give a little bit of space for those negotiating on behalf of the different sides to implement it in a gentle but progressive fashion. In effect, the agreement requires a shared, non-sectarian Northern Ireland with a more united community than that of separate but equal groups. I would be interested to hear the Minister's views on how the Government can smooth our way from a time of stabilising separate

279WH
groups to an integrated society where those groups live together. Integrated education is important in that context, and so is mixed housing. Those policies need a drive by the Government to become reality. I do not underestimate the tensions involved in doing that, but perhaps that is the single biggest lever that the British Government, working with the Irish Government, can offer.
Human rights are important. Individuals should feel that their rights as individuals, not just as members of collective groups, are upheld. It is necessary to develop a coherent and devolved strategy for Northern Ireland—indeed, for the whole of the British Isles—that would make it easy for individuals to express their identity without having to be forced back into one section of their communities. The Minister might want to say something on that.
Finally, I accept that reforms need to be made to the agreement, but those reforms should take account of such things as the very entrenched voting system in Stormont that caused the Alliance party to have to redesignate in order to play the game of achieving certain shared results in Northern Ireland.
I have raised questions to which I hope the Minister can respond, but let us remember that the whole debate is in the context of the forthcoming 2003 elections. The clock is ticking, and the more that the Government can do now to remove the divisions, the more optimistic I will be that we will have pro-agreement manifestos in abundance during next year's elections in Northern Ireland.
12.10 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: First, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech introducing it. I would want to expropriate nearly all of it for the Front Bench, shortly before he is expropriated in person for the Front Bench, given the quality of his presentation today.
It is inappropriate that this debate is happening in this second-division Chamber at this time. Although I commend right hon. and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies for attending in a first-division manner, the fact is that this debate should be taking place on the Floor of the main Chamber of the House of Commons, with contributions from the Prime Minister and the principal spokesmen for the other parties.
David Burnside: As the Prime Minister has given a commitment to make an announcement to the House by 24 July, no doubt by means of a statement, will the hon. Gentleman ask the Government to give the House the opportunity for a full debate on the subject?
Mr. Blunt: I would certainly prefer a full debate, but I shall ask the Government this morning for a commitment to a statement to the House by the Prime Minister before we rise on 24 July. I understand that the Prime Minister has given such an undertaking, but I should like the Minister explicitly to repeat that this morning.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon has made it clear that relations between the communities on the ground, particularly at interface points, have got
280WH
worse. The evidence of that is the building of walls—the spread of walls and the increase in their height. They are a shame on a modern European city, a city that aspires to be the European city of culture in 2008, but that is what is happening to the physical geography of Belfast.
The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) demolished his own case when he said that the IRA has honoured its ceasefire as it sees it. I am afraid that that is not the test. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made a point about the need for sanctions. It is for the Government to come forward with those details, but I shall have some suggestions on that towards the end of my remarks. I commend the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) on his balanced and honest approach—an approach that we have come to expect from him—to all the problems in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) drew our attention to the important work done by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs and the need for the Government to increase the resources to be given to the recovery of assets from criminals. As the Committee said, it is unacceptable for 40 officers of the Gardai to be devoted to that, but only 10 in Northern Ireland. I assume that those are the figures to which the hon. Member was referring. That is, of course, not the totality of people devoted to the attack on organised crime, but that unit is extremely important and needs urgently to be reinforced.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), in his customary way, gave us a full catalogue of the activities of an organisation not wedded to peace. It is very difficult to gainsay the evidence that he adduced. The hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) referred to the ambiguities in the agreement. I must tell the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) that the Conservative party has been wedded to the aim of finding a solution to the problems in Northern Ireland and, during its terms in office, produced the Sunningdale agreement under Sir Edward Heath and the Anglo-Irish agreement under my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, and played an active part in the current peace process, which I would argue began under my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Brooke, when he was Secretary of State. My right hon. Friends the Members for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the then Leader of the Opposition, and for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the then shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, campaigned alongside the Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for a yes vote in 1998.
Mr. Stephen Pound: I respect the hon. Gentleman for his comments about his party's commitment to the continuation of the peace process. In that connection, I sincerely regret a facetious comment that I made when leaving a meeting yesterday, which referred to the hon. Gentleman. I withdraw it entirely and without reservation.
Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that handsome withdrawal of an appalling remark. He and I are now roughly in balance. Once or twice my sense of humour has got the better of my sense of judgment, so I accept his full apology.
Lembit Öpik: I praise what the Conservatives have done in the past, particularly John Major, who was

281WH
instrumental in the current process. However, I was concerned earlier this year when I understood that the Conservatives were pulling out of the cross-party agreement. They sound as if they are now on board, for which I have unequivocal praise.
Mr. Blunt: We have always been on board, and it is the hon. Gentleman's understanding that has been at a loss.
The Belfast agreement, on which the whole peace process is built, was based on a commitment by the parties to end violence. The assumption was that Sinn Fein would deliver the IRA, and that was not an unreasonable assumption to make since the people who represent Sinn Fein, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East made clear, are by and large the same people who sit on the army council of the Provisional IRA. The agreement was sold to the people of Northern Ireland by the Prime Minister, and the Minister will remember his speech at the Balmoral show ground, which bears repeating. The Prime Minister said:
"The problem is this: I believe that most people would be ready to accept even the hardest parts of the Agreement if they had genuine confidence that the paramilitaries were really ready to give up violence for good. I welcome Sinn Fein's endorsement of the Agreement and all that it implies. This is a historic shift. But after the experiences of the last 30 years, and some recent statements about no decommissioning, it is hardly surprising that for many, that confidence is simply not there."
I refer right hon. and hon. Members to the comments that followed:
"These factors will provide evidence upon which to base an overall judgment—a judgment which will necessarily become more rigorous over time."
That was the basis on which people in Northern Ireland voted for the agreement. I do not know why that speech has disappeared from the No. 10 website, or why it is no longer referred to. I sincerely hope that, given its importance, it will be listed again by No. 10 as one of the Prime Minister's seminal speeches.
What has happened over the past four years? We have had the procurement of weapons in Florida, and weapons testing has been carried out in Columbia in conjunction with narco-terrorists, with appalling consequences for the Columbian people. Updated targeting information has been uncovered, and shooting and beatings have risen since 1998. Most regrettably of all, we have witnessed the attitude of Sinn Fein's leadership to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which is a key and symbolic test. When the chairman of Sinn Fein was not prepared to condemn the attempted murder of a Catholic recruit to the PSNI, what message did he send to the whole community of Northern Ireland about Sinn Fein's commitment to peace? I said to him yesterday that it remains absolutely necessary for him to make it clear that Sinn Fein abhors violence and is fully committed to peace. If he will not do that, what conclusion are people expected to draw when they hear Gerry Adams say that the PSNI will be treated the same as the RUC?
Everyone knows what conclusions they should draw. The judgments that have to be applied to Sinn Fein and the republicans are different from those that have to be applied to loyalists. The Progressive Unionist party and
282WH
the Ulster Democratic party, which no longer exists, are not in government. I have heard the leadership of the PUP be more explicit in its condemnation of loyalist violence from its community than Sinn Fein ever has of violence coming from the republican community.
The Government face three options. The ideal option is for Sinn Fein to show leadership and condemn violence in the republican community, and to make it unequivocally clear that it is fully committed to the peaceful, democratic process. That is what we are looking for, and it can show leadership by further acts of decommissioning, joining the Policing Board and taking a constructive attitude towards the police in Northern Ireland. It can even show leadership in the language that it uses to the republican and nationalist community in Northern Ireland. The SDLP has already bravely given such leadership.
If that does not happen the Government will have to show leadership and deliver on the Prime Minister's Balmoral speech, which is the second option. If the Government do not deliver, we will look to the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist party, which have been fully committed to the democratic process, to exercise their responsibilities, which is the third option. However, it should not be left to them.
It is now down to the Prime Minister again to show the leadership that he used in negotiating the Belfast agreement four years ago. He should make it clear that in word and in spirit the Belfast agreement and the peace process will continue.
12.21 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) deserves our gratitude for offering us an opportunity to debate a subject that rightly generates passion and interest across the House. He further deserves our compliments for the thoughtful and eloquent way in which he opened the debate. In his speech he displayed a depth of understanding of the issues that set the scene for this debate at—I would be the first to concede this—such a difficult time.
The hon. Gentleman made a point to which I should like to refer before I deal with the wider issues. He and other hon. Members referred to the Select Committee report, which is very interesting and I commend it to those who have not read it. The Select Committee says that it has
"been encouraged by the evidence … that the Government is tackling"
organised crime and links to paramilitarism and are
"developing powerful and effective strategies to counter them".
It also says:
"Those who are actively engaged in the difficult and dangerous work of tackling paramilitaries and serious criminals have a right to expect not only a formal commitment to their work but properly resourced support by Government for the long term."
The report is weighty and comes from a serious Select Committee that has done some serious work. I should like members of the Committee who are present to accept that the Government take the recommendations in that enormously interesting report seriously.
It is not possible to draw a straight numerical comparison between what the Government are doing in Northern Ireland to tackle organised crime and policing

283WH
in the Republic of Ireland. I shall say this about the way in which the PSNI tackle organised crime. Two reserve police officers on duty in Newry in the middle of the night spotted a suspicious vehicle that was dripping oil. They were unable to stop the vehicle, but they followed the trail of oil and discovered a fuel laundering plant that was laundering 1 million litres of fuel each month, which was creating a £500,000 loss to the Exchequer. One cannot say that the number of officers that the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland allocates to tackling organised crime is insufficient, because the whole of the PSNI turns its hand to tackling organised crime and deserves to be commended.
I shall now deal with the main subject, which is the general future of the peace process in Northern Ireland. The debate comes when we are confronted with significant challenges for the implementation of the agreement, which must be met before we can move ahead and make further progress. As we promised, we are considering how we overcome the challenges. We must overcome them, because the process can only go forward on the basis of commitment to entirely peaceful methods by those who are engaged in it. The Belfast agreement has brought us a long way, but it has the potential to take us much further, and we must hold to that fact.
As we become more distant from the awful days before the ceasefires, it is easy to forget what a transformation there has been in many aspects of life in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was right to refer to the achievements that the agreement has made possible.
The most obvious development is that there is less violence. There is still too much street violence, and too many murders and scenes such as the utterly indefensible displays at Drumcree on Sunday. That is unacceptable. I should like to make it clear that the Government do not believe that there is any acceptable level of violence. Nevertheless, the contrast between what we have now and the days of the all-out terrorist campaigns is striking. There is too much violence—we could discuss the average number of deaths and so on—but it is important to hold to the fact that there have been many fewer deaths. In that context, what happened on Sunday in Drumcree must be kept in perspective and, for that reason, the comments of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) are very telling.
The two acts of IRA decommissioning were of enormous symbolic significance and should not be dismissed lightly. The second was acknowledged by
284WH
the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to involve a "varied and substantial" quantity of weapons.
Lady Hermon rose—
Jane Kennedy: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I shall resist interventions, because I have very little time left to deal with these very serious issues.
There has also been a massive rapprochement between political points of view, which for so many years have been in diametric opposition. A great deal of economic improvement has taken place. It has been under way for some years, but the prospect of peace has done a great deal to accelerate and embed it. Belfast has a vibrancy and character like never before. On a Saturday night in the city centre, hundreds of young people from all backgrounds visit clubs, pubs and restaurants and talk and laugh on the streets, as one would expect in any prosperous, up-and-coming city centre anywhere in the United Kingdom. The Government have done all that they can to sustain the process of economic development.
The Government and others have made enormous efforts to implement the agreement. However, the unfolding of the implementation process has given rise to legitimate concerns, which have grown in recent months. We must acknowledge that the benefits that I just mentioned have not been fully enjoyed by all in Northern Ireland. As has been too frequently and chillingly depicted on our television screens, there are areas in which reconciliation and partnership appear to be a remote prospect.
I acknowledge that hope has become tarnished as anxiety has grown that there may be a less full-hearted commitment—I put it no stronger than that—to peace and partnership among players on both sides of the community than we had hoped for at one stage. Such concerns have been at the centre of discussions between the political parties and Governments, including the proceedings at Hillsborough last week, which were led by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach.
In the minute that I have left, I shall not go into the detail of the Government's thinking on the issues, nor shall I give the commitments that have been sought today. The Government must be permitted to take all the issues seriously and to respond carefully, as we promised we would in the commitment that we made last Thursday. I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Devon for giving us the opportunity to debate the issues.

Flood Defences
12.30 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: I make no apologies for returning to a subject on which I secured an Adjournment debate, to which the Minister responded, just before the last general election. I do not apologise partly because the subject is a matter of considerable concern in my constituency—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. It would be courteous to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) if post mortems on the previous debate were held outside this Chamber.
Mr. Todd: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Local people in South Derbyshire continue to be worried about the issue. In winter 2000, there were incursions into the communities of Hatton, Willington, Shardlow and Barrow upon Trent, and several smaller incursions into other communities, that caused damage to private property and made local people anxious about their future. They were worried about their possessions, livelihoods and whether they would be able to continue to live in their chosen area. Since then, the community of Hatton, in particular, has benefited substantially from investment in repairing existing flood defences, raising flood defences to more appropriate levels, and in ongoing provision of new flood defences, which should be completed next month. Severn Trent, the area's sewerage company, has engaged in a positive programme to improve the sewerage network to prevent a flow back of sewage into people's houses, which had distressing and damaging effects in 2000.
Progress has been made and I commend the work that has been done. Incidentally, I also commend the strategic review that has just started on the Trent catchment area. The scoping document has come to me and the review should lead to a clearer strategy for the area—perhaps next year. That will be very welcome. My constituency is crossed by the Dove, Trent and Derwent rivers and by several minor brooks, which are also prone to flooding. Flood defences are a key priority of the people of South Derbyshire, but I want to paint a wider picture.
It is important to recognise that floods are a national problem of considerable scale. Hundreds of people in South Derbyshire faced the loss of their homes during part of the winter of 2000, and 10,000 homes throughout the country were affected in that way. Many communities outside South Derbyshire are anxious about the prospect of winter.
The insurance industry has signalled its willingness to continue to renew policies in areas that are considered to be flood risks until the end of the year. However, it is ringing alarm bells about the prospect of continuing to offer that service for citizens of such areas beyond that date unless the Government take various steps. I shall address those steps later.
In a question to the Prime Minister, I referred to the insurance company esure's announcement that it will not offer insurance products to people in areas at risk of
286WH
floods. Several insurance companies have already taken action. I have corresponded with Norwich Union, for example, about difficulties that my constituents have experienced when trying to renew insurance products. Alarm bells are ringing and if they are not addressed, people's ability to sustain a reasonable standard of living in these communities will be affected. It is essential that householders can purchase at reasonable cost insurance products that can secure their property and its contents against flood risk. If that is not available, these communities will become less sustainable.
The overall picture of funding of flood defences is addressed in one of the key arguments that the insurance sector has advanced. If we refer to the evidence on expenditure on flood and coastal defences that was given to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—of which I am a member—in 2001, in the current year £414 million is expected to be spent on flood defences by a variety of agencies. It is important to stress that that is not only Government expenditure, but also expenditure that is authorised through local authorities. However, research sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs states that longer-term funding of £565 million per year is required simply to maintain current standards of defences, to improve them to acceptable levels and to mitigate predictable climate change impacts. Therefore, there is a spending gap that desperately needs to be addressed.
We now know that the Chancellor will announce the spending round next week and I am well aware that the Department has made representations on this subject in the spending review. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to be able to give me an answer as to precisely what the contents of that review will be—he is shaking his head, as I expected. However, I hope that he can at least give some favourable indication as to how the concerns that the Department has expressed have been received by the Treasury.
It is fair to say—I always try to be fair—that expenditure on flood defences has increased in the past couple of years. Nevertheless, according to the data that the Department itself provided, this gap exists and we should try to deal with it.
The next issue will also be familiar to my hon. Friend—the organisational complexity of how that money is used and how we get results from it. I have always found it bizarre that there are about 600 organisations in this country that have some say in how flood defences are managed. I also find it strange that many of them have no clear statutory duty to carry out any particular tasks that are critical to the delivery of flood defences. Therefore, we had the astonishing example—which my hon. Friend will recall, because he
had to answer a series of written parliamentary questions from me about it—of the failure of local authorities to co-operate with the Environment Agency in the inspection of ditches and watercourses, even though it is their responsibility to inspect them and to ensure that they are properly maintained. I was staggered by the evidence that a large number of local authorities had responded by saying either that they did not have the resources to do the job or that they did not have the expertise to do it and that it would therefore have to be postponed until a more appropriate time or until they could find such expertise. That is unacceptable.

287WH
Providing information on flood risk in local communities is a crucial task. Sadly, it is not the case that all of the local authorities that responded in that way had had no experience of flood risk. There is a list of the local authorities that responded in that way; I will riot run through it, but it is on the record, and a glance at it will show several communities where flood risk was a fairly recent experience and yet their local authorities were unable to do those jobs.
I attended a meeting that my hon. Friend the Minister addressed in which he said that the system is extremely complicated but it works—I suppose that it depends on what one means by works. The English way of administration is normally described as muddling through. We provide an extremely complicated way of doing something and, because we are all well-intentioned people who are innovative in our ways, we get across problems and barriers and produce an outcome that most people are prepared to accept.
No one would suggest that the organisation of flood defences is optimal. In Scotland, for example, local authorities are obliged to carry out various tasks relating to the inspection and maintenance of areas of flood risk for which they are responsible, but there is no matching responsibility in England. We may wish local authorities to take on that responsibility, but it is up to their electors to decide whether it is a priority for expenditure. There is not even an obligation to spend money set aside in revenue support to a local authority on the task for which it was intended. The Government's statistics contain information on the amount of money that local authorities are supposed to spend on floods, flood defences and flood protection, but we have no way of knowing whether that money has been spent or whether it matches the amount of money that is needed. We might have tolerated that sort of spatchcock muddle at a time when the risk of flooding was lower, but it is no longer acceptable.
It is clearly necessary to change the way in which we tackle the matter. We need to provide clearer executive leadership to the management of flood defences in this country, and in my view such leadership should be vested in the Environment Agency. Those who are supposed to be co-operating with the agency in its task should be under a clear statutory obligation to do the things that they are supposed to do to ensure that such activity is not optional or voluntary. There needs to be a more resilient framework for dealing with those problems.
Although it is clear that the risk that lies ahead is not readily quantifiable, it is substantial. The research commissioned from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and the Met Office by DEFRA indicates that in the past 50 years there has been a significant increase in the incidence of heavy rainfall and peak river flow. Although those organisations cannot directly link that increase to climate change because we do not have enough data, they say that the changes are consistent with predicted climate change. We have been warned and must take clear action.
My final point returns to the local perspective. We all have a role in flood defence, and that includes landowners and developers who want to use ground that lies in flood risk areas. We desperately need better quality maps to show where those areas are. The Environment Agency readily concedes that its current
288WH
maps are incomplete and not necessarily very accurate. The insurance industry often uses postcodes to indicate flood risk, which is extremely inaccurate. We need a more authoritative base on which to decide those things. We also need clearly to define the policy that applies to those areas.
In Scotland, virtually no development is taking place in flood risk areas, which is partly because there are additional call-in powers if a development is proposed. In England, there is still significant new development on flood plains. Another issue is how one deals with the replacement of existing development. We all have responsibility: landowners, the Government, private individuals living in the affected areas and insurance providers as well. In that context, more money and a clearer organisational framework are required.
12.45 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I am grateful to the Minister and the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) for allowing me a short intervention during this Adjournment debate. I have three quick questions for the Minister. First, we know that so far this year we have had historically high rainfall. The acquifers are full and the ground is saturated and, in October, there will be an astronomical high tide. What reassurance can the Minister give that there will not be massive flooding during October?
Secondly, does the Minister believe that more should be done—and if so, what—to encourage the use of natural or "soft" flood defences? Thirdly, one of the problems is that flood water is not egressing into the sea because rivers are inadequately dredged. Would the Minister detail what improvements there have been in the dredging of the mouths of tidal rivers?
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on securing the debate. He has been very active on the issue of flood defence, including the institutional arrangements and funding. I know that it is a particular interest in his constituency, as he has outlined during the debate. He has also been a very active participant in the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which produced a good report on flood and coastal defence. That report influenced the Government's examination of the institutional arrangements. He will be aware of our funding review, to which he made a very constructive response. We are looking at the institutional arrangements, as well as the way that we raise funding, so that we have a more transparent system.
I stand by what I said to the all-party flood defence group. I was pleased that that group was set up. It was a very useful opportunity to discuss the issues. Given the risks in this country—an island surrounded by sea with high rainfall—our record in flood and coastal defence stands up in comparison with any other country, and is better than many. I know that that is no consolation to those who have been affected by flooding, and I make that absolutely clear.
In response to one of the questions from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), I do believe that there is more that we can do. We intend to

289WH
do more and natural defences are certainly an option that we are embracing in the range of options that we are considering for flood and coastal defence. There has been high rainfall recently, although there was quite a dry spell in the spring, and I have had no reports that there is a serious cause for concern in relation to acquifer levels. All the factors, including tidal surges, are monitored regularly by the Environment Agency and local authorities. We have a contingency plan for dealing with them. On dredging, the Environment Agency does carry that out, and it can be a useful measure in relation to water courses, but it is not that useful in tidal estuaries. Whatever is taken out of a tidal estuary is simply filled up by the volume of the sea and has a limited effect, so it depends on where the dredging takes place. I am often asked about dredging, but it is much more limited than some people think.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire, we are going ahead with the review. We will be publishing our proposals in the autumn detailing what people have said to us and our response. Many responses have been very helpful and constructive. People feel that many of the recommendations in the funding review are desirable. Some examples include the connection charge, regional customer bodies, an operating authority to be the sole service provider, and expert advisers for regional customer bodies with the possibility of subcontracting works to local authorities and the internal drainage boards. The review also suggested how we could streamline arrangements in the short term, including transferring to the Environment Agency responsibility for managing critical ordinary watercourses, blocking grant payments for some or all of the present funding delivered to the agency by the Government and removal of one of the tiers of flood defence committees. The flood plain levy, about which my hon. Friend was concerned, was not an option favoured in the funding review from the very beginning and it is no surprise to me that it is not favoured in the responses. We consulted on the proposals and will respond in due course.
I want to speak briefly about esure, which my hon. Friend mentioned. We spoke in some detail and had a constructive engagement with the Association of British Insurers. I have said on many occasions that we have the same agenda, which is to reduce the risk for people in this country. No one can guarantee that flooding will not happen, but we can do and are doing a great deal about flood risks. To be blunt, it was a bit of a cheek for esure to state publicly that it would not provide insurance in flood risk areas. We are not aware that it has ever provided significant insurance in flood risk areas. The company is entitled to cherry-pick customers and go for low-risk business in a competitive market, but its attempt at what many in the industry felt was a publicity stunt has seriously backfired. The company has come in for considerable criticism from consumers and industry bodies. It did not pull out of the market—it was not actually in it—but used the situation as an excuse to draw attention to its market decision.
I was surprised by a recent statement from esure that it would provide insurance in some flood-risk areas in Scotland but not in England. That did not come as a total surprise, as it is a Glasgow-based Scottish
290WH
company, but what was a surprise was the seeming lack of understanding about the differences between Scottish and English approaches to flood and coastal defence and the comparative risks.
The approaches are not dissimilar in terms of planning, but investment commitments are very different. For example, the total spend on flood and coastal defence in Scotland is about £10 million a year on capital and £2 million a year on revenue. In England, we spend a combined total of more than £400 million. In the 40 years since 1961, 60 schemes have been approved in Scotland. More than twice that number are approved each year in England. Since the floods of 2000, my Department has approved a total of 274 new flood and coastal schemes, at an approved cost of £386,417,694. That is the difference in scale.
Those figures are not meant to criticise Scotland but to put in perspective the differences between the two countries. I cannot say that I am very impressed with esure's arguments, and I am not at all sympathetic to the fact that it has come out of the episode with some damage to its reputation.
Mr. Todd: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of comparisons with Scotland, will he discuss the primary legislation that exists in Scotland but not in England that obliges local authorities to perform various duties in respect of flood defence?
Mr. Morley: I am grateful that my hon. Friend raised that matter, because such legislation does not exist in Scotland. There is no duty to undertake capital works in Scotland, in the same way that there is no duty to do so in England. There is a duty to carry out maintenance of watercourses if they represent a risk of flooding in urban areas and there is, in effect, a duty to maintain the existing defences in our country through the regional flood defence committees, but there is no real difference between the two countries. I am not aware that Scotland has agreed to the higher defence standards that have been proposed by the ABI.
It is not the case that there are different statutory obligations in Scotland and England. There are some differences in the way that the organisation is put in place for flood planning. I do not believe, however, that the way in which we provide, for example, flood risk mapping, which is taken into account by local authorities in their structure plans, causes a difference in outcome. However, we have an open mind on such matters. We are talking to the ABI and proposing further future investment. In this country, we are always seeking to improve our organisation and the way that we do things, with the objective of reducing the risk to our population.
My hon. Friend mentioned local authority participation in flood defence inspections, a fair point to raise. Those inspections are part of the series of high-level targets that we have set to ensure that defences and watercourses are properly inspected by the bodies and agencies that have operational responsibility for them. I hope to be able to publish shortly a report from the Environment Agency on the results of those inspections and the part that local authorities have played in them. Of course, any local authorities that have not played that part will be identified, although many that had not sent in reports have subsequently done so. There has been some catching-up on the targets set.

291WH
In the longer term, one option being considered under the funding review, as my hon. Friend knows, is for critical ordinary watercourses to become the responsibility of the Environment Agency. I want to consider that option very carefully, in the light of information received through the high-level targets. I know that my hon. Friend and other organisations and bodies have raised responsibility for non-main critical watercourses. There will have to be some adjustments—there might be some main watercourses that are not critical, which could be de-mained. There are also financial implications for the Environment Agency, which we will have to take into account. That option may well improve the way in which those watercourses are dealt with. Although they are often small, they can account for quite serious flooding. We are aware of that and that option would be part of the overall approach that we are taking to reduce such risk.
As my hon. Friend rightly concluded, I am not yet in a position to comment on our spending review 2002 bid, although I expect to be able to do so in the not-too-distant future. Spending on the commitments that we have made to flood and coastal defence in this country has risen. For example, between 1996–97 and 2003–04—the end of our current spending review period—total Government expenditure is expected to increase from £309.7 million to £414.2 million in cash terms, an increase of nearly 34 per cent. That reflects the considerable extra money put into flood and coastal defence as a result of the floods in 2000 and the exceptional rainfall experienced then.
My hon. Friend is right to say that, while we cannot yet say that there is a long-term trend towards higher rainfall and climate change, we must plan for that. We must look at the worst-case scenarios and ensure that they are factored into our future planning and financial commitments. We have research and development budgets that are committed to climate forecasting and trying to gain a better understanding of potential climate change and what that might mean for this country in the long term. The Government and my Department are funding and supporting a number of projects. We are also investing heavily in flood warning, Investment that has increased significantly with the £100 million committed over the next 10 years through the Environment Agency.
Mr. Todd: While my hon. Friend is touching on that subject, will he refer to my comment on the need for better mapping to show exactly where flood risks occur?
Mr. Morley: I accept that need. The flood risk mapping that the Environment Agency has put in place and made publicly available is a great advantage, but it is not 100 per cent. accurate and the Environment Agency has never claimed that that is the case. I am very impressed with the work that Norwich Union is doing on digital mapping, which is much more accurate. We are keen to co-operate with such involvement to improve information so that people can ascertain risk and we can work, through our investment, which is at record levels, to continue to reduce that risk in this country.

Meat Exports (European Union)
1 pm
Mr. Michael Weir: It is perhaps appropriate that this debate is being held today, when the European Commission is due to publish proposals on changes to the common agricultural policy. This debate focuses on one aspect where commonality has clearly failed, due to certain Governments' actions to protect their own country's farming interests.
In this debate, I intend to cover two main points: the position of Scottish beef exports to Europe and the dangers posed to Scottish lamb exports to France. I imagine that the Minister does not need me to go into any great detail on the ban of beef exports to the European Union in the wake of the BSE crisis. Suffice it to say that Germany had lifted its ban by March 2000, leaving only France banning beef imports, a position that it still maintains. All other European Union countries now allow the import of beef, although, obviously, the amount being exported is well down compared with pre-BSE exports.
I note that Jim Walker of the Scottish National Farmers Union was reported in the Daily Record on 18 March 2000 as commenting on Germany's lifting of the ban:
"Ministers must now work to increase the amount of beef we can export".
Since then, we have been visited by the disaster of foot and mouth, although Scotland, with the exception of Dumfries and Galloway and a small part of the border area, did not suffer as much as other parts of the United Kingdom. Since then, however, I understand that there have been hardly any beef exports from the UK at all.
My first question to the Minister is to ask what action his Department has taken, in conjunction with the Scottish Executive, to restart and increase the amount of Scottish beef being exported to Europe. What plans does he have to take that forward during the next 12 months?
The Minister should be aware that there is rising disbelief in Scotland that France is continuing to get away with banning Scottish beef imports, when the incidence of BSE in Scotland was never high—in fact, it is rising in France while it is falling in Scotland. In the UK in 1999, there were 2,133 reported cases of BSE but only 35 of those, compared with 93 the previous year, were in Scotland. One reason for that is that most Scottish cattle are reared specifically for beef and are not simply a by-product of the dairy industry. The majority of BSE cases have been in dairy cattle in England. Lest it be thought that I am being narrowly nationalistic, I acknowledge that the English industry has taken stringent safety steps. UK beef as a whole is probably now the safest in Europe, although Scottish beef always was.
Before the BSE crisis, Scottish beef exports to the European Union were worth about £120 million per annum. Now they are worth almost zero. Only one abattoir in Scotland, located in Bridge of Allan, Stirlingshire, can process beef under the present date-based export scheme, and it has already said that it will not re-enter the European market until Europe reviews the costly and complicated structure of the scheme.

293WH
Can the Minister tell us whether there is to be any review of the date-based scheme? Given that the incidence of BSE has always been, and continues to be, low in Scotland, what representations have the Government made to the European Union for Scotland to be granted low-incidence status, which would hopefully mean fewer regulations on the export of beef to Europe?
Before the ban, exports of quality Scottish beef were worth about £125 million per year. That trade disappeared overnight and is now, even with the lifting of the ban, worth only a fraction of that amount. Before the ban, about 110,000 tonnes of UK beef—10 per cent. of total consumption—went to France. That market has now gone.
The French ban remains in place despite the fact that, this April, the European Union Food and Veterinary Office visited French laboratories, rendering plants, feed mills and other institutions. It reported that potentially infected material from animal carcases was getting into animal feed, and the rules on handling specified risk materials banned from the human food chain were not fully implemented. That is from a country that bans the import of beef from this country—double standards par excellence.
Earlier this year, it was suggested that the French Government were maintaining the ban for political reasons in the run-up to the French elections, but there was still no evidence of movement once the elections were out of the way. The French Government are flouting European Union law in an act of blatant protectionism. Either European law applies to everyone, or it is of no use to anyone. The illegal ban has now lasted for more than three years and action is long overdue. Will the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking to deal with the apparent outright double standards of the French, who maintain the ban on Scottish beef for purely political reasons?
On 26 June, it was reported that France had been given a 15-day ultimatum by the European Commission to lift its ban on United Kingdom beef or face large daily fines. By my imperfect arithmetic, that period expires today. Has any action been taken by the French Government to lift the ban? Has there been any communication to the UK Government or the European Commission indicating their intention to lift the ban? If that has not happened, will the UK Government ensure that the EU takes action this time?
Secondly, I am concerned about the proposed French action against Scottish lamb. I know that this is also of extreme concern to my friends in Wales who, as the Minister may be aware, have an important lamb industry.
Hywel Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he accept that the sheep meat sector is vital for both our countries, particularly my constituency, which largely consists of hill farms? The French ban is having a serious effect on that industry, especially given the pressure on farm incomes, which are substantially lower than they are in England.
Mr. Weir: Indeed, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. As he will know, many parts of Scotland have
294WH
what was a thriving sheep industry. Parts of Angus, Perthshire and the highlands have a great many sheep, and many are on hill farms that cannot diversify to overcome the problems imposed by bans, such as the one proposed by the French. It has been reported that France plans to introduce draconian new processing rules that would decimate lamb exports from Scotland and Wales. It is said that the French will demand the removal of spinal cord from the carcases of all lambs aged over six months, despite the fact that European scientific advisers say that there is no justification for that. Despite extensive research and a lot of money being ploughed into it, there is no evidence that BSE, is present in sheep at all.
The Minister must be well aware that a French ban would be a disaster for an industry that my hon. Friend has already said is reeling under the impact of foot and mouth. I know that it affected Wales far more than it did Scotland. That is yet another example of the French Government attempting to act unilaterally, which simply cannot be tolerated. Europe either works for all, or it works for none. Such actions undermine those of us who believe in the European Union, and wish to see movement in Europe. However, unilateral action by one Government against our farming industry is simply unacceptable.
The Minister will also be aware that prior to 1999, total UK sheep meat exports to the rest of the EU were, according to figures from his Department, over 100,000 tonnes per annum, and worth some £200 million to the rural economy. Last year, that figure fell to some 30,000 tonnes and the value to £77 million. Prior to that, France was a major buyer of Scottish lamb. However, it is not only the fact that France buys the lamb from Scotland and Wales, but that almost all lamb sold in other European countries moves through French ports. If the French Government implement the new rules, they will seriously jeopardise exports to France and to all other countries in the EU. The unilateral action of the French Government would affect exports not only to one country but to the whole EU. Again, that stands in the way of a free market in the EU.
I emphasise again that there is absolutely no evidence, despite a massive amount of research, that BSE is present in sheep. Scrapie is in sheep flocks in the UK, but it has been there for centuries without any ill effects. In Scotland, the Executive's forward strategy for agriculture seeks to eliminate the disease throughout the country. Steps are being taken to eliminate scrapie although there is no evidence that it can turn into BSE.
The proposals from the French Government are nothing more than another attempt to protect their sheep industry. A ban would be a disaster for the rural economies of Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, almost half of all lamb produced is exported and in normal times 80 per cent. of it goes to France. After the foot and mouth crisis, Scottish sheep farmers cannot survive another crisis. Although Scotland was not affected to the same extent as England and Wales by foot and mouth, the indirect effects on Scottish agriculture have been just as great because of the overall image of meat in the United Kingdom.
What action has the Department taken to tackle the Issue with the French Government? What action has the Minister taken with the European Union? Can he assure

295WH
us that if the French impose a ban, immediate action will be taken to ensure that it does not turn into another never-ending fiasco like the beef ban?
Those matters are crucial to the rural economies of Scotland and Wales. The Minister will be aware that in Scotland the average income of a farmer is £6,000 per annum, and I would guess that the average income is not much better than that in Wales. Sheep farmers are often hill farmers. They are not rich; they are very hardworking and they have suffered setback after setback in recent years. There is little prospect of diversification on hill farms because the ground is often suitable only for sheep and they cannot diversify, as is possible on some lowland farms. If a ban is imposed, many hill farmers will go out of business and the rural economy and the environment of Scotland and Wales will be the real losers.
Much as I respect the Minister, I must say that the Government are running out of credit with Scottish farmers, especially after the comments made by the Foreign Secretary on the common agricultural policy on Monday and the frankly offensive comments made in Scottish questions yesterday by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who went out of her way to agree that Scotland's farmers suffer from welfare dependency. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We have our own Parliament in Scotland, but unfortunately it does not have direct representation in Europe on those matters, despite their greater importance to the Scottish economy than to the UK economy. Scotland needs the normal powers of a normal independent nation to push those matters in the European Union. Until we reach that happy day, we are forced to rely on the UK Government to deal with such matters on our behalf. Will the Minister make sure that senior members of the Scottish Executive are allowed to represent Scotland in Europe on the issue, which is vital to Scotland and Wales? A lamb ban from France would see the end of those industries and yet more damage to the fragile rural economies of Scotland and Wales.
1.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) on securing the debate and making a strong case for both livestock farmers in his constituency and the situation in general. He will forgive me if do not agree with his last comment about the constitutional arrangements between Scotland and the United Kingdom, which, as he knows, are endorsed by the vast majority in Scotland.
I acknowledge that beef and lamb exports are important to the Scottish rural economy, as they are in Wales and England too. Members of the devolved Administrations have been closely involved at all levels of decision making in agreeing a joint UK approach to promote our interests and deal with some of the problems. I shall come to that in a moment, but first I shall deal directly with some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, before I forget them.
The hon. Gentleman asked about low-incidence status for BSE in Scotland and whether it could be applied for exports. We have considered it and discussed it with the Scottish Executive. The problem is that if
296WH
Scotland had low-incidence status, cattle movements across the border into the rest of Great Britain would have to be restricted. That would cause problems for many Scottish farmers. There are some practical difficulties in such an approach, assuming that agreement could he obtained.
Mr. Weir: I understand the Minister's point, but do not understand why the situation would be different, for example, if France had low-incidence status but Spain did not. The same problems would also arise between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, where there is a lot of cross-border traffic in cattle. Why would the circumstances be different for Scotland and England?
Mr. Morley: There would be problems because there is much more movement of cattle across the border between England and Scotland. English cattle are moved to Scottish slaughterhouses and Scottish cattle are moved to English slaughterhouses. Scottish cattle are moved south for all sorts of reasons. The Department's view is that there is much more movement in the patterns of the livestock trade, which would cause difficulties for Scottish farmers.
The hon. Gentleman is right, however, that BSE incidence is falling in this country very much in line with the projections of our scientists. The measures that we have had in place for some time and at some expense are working—there are no two ways about it. In some European countries, the incidence is rising. Therefore, we are making good progress and are on track to eliminate BSE.
It is fair to say that the overall number of cases has been higher in the UK than in other countries. Nevertheless, it is clear that our measures are working. As the number of incidents continues to decline, we will review the over-30-months scheme and the date-based export scheme. That is inevitable, and we will do it when the opportunity arises.
The hon. Gentleman asked what contact we have had with the French authorities about the reasoned opinion that the Commission has sent to the French Government on their non-compliance with the European Court ruling. As he stated, the opinion gives the French Government 14 days to respond as to why they have not complied with the ruling, but the court penalty is not automatically triggered after that period. Their response will be taken into account and, if the court feels that the response is inadequate, it has powers to take further action, which may include imposing daily fines on the French Government.
With our colleagues in the Scottish Executive and the devolved Administrations, we have been pressing very hard on the matter. We have lobbied actively and the subject has been raised at the highest level between the Prime Minister and Jacques Chirac as recently as 19 June. We have used all diplomatic channels open to us. The French equivalent of our Food Standards Agency contacted the FSA to ask about the measures that we have in place and their effectiveness. We know that the FSA is content with the measures and endorses what we have been doing about BSE. I hope that careful note is taken of that by the FSA's French equivalent, which has been asked to review the case by the new

297WH
French Government. That is a helpful move and I very much hope that the French Government will be persuaded that there is no justification for the ban in terms of consumer safety, let alone ignoring the law.
Mr. Weir: I am very interested in the Minister's comments. The French seem to be experts at obfuscation on the matter, which has been going on for years. The European Court gave them a 14 or 15-day period. Does the Minister know whether they have replied to the European Court or will things drag on even longer?
Mr. Morley: We certainly hope not. The dispute is between the European Commission and France. France is ignoring Community rules and it is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that those rules are applied. The court action has been brought and is being pursued by the Commission. We are actively reminding the Commission of its responsibilities and we expect an early resolution to the situation.
Court cases never move as fast as one would like. That applies not only to the European Court, but to courts in our country. Nevertheless, they get there in the end. I am confident that that will happen in this case. I hope that the French Government will think again before they are forced to go to court to lift their illegal ban. They have said to us that they are required by their national law to seek the views of their food standards agency—we know that they are doing that because their agency has been in touch with ours.
To lift the ban alone will not ensure that beef exports flourish. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument that changes need to be made to the date-based export scheme. We are considering those and how they might apply. Our efforts are having some effect. We hope that amendments to the scheme will be adopted in Brussels shortly because they would encourage renewed participation and permit British beef to begin to regain its rightful place in world markets. Beef from all regions has a strong identity and Scottish beef has a very good record in exports. We and the Scottish Executive are giving thought to providing practical assistance with charges to new entrants on the date-based export scheme.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly stated, the French authorities proposed a six-month age limit on spinal removal. We never felt that that was justified and I am glad to say that they have recently agreed to postpone that proposal, which would have been illegal—yet again—under Community law. I recognise that the trade is worth £15 million per month to UK industry, and that it is important to many people in the UK, from those in the Pennines to the Welsh and Scottish hill farmers. We have worked closely with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations, with the EU and with other member states in pressing France to reconsider their proposals.
Had the French gone ahead with their proposals, the banning of specified risk material in the spinal cord of all sheep over six months old could have undermined the harmonised EU rules that apply to sheep from 12 months old. In practice, that would have required UK
298WH
exporters to split lamb carcases to remove their spinal cords, certifying that lambs less than six months old pose considerable problems. Any live sheep export would have had to be certified beyond the EU standard. We are pleased with the thriving carcase exports to France and the rest of the continent and we hope that farmers concentrate on the carcase, rather than the live, element of exports.
In the opinion of the EU Scientific Steering Committee and the Food Standards Agency, the French proposals provided no significant consumer benefits. That is worth stressing. All countries have concerns about their consumers and want to ensure consumer protection; we are no different, which is reflected in our range of measures and how seriously we take them However, it does not make sense to impose measures that are totally disproportionate and offer so few benefits for consumer protection. We have made that point strongly, and said that the French proposals, and the way in which that country is acting unilaterally, are illegal under EU law. We are glad that France is thinking again about the matter and has postponed its measures. We will continue to press the fact that their approach is both illegal and unnecessary.
On consumer protection, the Food Standards Agency has been considering such matters as whether banning sheep intestines would be an appropriate consumer protection measure. It has asked the Commission to consider adding intestines to the EU specified risk material list, arguing for that measure in Europe and testing the science, rather than imposing it unilaterally. We think that that is a much more sensible way forward on such matters.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of our export markets for beef and, in particular, lamb at the present time. We on the UK side are working very hard, in conjunction with the devolved Administrations, to tackle those issues. It will take time to get our markets back. Once one comes out of a market, it takes time to re-establish oneself in it. It appears however, that the market for lamb has come back much faster than many people feared following the foot and mouth restrictions.
Mr. Weir: The beef market has been completely destroyed because of BSE. Does the Minister accept that a ban on lamb by the French, whether justified or not, has the potential to create the same devastation in the sheep meat industry? It is essential that the Government act, with the European Union, to stop the ban being imposed in the first place. Once a ban is there, the word will get around and the industry will take years to recover, if it can ever do so.
Mr. Morley: I absolutely accept that point, although it is an issue not only for us, but for other countries that sell to France and for French sheep traders themselves. The French sheep sector was very opposed to the French proposals for precisely the reason that the hon. Gentleman gave and for the reasons that I have emphasised. Such a ban would be difficult to enforce—ageing lambs less than six months old—it would not really improve consumer protection and it is disproportionate and illegal in Community law. We are glad that the French have withdrawn the proposals and we will press very strongly, through the EU and directly

299WH
with the French, for them to be dropped completely. They should not simply be postponed; the French should recognise that they are not in their interests.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the image of meat. We have made considerable strides in this country towards restoring consumer confidence. It was a shock to many European countries, which had said that there was no possibility that their national herds would have BSE, to find out that they did have it. In some cases, they did not have the same measures for consumer protection, monitoring and enforcement that we now have in place, although such measures are now being stepped up on an EU-wide basis, to deal with that problem.
Consumers here and in potential markets can have confidence in the measures that we have put in place in this country. They are based on the precautionary principle, sound science and good and effective enforcement. There has been a considerable cost to this country in putting those measures in place, but that investment is well worth it, given the increased consumer confidence and safety.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned scrapie in sheep. He will be aware that we have launched the national scrapie plan, which is designed to eradicate scrapie completely from our national flock. That is beneficial to the quality of the flock and in trade terms. It will also remove any lingering doubts that scrapie is masking BSE in sheep. The hon. Gentleman is right that we have no evidence that there is BSE in our national flock. It is not as if we were waiting for something nasty to hit us; we are actively monitoring the flock and seeking the signs of BSE, and have not found any evidence of it at all. That is also important for consumer protection.
I again congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the case that he has made. I hope that I have convinced him that we are working in partnership with the devolved authorities to tackle the issues that he raised. I believe that we are making effective progress on that and winning the argument through the sound, scientific and reasoned way in which we have put our case.

Counselling Young People
1.29 pm
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I thank the participants in the previous debate for giving me one extra minute to speak.
My reasons for initiating the debate are: first, to welcome the Government's recognition that children and young people have a legitimate right to be consulted on policy and public services; secondly, to highlight the position of children and young people in relation to citizenship; and thirdly, to ensure that the Government systematically review their methods of consulting children and young people so that all Departments improve and refine their consultation methods.
I strongly welcome the commitment from the Government, which has been led by the children and young persons unit, to involve young people in the design, provision and evaluation of policies and services that affect them. Young people are clearly users of public services and should be consulted as service users just as adults are. It has become accepted good practice in local government and central Government that public services should not be designed top down by service providers, but should try to respond to the actual needs, as opposed to the perceived needs, of the users. Consulting users is not just a public relations exercise; it actively contributes to the improvement of services, allows the expertise of service users to be incorporated into the design of services, and helps to identify which services should be prioritised.
An interesting example of that happening arose from an experience in my constituency. Milton Keynes council recently ran for children of primary and secondary school age a consultation day about the provision of local services. I was extremely surprised by the issue that those children, who were aged 7 and upwards, identified as their highest priority for extra spending. They wanted more police and more money spent on the police. They perceived that major problems were the bullying of younger children by older children, not just in schools where it can be dealt with but on the streets out of school hours, and harassment by adults—I do not think that they were referring to serious forms of abuse, but to adults who might speak to them in a way that they did not think was entirely appropriate. They also mentioned the problem of theft from children and focused, not exclusively, on mobile phones. They felt that they would feel safer if more police were about to whom they could appeal to protect them from those problems.
Children are clearly service users, but in a democracy children and young people are not just service users or consumers, they are citizens. I am pleased that from September, citizenship will be compulsory in British schools. Perhaps I should declare an interest: my husband has devised and has been running a course at the university of Leicester for training teachers of citizenship. I am pleased to say that all his students have found jobs in state schools starting in September. Some people are therefore trained and ready to teach citizenship.
The citizenship curriculum encourages young people to develop the knowledge and skills to enable them to be active participants in a democratic society. It also

301WH
encourages schools to be more democratic environments; it is important that young people are not just taught democracy as if it were a theoretical skill, but that they feel part of democratic institutions. Despite the apparent lack of interest from young people in conventional political activity, which we politicians are constantly bemoaning, a huge amount of data shows that young people are interested and often passionate about politics in its widest sense, and particularly in environmental issues. They are just not terribly interested in politics as it is put before them by politicians in the political process.
From their interest in environmental issues, young people are often clear about the fact that personal behaviour can link into policy commitment and that personal decisions about consuming less or recycling more are a demonstration of commitment to more environmentally friendly policies that speak more loudly than writing letters or nobbling politicians. Young people understand that political change can be influenced by personal action, and that it does not just start or end with voting.
That brings me to young people and voting, as voting is a key right in a democracy. Many argue that the fact that the 18-to-20-year-old age group has the vote but does not use it at the same rate as older adults is a strong argument for not reducing the voting age to 16. I think that that is wrong and reject the argument absolutely. The absence of voting rights for 16-year-olds contributes to lower participation rates among young people who have the vote.
As the under-18s cannot vote, none of the political parties have programmes that address the needs of young people. I hope that hon. Members agree. I went around knocking on doors before the last general election and when I spoke to young people I was struck that there was not much that I could say about our programme—or what they should be opposing in the programmes of other parties—that was relevant to them. We were all addressing older people in our political programmes.
It is not surprising that not many young people voted because for young people there was not much difference between the parties. We had nothing to say that was very relevant to them. If 16-year-olds had the vote, we politicians would have to develop policies that addressed their needs. That would give younger people a stronger reason to vote.
I have become interested in affordable travel for young people. Transport is an example of how young people's needs are undervalued because they are essentially disfranchised. Affordable travel is a key issue for pensioners and young people. There are great similarities between those two groups. A large proportion of both groups are heavy users of public transport. Many in both groups have relatively little access to the private car, and they both have low incomes. Everyone knows that free bus passes for pensioners is a huge political issue, because pensioners have the vote and a high participation rate, so we try to court them and respond to their needs. At the other end of the scale, affordable transport for young people is not on the political agenda because young people do not
302WH
have the vote, so the political parties do not address the issue. I am pleased that reducing the voting age is now on the agenda and I shall be supporting it.
Let us consider how the Government consult with children and young people. The Government's core principles were published in November 2001, but I tabled a series of written questions in April this year asking Departments when and with whom they had consulted in trying to gauge young people's interests. The answers showed a variable performance between Departments. Most said that they were drawing up an action plan to describe how they would consult with young people, but had not actually consulted with them. Whose responsibility is it to check that all Departments, have finalised their action plans and are delivering them?
There were some examples of good practice. I shall cite the Department of Health, but there was good practice elsewhere, too. The Department of Health's "Quality Protects" programme, which relates to social services, has a young person's reference group that meets three times a year and can comment on and feed into the programme. The organisation A National Voice gives young people who are, or were, in care a voice in policy development in relation to children in care. Interestingly, the paediatric cardiac review involved child cardiac patients as well as medical, personnel or the parents and carers of patients. They are good examples of good practice. Are the Government ensuring that all Departments follow those examples of actively consulting young people, so that good practice can be spread throughout the Government?
I draw attention to other models of consultation outside the Government. The science museum recently hosted a student review of the science curriculum, which was funded by Science Year. It started with nine regional conferences to identify issues in the science curriculum. A national group developed that into a web questionnaire. More than 350 students aged between 16 and 19 helped in the design of the questionnaire and, more than 2,000 students responded to it. Those responses were so useful and mature that the Select Committee on Science and Technology decided to take evidence from students who organised and took part in the review to inform its report on science education. Are the Government encouraging Departments to contract out consultations when appropriate to outside organisations?
The second example to which I want to draw attention is less successful. Earlier this year, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, as it then was, launched a consultation document on the driving licence and driving test., entitled "A More Structured Approach to Learning to Drive". Because that was clearly a subject of interest to young people, I sent copies of the document to each secondary school in my constituency and to the Milton Keynes college and encouraged students to respond directly to the consultation.
Milton Keynes college thought that the document was so opaque that its students would not be able to respond to it. It redesigned it and wrote a shorter, snappier version. That was handed out to students, who then discussed it and responded directly to the consultation. When Departments write public consultation documents, will they do so in a format that

303WH
is more user-friendly, particularly when the subjects are ones in which young people may be expected to have an interest?
Finally, I refer to consultation by bodies other than those in central Government, but on which the Government could give guidance. I thank the Howard League for Penal Reform, which drew my attention to its worries about the lack of consultation with children by local authorities during the formulation of local crime prevention plans. It said that too often children are seen as the problem that crime prevention plans should deal with, rather than the needs of the children themselves being considered. That is especially true of young teenagers, who are often seen as a threat by others in the community. By involving young people in crime prevention plans, the Howard League considers that more cost-effective solutions may often be found. As an example, it said that it may be more sensible to provide a free skateboard area or free swimming for children and young people as a more effective way of reducing the perceived problem of youths wandering about aimlessly than installing expensive closed circuit television, which simply watches them hanging about.
As many people know, Milton Keynes is a young city. The key complaint that I receive from older constituents concerns threatening young persons hanging about. One useful solution that we have found is the provision of youth shelters on local recreation grounds and parks. They give young people a place in which they can sit and chat to each other under cover, but not next door to shops or people's houses where they cause annoyance.
I draw attention to the Howard League citizenship and crime programme of which I am sure the Minister is aware. It has worked with more than 10,000 children in more than 100 schools to consider young people and crime prevention. I hope that the findings are being fed into the Government's thinking. Will the Minister ensure that Government guidance on drawing up crime prevention programmes and other types of community and partnership plans include the need to involve children and young people?
I commend the Government for the work that they have begun in involving young people. That is only the beginning, however, and I urge them to review the consultation continuously, so that we can all learn how to do it better.
1.44 pm
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Mr. John Denham): As the Minister responsible for children and young people, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on securing this debate. I share her view on the importance of involving young people and I am personally pleased to see that the issue is increasingly being raised in the House. I acknowledge the work of the two all-party groups—on children and on youth affairs—whose members are doing a lot to raise the profile of the issue, finding ways of listening to and involving children and young people and pushing the issue forward.
I am sympathetic to those of our colleagues who would like more regular opportunities to debate youth issues and for the relevant Ministers to take part in them. That has been the subject of much discussion, but I welcome today's debate as one opportunity to discuss youth affairs.
304WH
I think that all hon. Members share the vision of children and young people having more opportunities to be involved in the design and development of policies and services that affect them, and to be able to evaluate them and show where they have been successful. We want that partly because young people should genuinely feel that they can influence the services that they receive and, as part of the broader citizenship work that we are doing, because we want young people to feel that they can contribute to and benefit from the life of their local communities.
I share with my hon. Friend the belief that the result of the effective participation of children and young people in the development of policies and services is the improvement of those policies and services. She rightly asked me to set out some of the procedures and structures that the Government are putting in place to encourage greater participation. A hearts-and-minds issue is involved—we must convince those in local as well as central Government that the services that they deliver will improve and the taxpayers money that they spend will be better spent if young people have been involved in helping to shape those services.
To convince those involved would help the Government to achieve our ambitions for children and young people. It would help us to prevent and tackle the social exclusion of a significant minority of children and young people. It would enable young people themselves to build the stronger and more cohesive communities that we know we need to build in the years to come.
I am also clear about our commitment under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child to seek the views of children and young people. This year has been historic—during the UN special session on children, young people were able to address the General Assembly of the UN for the first time. I was pleased to have been a co-leader of the United Kingdom delegation, which included two young delegates, one from Scotland and one from Northern Ireland, who were able to participate in bilateral meetings that I had with Ministers from other countries. I was pleased to be the only Minister who had a youth delegate in those meetings, despite some countries claiming tremendous records in the field. That was a small first for UK representation at the UN.
There is a similar commitment throughout Europe. The UK has been at the forefront of the development with our recent White Paper on youth policy. The participation of young people is a key theme of that work. In the coming year, I hope that we can work with our European partners to share best practice and learn from the successes and problems that we all face in securing the participation of young people.
On the Government's record, as my hon. Friend said, we announced in November that we had agreed to follow and implement an ambitious set of core principles that will guide the approach that individual Departments should take in engaging children and young people. Nine Departments have been in the lead in that work, developing action plans for how they can build capacity within their Departments to involve young people, identify priority areas for working with children and young people and find ways of building the principle of involvement into the way that they communicate the work and the policies of those Departments. We worked with several children's

305WH
organisations to develop the principles and guidance, and they—and the young people that they involved in that work—have warmly welcomed the initiative.
We must be honest. Different Departments approached this work from very different starting points. Some of them had a lengthy history, at least in part of their activity, of involving young people; others had little history of that. Therefore, this represents a cultural challenge to some civil servants in Whitehall, and to some of my colleagues in Government.
We are determined to push this through and my hon. Friend asked how far we had got with it. The action plans from the nine Departments were published in May 2002, shortly after her series of parliamentary questions. That is not completed work; it sets out work in progress, but it shows that each of those Departments have begun, with support from the children and young people's unit, to tackle how they are going to take this forward.
The unit will report progress annually, which will give an opportunity to scrutinise our work. As I am the Minister with responsibility for children and young people, I will oversee the work of the unit. We also expect that young people will be involved in scrutinising our progress. However, I do not want to give the impression that I am in some way taking—or wishing to take—personal responsibility for ensuring that the whole of Government involve young people. This initiative has to become a part of the daily activity of individual Government Departments and Ministers. It would be a mistake to try to centralise all of this—to have, for example, a single unit that tries to carry out consultations on all of the work of each of the Government Departments.
Having recognised that Government Departments have uneven histories with regard to consulting young people, I now wish to point to some significant achievements that they have made in this area. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the work that is being done at the Department of Health. Also, in autumn 2001 we launched a consultation on an overarching children's strategy, which we hope will come to fruition later this year. It is intended to bring together all of the different policies that affect children and young people, so that it can give a single overall picture of what the policies of the Government, the voluntary sector and local authorities are trying to achieve.
Innovative types of consultation material were included in the project: some went out through primary schools, and some were distributed at cinemas, leisure centres and so forth. Therefore, we have gained good experience of which sorts of consultation material work—to refer to another of my hon. Friend's points. She will be interested to learn that one of the matters that came high on the agenda in that consultation was the importance of having safe routes to and from schools. It sounds as if that echoes one of the conclusions of the smaller survey that she conducted in Milton Keynes.
The Department for Education and Skills held consultation meetings with young people when it was working on the "Schools—achieving success" White Paper that was published in the autumn. It also designed a document, specifically for young people, on the new
306WH
proposals for education plans for 14 to 19 year-olds, and it has had more responses from young people in that age group than from all other respondents put together. For those of us who believe in this, that is an encouraging step forward.
The Home Office has been actively involving young people in consultations. For example, they took part in the consultations that were held after the disturbances in the north of England last summer, which addressed the issues involved in developing cohesive communities. Work that has been done with young people from Oldham and other towns is now being turned into educational material, videos and so forth, and they will be used in further meetings, consultations and discussion events in several towns and cities throughout the country in the summer and into the autumn. That is another encouraging sign: a real social challenge is being tackled in a way that acknowledges that the role of young people is crucial by going out and positively involving them in the work.
I mentioned the role of the children and young people's unit in supporting me and my work. As a result, I have been able to benefit from the expertise of the unit's advisory forum—26 young people aged between 11 and 18 who are from all backgrounds and walks of life and who hold forthright views on where they want to see change. That forum helped us to build the consultation on the Government strategy document that I mentioned earlier.
We also have a particular relationship with the United Kingdom Youth Parliament, which the Government have agreed to support with further funds. It meets next week. I shall attend, as will hon. Members from several different political parties. I look forward to reading the manifesto that the Youth Parliament will produce as a result of its meeting.
My hon. Friend asked several specific questions. I hope that I have set out what we have done with regard to the action plans and how we are ensuring that Departments follow examples of consulting young people. She asked whether Departments are encouraged to contract out consultations to outside organisations, if that is appropriate. That is among the range of possibilities that we suggested that Departments build into their consultation. Obviously, consultation has often been carried out through children and young people's organisations and organisations that work with children and young people. We need to allow for flexibility because there will be times when contracting out is the right approach and times when more direct consultation is important. However, I appreciate the value of the process.
My hon. Friend asked whether Departments could be encouraged to write public consultation documents in a more user-friendly format. Most of us would probably say that that applies to all consultation documents, not only to those aimed at young people. The answer is yes. Through the work of the Department for Education and Skills, work on the children's strategy and work that I shall mention on young people and voting, we have started to develop expertise on which I hope we can build.
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Member for Milton Keynes. South-West (Dr. Starkey) asked about votes at 16, and the Minister mentioned taxpayers' money. Sixteen and 17-year-olds may be taxpayers, so will he square the circle of no taxation without representation?
Mr. Denham: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman our position. One of the projects in which I have been personally involved is the "Y vote, Y not?" campaign, which was based on consultations with about 70 young people. It reached the end of its first phase of work at a conference last week and examined reasons why young people have not engaged with politics, and changes to processes that might encourage greater future involvement. A clear message that is not always understood is that we are not considering an apathetic or disinterested generation of young people, which is the picture that some people have painted. The generation has strong views on all issues about which hon. Members spend their time talking.
Young people do not think that we are talking about the issues with which they are concerned. That might well be because we spend a lot of our time talking about, or at, but rarely with, young people. That is a key issue on which politicians, political parties and those in the media should work together. We should not blame one group for getting things wrong, but our discussion of issues should be projected in ways that are more relevant
308WH
to young people. We should give young people the opportunity to join with the process and to see others involved in it.
The campaign raised the question of voting age. Sam Younger, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, announced last week that the commission would examine voting age and produce a report for Ministers to consider. That is a result of young people raising the issue through the "Y vote, Y not?" campaign and in other forums. We do not promise always to do what young people say any more than we always do what pensioners, trade unions or businesses say. However, young people have a right to have their views taken seriously and addressed and to receive a proper response to any issues that they raise.
My hon. Friend mentioned young people's involvement in drawing up crime prevention programmes, which is important. I am pleased to tell her that I saw an excellent guide to the involvement of young people in such programmes earlier this year, which had been drawn up by several crime prevention partners in the west midlands. I arranged for the document to be reprinted as national guidance and it has been issued to crime reduction partnerships throughout the country. That is a practical example of putting a principle into action, which I hope is followed throughout the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Foreign Ownership
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will change the rules on providing help to firms for which more than 25 per cent. of ownership is in foreign hands. [65029]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 27 June 2002]: I am not aware of any such general rules. However, there are certain schemes of assistance which are only open to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). This would exclude a firm which was more than 25 per cent. owned by a non SME, whether that was a UK or overseas undertaking. Whether it is appropriate to extend schemes of assistance to larger companies is a matter to be addressed on a scheme by scheme basis. In some circumstances, though, EC state aid rules would preclude such extensions.

  Brownfield Development
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much brownfield land has been redeveloped by each regional development agency in each year since their formation. [66243]

  Alan Johnson
  During the three years after the RDAs were created on 1 April 1999 up to the introduction of their Single Programme funding on 1 April 2002, the RDAs reported to each funding Department individually on the outcome of their separate programmes. Brownfield land redevelopment was funded by what is now the Office of my right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister. Accordingly DTI does not hold any figures for these years.

  Consumer Credit
  Mr. Lazarowic
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will introduce measures to reform the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to ensure that time orders can be used to the advantage of debtors in Scotland. [65621]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As part of the Government's review of consumer credit legislation, we will be looking at how we can make the consumer protection measures in the 1974 Act more effective. The Scottish Executive have also recently consulted on the Enforcement of Civil Obligations in Scotland and this consultation mentions time orders under the 1974 Act while recognising that any changes to the 1974 Act would be a reserved matter. The Government will take account of any comments made about time orders under the 1974 Act in our review of consumer credit legislation.

  WorldCom
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has for reform of(a) company law and (b) corporate governance as a result of the WorldCom fraud; and if she will make a statement. [66747]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In February a group was set up to coordinate the response of key regulators to the issues for accounting, auditing and aspects of corporate governance raised in the aftermath of Enron. It will produce an interim report by the end of July. The Government will also publish in July its first formal response to the recommendations of the Company Law Review.

  Company Auditors
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she has reviewed the rules relating to company auditors in light of the situation at WorldCom; and if she will make a statement. [67115]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Co-ordinating group set up in February to co-ordinate the responses of the key regulators to issues for audit and accounting raised in the aftermath of Enron, and now WorldCom, will produce an interim report by the end of July. The Government have made clear that it is important to restore confidence in the independence of auditors.

  Multi-disciplinary Professional Practices
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on multidisciplinary professional practices; and if she will make a statement. [68249]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Multi-disciplinary professional practices can be beneficial for both the parties concerned and consumers. Any restrictions on such practices should be no more than is necessary to ensure that conflicts of interest are avoided, standards of ethical and professional conduct are maintained and consumers are properly protected.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Mole
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on how successful the UK has been in attracting inward investment. [69036]

  Ms Hewitt
  With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I am pleased to inform the House that the UK is still Europe's top inward investment location, despite a fall from last year's record totals in the number of investment projects and jobs created.

  Invest.UK has announced in its annual review published today, that for the period between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002, the number of direct investment projects by foreign owned companies into the UK reported to Invest.UK by its partner agencies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English Regional Development Agencies totalled 764.

  The UK is an excellent place to do business and this is reflected in our success in attracting consistently high levels of inward investment since Invest.UK was founded

  939W
  in 1977 as the Invest In Britain Bureau. Indeed we continue to be the top inward investment location in Europe.

  Today's Invest.UK figures show that the UK is not immune from the global economic downturn. New inward investment projects in to the UK have fallen 12 per cent. from last year's record figures. This reflects international investment falls across the world, caused particularly by reduced activity in the technology sectors. In the UK the sharpest fall is in US investment in the technology sectors.

  In the current economic climate international business is more cautious. Many investors will have postponed decisions until confidence returns and we must be ready to secure these opportunities as recovery comes.

  I am arranging for a copy of Invest.UK's annual review to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  European Working Time Directive
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she will take to encourage employers in the offshore sector to implement the terms of the European Working Time Directive in advance of the date when the directive must be enforced. [68350]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government have had regular contacts with both employers and employee representatives in the offshore sector about the implementation of the directive, which is due in August 2003. The Government will carry out a full public consultation on its proposals for implementation. It is for the industry to decide whether to take steps to implement the directive ahead of the August deadline.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the board members of each regional development agency were(a) living and (b) working in their respective region in (i) 1999,. (ii) 2000, (iii) 2001 and (iv) 2002. [68664]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost as records containing this information are not held regionally or centrally. However, in each appointment round for board members, an understanding of the issues affecting the region has been a core selection criterion. For example, the current appointment process for board members includes the criterion "Applicants must have a good knowledge of the region, with a good operational network of regional contacts and in-depth experience in at least one area of the RDA's work".

  Oil and Gas Infrastructure
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her powers to settle disputes over access between oil and gas infrastructure owners and potential third party users. [69676]

  Mr. Wilson
  Following extensive consultation through the Department's consultation 'Oil and Gas Infrastructure: Guidance on Applications for resolution of Disputes over Third Party Access', the Department has, today, issued guidance to clarify how the Secretary of State would 940W
  use long standing powers in the Petroleum Act 1998, Pipe-lines Act 1962 and the Gas Act 1995. This Guidance sets out how the Department would handle applications and the principles that would be applied in making a determination.

  We have also published today a summary of responses to the consultation. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average number of working hours per week is for full-time UK workers; what information she collates on the EU average for full-time workers; and what plans she has to move the UK average closer to the EU average. [66900]

  Alan Johnson
  The average number of working hours per week for all full-time workers in the UK was 44.2 in 2000. This data was collected from the EU Labour Force Survey, which is also used to determine the EU average for full-time workers.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be leading a tour, later this year, to examine working practices in the US and in EU member states.

  Yachts (French Nationals)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will hold discussions with(a) the European Commission and (b) the French Government on the operation of the French national rules requiring that yachts registered in France must be captained at all times by French nationals, with regard to the freedom of movement of labour within the EU; whether she has assessed the impact of these rules on the employment of UK nationals; and if she will make a statement. [62098]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  We support the principle of free movement of labour within the EU and the need to ensure that exceptions are clearly justified.

  Government officials have previously been in contact with the European Commission about the French national rules, which the French Government have argued in the past reflect public duties placed on the captains of French vessels. The Commission has expressed the view that these appear compatible with Community law. My Department will consider any particular case that is brought to our attention.

  UK Petrol Stations
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many petrol stations in the United Kingdom have installed vapour recovery equipment in the last year to comply with EC directives. [65248]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  Under Directive 94/63/EC, implemented under the Environment Protection Act 1990, from 31 December 2001 all existing petrol stations in the UK with an annual throughput greater than 500 cu m are required to have

  941W
  installed Stage I petrol vapour recovery controls. It is estimated that this measure is likely to have effected around 1,700 petrol stations in the UK over a six year period, based on 1998 site figures. In England and Wales local authorities are responsible for the implementation of Stage I equipment at petrol stations in their region. In Scotland this is the role of SEPA and in Northern Ireland the local enforcing authority.

DEFENCE

  Ministerial Visits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how often Ministers in his Department visited United States Government military bases and establishments on United Kingdom territory between 1 January 1997 and 1 January 1999; which Ministers were involved; what the date of the visit was; and which United States military facility was visited on each occasion. [53383]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 30 April 2002,Official Report, column 745W.

  Sub-continent (Weapons Capability)
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions he has held with the Secretary of State for International Development regarding increases in overall weapons capability of(a) India and (b) Pakistan between December 2001 and June 2002; [65430]

  (2) what discussions he has held with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding increases in the overall weapons capability of (a) India and (b) Pakistan between December 2001 and June 2002; [65449]

  (3) what discussions he has held with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs regarding increases in the overall weapons capability of (a) India and (b) Pakistan between December 2001 and June 2002. [65429]

  Mr. Hoon
  In light of the recent tensions between India and Pakistan, I have discussed the weapon capabilities of India and Pakistan with Cabinet colleagues on several occasions during the period in question.

  Munitions Depots
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are in place for(a) staff consultation, (b) assistance to staff from the employment service and (c) consultation with the local planning authority in respect of the closure of West Dean munitions depot. [65713]

  Mr. Ingram
  Defence Munitions (DM) entered into formal consultation procedures with the national trade unions on 24 June. Consultation is due to complete on 2 August. Each member of staff at the depot has been given a copy of a consultative document. As part of the Staff consultation process the local trade unions have been invited to an open day on 10 July, to be briefed on the background. conduct and findings of the work which led to the recommendation to close the DM site at Dean Hill.
  942W
  Although their involvement in no way precluded the formal consultation process, TU representatives also provided valuable advice throughout the process.

  The Ministry of Defence outplacement scheme will be involved should the depot close as proposed, and would help staff find alternative opportunities. This would include help in CV preparation, coaching in interviewing techniques, and retraining skills if appropriate.

  The local planning authority (Test Valley) are aware of plans to close DM Dean Hill. They, Defence Estates and Defence Munitions have already met to discuss the potential impact of depot closure and options for developing the site.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the consultation period will end on his proposal to close Dean Hill munitions depot; and if he will list the consultees. [67833]

  Mr. Ingram
  The formal consultation period began with the issue of a Consultative Document on 24 June 2002 and was originally due to complete on 2 August. However, following recent representations from the trade unions the consultation period has been extended by two weeks and will now conclude on 16 August 2002. Formal consultation with the trade unions is being carried out at departmental level, i.e. with the MOD Council of Civil Service Unions (MOD CCSU) and the MOD Industrial Whitley Council (MOD DIWC). For completeness the Defence Police Federation and the Chief Police Officers' Association are also involved in this consultation exercise.

  The formal consultation process is being supplemented by informal contact with the trade unions and staff within Defence Munitions. Officials of the DM Whitley committees have received personal copies of the consultation document, as has every member of staff in the Dean Hill depot. A copy has also been posted on an internal MOD website. The formal study report has also been sent to key members of the national trade unions and is available to DM staff and other TU representatives upon request. A DM trade union open day has been arranged for 10 July at which DM trade union representatives will hear about the background to the proposal to close the depot.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact Apache training will have on Somerset; and if low-flying will be conducted in the county. [67589]

  Dr. Moonie
  Unfortunately, there are no uninhabited areas of the United Kingdom large enough to meet all our essential military aircraft training needs. It is, therefore. our policy that, in principle, the whole of the United Kingdom is open to low flying by military aircraft in order to spread the disturbance as thinly as possible.

  The Ministry of Defence is fully committed to ensuring that our relationships with local communities are as harmonious as possible. To that extent, we will do all that we can to keep disturbance to an absolute minimum, while maintaining the training of the armed forces which is vital to their operational readiness. It is inevitable, however, that Somerset will see some proportion of military aircraft activity, including that of the Apache.
  943W
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints about low-flying military aircraft have been made by(a) residents of the county of Somerset and (b) residents of Taunton Deane in each of the last five years. [68546]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested is set out in the table below for each of the last five training years running from 1 April to 31 March. The numbers quoted will include a small number of inquiries as well as complaints.

  Training Year

  Complaints from residents of Somerset

  Complaints from residents of Taunton Deane

  1 April 1997–31 March 1998

  241

  36

  1 April 1998–31 March 1999

  224

  23

  1 April 1999–31 March 2000

  236

  37

  1 April 2000–31 March 2001

  195

  24

  1 April 2001–31 March 2002

  230

  26

  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the pattern of military low flying activity in the United Kingdom during training year 2001–02. [69357]

  Dr. Moonie
  The ability to fly fast and low continues to be an essential skill in our armoury of tactics. Training for aircrew to achieve and maintain these skills is vital.

  The amount of low flying training carried out in the UK Low Flying System (UKLFS) during the training year April 2001 to March 2002 was the minimum necessary for aircrew to reach and maintain these skills. Hours booked for low flying training in the UKLFS (excluding the Rotary Wing Dedicated User Areas, where different booking arrangements apply) during this period amounted to an overall increase of 8.7 per cent. compared to the previous training year. It is likely that there are a variety of reasons for this increase, such as preparation for operations, the return of Royal Air Force squadrons from Germany and low flying by the Eurofighter and Apache aircraft in preparation for their introduction into service. Since detailed records of hours booked began in 1995, the annual total has reduced by some 31 per cent.

  The distribution of low flying training across the UK has not changed significantly over previous years. It is spread as widely as practicable, but for a variety of reasons including population distribution, and geographic and climatic considerations, it is inevitable that some parts of the country will see more low flying than others.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House a report giving a detailed account of low flying training in the UK Low Flying System for the period April 2001 to March 2002.

  Further copies of the report can be obtained from the following address: Directorate of Air Staff, Ministry of Defence, Room 6/62, Metropole Building, Northumberland Avenue, London WC2N 5BP or it can be viewed on the MOD's website: www.mod.uk/issues/lowflying.

  Red Dragon Project
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what capacity of fixed wing aircraft work will be required 944W
  for the Red Dragon Project in the Defence Aviation Repair Agency; and from where a shortfall will be made up by rotary wing aircraft work. [67733]

  Mr. Ingram
  Currently, there are 90 aircraft, on average, undergoing work in the St. Athan Fixed Wing Business Unit. Existing plans envisage Red Dragon project would cater for 48 fixed wing aircraft, and takes account of process improvements and future fleet reductions. Filling the facility will be dependent on the Defence Aviation Repair Agency successfully winning competitions for this work after the guaranteed order book expires in April 2004. There are no current plans to transfer rotary wing work to St. Athan.

  War Graves
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with(a) the British Embassy in Paris, (b) the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and (c) the French Government concerning the graves of soldiers killed at the Somme. [68611]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have had no recent discussions with the British embassy in Paris, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission or the French Government about war graves in the Somme. However, the embassy is maintaining close contacts with the French authorities who are involved with proposals for a third airport for Paris. Early indications had suggested this project might affect war grave cemeteries maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in the Chaulnes area of the Somme.

  The Ministry of Defence has had no further discussions on this subject since the new French Government made clear that it would be looking again, from first principles, at the need for a third airport in the Paris basin. We are monitoring this review process very closely; we do not expect an early conclusion to be reached.

  Gurkha Soldiers
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
  ( 1) if he will take steps to equalise the pensions paid to former Gurkha soldiers who served with the British forces with the pensions paid to other soldiers; [68452]

  (2) what steps he will take to provide equality of terms and conditions of employment for the Gurkha soldiers serving with the British armed forces. [68453]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on 7 May 2002,Official Report, columns 44–45W.

  Royal Marines
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people joined the ranks of the Royal Marines in the past five years; what regions they were from; and how many of them are below the age of 17 years. [68538]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the last five years a total of 219 officers and 5.379 other ranks (RMORs) have joined the Royal Marines, as follows.
  945W

  Officers

  RMOR

  2001–02

  61

  1,159

  2000–01

  41

  1,117

  1999–2000

  39

  1,148

  1998–99

  38

  1,048

  1997–98

  40

  907

  Details on the regions of origin are not recorded. We do however, record for RMORs only, a southern and northern split from the Humber to north Wales. The figures for these two areas are:

  Southern region: 2,906

  Northern region: 2,473.

  Service Children's Education
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the key targets are for 2002–03 for the chief executive of Service Children's Education. [69356]

  Dr. Moonie
  The chief executive has been set the following Key Targets for 2002–03:

  Key Target 1—To meet the following percentage of pupils achieving Level 2 or above at the end of Key Stage 1 in:

  Reading: 90 per cent.

  Writing: 92 per cent.

  Spelling: 82 per cent.

  Mathematics: 95 per cent.

  Key Target 2—To meet the following percentage of pupils achieving Level 4 or above at the end of Key Stage 2 in:

  English: 78 per cent.

  Mathematics: 75 per cent.

  Science: 92 per cent.

  Key Target 3—To meet the following percentage of pupils achieving Level 5 or above at the end of Key Stage 3 in:

  English: 77 per cent.

  Mathematics: 78 per cent.

  Science: 76 per cent.

  Key Target 4—To maintain the following three-year rolling average percentage of Year 11 pupils in Service Children's Education (SCE) achieving five or more higher (A -C) grades in GCSE of 52 per cent.

  Key Target 5—To maintain the following three-year rolling average of subject entries achieving passes at grades A-C at 'A' Level of 64 per cent.

  Key Target 6—The following percentages of SCE schools are to achieve the grades stipulated below against the four attributes in Ofsted reports of:

  School climate: Grade 2 or above: 100 per cent.

  Standards; Quality; Management and Efficiency.

  Grade 3 or above: 100 per cent.

  Grade 2 or above: 85 per cent.

  Key Target 7—To respond in full to customers seeking education advice from SCE(UK) within the following time scales:

  93 per cent. within 10 working days of receipt.

  Remainder within 20 working days of receipt.

  946W
  Key Target 8—To develop 'value added' performance criteria for incorporation in Key Targets 1–5 for 2003 and beyond.

  Key Target 9—Demonstrate customer satisfaction with a survey result of:
  For Army Continuous Attitude Surveys: 69 per cent. satisfaction or more.

  India
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the talks with India concerning(a) India's acquisition of spare parts and strategic equipment for Indian Air Force Jaguar ground-attack fighters, (b) the purchase of a British aircraft carrier and (c) conclusion of the Hawk-100 Advanced Jet Trainer deal. [66019]

  Dr. Moonie
  In accordance with his ministerial responsibilities, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has the opportunity to discuss a range of defence matters, including defence export opportunities, with Ministers and senior officials from the Government of India. The purchase of a British aircraft carrier has not been formally raised by the Indians.

  SanEagle
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to use the SanEagle for British reconnaissance missions; and if he will make a statement. [67423]

  Mr. Ingram
  The SanEagle equipment is not part of our current reconnaissance inventory, and is not known to the Ministry of Defence.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General with reference to the proposal to introduce a system where, before trial, interviews of certain key witnesses are conducted by the prosecutor in a limited category of cases, what categories of cases are being considered; and what criteria were used to establish categories of cases. [59342]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 12 June 2002]: No such proposal has been made. The Attorney-General has asked the Director of Public Prosecutions, as part of his review of the handling of the Damilola Taylor murder trial, to consider whether the time has come to introduce a system where, before trial, interviews of certain key witnesses are conducted by the prosecutor in a limited category of cases. The Director is due to report to the Attorney-General later this year and an announcement will be made at that time.

  Damilola Taylor Case
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the terms of reference are of the review being undertaken by the DPP in relation to the Damilola Taylor case. [59341]
  947W
  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 12 June 2002]: The DPP's review has the following terms of reference:
  To review the handling of the Damilola Taylor case, and in doing so,
  consider the implications for the conduct of future cases and to make recommendations;
  examine whether the time has come to introduce a system where, before trial, the prosecutor in a limited category of cases conducts interviews of certain witnesses.

  The DPP is expected to report by the end of August.

  Criminal Justice and Trial Units
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General which of the co-located criminal justice and trial units are located within the court; and what assessment she has made of the benefits of co-locating criminal justice and trial units within the court complex. [59465]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 12 June 2002]: There are currently no co-located criminal justice units or trial units located in court accommodation. It follows that no assessment of the benefits of co-locating within the court complex has been made.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many occasions in the last 12 months the requirement to engage in a competitive tendering process has been waived by her Department due to national security obligations under paragraph 6(h) of the supply regulations. [62816]

  Mr. Morley
  From information held centrally there have been no occasions in the last 12 months when the requirement to engage in a competitive tendering process has been waived by the Department due to national security obligations under paragraph 6(h) of the supply regulations.

  Annual Leave
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average annual leave entitlement is for staff in her Department in 2002. [64657]

  Mr. Morley
  Following machinery of government changes and the creation of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, all staff outside the senior civil service were given an annual leave entitlement of 30 days from 1 August 2001. This was done as one of the first steps towards harmonising terms and conditions of service for the then ex-MAFF and ex-DETR staff who joined together to form the new Department.

  The annual leave entitlement for members of the senior civil service is currently set by Cabinet Office at 30 days.

  Staff working part-time or alternative working patterns are entitled to a proportional amount based on either the number of days or hours they work.
  948W
  Responsibility for leave matters within the Central Science Laboratory. the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and the Centre for Environmental Fisheries and Aquaculture Agency_all former MAFF Agencies_has been delegated to the Agency Chief Executives and I have asked them to reply direct. The Pesticides Safety Directorate, the Rural Payments Agency and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate Agencies are covered by the departmental response.

  Letter from Professor Mike Roberts to Mr. John Bercow, dated July 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory, to your question concerning annual leave entitlement in 2002.
  CSL staff outside the Senior Civil Service receive an annual leave allowance as follows:
  Staff with less than 10 years service: 25 days
  Staff with over 10 years service: 30 days
  Based on the above, the average annual leave entitlement for CSL staff in leave year 2002 is 26.5 days.
  Annual leave entitlement for members of the Senior Civil Service is currently set by the Cabinet Office at 30 days.

  Letter from Professor Steven Edwards to Mr. John Bercow, dated June 2002:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on what the average annual leave entitlement is for staff in her Department in 2002.
  All VLA staff outside the Senior Civil Service are entitled to 25 days annual leave on appointment and 30 days when they have completed 10 years service. Staff working part-time or alternative working patterns are entitled to a proportional amount based on either the number of days or hours they work.
  Information about the average leave entitlement could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from Mr. Greig-Smith to Mr. John Bercow, dated 4 July 2002:
  The Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs has asked Agency Chief Executives to reply to your question concerning the average annual leave entitlement for their staff.
  Staff at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science have an annual leave allowance of 25 days on entry, rising to 30 days after 10 years service.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the EU directives relating to her Department which have been(a) amended and (b) repealed in 2002. [64940]

  Mr. Morley
  In answer to part(a) the table lists directives adopted in 2002, for which DEFRA is the lead Department, which amend previously adopted directives alongside the numbers of the amended directives.

  In answer to part (b), the only directive to have been repealed in 2002 for which DEFRA is the lead Department is 1974/649/EEC (on marketing material for the vegetative propagation of vine). This was repealed by Directive 2002/11/EC.
  949W

  Directive number

  Directive name

  Amending directive

  2002/48/EC

  Amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include lmprovalicarb, Prosulfuron, and Sulfosulfuron as active substances

  1991/414/EEC

  2002/42/EC

  Fixing of maximum levels of pesticide residue in cereals, foodstuffs of animal origins and certain products of plant origins

  Certain Annexes to 1986/362/EEC, 1986/363/EEC and 1990/642/EEC

  2002/37/EC

  Amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include Ethofumesate as an active

  1991/414/EEC

  2002/36/EC

  Protective Measures against introductions of organisms harmful to plant or plant products

  Certain Annexes to 2000/29/EC

  2002/29/EC

  Certain protected zones exposed to particular plant health risks

  2001/32/EC

  2002/28/EC

  Measures against the introduction of organisms harmful to plants

  Certain Annexes to 2000/29/EC

  2002/23/EC

  Maximum levels of pesticides residues

  Certain Annexes to 1986/362/EEC and 1986/363/EEC and 1990/642/EEC

  2002/18/EC

  Placing of plant protection products on the market isoproturon

  Annex I to 1991/414/EEC

  2002/11/EC

  Marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of vine

  1968/193/EEC

  2002/8/EC

  Minimum conditions for examining vegetables and agricultural varieties

  1972/ 168/EEC and 1972/ 180/EEC

  2002/5/EC

  Maximum levels for pesticides residues

  Annex II to 1990/642/EEC

  Littering Offences
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total amount of fines levied against those prosecuted for littering offences in the United Kingdom was in each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [64732]

  Mr. Meacher
  The total amount of fines levied with respect to Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) issued for littering offences in England in each of the last five years was:

  No data in 1996–97

  £16,505 in 1997–98

  £63,240 in 1998–99

  £39,075 in 1999–2000

  £28,475 in 2000–01.

  For those FPNs not paid within 14 days, offenders may then be prosecuted in a magistrates court up to a value of £2,500. Data for fines issued by a magistrates court show that during the year 1999 the total fine was £28,732, in addition to those listed. We do not hold data prior to, nor subsequent to 1999 for fines issued by magistrates courts for non-payment of fixed penalty notices.

  Benthic Fauna
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has(a) made and (b) intends to make of the impact of (i) dredging and (ii) other marine activities on benthic fauna; and if she will make a statement. [65503]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department does not regulate dredging but does provide advice to the Department of Transport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the effects of navigation and aggregate dredging respectively on the marine environment, including benthic fauna.

  With regard to other marine activities, the Department assesses the potential impact on benthic life of proposals which are the subject of applications for licences under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 to deposit substances or articles in the sea. This includes proposals to dispose of dredged material and for a wide range of marine construction activities.

  The Department is funding a programme of research on the effects of aggregate dredging, including the rate of recovery of benthic life after dredging has ceased. In addition the Department's Centre for Environment,
  950W
  Fisheries and Aquaculture Science are involved in ongoing research on the impact of fishing activities on the seabed and on the wider marine environment.

  0870 Telephone Numbers
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on using 0870 telephone numbers for inquiries by the public to the Department and its agencies. [66192]

  Mr. Morley
  DEFRA operates helpline numbers for people seeking information or assistance. Some of these services are free of charge but most use local rate call numbers with 0845 prefixes; however one, the Pets Travel Scheme Helpline, uses the prefix 0870.

  The decisions on which category of number to allocate are taken after assessing the cost effectiveness of each service in terms of meeting the needs of potential users while minimising expenditure.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what staff and resources were allocated in each year since 1999 towards the bovine TB problem in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Herefordshire and (d) Worcestershire. [65690]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested on a county basis is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Expenditure by the State Veterinary Service (Field) on the bovine TB programme is shown in Table 1. This includes the cost of local and temporary veterinary inspectors but does not include compensation.

  Table 1: State Veterinary Service (field) expenditure on the bovine TB programme in England and Wales

  £

  Expenditure

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  England

  7,757,183

  7,574,217

  7,955,962

  Wales

  920,011

  1,472,469

  1,240,032

  The amount of compensation paid for cattle slaughtered to control bovine TB from 1999 to 2001 is shown in Table 2. Compensation figures are only readily available for Great Britain as a whole and are collated on a calendar year basis.
  951W

  Table 2: TB compensation in Great Britain

  £

  Expenditure

  1999

  5,770,983

  2000

  7,307,797

  2001

  7,074,125

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of Central Science Laboratory research relating to badgers feeding in cattle troughs. [66347]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]: The study by Central Science Laboratory and Sussex university showed that badgers frequently visited buildings on two farms in Gloucestershire, to exploit a range of food items. During some visits cattle feed was contaminated with badger faeces and badgers came into close direct contact with housed cattle. Given that there is a substantial body of circumstantial evidence implicating the badger in the transmission of bovine TB to cattle, such situations could potentially carry a high risk of infection. CSL will embark on a wider—scale DEFRA funded study later this year to investigate this phenomenon further.

  These findings emphasise the need for good biosecurity on farms and the need to minimise access of this kind from badgers.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cattle were slaughtered after a positive TB test in each year since 1997. [66805]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of animals compulsorily slaughtered as TB reactors or as direct contacts is given in the table.

  Number of cattle compulsorily slaughtered as TB reactors or contacts in Great Britain

  Number of animals slaughtered

  TB reactors1

  Contacts2

  Total3

  1997

  3,213

  456

  3,669

  1998

  4,958

  926

  5,884

  19994

  5,910

  862

  6,772

  20004

  7,031

  1,322

  8,353

  20014

  5,347

  904

  6,251

  1Animals which gave a positive result (i.e. reacted) to the tuberculin test and were compulsorily slaughtered.

  2Animals which, under the terms of Directive 64/432 as amended, were considered to have been direct contacts exposed to TB and therefore compulsorily slaughtered.

  3Animals compulsorily slaughtered because they reacted to the tuberculin test of because they were considered to be direct contacts. Not all the animals will necessarily be confirmed as being infected with Mycobacterium bovis.

  4Provisional: data for 1999 onwards will remain provisional until all culture results are available and final data validation carried out.

  Source:

  DEFRA's Animal Health Database

  Buildings Insurance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost of buildings insurance to her Department was(a) before and (b) after 11 September 2001. [66936]
  952W
  Mr. Morley
  Departments are required to comply with the Government's general policy on insurance, which is set out in "Government Accounting", chapter 30, para 30.2.5, which notes that Government do not need to purchase insurance to protect the viability of its business, and should consider insurance only where the value of claims met would exceed the cost of insurance premiums. Commercial insurance of a building is acceptable in cases where(a) insurance is a condition of a lease (b) the lessor will not accept a Government indemnity (c) incurring the total cost of the accommodation in question, including the cost of the insurance, is more cost-effective than other accommodation options ("Government Accounting", para 30.2.1 1 a).

  Commercial insurance is not usually payable in respect of leasehold properties where the Department is the sole occupier. In the case of leasehold property shared with other tenants, the cost of insurance is not always identified separately by our landlords. Furthermore, premiums are payable at different times of the year and our landlords may not have had to renew cover since 11 September 2001.

  It is not possible, therefore, to provide a precise assessment of the cost of commercial buildings insurance paid by the Department either before of after 11 September 2001. However, where insurance premiums have been separately charged this year, they have increased by between 3 per cent. and 90 per cent. It is impossible to say what proportion of these increases is due to the events of 11 September 2001.

  Building Values
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the buildings owned by her Department and estimate the market value of each of them. [66954]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 339W.

  Contamination Risk
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the process by which her Department analyses risk from(a) crops and (b) animal feed contaminated with (i) industrial chemicals, (ii) pesticides and (iii) drugs. [66348]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]: The Government undertake an extensive veillance programme for pesticide residues. Priority is given to the surveillance of crops but some animal feed is also tested. A total of some 4,000 samples are analysed each year for a wide range of pesticides generating over 100,000 individual test results. The results for the testing programme are all published in the quarterly reports of the independent Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC) available on its website at www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/PRC/prc.htm

  A consumer risk assessment is conducted in relation to all residues which exceed a statutory maximum residue level or are otherwise of potential concern. The methodology used in these risk assessments and their outcomes are described in the PRC's reports.
  953W
  The methodology of risk assessment for residues in animal feeds is more complex. It assesses both the potential risk to the animal and the potential risk to humans consuming animal products from the animal. Ministers are advised on the aspects of risk assessment for pesticides by an independent expert committee, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP). Details of the committee are available from its website at www.pesticides.gov.uk/committees/acp/acp.htm

  While the VMD does not analyse feed for contamination with drugs, it does operate a surveillance programme for veterinary drug residues in animals and animal products. If residues are found in excess of specified limits, the cause is investigated.

  Japanese Knotweed
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's policy is on controlling the spread of Japanese Knotweed. [67922]

  Mr. Morley
  Japanese Knotweed is a large, vigorous weed. It is a non-native introduction which appears to have no natural enemies in 13ritain. It is an offence under Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) to plant or otherwise cause Japanese Knotweed to grow in the wild. There is no obligation on landowners to control Japanese Knotweed on their own land.

  The Department is currently undertaking a fundamental review of policy on invasive non-native species, with other Government Departments, industry and conservation bodies, considering the causes of, and problems arising from, the introduction and spread of non-native species.

  With regard to relevant research, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 25 June 2002, Official Report, column 760W.

  Temporary Staff
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many part-and full-time employees under contract from temping agencies work within her Department; and how much was spent on temporary staff(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the total staffing budget in her Department and its predecessors for each of the last five years for which figures are available. [66743]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]: The number of employees working under contract from temping agencies is not held centrally by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The cost of staff employed under contract from temping agencies for each of the last five years is shown in the table. For the years 1997–98 to 2000–01, the amounts shown are for the former MAFF only. Costs relating to the parts of the former Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions that transferred to DEFRA could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  954W

  Cost of temping agency staff (£)

  Percentage of total staff costs

  1997–98

  995,205

  n/a

  1998–99

  1,468,559

  1.03

  1999–2000

  1,792,277

  1.20

  2000–01

  3,645,881

  2.26

  2001–02

  906,899

  0.41

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason the Forestry Commission is seeking a licence to fell trees on land at the rear of The Gables, West Moors Road, Ferndown. [68000]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The Forestry Commission does not apply for felling licences, it issues them. In this particular case, the Commission received an application for a licence to fell trees with an aim to improve the management of the woodland area. The trees were subject to a tree preservation order, so the Commission consulted East Dorset district council who then raised an objection to the proposed felling. The application now therefore falls to be determined by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister under the terms of the tree preservation order. A hearing to consider the application is scheduled to take place on 23 July.

  Welfare of Laying Hens Directive
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) variations and (b) additions she plans to introduce when the EU Welfare of Laying Hens Directive is transposed into UK law. [68378]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The EU Welfare of Laying Hens Directive has now been transposed into law in England by the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Amendment Regulations 2002. These Regulations came into force on 25 June.

  Our approach in drawing up these regulations was to implement the directive without adding to it or varying from it.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she will take to ensure that poultry farmers in the United Kingdom meet the same standards of animal welfare as other EU nations following the implementation of the EU Welfare of Laying Hens Directive. [68379]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: EU member states are responsible for bringing into force the necessary regulations to implement the EU Welfare of Laying Hens Directive and for communicating the main provisions of the national law to the commission.

  The EU commission is responsible for monitoring enforcement by member states.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to ensure that egg importers meet the same animal welfare standards as those set within the United Kingdom and across Europe under the forthcoming EU Welfare of Laying Hens Directive. 168377]
  955W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 July 200]: Current WTO rules prevent discrimination on the basis of production method and it is illegal under WTO rules to ban egg imports from countries which do not meet the same animal welfare standards as those produced in the EU.

  However, the EU has been successful in getting non-trade concerns, which include animal welfare, firmly written into the Doha development agenda.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the compliance cost to poultry farmers in meeting the EU Welfare of Laying Hens Directive in respect of(a) capital expenditure and (b) additional annual revenue implications. [68376]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: A regulatory impact assessment estimating compliance costs to poultry farmers in meeting the EU Welfare of Laying Hens Directive was produced following public consultation. This was laid before the House along with the Statutory Instrument to implement the directive.

  Wood for Good Campaign
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement regarding the Government's objectives for the Wood for Good campaign; [68098]

  (2) what guidance her Department has provided on the Forestry Commission's Wood for Good website (a) to the public and businesses to help them ensure they do not buy wood which may have come from illegal or non-sustainable sources and (b) in the promotion of certified timber. [68101]

  Mr. Morley
  The Wood for Good campaign is sponsored by the Forestry Commission (the Government's Department for forestry throughout Great Britain), the Northern Ireland Forestry Service, the Nordic Timber Council, the UK Sawn Wood Promoters, the Timber Trade Federation and the Forestry and Timber Association. All sponsors are committed to sustainable forest management and they encourage independent certification. The Government support the campaign's objectives, which are to "increase the consumption of wood; change perceptions about wood; encourage its use in interior and exterior design, and building; to tackle issues surrounding the use of wood; and to encourage good practice in the industry". The Forestry Commission's own website, which links to the Wood for Good website, covers issues such as illegal and non-sustainable sources of timber, and on certification.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding the United Kingdom Government have allocated to the Forestry Commission in each year since 1997; and how much of this allocation the Forestry Commission has dedicated to the Wood for Good campaign in each of the years the campaign will be running. [68102]

  Mr. Morley
  The funds voted to the Forestry Commission each year since 1997 are given in the table.
  956W

  £000

  1997–98

  England/Scotland/Wales and GB activities

  52,426

  1998–99

  England/Scotland/Wales and GB activities

  51,325

  1999–2000

  England/Scotland/Wales and GB activities

  176,115

  2000–01

  England/Wales and GB activities

  280,165

  2001–02

  England and GB activities

  70,608

  2002–03

  England and GB activities

  59,793

  1Scottish Parliament responsible for funding Forestry Commission activities in Scotland from 1 July 1999.

  2National Assembly for Wales responsible for funding Forestry Commission activities in Wales from 1 April 2001.

  The Forestry Commission's contribution to the Wood for Good campaign is £250,000 in 2000–01, £205,000 in 2001–02, £125,000 in 2002–03 and £125,000 in 2003–04.

  Camelid Movements
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she intends to amend the current rules on camelid movements; and if she will make a statement. [69537]

  Mr. Morley
  Orders made today will simplify the current rules on livestock movements from 31 July. Camelids (including llamas) and zoo animals will no longer require movement licences or be subject to hiosecurity requirements for livestock shows and sales. In addition, sheep dipping, tagging and scanning will no longer require a licence. The rules for multiple pick-ups and multiple drop-offs of livestock will also be simplified.

  Graffiti
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ( I ) what action(a) has been taken and (b) is planned by her Department to tackle problems of graffiti; and if she will make a statement; [64733]

  (2) what advertising campaigns (a) have taken place and (b) are planned by (i) her Department, (ii) the Environment Agency and (iii) other Government bodies in relation to tackling problems from graffiti; how much these have cost; what assessment has been made of their effect; and if she will make a statement; [64735]

  (3) what (a) advice and guidance has been given by her Department and (b) legislation is in place with relation to tackling problems of graffiti; and if she will make a statement. 164734]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  Tackling graffiti requires action by several Government Departments. It is one of the subjects that is being addressed in the cross cutting review on Improving Public Spaces.

  Writing graffiti is an offence under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Where criminal proceedings are not appropriate it can also be dealt with through a number of measures designed to address anti-social behaviour, including anti-social behaviour orders.

  Neighbourhood wardens programmes and proposals for community safety officers will also help to reduce yobbish

  957W
  behaviour, such as graffiti writing. Crime and Disorder Partnerships are also working with local communities to tackle graffiti.

  I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has not undertaken any advertising campaigns that are specific to graffiti.

  Sand and Gravel Extraction
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement about her policy with regard to inshore sand and gravel excavation; and whether environmentally sensitive areas will be protected. [67478]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to answer.

  There is no UK-wide policy on sand extraction.

  Guidance on sand and gravel extraction from above mean low water in England is set out within Minerals Policy Guidance Notes 6 (MPG6) and 15 (MPG 15). Draft revised national estimates of demand, and indicative regional forecasts of supply, of construction aggregates within England for the period to 2016 will be published for public consultation during the summer. Consideration will be given to review of the policies in MPG6 and MPG 15 during 2003.

  Proposed Government Policy for sand and gravel dredging from below mean low water in English waters was set out in Draft Marine Minerals Guidance Note 2: Guidance on the Extraction of Sand, Gravel and Other Minerals from the Seabed. This was published for public consultation in February 2001. It is intended that final guidance for English waters will be published within the next few weeks.

  Policy and guidance on sand extraction in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly Government.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  UN Children's Fund
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is giving to the UN Children's Fund in addressing child rights in its programmes. [67489]

  Clare Short
  My Department is collaborating with UNICEF to assist in building its capacity to apply human rights approaches to all areas of its programming. The current programme began in early 2000 and runs until the end of 2003 at an overall cost of about £3.78 million. The work includes:

  the development of guidance and training materials;

  human resource development;

  documentation, assessment. monitoring and dissemination of experiences:

  developing indicators for monitoring;

  strengthening regional capacities;

  strengthening the rights-based approach to integrated management of childhood illness.

  958W
  We also contribute to this objective through a range of partnerships with UNICEF regional programmes. The goal is to ensure promotion and facilitation of sustained poverty reduction for children and women, particularly those from excluded families, communities and groups.

  Structural Reforms
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent analysis the World bank and IMF have sent to her Department of the poverty and social impact of structural reforms supported by their programmes in poor countries; in how many instances the impact has been found to be negative; and what mitigating measures the World bank and IMF have agreed to in order to support in such instances. [67771]

  Clare Short
  Over recent months the British Government have pressed both the World bank and IMF for a timetable of poverty and social impact analysis (PSIA), setting out the policy reforms that need to be analysed and who will support countries to do the analysis. We welcome the commitment of both institutions to PSIA. We have also supported PSIA pilots in six countries in order to demonstrate how it can be carried out.

  Of the 35 IMF Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF)-supported programmes considered by the IMF Board between I July 2000 and 30 September 2001, IMF staff papers show that roughly 60 per cent. include some form of PSIA—though only around a third of PRGF-supported programmes had full studies undertaken to assess the effects of specific policies (`formal' PSIA).

  Figures are not available on the number of instances in which PSIA has shown IMF structural reforms to have been negative. However around two thirds of PRGFsupported programmes over the period included some measures aimed to offset potentially adverse short-term effects of either macroeconomic reforms, structural reforms or exogenous shocks on the poor. There is also evidence of PSIA influencing the design of economic policies. Examples include Uganda, where plans to liberalise the sugar industry were changed; Senegal. where 15–20 per cent. diesel and kerosene subsidies were maintained rather than eliminated; and Cambodia, where large-scale retrenchment of civil servants was delayed until safety nets for retrenchees could be put in place.

  The World bank have made similar commitments to use PSIA in their Poverty Reduction Support Credits. The British Government see all these documents, given our membership of the World Bank Board. IMF and World bank reviews of PRGFs and Poverty Reduction Strategies respectively contain further information on PSIA. These can be found at www.imf.org and www.wordbank.org.

  Africa
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid in real terms the Government have given to(a) Africa and (b) Zimbabwe over the last five years. [68544]

  Clare Short
  The UK has given the following amounts to Zimbabwe and Africa, in current and constant prices, over the last five financial years.
  959W

  GPEX1 in Zimbabwe and Africa in current and constant 2000–01 prices

  £thousand

  Africa

  Zimbabwe

  Current prices

  1996–97

  445,153

  21,007

  1997–98

  450,324

  13,715

  1998–99

  575,036

  29,394

  1999–2000

  634,760

  17,363

  2000–01

  778,369

  14,716

  Constant prices

  1996–97

  493,600

  23,294

  1997–98

  484,386

  14,753

  1998–99

  601,994

  30,772

  1999–2000

  648,814

  17,747

  2000–01

  778,369

  14,716

  1GPEX is expenditure by all official UK sources ie Government Departments and public bodies on development assistance in aid recipient countries.

  HIV/AIDS.
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the developing countries which are in receipt of support form her Department to assist in the treatment of prevention from HIV/AIDS. [68325]

  Clare Short
  My Department is supporting HIV/AIDS-related programmes in:

  Azerbaijan, Republic of

  Bangladesh

  Bolivia

  Botswana

  Brazil

  Burkina Faso

  Burma

  Cambodia

  Caribbean regional

  Central Africa regional

  Central America regional

  Chile

  China

  Colombia

  Cuba

  Ecuador

  Ethiopia

  Gambia, the,

  Ghana

  Guatemala

  Haiti

  Honduras

  India

  Iran

  Kazakhstan, Republic of

  Kenya

  Latin America regional

  Lesotho

  Liberia

  Madagascar

  Mali

  Malawi

  Mexico

  Mongolia

  960W

  Montserrat

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Nepal

  Nicaragua

  Niger

  Nigeria

  Pakistan

  Peru

  Philippines

  Russian Federation

  Rwanda

  Senegal

  Serbia and Montenegro

  Sierra Leone

  Somali Democratic Republic

  South Africa, Republic of

  Southern Africa regional

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Tanzania

  Togo

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  Vietnam

  West Bank and Gaza

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to help bring down the cost of anti-retroviral drugs for those suffering from HIV/AIDS in developing countries. [68324]

  Clare Short
  The UK's Working Group on Access to Medicines, which I chair, is looking at options for bringing about widespread, sustainable and predictable differential pricing of essential medicines, so that such medicines can be made available to the world's poor at affordable prices. The group's final meeting is on 25 July, after which it will report back to the Prime Minister. Differential pricing could apply to anti-retrovirals, which Gambia the are now on the World Health Organisation's (WHO) essential drug list. We are encouraging key partners pharmaceutical industry, developing countries, donors and international organisations—to play their part in making widespread differential pricing a reality.

  The Government recognise that affordability is only one of four key factors that WHO has identified as influencing access to medicines. There is also a need for sustainable financing, the rational selection and use of existing drugs, and reliable health and supply systems.

  On sustainable financing, we have pledged %200 million over five years to the Global Fund to Fight TB, AIDS and Malaria (GFATM). We have also committed over £ 1 billion, since 1997, to strengthening developing countries health systems, building their capacity both to deliver medicines to the poor and to make effective choices about the selection and use of drugs.
  961W
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department is taking to(a) help with humanitarian aid and(b)educate people in areas with a high risk of AIDS. [67797]

  Clare Short
  The purpose of DFID humanitarian assistance policy is to save lives and relieve suffering; hasten recovery, and protect and rebuild livelihoods and communities; and reduce risks and vulnerability to future crises. The poor, and those whose vulnerability is increased due to disease, such as HIV/AIDS, are disproportionately affected by disasters and conflict. For example, in southern Africa, a serious drought has led to food shortages, which have stretched the coping capacity of the poorest families, many of whom are already suffering from having one or more of their family with HIV/AIDS. I have recently allocated £45 million to support the most vulnerable people in Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Lesotho and Swaziland.

  My Department supports comprehensive HIV/AIDS prevention programmes tailored to local needs and situations. These can include interventions such as condoms, harm reduction, educating youth and safe needle exchange programmes. As part of DFID's HIV/ AIDS strategy, we have identified a focus on working with the most vulnerable groups in the society, which often include women, commercial sex workers, injecting drug users and men who have sex with men. Education leading to behavioural change is a central element of our strategy towards fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic. It forms the basis for any prevention, treatment and intervention programme.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many and what proportion of the public service agreements of her Department set out in the document, "Public Services for the Future 1998", have been met; and if she will make a statement. [68709]

  Clare Short
  My Department's 1999–2002 public service agreement (PSA) set 13 outcome targets of which eight were met, three were not updated due to lack of data, and two were not met. It also set 26 productivity targets, of which five were not met.

  Full details of progress against the 1999–2002 PSA can be found in DFID's 2002 departmental report.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Victims of Terrorist Violence
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Government's policies on the support given to victims of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland. [65803]

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent policy initiatives he has undertaken regarding the treatment of victims of terrorist violence. [65805]
  962W
  Dr. John Reid
  This Government were the first to acknowledge the needs of all the victims of the troubles; this remains a priority. Since 1998 the Government have allocated over £18.25 million to victims' initiatives.

  Police Service
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to consolidate public support for the new Police Service of Northern Ireland. [65806]

  Jane Kennedy
  Together with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Policing Board we are working to bring about a new beginning to policing. The Policing Board, with nationalist participation, has an extensive range of powers to hold the police to account. The 50:50 recruitment campaign has produced a strong cross-community response, with 35 per cent. of applications coming from Catholics. There are around 350 new recruits who have completed or who are now in training.

  Later this year, District Policing Partnerships will be established. They will have a significant role in increasing local accountability and will provide a forum for the police to work more closely with the community they serve.

  The Government believe that, in the light of the enormous changes made to date, all parts of the community should support the police.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on commitments given to Sinn Fein on further reform of the police service of Northern Ireland. [65813]

  Jane Kennedy
  The only commitments we have made on further reform of policing are those set out in the updated implementation plan which was issued to all Northern Ireland political parties and placed in the Library of the House in August last year.

  A review is currently under way after which the Government will bring forward legislation to reflect further the Patten recommendations. All Northern Ireland political parties have been invited to contribute.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the decommissioning of illegally held weapons in Northern Ireland. [65807]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government have consistently called for decommissioning from all paramilitary organisations. We have had two acts of decommissioning from the IRA. That must be the start of a process. It is imperative that we now see reciprocation from loyalists, so that all groups are committed to the normal political process in resolving its problems, and thereby creating a better Northern Ireland.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent progress has been made towards decommissioning. [65824]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley).

  Implementation Group
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the recent meeting of the implementation group; and what the implications are for the future of the devolved institutions. [65808]

  Dr. John Reid
  At the implementation group on 26 June, and the meetings of the Northern Ireland parties with the Prime Minister and Taoiseach on 4 July, participants recognised the Belfast Agreement had brought great gains; but also that continuing violence and signs of paramilitary activity threaten community confidence. The Government agreed to reflect further on how best to address concerns about the necessary transition from violence to democracy. Before Parliament rises we will set out how we believe the necessary sense of confidence—which underpins the Agreement and the devolved institutions—can be restored.

  Bill of Rights
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the proposed Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. [65809]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Belfast Agreement tasked the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission with consulting and advising on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights and to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.

  The Commission published a consultation document, "Making a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland", in September 2001 and is currently considering the responses it has received to that document.

  The Government will reach no policy conclusions on the proposals until the final advice is received from the Commission. This advice is expected in 2003.

  Community Safety Partnerships
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what role he plans for voluntary and community organisations in the proposed community safety partnerships. [65810]

  Dr. John Reid
  Community Safety Partnerships are made up of the statutory organisations responsible for the delivery of services at a local level. The Partnership should engage with voluntary and community organisations to identify issues of concern at a local level and develop collaborative ways of tackling these issues. The Partnership should determine how best to interface with the voluntary and community sector.

  Organised Crime
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what strategic issues are being considered by the organised crime task force; and if he will make a statement. [65811]

  Jane Kennedy
  On 23 May, the Secretary of State launched the second annual organised crime task force (OCTF) threat assessment and strategy.
  964W
  The OCTF's strategy for countering the threat sets priority stress for concerted multi-agency action by the OCTF partners. These are extortion, drugs, oils-related fraud, tobacco and alcohol duty evasion, money-laundering, counterfeit goods and armed robbery.

  In the year, the OCTF, which I chair, will keep a watching brief on emerging and new organised crime trends. The OCTF strategy also explains how we will measure and report on the overall impact we are having on organised crime in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the areas of criminality in which organised crime networks are involved in Northern Ireland. [65814]

  Jane Kennedy
  On 23 May, the Secretary of State launched the second annual Organised Crime Task Force (OCTF) threat assessment and strategy.

  The OCTF threat assessment shows that organised criminals engage in a wide range of criminal activities in Northern Ireland. These include: trade in illegal drugs; extortion; tobacco and alcohol smuggling and duty evasion; oils fraud; counterfeit goods; money laundering; counterfeit currency; organised vehicle theft; armed robbery and hijacking; abuse of social security payments; illegal livestock trade; evasion of tax and VAT; various financial frauds; identity fraud; motor vehicle licensing fraud; hi-tech crime; illegal immigration; and prostitution.

  In the year, the OCTF, which I chair, will keep a watching brief on emerging and new organised crime trends. The OCTF strategy also explains how we will measure and report on the overall impact we are having on organised crime in Northern Ireland.

  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken to tackle counterfeiting operations by organised crime gangs. [65816]

  Jane Kennedy
  On 23 May, the Secretary of State launched the second annual Organised Crime Task Force (OCTF) threat assessment and strategy.

  Recognising the adverse impact of the counterfeit goods trade on the Northern Ireland business community and on society more generally, the OCTF has made this crime a priority for concerted multi-agency action by the OCTF partners.

  There have been some significant operational successes in the last year. The police are doing excellent work every week to tackle the trade in counterfeit goods. At the last OCTF meeting, a strategy prepared by PSNI for tackling the counterfeit goods trade was agreed. The strategy includes raising awareness of the wider harm caused by this illicit trade, understanding better the reasons why people purchase such goods, working with the business community to address those reasons, and considering whether the existing legislation is sufficient.

  Terrorist Activity
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of illegal activities by terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland. [65812]
  965W
  Jane Kennedy
  The table provides details of the level of paramilitary activity from both sides during the last year.

  Security situation statistics: 29 June2001–28 June 2002

  By Loyalists

  BY Republicans

  Number of deaths as a result of the security situation

  9

  4

  Number of shooting incidents

  209

  115

  Number of bombing incidents

  271

  52

  Number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style assaults

  81

  36

  Number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings

  110

  66

  Notes:

  1. Includes all deaths due to the security situation.

  2. The following types of incidents are included: shots fired by terrorists; shots fired by the security forces; paramilitary-style attacks involving shootings; shots heard (and later confirmed); other violent incidents where shots are fired (e.g. armed robberies).

  3. An individual bombing incident may involve one or more explosive devices. Incidents recorded include explosions and defusings. Incidents involving hoax devices, petrol bombings or incendiaries are excluded.

  N.B. 2002–03 statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor amendment.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the levels of terrorist activity in the Province. [65826]

  Jane Kennedy
  We keep the security situation under constant review. The Secretary of State receives regular advice from the Acting Chief Constable, the GOC and his security advisers. The Acting Chief Constable is on record as saying that he believes that paramilitaries on both sides have been involved in orchestrating the recent street violence in Belfast. This is a worrying development.

  Marching Season
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his assessment is of the potential for disorder during this summer's marching season. [65815]

  Jane Kennedy
  The vast majority of parades held this year have passed off peacefully. In relation to a small number of particularly contentious parades which have taken place, some disorder did occur but was quickly contained by the security forces. In the event of public disorder, the security forces have appropriate contingency measures in place to ensure the determination of the Parades Commission is upheld.

  Belfast Agreement
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent assessment he has made of the confidence of the Unionist community in the Belfast agreement: and if he will make a statement. [65817]

  Dr. John Reid
  As the Prime Minister said at Hillsborough on 4 July, we recognise there is a lack of confidence in Northern Ireland, especially in the unionist community, about the process of transition away from violence to exclusively peaceful and democratic methods. We shall set out, before Parliament rises, how we believe the necessary confidence can be restored.

  Loyalist Commission
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the role of the Loyalist Commission. [65818]

  Dr. John Reid
  It is not for me to define the role of the Loyalist Commission. That is something for members of the Commission itself. I can say that I welcomed the statement issued by the Commission on 14 June 2002 which contained guidelines on reducing the tension and violence experienced by both communities over recent weeks and months. This was a positive step and I would urge everyone to give this initiative their most careful consideration, and act accordingly.

  I also had a frank and useful exchange of views with members of the Commission on 1 July.

  Politics (Violent Incidents)
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the number of politically related incidents of violence involving weapons, indicating the organisations and individuals responsible, in the last three months. [65819]

  Jane Kennedy
  It is not possible to answer the question in the format requested. However, the table shows the number of security-related incidents during the last three months.

  Security situation statistics 1 April to 28 June 2002

  By Loyalistis

  By Republicans

  Number of deaths as a result of the security situation

  —

  1

  Number of shooting incidents

  42

  31

  Number of bombing incidents

  51

  10

  Number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style assaults

  24

  12

  Number of casualties as a result of paramilitary-style shootings

  21

  12

  Notes:

  1. Includes all deaths due to the security situation.

  2. The following types of incidents are included: shots fired by terrorists; shots fired by the security forces; paramilitary-style attacks involving shootings; shots heard (and later confirmed); other violent incidents where shots are fired (e.g. armed robberies).

  3. An individual bombing incident may involve one or more explosive devices. Incidents recorded include explosions and defusings. Incidents involving hoax devices, petrol bombings or incendiaries are excluded.

  N.B. 2002–03 statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor amendment.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress made in tackling smuggling in Northern Ireland. [65820]

  Jane Kennedy
  On 23 May, the Secretary of State launched the second annual Organised Crime Task Force (OCTF) threat assessment and strategy.

  There have been some tremendous operations against smuggling. Since 1 April 2001 over 63 million smuggled cigarettes have been seized by Customs in Northern Ireland. The latest available figures show that deliveries

  967W
  of legal oils products to Northern Ireland have risen by seven per cent. in the last 12 months, the first time in five years.

  However, the Government believe that oils related fraud remains at an unacceptably high level and is considering options for further initiatives to counter road fuel duty evasion and the associated problems in Northern Ireland.

  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in tackling smuggling in Northern Ireland. [65825]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), ref. 65820.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress the Police Service of Northern Ireland has made this year in combating the illegal trade in fuel. [65827]

  Jane Kennedy
  On 23 May, the Secretary of State launched the second annual Organised Crime Task Force (OCTF) threat assessment and strategy.

  Oils related fraud continues to be a major problem, although there is evidence that the position has stabilized and slightly improved. The latest available figures show that deliveries of legal product to Northern Ireland have risen by seven per cent. in the last 12 months, for the first time in five years.

  There were some major operational successes in the previous year. In December, a major multi-agency cross border operation. in which PSNI played an important role. was undertaken during which 31 premises were searched. Nine people were charged in connection with the evasion of road fuel excise duty and money laundering offences.

  Prison Service (Equality Training)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of staff in the Northern Ireland Prison Service have taken part in equality training. [65822]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service has provided 98 per cent. of staff with equality awareness briefings. The remaining 2 per cent. is made up of staff on long-term sick/maternity leave or career breaks and are not available to receive such training.

  Electoral Identity Cards
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with the introduction of electoral identity cards in Northern Ireland. [65823]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Electoral Office is currently exploring options available for the design and form of the electoral identity card. The Chief Electoral Officer intends to advertise for prospective contractors by early August.

  A question will be included on this year's annual canvass form asking electors if they require an electoral identity card. This will enable the CEO to target his efforts and resources towards those people who require one. The card will be issued after the publication of the new electoral register on 1 December this year.

  Community Safety
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress made with community safety awareness seminars held in preparation for a draft community strategy. [65828]

  Dr. John Reid
  Nine awareness seminars took place between October 2001 and April 2002. Seminars were offered to all council areas and 22 participated. A total of 262 individuals attended representing statutory, voluntary and community organisations. The discussion at the seminars provided a valuable contribution to the development of the draft Community Safety Strategy.

  Policing
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in developing a new approach to policing in Northern Ireland. [65829]

  Jane Kennedy
  Together with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Policing Board, we are laying the foundations of a new beginning to policing. There have been significant structural changes: we have a Policing Board with nationalist participation and broad powers to hold police to account. And there has been an excellent cross-comunity response to recruitment under new 50:50 provisions with 35 per cent. of applications coming from Catholics and around 350 new recruits now in training. There have also been other major changes: policing with the community is now the statutory core function of the Police Service; a major programme of action is under way to focus policing in Northern Ireland on a human rights based approach.

  Looking ahead, the process of establishing District Policing Partnerships has been launched, which will increase accountability at the local level and bring the police still closer to the community they serve.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Clarence House
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the annual running cost to public funds of Clarence House was in the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [65653]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]: The annual maintenance costs met from the Property Services grant-in-aid for Clarence House over the last five years are as follows:

  £000

  1997–98 (cash)

  423,769

  1998–99 (Cash)

  446,376

  1999–2000 (Accruals)

  386,639

  2000–01 (Accruals)

  307,098

  2001–02 (Accruals)

  160,776

  National Museums
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time

  969W
  employees there were in each of the past seven years in each national museum; and how many of these were over the normal age of retirement. [67178]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of full-time and part-time employees at the museums and galleries sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is set out in the table below, other than for the Tate Gallery. National Museum of Science and Industry and National Museums & Gallerieson Merseyside.My right hon and noble Friend the Ministers for the Arts will write to the hon. Member as soon as this information is available, placing copies of her letter in the Libraries of both Houses. Information on the number of staff over the normal retirement age could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Natural History Museum

  Year

  Number of full-time staff

  Number of part-time staff

  2001–02

  736

  154

  2000–01

  718

  145

  1999–00

  720

  128

  1998–99

  737

  113

  1997–98

  721

  122

  1996–97

  730

  72

  1995–96

  710

  77

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  2001–02

  525

  77

  2000–01

  504

  81

  1999–00

  609

  79

  1998–99

  619

  77

  1997–98

  613

  74

  1996–97

  642

  82

  1995–96

  633

  90

  British Museum

  2001–02

  965

  90

  2000–01

  824

  86

  1999–00

  883

  88

  1998–99

  925

  88

  1997–98

  977

  72

  1996–97

  1024

  70

  1995–96

  1022

  90

  National Maritime Museum

  2001–02

  318

  82

  2000–01

  336

  93

  1999–00

  347

  74

  1998–99

  295

  46

  1997–98

  294

  39

  1996–97

  297

  46

  1995–96

  299

  44

  Horniman Museum and Gardens

  2001–02

  68

  28

  2000–01

  53

  18

  1999–00

  55

  19

  1998–99

  18.45

  —

  1997–98

  182

  —

  1996–97

  177.8

  —

  1995–96

  179.5

  —

  Imperial War Museum

  2001–02

  485

  63

  2000–01

  449

  55

  1999–00

  412

  54

  1998–99

  402

  54

  1997–98

  393

  54

  1996–97

  390

  54

  1995–96

  394

  54

  Geffrve Museum

  2001–02

  24

  15

  2000–01

  25

  17

  1999–00

  30

  10

  970W

  Natural History Museum

  Year

  Number of full-time staff

  Number of part-time staff

  1998–99

  32

  9

  1997–98

  23

  5

  1996–97

  23

  5

  1995–96

  21

  7

  Museum of Science and Industry Manchester

  2001–02

  92

  17

  2000–01

  87

  21

  1999–00

  81

  23

  1998–99

  85

  21

  1997–98

  89

  19

  1996–97

  84

  16

  1995–96

  97

  16

  Sir John Soane's Museum

  2001–02

  17

  6

  2000–01

  17

  6

  1999–00

  17

  6

  1998–99

  17

  6

  1997–98

  17

  6

  1996–97

  17

  6

  1995–96

  17

  6

  Museum of London

  2001–02

  281

  44

  2000–01

  326

  47

  1999–00

  320

  34

  1998–99

  328

  22

  1997–98

  277

  24

  1996–97

  314

  27

  1995–96

  332

  21

  National Portrait Gallery

  2001–02

  155

  18

  2000–01

  1172

  —

  1999–00

  1152

  —

  1998–99

  1148

  —

  1997–98

  1130

  —

  1996–97

  1137

  —

  1995–96

  1141

  —

  National Gallery

  2001–02

  404

  95

  2000–01

  418

  84

  1999–00

  414

  52

  1998–99

  409

  42

  1997–98

  399

  28

  1996–97

  410

  23

  1995–96

  427

  19

  Tyne and Wear Museums

  2001–02

  170

  42

  2000–01

  167

  42

  1999–00

  164

  45

  1998–99

  155

  37

  1997–98

  152

  39

  1996–97

  145

  31

  1995–96

  138

  29

  Wallace Collection

  2001–02

  71

  8

  2000–01

  68

  7

  1999–00

  66

  7

  1998–99

  65

  6

  1997–98

  64

  5

  1996–97

  65

  5

  1995–96

  64

  5

  Royal Armouries

  2001–02

  155

  32

  2000–01

  145

  35

  1999–00

  147

  30

  1998–99

  1—

  —

  1997–98

  1—

  —

  1996–97

  1—

  —

  1995–96

  1—

  —

  971W

  Natural History Museum

  Year

  Number of full-time staff

  Number of part-time staff

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  2001–02

  462

  138

  2000–01

  2—

  —

  1999–00

  2—

  —

  1998–99

  2—

  —

  1997–98

  2—

  —

  1996–97

  2—

  —

  1Staff includes part-time staff.

  2My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information is available.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her Department's policy is on retirement age in national museums. [67179]

  Dr. Howells
  The retirement age policy for national museums sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is a matter for the museums concerned.

  BBC
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received on alternative sources of revenue for the BBC to the licence fee; and if she will make a statement. [67830]

  Dr. Howells
  Representations about alternative methods of funding the BBC are not recorded separately from other representations about television licensing received by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. In the year from April 2001 to March 2002, the Department replied to 272 letters from Members of Parliament and 611 letters from members of the public about television licensing issues, a minority of which related to alternative funding methods.

  Tourism
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her expenditure has been on the promotion of tourism in Britain in the last 12 months. [67785]

  Dr. Howells
  The British Tourist Authority (BTA) promotes Britain overseas as a tourist destination. Its baseline funding was £35.5 million in 2001–02 and is £35.5 million in 2002–03. In addition, the BTA received £14.2 million from the reserve in 2001–02 to combat the impact of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and in 2002–03 the Government committed up to £20 million from the reserve for the "Million Visitor" tourism recovery campaign, to be matched by contributions from the industry in cash and in kind.

  Baseline funding for English tourism rose from £10 million in 2001–02 to £12 million this year. The English Tourism Council has also been awarded funds for e-tourism projects: an award of £0.9 million was made in 2001 from the Capital Modernisation Fund and £3.6 million in 2002 from the Invest to Save Budget.

  The promotion of tourism within Scotland and Wales is a matter for the devolved Administrations.

  Television Technology (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will make it her policy to 972W
  pursue harmonising measures at EU level to ensure that future generations of set top boxes and digital TVs (a) have a second sound channel built in and (b) support other key access features for blind, partially-sighted and other disabled people; [68304]

  (2) if she will make it her policy to approve the use of general conditions at an early stage to require digital TV operators to supply blind and partially-sighted customers with set top boxes which are capable of receiving audio description and which support accessible electronic programme guides at no extra cost. [68303]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government have no plans to pursue such harmonising measures with the EU. The design features and production of set top boxes are matters for the manufacturers to decide. However, we have launched a joint consultation with the DTI to examine how integrated digital television sets will help achieve switch over. We are seeking comments on what conditions should apply to digital decoders in order to ensure that consumers with disabilities can get all the benefits of digital television. This will inform our future policy decisions on digital television.

  Obesity
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture. Media and Sport when she last met the Secretary of State for Health to discuss the role of sport in tackling the problem of obesity. [67937]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport has not met the Secretary of State for Health formally to discuss obesity, but is involved in the health inequalities cross cutting review discussions chaired by the Department of Health.

  I chair monthly cross-governmental ministerial meetings, attended by Ministers from the Department of Health, where issues relating to sports policy are discussed. including sport and physical activity initiatives which have a role in combating obesity. The last meeting was held on 2 July.

  My Department accepts that physical activity has an important role to play in combating the prevalence of obesity. We are committed to increasing the number and quality of opportunities for participation in sport and physical activity by all sectors of the community and especially for pupils in schools, and we are working closely with Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills to help achieve this objective.

  Sport
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action the Government are taking to encourage local authorities to recognise the role that sports can play in society. [68532]

  Mr. Caborn
  Local authorities are key providers of sport and recreation and play a central role in the delivery of sport for local communities. The Government has taken significant action to encourage local authorities to recognise the important role that sport can play in society. These measures include forging successful partnerships with local authorities through Sport England to deliver a number of key sports programmes such as 'Active Sports'
  973W
  (which helps children and young people achieve more from their sport, delivered at local level by local authorities, sports clubs, education services, schools and governing bodies of sport), and 'Active Communities' ( which involves working closely with local authorities and other partners in the community to increase life long participation in sport and to promote the improvement in the delivery of local sporting opportunities and services for the community).

  Sport England has also published "The Value of Sport"—a major advocacy tool to help local authorities to respond in a positive way to the Government's Best Value and Modernising initiatives. The document responds to the challenge of 'Why invest in sport?', and highlights the key role of the public sector in enabling and providing sport at the local level. It actively champions the benefits and contribution that sport can make to the broader local authority policy agenda, including health, education, social inclusion, community safety, community regeneration, the economy and the environment.

  The Government's Beacon Council Scheme aims to raise standards of local authority services by a programme designed to spread best practice. Beacon Council status recognises councils which are excellent in a particular service or cross cutting area and have good performance across the board. The scheme requires Beacon Councils to share best practice with other councils through a national co-ordinated programme of events. In 2001 the Beacon Council Scheme identified four successful councils excelling in Regeneration through Culture, Sport and Tourism, which were Knowsley, Sunderland, Gateshead, and Nottingham. These successful authorities will use their position as Beacon Councils to promote and share best practice with other authorities. My Department is also encouraging local authorities to develop Local Cultural Strategies by the end of 2002. These strategies will help local authorities express their own cultural visions and priorities in response to the needs and aspirations of local communities. They will provide a strategic overview, recognising the role of cultural services, such as sport, in tackling the wider objectives of social inclusion, regeneration, life long learning, and creating healthier and safer communities. Cultural Strategies will help local authorities to ensure equity and access for everyone to cultural activities.

TRANSPORT

  Marine Regulatory Body
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to establish a marine regulatory body. [68751]

  Mr. Spellar
  None. The Department's Maritime and Coastguard Agency. which was established in 1988 on the merger of the Marine Safety and Coastguard Agencies, is the UK maritime regulatory body.

  Fishing Vessels (Accidents)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many collisions have taken place between EUflagged fishing vessels and local vessels where the former is operated under third-party waters access agreements in 974W
  the last five years; what analysis has been made of the effects of those agreements on the mortality rates of local fishermen; and if he will make a statement. [68336]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no requirement for a EU-flagged fishing vessel operating under third country agreements to notify the UK when it is involved in a collision. UK registered fishing vessels are required to report accidents to the Maritime Accident Investigation Branch. The reports do not require information on whether the vessel is operating under third country agreements. We therefore do not have these figures.

  Pilotage Act
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contraventions of the Pilotage Act 1987 there have been in the Humber estuary in the last five years. [68753]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which body will determine the competence of a competent harbour authority under the terms of the Pilotage Act 1987; and what criteria this body will apply. [68750]

  Mr. Spellar
  Competent harbour authorities are those which met the criteria in section 1 of the Pilotage Act 1987. These harbour authorities are obliged under section 2 of the Act to keep under consideration certain general duties as to the provision of pilotage services.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many times a ship's authorised pilot has debarked inside a compulsory pilotage district in the last five years. [68752]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department does not hold this information.

  Provincial Airports
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement of security arrangements in the handling of passengers' baggage in provincial airports in the European Union following the events of 11 September 2001. [63533]

  Mr. Jamieson
  International standards for aviation security are set down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation and, within Europe, by the European Civil Aviation Conference. Responsibility for the implementation of those standards, which apply to all airports handling relevant flights, including provincial airports, rests with the appropriate states. The UK has a programme in place to meet international standards. In addition, the UK has a programme of security measures for UK airlines to follow when operating overseas to supplement the host states' requirements.

  Following the events of 11 September, legislation is before the European Parliament to strengthen aviation security standards throughout the EU, including a requirement to screen all hold baggage by 31 December 2003. In the UK, hold baggage on international flights has been screened since 1998. Screening of cabin baggage has been in place in the UK and throughout Europe for many years.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of construction of the Birmingham northern relief road. [66890]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The construction of the M6 toll motorway, formerly known as the Birmingham northern relief road, is the responsibility of the concessionaire, Midland Expressway Ltd. The road is on programme for opening early in 2004.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the percentage of the elderly involved in road accidents in the last available year; and what plans the Government have to reduce these numbers. [68525]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information is not available about the total number or percentage of elderly people involved in road injury accidents. However, a provisional estimate for 2001 is that around 10 per cent. of those killed or injured in road accidents in Great Britain were aged 60 or over.

  The Government has set out a wide range of proposals for reducing road traffic casualties significantly by 2010, including casualties among the elderly, in the Road Safety Strategy document, "Tomorrow's Roads-Safer For Everyone", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on road accidents, with specific reference to the elderly. [68475]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend receives many representations about all aspects of road accidents, some of which relate to elderly road users.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road accidents there were in each region; and what was the regional total as a percentage of the total, in each of the last five years. [68473]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The numbers of personal injury road accidents in each region are shown in the table:

  Injury road accidents by region: Great Britain1997–20011

  Year of accident

  Government office regions

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  London

  38,836

  38,258

  38,368

  37,691

  36,741

  South East

  33,858

  33,350

  33,047

  32,915

  32,270

  North West

  31,967

  31,937

  30,993

  30,917

  29,298

  Eastern

  22,341

  22,288

  21,788

  22,375

  21,926

  West Midlands

  21,570

  20,879

  21,099

  21,391

  21,112

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  21,164

  21,591

  21,152

  20,674

  20,326

  South West

  18,093

  18,395

  18,629

  18,188

  18,760

  East Midlands

  16,665

  16,987

  16,552

  16,563

  16,089

  North East

  8,915

  8,700

  8,223

  8,367

  8,136

  England

  213,409

  212,385

  209,851

  209,081

  204,658

  Scotland

  16,628

  16,512

  15,304

  15,099

  14,668

  Wales

  10,250

  10,026

  9,893

  9,549

  9,499

  Great Britain

  240,287

  238,923

  235,048

  233,729

  228,825

  1Figures for 2001 are provisional

  The percentage of personal injury road accidents in each region are shown in the table.
  976W

  Percentage of injury road accidents by region:GreatBritain1997–20011

  Year of accident

  Government office region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  London

  16

  16

  16

  16

  16

  South East

  14

  14

  14

  14

  14

  North West

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  Eastern

  9

  9

  9

  10

  10

  West Midlands

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9

  9

  9

  9

  9

  South West

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  East Midlands

  7

  7

  7

  7

  7

  North East

  4

  4

  3

  4

  4

  England

  89

  89

  89

  89

  89

  Scotland

  7

  7

  7

  6

  6

  Wales

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Great Britain

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1Figures for 2001 are provisional

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what proportion of(a) road accidents and (b) fatal road accidents excess speed was identified as a major factor on (i) all roads and (ii) minor single-carriageway roads in each year since 1982. [68225]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The effect of excess speed on accident causation has been extensively researched based on accident data taken from a number of sources including national road accident statistics. The overall conclusion is that excessive speed, is a contributory factor in about one third of all accidents.

  Specific information about particular roads is not held centrally but reference to TRL Report 421 "The effects of drivers' speed on the frequency of road accidents" published in 2000 and TRL Report 511 "The relationship between speed and accidents on rural single-carriageway roads", published in 2002 would provide a fuller explanation of the effects of excess speed on accident causation. Copies of both reports are available in the Library of the House.

  Road User Charging
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ask the Highways Agency to start work on developing a policy for road user charging for inter-urban motorway and trunk roads.[68081]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no plans to do so.

  Road Traffic Forecasts
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research and work has been conducted(a) by and (b) for his Department in relation to the revision of targets under the national road traffic forecasts; and if he will make a statement. [66672]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department publishes forecasts, but not targets, for road traffic. The Department has been conducting and commissioning work to improve its modelling capabilities, with the aim of developing from the National Road Traffic Forecasting framework a fully multi-modal approach, as announced in the 10 Year Plan for Transport. This work continues.

  Road Noise
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to reduce road noise levels. [68229]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's proposals for reducing the noise levels near the strategic network of English trunk roads, including motorways, were published in the 10 Year Plan for Transport. These include a commitment that over 60 per cent. of the network, including all lengths having concrete surfaces, will be resurfaced with quieter materials by the end of the plan period. All proposals for new or improved trunk roads will include the use of quieter surfacing. In addition, other noise reducing measures will be provided in the most serious and pressing cases where there is no early prospect of the road being resurfaced. Priority in such cases will be given to roads where there are severe effects on adjacent properties and no such measures were provided when they were built or last improved.

  Variable Speed Limits
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the roads covered by variable speed limits, sub-divided by road classification, indicating the total length of these roads in each case; what plans there are to change the length of roads covered by variable speed limits; and if he will make a statement. [66006]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Local highways authorities are responsible for setting speed limits on their roads, and the roads on which particular limits apply are a matter for local decision. This information is not held centrally.

  Bus Services
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2002,Official Report, column 105W, on bus punctuality, what information he collates on the punctuality of buses; and if he will provide such statistics for the last six years. [68471]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Bus punctuality information is not collected or collated by the Department centrally. However, Bus Compliance Officers employed by Vehicle Inspectorate survey the performance of bus operators in each Traffic Commission Area where a complaint has been made about an operator's bus services. Traffic Commissioners have set operators a target of running 95 per cent. of registered bus services within a six minute `window of tolerance'—no more than one minute early or five minutes late.

  Transport for London (TfL) monitors punctuality on the London hus routes operated under contract to London Buses. Results are published on the TfL web site: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/service_performance.shtml

  Lord Birt
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Lord B irt' s role regarding transport policy. [64486]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The position remains as set out in the answer given by right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) on 21 January 2002,Official Report, column 568W.

  Regulatory Impact Unit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many members of his Department have been employed in its regulatory impact unit in the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [65974]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The new Departmental Regulatory Impact Unit was established in October 2001 and it works for both the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Transport.

  Figures for earlier years are not comparable with the current baseline due to the different policy responsibilities. The resource position for 1997–2001 were parts of a Grade 7, SEO, EO and AO.

  1997–98 (1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998) = 4

  1998–99 (1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999) = 4

  1999–2000 (1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001) = 4

  2001–02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) = 4 staff, 2 full time, 2 job share.

  It is the job of Departmental Regulatory Impact Units to establish and promote the principles of good regulation in their Departments. The staff in each unit work closely with the officials responsible for developing policies within their Department and the Regulatory Impact Unit within the Cabinet Office. They focus on those regulations that impact on business, charities, and the voluntary sector.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many and what proportion of the public service agreements of his Department set out in the document "Public Services for the Future", 1998 have been met; and if he will make a statement. [68718]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information relating to my Department's Public Service Agreements targets can be found in DTLR's annual report 2002.

  Gas Explosion, Newton Heath
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the TRANSCO health and safety official report into the gas explosion in Newton Heath, Manchester on 17 November 2001. [68096]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Yes. Arrangements are in hand to provide a copy of the report to the Library of the House.

  Public Safety Zones
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decisions he has reached about his proposed circular to local authorities for use in considering applications for development within public safety zones; and if he will make a statement. [69219]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since the issue of the draft circular for consultation in 1999 my Department has held extensive discussions with local planning authority and airport representatives, and we are grateful for their assistance in refining our proposals. We are today publishing the definitive version of the circular for application in England.
  979W
  Meanwhile, following a recent improvement and updating of their model, the Department's consultants have remodelled the risk around the airports which already have public safety zones. In the light of that work the Department is today notifying the English local planning authorities and airports concerned of the grid co-ordinates of redefined public safety zones. In addition, in the light of the modelling work now completed, we are establishing public safety zones for Sheffield city airport, as previously anticipated, and for Cambridge and Norwich airports. We shall establish public safety zones at other airports for which modelling work suggests that this would be justified.

  Large Stadiums
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on the provision of transport infrastructure to large stadiums. [67263]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's integrated transport policy is set out in the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", published in July 1998 and underlines the need for the planning of developments to be closely linked with the consideration of transport priorities and investment.

  Our Planning Policy Guidance note 13 on Transport (PPG 13) of March 2001 requires that development comprising jobs, shopping, leisure and services should offer a realistic choice of access by public transport, walking and cycling. It also sets a national maximum parking standard of one space per 15 seats at stadiums with 1,500 or more seats.

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Advisory Committee on Measures to be Taken in the Event of a Crisis in the Market in the Carriage of Goods by Road and Laying Down the Conditions under which Non-resident Carriers may Operate National Road Haulage Services within a Member State is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [68583]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No date has been set for a meeting of the committee nor do we expect it to meet in the foreseeable future. The remit of the committee is to advise the Commission on measures proposed to deal with a serious disturbance of the national transport market due to either international haulage or cabotage. As no member state has ever reported such a disturbance to the Commission, the committee has not been convened.

  In the event of it being convened, officials from my Department would represent the UK on the committee as policy responsibility on the functioning of the single market in road haulage is a reserved matter. However, my officials would consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Advisory Committee for the Harmonisation and Comparability of the Accounting and Annual Accounts of Railway Undertakings is next due to 980W
  meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive (a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [68586]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 16 May 2002,Official Report, column 791W.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Advisory Committee on Access for Community Air Carriers to Intra-Community Air Routes is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [68593]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Advisory Committee on Access for Community Air Carriers to Intra-Community Air Routes, established under the provisions of Article 11 of regulation (EEC) 2408–92, meets only on an ad-hoc basis and no future meeting is currently scheduled. Since regulation of aviation and air transport is a reserved matter, officials from my Department represent the UK on the committee. However, my officials would consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Advisory Committee for the Application of Legislation on the Conditions under which Non-resident Carriers may Operate National Road Passenger Transport Services within a Member State is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [68582]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No date has been set for a meeting of the committee nor do we expect it to meet in the foreseeable future. The remit of the committee is to advise the Commission on measures intended to resolve a serious disturbance of the internal passenger transport market due to cabotage. As no member state has ever reported such a disturbance to the Commission. the committee has not been convened.

  In the event of it being convened, officials from my Department would represent the UK on the committee as policy responsibility for road passenger transport cabotage is a reserved matter. However, my officials would consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee for a transparent system of harmonised rules for restrictions on heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport on designated roads is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [68589]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such Committee exists. In May 1998 the European Commission published a proposal for a Council Directive on a transparent system of rules for driving restrictions on heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport on designated roads. The proposal made provision for an advisory Committee composed of representatives of the Member States and chaired by the Commission. The proposed Directive was never adopted.
  981W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Advisory Committee for the application of uniform principles on costing for railway undertakings is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [68579]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2183–78 of 19 September 1978 which established this Committee is no longer in force. The Committee has not met in recent years.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Committee on implementation of Protocol 9 to the Act of Accession of Austria concerning transport by road and rail and combined transport (Ecopoints) is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it: and if he will make a statement. [68591]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Committee is next due to meet on 18 July. Officials from my Department represent the UK on the Committee as policy responsibility for the implementation of Protocol 9 to the Austrian Act of Accession is a reserved matter. However, my officials consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the Devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Community-Switzerland Transport Committee (rail and road) is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [68576]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The inaugural meeting of the EU-Switzerland Transport Committee was held on 5 July. No date has yet been fixed for the next meeting of this Committee. Officials from my Department represent the UK on the Committee as policy responsibility for the EU_Switzerland Agreement is a reserved matter. However, my officials consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the Devolved Administrations.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the EU Advisory Committee for the application of legislation on the development of the Community railways is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [68578]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No date has yet been fixed for the next meeting of the Developing European Railways Committee but we expect it to be held in December. Officials from my Department represent the UK on the Committee as policy responsibility for the development of railways is a reserved matter. However, my officials consult the Scottish Executive on agenda items in which it might have an interest in accordance with our Concordat with the devolved Administrations.

  East Thames River Crossings
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the east Thames river crossings that(a) have
  982W
  been completed in the last two years and (b) are under construction, giving the expected opening date, and (c) are being considered. [68358]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No new east Thames river crossings have been completed in the last two years. A tunnel between Thurrock and Swanscombe is to be constructed as part of the channel tunnel rail link and is due to be completed by 2007.

  Cross London Rail Links Ltd. (CLRL), a joint venture between Transport for London and the Strategic Rail Authority, is currently consulting on two options for a crossrail crossing between Canary Wharf and Woolwich (via the Royal Docks or Greenwich Peninsula/Charlton). The Mayor and TfL are also considering three possible river crossing schemes. They are as follows:
  an extension of the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) to Woolwich:
  a bridge to the east of the Royal Docks, which would incorporate dedicated lanes for public transport;
  a road bridge or tunnel between north Greenwich and Silvertown.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is not considering any proposals for other new crossings at this time.

  Public Transport (Customer Satisfaction)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the most recent statistics relating to customer satisfaction on the(a) DLR, (b) Tyne and Wear Metro, (c) Manchester Metrolink, (d) South Yorkshire Supertram, (e) Midland Metro and (f) Croydon Tramlink, with the source for each data set used. [68256]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information for(a) DLR, (b) Tyne and Wear Metro, (c) Manchester Metrolink, (e) Midland Metro and (f) Croydon Tramlink has been placed in the Libraries of the House. Information on customer satisfaction is not available for the South Yorkshire Supertram.

  State Aid Rules
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date he expects to receive a response from the European Commission with regard to whether(a) the money and (b) the guarantees being provided by the Government are acceptable under state aid rules. [66535]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]: We expect their decision in due course.

  Potters Bar Rail Accident
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he plans to take following the Health and Safety report of 4 July into the Potters Bar rail accident; and if he will make a statement. [68263]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The HSE report of 4 July, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House, was a progress report on their continuing investigation into the accident. The report made a number of recommendations. The HSE will monitor the implementation of those recommendations. Railtrack's chief executive is drawing up plans to improve the way

  983W
  that contractors' work is managed and monitored, and Network Rail will take this forward if they replace Railtrack.

  Rail Services (South-West)
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for improving rural rail services in the south-west region. [68230]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's (SRA) Strategic Plan sets out its short, medium and longer-term priorities, including a number of improvements to enhance rail services in the south-west. There is also funding available from the Rail Passenger Partnership scheme and Rail Performance Fund for regional and local initiatives.

  Croydon Tramlink
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the Croydon Tramlink to have smartcard ticketing; and if he will make a statement. [68470]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for the Mayor of London and Transport for London (TfL).

  Further information can be obtained from:

  Charles Monheim

  Director of Ticketing

  Transport for London

  Windsor House

  42–50 Victoria Street

  London SW 1 H OTL.

  London Bridge Railway Station
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the daily capacity of London Bridge railway station was in each of the last three years. [68360]

  Mr. Jamieson
  "Capacity" has several definitions. For instance, it could mean the number of potential services, trains or passengers that could pass through the station, or simply the station size. The average number of national rail passengers passing through or disembarking at London Bridge station on weekdays during the morning peak (0700–1000) in each of the last three years is:

  1999: 123,677

  2000: 129,078

  2001: 123,721.

  Special Purpose Vehicle
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the first special purpose vehicle for the railways to be completed. [66058]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 9 July 2002,Official Report, column 807W.

  Railway Industry
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions on which he(a) has met and (b) plans to meet the (i) Chairman of the Strategic Railway Authority and (ii) Rail Regulator, stating for each occasion the purpose of the meeting. [64129]
  984W
  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has met both the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority and the Rail Regulator since taking up this post, to discuss a wide range of issues relating to their work. He, and other departmental Ministers, will continue to do so as and when appropriate.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the status is of the SRA's accounts in relation to the accounting for departmental spending. [67057]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is an executive non-departmental public body, whose accounts are not consolidated into the Department's accounts. Any grants paid by the Department to the authority are treated as programme expenditure in the Department's own accounts.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what existing loans and related liabilities the SRA has on its balance sheet; and if he will make a statement. [67060]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The balance sheet of the SRA was set out on page 87 of its 2000–01 annual report and will be updated in its 2001–02 annual report to be published shortly.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the powers he has over the management of the Strategic Rail Authority. [67163]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The statutory relationship between the Secretary of State and the Strategic Rail Authority is set out in the Transport Act 2000, the Railways Act 1993 and associated documentation, including directions and guidance from the Secretary of State and the SRA's Financial Framework.

  Network Rail
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the rights of commercial lenders to exercise repayment rights by the SRA, will be determined; and what guidance he has given to Network Rail about these rights. [67173]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The rights of the commercial lenders are determined through commercially confidential loan agreements as and when they are entered into by the lenders and Network Rail. Details of the SRA standby support facilities are set out in commercial agreements between the SRA and Network Rail. It is not for the Secretary of State to give guidance to Network Rail on these matters.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government have sought state aid clearance for the sums paid to Network Rail in order to establish the company and meet its initial costs prior to the completion of the takeover of the assets of Railtrack plc. [67162]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No sums have been paid by Government to Network Rail Ltd. Individuals and advisers are engaged by Government to secure that a bid
  985W
  for Railtrack plc by a company limited by guarantee is taken through to completion. This does not constitute a state aid.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the estimates of the total revenues for Network Rail for each of the next five years that he used in assessing the viability of the proposal to securitise revenues described in paragraph 12 of the Minute to Parliament. [67169]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Network Rail's revenues will continue to receive the revenues determined by the regulator's October 2000 Periodic Review and the April 2001 agreement between Railtrack and Government, reflecting the amendments noted in the regulator's statement of 27 June 2002.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he proposes to amend the Financial Framework of the Strategic Rail Authority as provided for in paragraph 16 of Schedule 14 of the Transport Act 2000 following the issuing of the Minutes to Parliament and the House. [67063]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Financial Framework is reviewed regularly and may also be amended or augmented between reviews.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he applied to the European Commission for state aid approval for the(a) £300 million capital grant to Network Rail. Holdco Limited, (b) provision of £9 billion guarantee to Network Rail by the SRA, (c) provision of £10 billion of contingent funding for Network Rail, and (d) CTRL project. [66639]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 3 July 2002]: The financial support package which the Government has agreed to make available to Network Rail if it completes the acquisition of Railtrack plc was notified to the European Commission on 31 May 2002. That notification covered all of the elements of the funding set out in the two Minutes which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid before the House on 27 June 2002, and also the associated acquisitions of Railtrack Group's interests in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances commercial lenders will have the right to exercise the option described in note 2 on page 5 of the Network Rail Minute to Parliament. [67170]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Commercial lenders of the bridge facilities have the right to require the SRA to purchase all amounts due to them from Network Rail Group in the event of the SRA defaulting on any obligation to make the standby loans available to Network Rail.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the future income streams that will be securitised, as described in paragraph 12 of the Minute to Parliament. [67167]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for Network Rail.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what total amount of state aid approval sought by the Government are for(a) financial and (b) other support to Network Rail. [67084]
  986W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The details of the notification made to the European Commission in respect of the support which the Government has agreed to make available to Network Rail if it successfully completes the acquisition of Railtrack plc are confidential. However, the contingent liabilities which the Government would incur as a result of this support are set out in the two Minutes which were laid before the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 June 2002. These contingent liabilities are covered by the notification to the European Commission.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if Network Rail will be required to repay the loan facilities to finance legacy costs on 30 September 2004. [67055]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The repayment schedule for commercial loans to finance legacy costs will be determined through commercial loan agreements as and when they are required.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of Network Rail's future revenues he estimates will be securitised, as described in paragraph 12 of the Minute to Parliament. [67168]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for Network Rail.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the other sums referred to in line 7 of paragraph 13 of the Network Rail Minute to Parliament. [67172]

  Mr. Jamieson
  "Other sums" refers to additional amounts that may be payable that are customary in facilities of this type, such as break costs. Break costs are costs which may be incurred if (i) the loan is prepaid (ii) an interest period is shortened by virtue of the prepayment and (iii) lenders are adversely affected. It is not possible to quantify these amounts in advance as they would depend on circumstances at the time, for example the level of interest rates.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total value is of the tax indemnity outlined in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Network Rail Minute to the House. [67062]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Government has been advised that Railtrack Group should be able to take advantage of the exemptions referred to in paragraph 25 of the Minute. This would ensure that, in all likelihood, Railtrack Group incurs no tax liability as a result of the Railtrack plc disposal.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the financing and funding of(a) RenewCo and (b) Network Rail for the purposes of what constitutes public expenditure under the assessment used by the Office for National Statistics. [67723]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Office for National Statistics takes independent decisions in matters concerning the classification, preparation and publication of statistics. ONS decisions are consistent with the principles of the international statistical manuals, European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA95) and the system of National Accounts 1993 (SNA93) and supporting manuals and case law.
  987W
  On 5 October 2001 the Department was informed that the ONS had determined that Railtrack's scheme for a new special purpose vehicle—RenewCo— would be classified in the public sector, if set up as proposed. On 27 June 2002 the ONS announced that Network Rail would be classified as a private sector corporation once its board has been ratified by its membership and on 5 July, it announced that Network Rail's borrowing will be classified as private sector borrowing in the national accounts.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what role his Department will play in selecting a representativse of the Strategic Rail Authority to sit on the board of Network Rail. [67164]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority will decide whom to select.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government would allow the SRA to exceed the borrowing limit outlined in paragraph eight, sub-paragraph six of Schedule 14 of the Transport Act 2000 in order to meet its liabilities as outlined in paragraph 21 of the Network Rail Minute to the House. [67061]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The provision of any funds necessary to meet the SRA's financial obligations would be made by way of grant under paragraph 7 of schedule 14 of the Transport Act 2000 or by permitting the SRA to borrow in accordance with paragraph 8 of that schedule. Whether, and the extent to which, the SRA would be allowed to borrow would be determined at the time. The SRA's borrowing could not exceed £3 billion without this limit being extended by statutory instrument, a draft of which had been approved by the House of Commons.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what commitments the SRA has made for the future grant scheme to Network Rail, as described in paragraph 14 of the Minute to Parliament; and for what amounts. [67171]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA have committed to provide Network Rail with grants to remunerate legacy costs incurred in the period 1 April 2001 to 30 September 2004, up to a cap of £5 billion, to the extent they are not recognised in an interim review. The regulator set out his proposed approach to an interim review in his statement of 27 June.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government have made a financial provision for the potential additional costs arising from an increased settlement to Network Rail resulting from an interim review by the Rail Regulator. [67165]

  Mr. Jamieson
  While the legacy of Railtrack and its cost overruns creates potential additional costs, the Government expects Network Rail to operate more efficiently than Railtrack with lower financing costs and are-investment of operating surpluses back into the network. We cannot anticipate the outcome of the proposed interim review that would take all of these factors into account.
  988W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list outputs to be specified by Railtrack's successor, as negotiated by the SRA, in exchange for the provision of the funding package to Railtrack's successor. [68390]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 18 of the Regulator's statement of 27 June.

  The SRA and Network Rail have entered into various agreements in relation to the financial support and output and enhancement obligations, all operating alongside the existing regulatory arrangements. In particular. the outputs will be developed further through Network Rail's business planning process.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the guidance issued to the SRA by the Office for National Statistics in relation to the structure of the funding package for Network Rail. [68389]

  Mr. Jamieson
  /holding answer 9 July 2002]: No guidance was issued to the Strategic Rail Authority by the Office for National Statistics.

  London Underground
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the methodology behind the Department's estimates of capacity on each London Underground line. [67792]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: My Department does not make estimates of capacity of London Underground lines.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many non-operational(a) lifts and (b) escalators there are on the London Underground Network; at which stations they are found; and what the estimated resulting loss in station capacity is in each case. [67719]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: This is an operational matter for London Underground (LU) who have provided the information in the table detailing non-operational (a) lifts and (b) escalators, as at 28 June 2002. I understand that LU do not make estimates of the loss of station capacity in such cases.

  (a) London Underground—escalators out of service as at 28 June 2002

  Station

  Number of machines Station out of service

  Baker Street

  1

  Bank

  2

  Bethnal Green

  1

  Bond Street

  1

  Embankment

  1

  Euston

  1

  Green Park

  1

  Heathrow 1,2,3

  1

  Holborn

  1

  Kentish Town

  1

  Kilburn Park

  1

  Kings Cross

  1

  Knightsbridge

  1

  Liverpool Street

  2

  Madia Vale

  1

  Notting Hill Gate

  1

  Old Street

  1

  Piccadilly Circus

  1

  Total

  21

  989W

  (b) London Underground-Lifts out of service as at 28 June 2002

  Station

  Number of machine out of service

  Elephant and Castle

  2

  North Greenwich

  1

  Russell Square

  1

  Stratford

  1

  West Ham

  1

  Total

  6

  Note

  The number of lifts and escalators not in service can vary from hour to hour in the case of short-term faults.

  Northern Line
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the maximum number of people allowed(a) on each platform and (b) in each station is for each station on the Northern Line, as determined by health and safety limits. [67715]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: London Underground inform me that there is no formal limit on the number of customers allowed on each platform. They monitor closely the numbers of customers in stations and on platforms and take appropriate action to ensure their safety.

  Merseyrail
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the franchising process for Merseyrail; and what progress has been made. [68205]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The refranchising process for Merseyrail Electrics is currently being run jointly by the Strategic Rail Authority and Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive. Six bidders successfully prequalified for the competition. Initial bids are due on 12 July.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on rolling stock replacement on Merseyrail. [69120]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Proposals for rolling stock replacement on the Merseyrail Electrics network will be considered as part of the franchise/local concession replacement process currently under way.

  >Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what tax liability Railtrack Group will incur as a result of the Railtrack plc disposal announced on 27 June. [66497]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 25 of the minute in relation to non-statutory contingent liabilities in support of Network Rail Limited which the Secretary of State laid before the House of Commons on 27 June.

  Speeding Offences
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many motorists in Lancashire and Burnley have been charged with speeding in a 30-mile-per-hour speed limit in the last 12 months. [65779]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.
  990W
  Information on numbers of persons charged with an offence is not collated centrally. The data available centrally on prosecutions and fixed penalties issued for speeding offences are not broken down according to the speed limits that have been broken.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Changes
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost of replacing the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department of Transport; and if he will make a statement. [67436]

  The Prime Minister
  The new Departments will share the provision previously made for the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions. No additional funds have been made available in the current year as a result of the machinery of government change.

  Nuclear Power Programme (Russia)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 1 July 2002,Official Report, column 21, on G7 nuclear management aid for Russia, how much of the %750 million commitment by the United Kingdom will be spent on the conversion of surplus military plutonium into MOX nuclear fuel for Russia's nuclear power programme. [68451]

  The Prime Minister
  The figure includes the commitment of £70 million over 10 years, which I announced at the G8 Okinawa summit in 2000, in support of the US/Russian agreement on secure disposition of plutonium no longer required for defence purposes.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) whether special advisers are permitted to amend draft answers to written parliamentary questions prepared by civil servants in order to add a political dimension; [67694]

  (2) if he will describe the stages in the administrative process followed in his Office following the receipt of a written parliamentary question prior to the final answer being provided to the hon. Member. [67695]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware my Office follows the same administrative process for written parliamentary questions as used by my predecessors.

  My parliamentary section identifies the questions from the Order Paper tabled to me. The section will then draft answers in consultation with other Downing Street staff, including special advisers, or commission answers from other Departments as appropriate. They are cleared by a senior civil servant and then sent to me for approval.

  All answers are provided in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and the Special Adviser Code of Conduct.

  Sellafield
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how many representations he has received since 1 January 2001 regarding Sellafield; and what steps he has taken as a consequence. [67640]
  991W
  The Prime Minister
  Since January 2001 I have received over 187,000 letters and cards, including a very large number of pre-printed postcards as a result of a campaign organised in Ireland in April and May 2002. I have also had discussions with the Prime Ministers of Norway and Ireland about Sellafield issues.

  The hon. Member will be aware that the Government published a White Paper on 4 July 2002 setting out our plans for dealing with the UK's nuclear legacy including the operation and clean-up of the Sellafield site.

  Summits
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 2002,Official Report, column 330W, on summits, for what reason it was not possible for him to state the budget for the trip to the G8 summit in June and the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in March. [68655]

  The Prime Minister
  A detailed list of Cabinet Ministers' visits overseas, and information on spend by all Ministers on travel overseas for the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 will be published as soon as possible. The list for the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 will be published after the end of the current financial year.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what organisations delivering and resourcing personal, social and health education in secondary schools receive funding from central Government sources; and how much was given to each in the last year for which figures are available. [66709]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills funds a number of organisations to support the delivery of PSHE in schools. In 2002–03, the following funding has been allocated:The National Children's Bureau (including the Drug Education and Sex Education Forum), to promote good practice—£245,250
  The Personal Finance Education Group, to support financial literacy—£ 10,000
  The National Health Education Group, to support a network for PS HE practitioners—£14,000
  Child Accident. Prevention Trust, to support Child Safety Week—£ 17,000
  BRAKE, to support Road Safety Week—£10,000
  Drug Education Practitioner's Forum, to support the professional needs of drug education workers—£11,150
  Jointly with the Department of Health, the Drug Education and Prevention Team at DrugScope/Alcohol Concern to promote good practice—£ 106,300.

  Funding is not provided directly for the production of classroom resources.

  Medical Schools
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what capital is being made available to the new medical schools for research laboratories and equipment. [67150]
  992W
  Margaret Hodge
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England issues capital grants to higher education institutions including those with medical schools, which are used for a number of purposes. The Department of Health has provided additional NHS research and development funding to the NHS Trusts associated with some of the new medical schools to facilitate the development of the research infrastructure in those localities.

  Schools (Somerset)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Somerset provide up to two hours of sport and physical education each week. [67588]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Government are committed to all children having two hours of high quality physical education (PE) and school sport a week, within and outside the curriculum. The Specialist Sports College and the School Sport Co-ordinator programmes are helping schools make that a reality. From September 1.8 million pupils will be benefiting from the School Sport Co-ordinator programme within 142 partnerships with nearly 750 co-ordinators and over 3500 primary or special school link teachers.

  The Department for Education and Skills does not collect data on the number of schools in Somerset that are providing the two hour entitlement. However, we do know that Somerset currently has 1 School Sport Co-ordinator partnership (with 6 co-ordinators) and King Arthur's Community School will begin operating this September as a Sport College. Nationally we estimate that about 25 per cent. of schools—those within School Sport Co-ordinator Partnerships—are offering their pupils access to the two hour entitlement. However, an audit due to take place during the autumn term will check this assumption.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list for each LEA where EMAs have been introduced the amount of resources allocated for discretionary awards in each of year since 1997. [67470]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]: Prior to 1998–99, funding for discretionary support was made within the Education SSA. This is not broken down into specific funding lines and individual LEA allocations are therefore not available. In 1999, discretionary funding for young people post-16 in schools was transferred to the School Access Funds. The amount of School Access Funds made available to LEAs for discretionary support in the EMA pilot areas is set out in the table.

  Separate allocations of Access Funds are also made available to colleges, including sixth form colleges. The amounts are listed in the Further Education Funding Council and Learning and Skills Council Circulars (FEFC Circulars 97/32, 98/29. 99/27.00/14. LSC Circular 01/08).
  993W

  £000

  LEA

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Original pilots—September 1999

  Bolton

  31,775

  8,168

  22,932

  32,192

  Cornwall

  35,249

  12,782

  22,267

  30,043

  Doncaster

  76,318

  19,002

  59,579

  83,378

  Gateshead

  42,754

  9,969

  29,413

  36,716

  Greenwich

  106,541

  89,763

  25,382

  35,523

  Lambeth

  20,280

  17,358

  5,000

  5,200

  Leeds

  121,873

  121,873

  62,456

  82,634

  Lewisham

  45,590

  45,590

  12,891

  14,517

  Middlesbrough

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  Nottingham

  16,394

  8,081

  11,937

  16,757

  Oldham

  26,649

  6,875

  14,689

  20,502

  Southampton

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  7,019

  Southwark

  13,813

  17,033

  5,000

  7,019

  Stoke on Trent

  n/a

  5,000

  5,000

  7,019

  Walsall

  77,693

  15,996

  57,853

  81,214

  Pilots from September 2000

  Barking and Dagenham

  31,952

  56,794

  16,059

  20,050

  Barnsley

  8,862

  11,521

  5,000

  6,413

  Birmingham

  250,401

  426,700

  122,120

  167,782

  Bradford

  170,393

  279,138

  81,562

  112,280

  Brent

  67,643

  115,818

  32,749

  33,843

  Camden

  54,427

  103,446

  43,382

  60,899

  Coventry

  60,859

  101,777

  43,271

  57,946

  Ealing

  70,083

  115,418

  32,636

  32,636

  East Lancashire1

  104,844

  136,297

  205,287

  213,863

  Hackney

  34,610

  44,993

  16,990

  21,971

  Halton

  18,970

  31,233

  11,028

  12,927

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  30,002

  31,233

  11,028

  12,927

  Haringey

  80,542

  104,705

  29,607

  29,607

  Hartlepool

  8,048

  13,329

  6,748

  9,473

  Islington

  14,172

  26,227

  7,655

  8,472

  Kingston upon Hull

  6,589

  11,267

  5,000

  6,395

  Knowsley

  41,840

  54.392

  15,380

  15,380

  Leicester City

  18,642

  33,103

  16,298

  20,961

  Liverpool

  255,980

  332,774

  131,392

  184,447

  Luton

  5,000

  8,212

  5,000

  5,200

  Manchester

  38,772

  62,767

  24,626

  31,748

  Newham

  29,252

  47,417

  18,771

  26,351

  North East Lincolnshire

  5,000

  9,453

  5,000

  6,603

  North Tyneside

  30,432

  52,119

  19,282

  27,067

  Northumberland

  56,949

  96,015

  38,872

  54,568

  Salford

  5,000

  5,000

  5,000

  5,200

  Sandwell

  47,012

  61,116

  22,093

  29,288

  Sheffield

  65,965

  85,755

  28,773

  40,392

  South Tyneside

  9,137

  15,009

  7,993

  11,220

  St. Helens

  20,033

  85,755

  28,773

  40,392

  Suffolk

  74,794

  127,213

  179,856

  187,370

  Sunderland

  35,298

  45,888

  84,777

  88,319

  Tameside

  5,378

  8,720

  5,000

  5,200

  Tower Hamlets

  112,052

  145,667

  52,669

  72,380

  Wakefield

  30,064

  39,083

  15,264

  21,428

  Waltham Forest

  14,349

  26,980

  7,629

  9,664

  Wandsworth

  30,851

  60,310

  17,054

  17,054

  Wigan

  9,599

  16,169

  5,000

  6,998

  Wirral

  96,184

  165,221

  46,719

  62,588

  Wolverhampton

  59,149

  98,585

  45,139

  62,380

  Worcestershire

  32,816

  59,959

  18,839

  25,892

  Totals

  2,766,874

  3,740,068

  1,859,720

  2,330,307

  1Figures shown are for the whole of Lancashire

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many young people received educational maintenance allowance(a) by variant and (b) by region in each year since 1999. [67086]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 5 July 2002]: (a) The following table shows the number of young people in receipt of education maintenance allowance by variant.
  994W

  Variant Number

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  11

  5,682

  27,240

  35,697

  22

  816

  5,151

  5,387

  33

  2,168

  9,105

  13,044

  44

  683

  13,151

  22,006

  55

  384

  16,225

  29,828

  66

  0

  5,732

  9,656

  Pure transport7

  0

  4,064

  7,416

  Hybrid transport8

  0

  2,442

  4,302

  Total

  9,733

  83,110

  127,336

  1£30 per week, £50 termly retention bonus, (up to) £50 achievement bonus, 'cut off' threshold of £30,000

  2£40 per week, £50 termly retention bonus, (up to) £50 achievement bonus, 'cut off' threshold of £30,000

  3£30 per week to the parent, £50 termly retention bonus, (up to) £50 achievement bonus, 'cut off' threshold of £30,000

  4£30 per week, £80 termly retention bonus, (up to) £140 achievement bonus, 'cut off' threshold of £30,000

  5£30 per week, £50 termly retention bonus. (up to) £50 achievement bonus, 'cut off' threshold of £20,000

  6£30 per week, £50 termly retention bonus, (up to) £50 achievement bonus, 'cut off' threshold of £25,000

  7 Free transport, £50 termly retention and (up to) £50 achievement bonus (2 areas), £80 termly retention and (up to) £140 achievement bonus (1 area), 'cut off' threshold of £30,000

  8£20 per week, eligible to receive discount on transport costs, no retention bonus, no achievement bonus, 'cut off' threshold of £30,000

  (b) The second table shows the number of young people in receipt of education maintenance allowance by Government office region.

  Region

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  East Midlands

  258

  4,104

  6.009

  East of England

  0

  2,301

  4,459

  London

  384

  12,988

  23.355

  North East

  1,505

  8,506

  12,615

  North West

  1,690

  17,917

  27,438

  South East

  542

  1,546

  1,500

  South West

  3,046

  5,890

  5775

  West Midlands

  772

  14,857

  24,616

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  1,536

  15,001

  21,569

  Total

  9,733

  83,110

  127,336

  All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps she is taking to implement the recommendations of the report, "All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education"; and if she will make a statement. [67157]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education reported jointly to the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and Culture, Media and Sport in 1999 via the report "All our Futures". The report contained 59 detailed recommendations for action by a range of bodies including Government, schools and higher education institutions. My Department has worked closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and external partners, to implement the recommendations.

  Some of the main steps taken so far include funding of £270 million for the introduction of the Music Standards Fund to protect and expand LEA Music Services; the establishment of Artsmark, a national awards scheme now in its second year which recognises schools which offer

  995W
  a wide range of arts provision; and the recent joint announcement of £130 million for the Space for Sport and Arts programme which will fund almost 300 primary schools nationwide to modernise or build new multi-use halls and sports facilities and new music and arts studios.

  Other major initiatives in progress include the development of 16 Creative Partnerships Pilots, with the aim of building long-term, sustainable relationships between creative professionals and schools. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is undertaking a project focusing on pupils' creativity across the curriculum which will produce guidance for schools on ways to promote pupils' creativity.

  Our White Paper, "Schools: achieving success", repeats our commitment that all pupils should have access to a broad and rich education with a variety of extra-curricula activities and that, over time, all primary school pupils who want to should have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument.

  Nursery Centres of Excellence
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many nursery centres of excellence have been designated; how many centres there are in each local education authority area; and what total additional resource has been allocated to nursery centres of excellence. [67628]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: I announced, on 5 July, the designation of 33 new Early Excellence Centres (EECs) offering high quality integrated education and day care for young children, and services and opportunities for parents and the wider community. This brings the total number of EECs across the country to 91, taking us to within nine of reaching our manifesto commitment of 100 by 2004.

  A table listing all the current EECs by local education authority area has been placed in the Library.

  Jacques Delors Professorship
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the cost to(a) United Kingdom and (b) Communities funds of the Jacques Delors Professorship of Community Law, Oxford; and to which budget line it falls. [68333]

  Margaret Hodge
  My Department does not hold statistics about the costs to the UK nor to the European Union (EU) of individual Professorships, including those which are part funded by the EU. The funding of this particular Professorship is a matter for Oxford University and for the European Commission.

  Examination Papers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list by(a) year, (b) date and (c) examining body, each mistake in external examination papers at (i) GCSE, (ii) AS and (iii) A Level that has been reported to her since 1997. [67476]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) advise that the data for 2002 is as follows.
  996W
  AQA

  January: 5 A level;

  May/June: 6 GCSE. 2 A level, 2 GNVQ.

  Edexcel

  January: 4 A level, 1 GNVQ;

  May/June: 2 GNVQ.

  OCR

  January: 1 A level, 1 AS, 1 GNVQ, 4 VCE;

  May/June: 4 A level, 5 GCSE.

  QCA has not systemically collected similar data for earlier years. QCA recently introduced a series of detailed performance targets for awarding bodies, which will require the collection of data on undetected errors in examination papers. This information will be published for future years.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total budget across all Government Departments was for spending on statutory education for 11 to 18-year-olds in schools and sixth form colleges in England in the last year for which figures are available. [68085]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The total budget or Local Schools Budget (LSB) for secondary schools for 2002–03 is £11,829.5 million. This is the amount appropriated by the authorities for meeting all secondary expenditure by them in that year, including expenditure on central functions such as transport, as well as schools' delegated budgets.

  The Learning and Skills Council has allocated £452.0 million for sixth form colleges for 2002–03.

  Further Education
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of students continue into further education after their GCSEs: and what efforts the Government have made to encourage pupils to stay on at school after their GCSEs. [66156]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: The post-compulsory staying-on rate in all forms of learning is 86.5 per cent. In 2001–02, of the total number of 16-year-olds. 71.2 per cent. continue to participate full-time in schools, sixth-form colleges or other colleges of further education, after the completion of their compulsory education. The latter figure includes some still studying GCSEs, but does not include those in part-time education or in work-based learning.

  We want all young people to continue after the age of 16 in high quality learning opportunities which best meet their needs and potential. This will give young people a range of high quality, general mixed and vocational options with the aim of ending the culture of dropping out of learning at 16. In addition to the Connexions Service role the Learning and Skills Council have put in place a number of measures to provide the support and incentives young people need to take up and succeed in learning. We are introducing a range of initiatives to overcome financial obstacles to participation. One of these is the education maintenance allowance. which is available in a

  997W
  third of the country. The impact of EMA on participation among eligible young people in the pilot areas has been to raise participation by six percentage points. We are presently considering responses to the 14–19 Green Paper "Extending opportunities, raising standards".

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what proportion of(a) colleges of further education and (b) sixth form colleges in

  Sixth form colleges

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  No. of colleges with a trading deficit

  37

  36

  48

  18

  Percentage of colleges across the total FE sector

  8.33

  8.14

  11.27

  4.30

  Percentage of colleges of the same type

  33.94

  33.64

  45.28

  17.65

  Other FE sector colleges

  No. of colleges with a trading deficit

  148

  141

  159

  94

  Percentage of colleges across the total FE sector

  33.33

  31.90

  37.32

  22.43

  Percentage of colleges of the same type

  44.18

  42.09

  49.69

  29.65

  Notes:

  1. Information for the financial year 2001–02 is not yet available.

  2. Other FE sector colleges include general further education colleges, tertiary colleges, agricultural and horticultural colleges, art, design and performing arts colleges and designated colleges.

  The further education sector is an important contributor to achieving our goal of a learning society. Further education colleges, including sixth form colleges, have a key role to play and we are continuing to increase our investment in this area. The Learning and Skills Council has procedures in place to identify colleges that have financial difficulties and will, as appropriate, give financial and practical support to enable them to implement effective plans to address these. However, prevention not intervention will be the aim.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what proportion of(a) colleges of further education and (b) sixth form colleges in England and Wales were in the Learning and Skills Council's weakest financial category at some point in each financial year from 1997–98 to 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [68513]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number and proportion of colleges in England in the weakest financial category at some point during the financial year (1 August to 31 July) for the periods 1997–98 to 2000–01 is given in the table. Information on colleges in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Number in weakest financial category

  Percentage of colleges the total FE sector

  Percentage of colleges of the same type

  Sixth form colleges

  1997–98

  11

  2.48

  10.09

  1998–99

  8

  1.81

  7.48

  1999–2000

  8

  1.88

  7.55

  2000–01

  10

  2.39

  9.80

  Other FE sector colleges

  1997–98

  84

  18.92

  25.07

  1998–99

  63

  14.25

  18.81

  1999–2000

  60

  14.08

  18.75

  2000–01

  70

  16.71

  22.08

  998W
  England and Wales were trading at a deficit in each financial year from 1997–98 to 2001–02; and if she will make a statement. [68512]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The number and proportion of colleges in England with an operating deficit (an excess of total expenditure over total income) in each financial year (1 August to 31 July) for the periods 1997–98 to 2000–01 is given in the table. Information on colleges in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  Notes:

  1. Data for the financial year 2001–02 is not yet available.

  2. Other FE sector colleges include general further education colleges, tertiary colleges, agricultural and horticultural colleges, art. design and performing arts colleges and designated colleges.

  The further education sector is an important contributor to achieving our goal of a learning society. Further education colleges, including sixth form colleges, have a key role to play and we are continuing to increase our investment in this area. The Learning and Skills Council has procedures in place to identify colleges that have financial difficulties and will, as appropriate, give financial and practical support to enable them to implement effective plans to address these. However, prevention not intervention will be the aim.

  Devolution
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the EU Advisory Committee on the training in architecture is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [66455]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The next meeting of the Advisory Committee on Training and Education in the Field of Architecture (ACETA) has been scheduled provisionally for 20 November 2002. The date is still to be confirmed by the EU Commission. No representatives of the Scottish Executive (a) have been or (b) are members of it.

  The mandate of this Committee is to help to ensure a comparably high standard of education and training for architects throughout the Community, and permit free movement of people and provision of services as Single Market objectives. It normally meets once a year.

  The UK Delegation to the ACETA consists of one Government official from this Office (Building Regulations Division), the Chief Executive of the

  999W
  Architects Registration Board, two representatives from the architectural profession, and two representatives from schools of architecture.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the President of the Council how many questions to Ministers for written answer have been tabled this session by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow); and what has been the cost of responding to them. [68868]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  At the close of business on Tuesday, 9 July, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) had tabled 4,382' questions at a total cost of £565,278.

  Note:

  Information supplied by the Table Office.

  Female Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council what percentage of the staff of his Department are women; and what the percentage was in June 1997. [66919]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, on 5 July 2002,Official Report, column 622W.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how many statutory instruments have been(a) introduced, (b) removed and (c) amended by his Department since 1 January; and what the (i) cost and (ii) saving has been in each case. [64638]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [pursuant to his reply, 9 July 2002, c. 837141]: I regret to say that there was an error on the number of statutory instruments which have been amended by my Department. The figure given was one. The correct figure is two.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Election Nominations
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many parish councils(a) did not receive sufficient nominations to have an election in May and (b) are missing as a result. [66217]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, no parish councils would be "missing" as a result of insufficient nominations for election. Under powers in the Local Government Act 1972, the remaining councillors would be able to co-opt people on to the council or, if the council had become inquorate, the district council would be able to co-opt members to enable council business to continue.

  Terminal 5
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the final cost was of the planning inquiry into Terminal 5. [66328]
  1000W
  Mr. McNulty
  The total cost of Terminal 5 inquiry to all participants is estimated at over £83 million, including certain pre-inquiry costs.

  Out-of-town Shopping Centres
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many applications for planning permission for out-of-town shopping centres have been agreed since 7 January. [66326]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local planning authorities provide quarterly statistical returns of planning decisions made, but details, such as their location, are not held centrally and therefore could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Facilities (Minimum Requirements)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the minimum requirements for(a) houses, (b) flats, (c) hotels and hostels, (d) houses in multiple occupation, (e) prisons and (f) university halls of residence for (i) space, (ii) lighting, (iii) ventilation, (iv) bathroom and toilet facilities and (v) fire escapes. [66679]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are a number of regulations in place in relation to minimum requirements for dwellings, including houses, flats, hotels and hostels, houses in multiple occupation and university halls of residence.

  This reply deals with areas of regulation for which my Department is primarily responsible. As regards prisons, my Department is responsible for fire safety matters only. I will ensure that the relevant documents are in the Library.

  Building Regulations

  The minimum requirements for the construction of most new buildings and certain extensions and alterations of existing buildings in England and Wales are given in the Building Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No. 2531) (as amended by SI 2001 No. 3335 and SI 2002 No. 440). Buildings which are owned and/or occupied on behalf of a Crown Authority, such as some prisons, are exempt from both the procedural and technical aspects of the Building Regulations.

  The Building Regulations are made for the purpose of securing reasonable standards of health and safety, welfare and convenience of persons in or about buildings, and the design of buildings to further conservation of fuel and power. The technical requirements of the Building Regulations are divided into fourteen substantive parts. These include Part B (Fire safety -including fire escapes and escape lighting); Part F (Ventilation); Part G (Hygiene—including bathroom and toilet facilities); and Parts LI & L2 (Conservation of fuel and power—including energy efficiency of lighting systems). The Regulations make no requirements with regard to the minimum size or amount of living space that should be provided in buildings.

  These Regulations are performance based, rather than prescriptive, and are supported by Approved Documents which offer ways of satisfying the requirements of the Regulations.
  1001W
  Housing Fitness Standard

  Under the housing fitness standard, set out in section 604 in the Housing Act 1985, as amended by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, a dwelling is unfit if, in the opinion of the local authority, it fails to meet one of nine specified requirements and, by reason of that failure, is not reasonably suitable for occupation. The requirements constitute the minimum deemed necessary for a dwelling house to be fit for human habitation. Among other requirements a dwelling should have adequate provision for lighting, heating and ventilation, have an adequate piped supply of wholesome water, have an effective system for the drainage of foul, waste and surface water, have a suitably located WC for exclusive use of the occupants, have a bath or shower and wash-hand basin, with hot and cold water.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation

  Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) are subject to the general housing fitness standard in section 604 of the 1985 Act and in addition local housing authorities have discretionary power to ensure HMOs are fit for the number of occupants under s352. This includes ensuring such properties have adequate toilet and bathroom facilities and adequate means of escape from fire and other fire precautions. The Housing (Fire Safety in Houses in Multiple Occupation) Order 1997 (SI 1997/230) places a mandatory duty on local authorities to ensure, in consultation with local fire authorities, that HMOs of three storeys or more and occupied by more than four persons are adequately equipped with means of escape from fire.

  The Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990/830) place a duty on the manager of an HMO, among other things, to ensure that installations for lighting, toilet and bathing facilities in common use are maintained in repair, a clean condition and good order. The manager is responsible for ensuring means of escape from fire and other fire precautions and windows and other means of ventilation are maintained in repair and proper working order and in respect of fire escapes and other precautions, free from obstruction.

  Hostels and most University halls of residence are classified as HMOs.

  Overcrowding

  Overcrowding standards are set out in Part X of the 1985 Act. The Room Standard is breached if two people of opposite sexes, who are not living together as husband and wife, must sleep in the same room. The Space Standard specifies the number of people who may sleep in a dwelling according to the number of rooms.

  Fire Safety

  Some hotels and boarding houses (including halls of residence at universities where these are used as sleeping accommodation for conference facilities etc), are designated under section 1 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 as requiring a fire certificate. (Those that provide sleeping accommodation for more than six guests or staff or any accommodation above the first floor or below the ground floor are designated). It is a requirement, under section 5 of the 1971 Act that in order to gain a fire certificate the fire authority must be satisfied that the means of escape are such as may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case. Guidance for owners/occupiers and enforcing authorities is contained in Chapter 13 of the publication "Fire Precautions Act 1971:
  1002W
  Guide to Fire Precautions in Premises Used as Hotels and Boarding Houses Which Require a Fire Certificate" (TSO; ISBN 0–11–34–1005–0).

  In hotels, boarding houses, prisons, university halls of residence, houses in multiple occupation, hostels and most other places where staff are employed to work (other than single private dwellings and private accommodation areas of flats) the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 (as amended by the Fire Precautions (Workplace) (Amendment) Regulations 1999) will also apply. This regime utilises risk assessment of the premises to determine the fire precautions that are necessary in the circumstances of the case—including the means of escape. Regulation 5 imposes requirements in respect of means of escape. Guidance to employers is given in part 3 of the publication "Fire Safety: an employers guide" (TSO; ISBNO–11–341229–0).

  Specific guidance on fire safety standards for prisons is given in HM Prison Service document: Fire Standards in Prison Establishments Principles of Design and Standards of Construction.

  Homelessness
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to assist local authorities in the implementation of their duties under(a) the Homelessness Act 2002 and (b) Government targets on the reduction of families supported by local authorities in bed and breakfast accommodation. [67498]

  Mr. McNulty
  A new Homelessness Directorate has been established within my Department to take forward the new approach to tackling homelessness as set out in the Homelessness Directorate's report "More than a roof'. Our specific measures include a £125 million investment in 2002–03 to tackle homelessness, and new legislation to strengthen the assistance to people who are homeless or at risk of being homeless.

  The Homelessness Directorate published a good practice handbook to help local authorities conduct homelessness reviews and develop effective homelessness strategies. In addition, on 14 March 2002 the Homelessness Directorate invited local authorities to apply for £10 million funding, and submit proposals, for local homelessness strategies. These are being considered at the moment.

  In addition, the Government has already provided local authorities with an additional £8 million per annum in Revenue Support Grant to help them meet their new statutory obligations under the Homelessness Act 2002. All housing authorities will also receive a share of an additional £10 million in 2002–03 to enable them to deliver our proposed Order to extend the priority need groups under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.

  Also in March 2002, a £35 million programme was launched to help local authorities ensure that by March 2004 no homeless family with children is in bed and breakfast hotels (B& B) other than in an emergency, and even then for no more than 6 weeks. On 17 June £25 million was allocated to the 42 local authorities with the highest number of families with children in B& B hotels to help them meet the March 2004 commitment.

  1003W
  We will now be working with the next 40 highest using authorities to see how we can help them reduce B & B hotel numbers.

  Authorities have also been sent a 10&-point checklist of good practice outlining the key 'building blocks' in reducing B&B hotel use. Regional seminars have been held and examples of good practice have been shared through a newsletter and via the ODPM website.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to extend the pathfinder projects on social housing to other areas of England; and if he will make a statement; [67440]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the progress made in the nine pathfinder projects on social housing announced earlier this year; and if he will make a statement. [67439]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have invited nine areas to work with the Government to establish long-term pathfinder projects to tackle most acute instances of low demand for—importantly—both public and private housing. Low demand, which occurs mainly in the north of England with pockets in the Midlands, is not specific to either sector. We are making available £25 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund to assist the pathfinder projects in undertaking vital preparatory work.

  We are not seeking to add to the already large number of pathfinder projects at the present time. Nonetheless, we want those local authorities not directly involved but who do experience low demand to have the opportunity to learn the lessons of this new approach. We are currently considering how best to share the knowledge that is gained.

  Council Homes
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress made in reaching the Government's target for improving the standard of council homes by 2010. [67442]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 9 July 2002,Official Report, column 881W.

  Hull Council
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to intervene in Hull council; and if he will make a statement. [67579]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Kingston upon Hull council is due to respond to the Audit Commission's Best Value Inspectors draft Corporate Governance Inspection Report by 11 July. The Audit Commission will then finalise the report following the advice of the Referral Panel, and if considered appropriate will make any recommendations for referral to the Deputy Prime Minister.

  The Government will decide the best course of action to take on the final report when received.

  Enterprise Bill
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what bilateral discussions he has had with the Secretary of State 1004W
  for Trade and Industry regarding the provision in the Enterprise Bill which includes housing associations in the proposed insolvency law; and if he will make a statement. [67445]

  Mr. McNulty
  Following inter&-departmental correspondence my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury announced on 2 July in another place during second reading of the Enterprise Bill our intention to bring forward amendments that will provide exemption from the insolvency provisions within the Bill for all RSLs, whether they are companies or industrial and provident societies.

  Mobile Phone Mast
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which(a) local authorities, (b) environmental groups and (c) other groups have been consulted on the revised Code of Best Practice for mobile phone operators on mast development. [67616]

  Mr. McNulty
  The revised Code is being drawn up by the Telecommunications Working Group which comprises representatives of the mobile phone network industry and of central and local government. We have not consulted other groups about the revision of the Code.

  Planning
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent guidance he has given to the Planning Inspectorate regarding the weight to be given to health fears; in how many appeals this has been a determine factor in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [67781]

  Mr. McNulty
  Current planning guidance on telecommunications is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (revised) (PPG8). PPG8 states that health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a matter for the courts. It is for the decision&-maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case.

  However, it is the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central Government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Government's view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.

  Planning Inspectors should take account of PPG8 when considering appeals involving telecommunications development. Information is not held centrally about appeal decisions for mobile phone masts.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister to which level of authority he plans to give structure planning powers upon their removal from county councils where the unitary authority is a county. [67190]
  1005W
  Mr. Raynsford
  Under the proposals in the Planning Green Paper structure plans are to be abolished. In areas where the unitary authority is a county, it would be responsible for preparing a local development framework.

  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will introduce a restraint on the numbers of sequential planning applications which a developer may submit to a planning authority in respect of the same property; how many recent representations he has received on this subject; and if he will make a statement. [68116]

  Mr. McNulty
  Local planning authorities already have powers to decline to determine an application for planning permission if, within the previous two years, the Secretary of State has refused a similar application called in by him, or has dismissed an appeal against the refusal of a similar application, provided in each case there has been no material change in circumstances. The Planning Green Paper said that we propose to extend these powers to allow local planning authorities to decline to determine applications where a similar application has been refused and not appealed, or a similar application is still under consideration by them, or is at appeal, or has been called in.

  We received over 16,000 responses to the Green Paper. We intend to make a statement about taking forward Green Paper proposals before the summer recess.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to increase the powers of local authorities over the granting of permissions for car boot sales. [67995]

  Mr. McNulty
  On 24 January 2002 a consultation paper was issued on possible options for change to the current temporary use provisions, including car boot sales. The paper put forward six options for change as well as inviting proposals for alternative options. A preferred option was not given. The closing date for responses was 24 April 2002.

  We have had a significant response to the consultation paper. The views of respondents are currently being carefully considered prior to taking decisions on the way forward.

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the public consultations undertaken by his Department since 8 June 2001, indicating the(a) length and (b) number of responses received in each case. [68702]

  Mr. Leslie
  A list of the public consultations undertaken by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or its predecessors since 8 June 2001 has been placed in the Libraries of the House, including the dates for which the period for responses opened and closed. The list is based on central records and reflects the public consultations undertaken within the areas for which the Office is currently responsible. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not, however, keep central records relating to the number of responses received for each consultation.

  Street Wardens
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what targets have been set, and what progress has been made, on the Street Wardens Initiative. [66892]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Prime Minister announced the introduction of street wardens at the Liveability Conference in April last year. 123 bids were approved in late October and schemes have since been developing their implementation plans. The first street warden scheme began in January this year and to date 106 schemes are up and running with about 700 wardens expected to become active during the coming year.

  The targets set for the coming year include 80 per cent. of schemes focusing on crime to achieve a 20 per cent. reduction in burglary, auto crime or fear of crime and for those that focus on liveability, 80 per cent. of abandoned cars have removal notices placed within three days.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he intends to use his reserve capping powers this year in respect of any local authorities' council tax increases; and if he will make a statement. [69416]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In our White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", we made clear that we would use our reserve capping powers only in exceptional circumstances. We have carefully considered this year's increases and concluded it would not be appropriate to use the powers this year. (However, we remain concerned about the level of council tax increases and the willingness of local people to pay them. We have issued guidance on best practice on consulting local people about tax and spend decisions and we will be looking at how effectively authorities have engaged their local tax payers on future council tax increases.)

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what progress has been made on providing key workers with affordable housing in central London; [66895]

  (2) what measures are in place to help key workers find affordable housing in London. [66896]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government recognise the importance of affordable housing for key workers in London in maintaining balanced and successful communities.

  £146 million of the £250 million Starter Homes Initiative has been allocated to London schemes and will help around 4,600 key workers to realise their aspirations of home ownership. We hope that the initiative will act as a catalyst, and encourage other innovative approaches to housing key workers.

  The NHS in London is providing 2,000 units of affordable rental accommodation for health staff in the three years up to June 2003.

  London will receive £558 million of funding through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme in 2002–03. This is a 7 per cent. improvement

  1007W
  over last year and is expected to achieve a completion target of 7,000 affordable homes, of which almost 2,000 will be for low-cost ownership.

  In addition we are fundamentally overhauling the planning system to make it more effective overall and more responsive to the community's affordable housing needs. We have established an Affordable Housing Unit to work closely with partners in regional and local authorities, professional housing managers, developers and others in the public sector, and identify how each can contribute to improving the delivery of affordable homes in both the social rented low-cost ownership sectors.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of residential housing is planned to be(a) social housing and (b) housing for essential key workers in the proposed development of the Dome. [66894]

  Mr. McNulty
  Meridian Delta Ltd is currently working towards submission of a planning application for development of the Dome and land on the Greenwich peninsula, and the delivery of new housing, including social and key worker housing, will feature in its discussions with the planning authorities and other stakeholders. It would not be appropriate to speculate on the outcome of those discussions or of the planning process.

  Sonae Factory (Kirby)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make the HSE findings on the recent explosion at the Sonae factory in Kirby available in the Library as soon as they are concluded. [68355]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for health and safety matters rests with the Department for Transport.

  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation into the dust explosion which occurred on 1 June 2002 at the Sonae (UK) Ltd factory in Kirby is extensive and still continuing.
  1008W
  When the investigation is complete HSE will make the findings available in the House Library.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the improvement notices the HSE have issued to the Sonae factory in Kirby. [68351]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  As a result of the dust explosion on 1 June 2002, two enforcement notices were issued on plant and systems at the Sonae (UK) Ltd factory in Kirby.

  A prohibition notice was issued on 25 June 2002. It prohibits the restarting of the plant involved in the recent explosion until a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks associated with this plant is carried out.

  An improvement notice was issued on 28 June 2002. It requires the company to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks associated with wood dust in the other production areas on site not affected by the explosion. Compliance with this notice is to be achieved by 12 August 2002.

  Four other enforcement notices have been served on the company:
  May 2001—an improvement notice on work in confined spaces;
  September 2001—a prohibition notice on the wood chip fuel feed area, following an explosion;
  November 2001—an improvement notice concerning automatic self—propelled transfer carriages;
  June 2002—an improvement notice on the safe use of industrial lift trucks.

  Quiet Lanes
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will issue guidance to local authorities in respect of quiet lanes and the Transport Act 2000. [68476]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department for Transport aims to publish statutory guidance on quiet lanes (and home zones) in parallel with the publication of regulations. The regulations will be laid before Parliament later this year.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Carers Allowance
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many appeals against refusal of applications for carers allowance (formerly invalid care allowance) in(a) Angus and (b) Scotland have been successful in each of the last five years. [62386]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested for Angus is not available.

  The available information for the total number of successful appeals in Scotland in each of the years from 1998 to 2001 is in the table.

  Number of successful appeals

  1998

  70

  1999

  85

  2000

  50

  2001

  40

  Telford Job Centre
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individuals have been assisted in the Telford Jobcentre Plus offices since their opening. [63376]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  Precise figures for the number of individuals who have been assisted by the Jobcentre Plus office in Telford, and its linked offices in Madeley and Wellington, are not available. Many people, for example, call at the offices without an appointment simply to look at the job vacancies we hold and we do not keep records of such visits.

  However, to give an approximation of the level of usage of the offices, we know that some 45,000 submissions to job vacancies have been made since the new offices opened last October. In the same period we have taken some 15,000 calls from customers inquiring about a claim to benefit and issued over 10,000 claim forms to them.

  Benefits (Habitual Residence Test)
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been refused benefits under the habitual residence test rules in each of the last five years in the(a) Brighton, Pavilion, (b) Brighton, Kemptown and (c) Hove constituencies; and in how many of these cases the refusal has been reversed on appeal. [63494]

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have been refused benefits under the habitual residence test rules in each of the last three years in the Portsmouth, South constituency; and if he will make a statement. [64723]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The purpose of the habitual residence test is to ensure that income-related benefits are paid to 1010W
  people with reasonably close ties to the UK and an intention to settle here. Introduced in 1994, its underlying principle is that UK taxpayers should not have to subsidise people with very tenuous links to the UK.

  Data on claims subject to the habitual residence test are not available by parliamentary constituency. The table gives the available information by Jobcentre Plus district office.

  Number of claims where the habitual residence test has not been satisfied

  Financial year

  Brighton district office

  Hove district office

  Portsmouth district office

  1998–99

  245

  24

  62

  1999–2000

  161

  21

  42

  2000–01

  119

  6

  25

  2001–02

  144

  1

  22

  2002–031

  24

  0

  0

  1Up to 31 May 2002

  Notes:

  1. Data before 1998–99 are not available.

  2. Excludes housing benefit and council tax benefit claims administered by local authorities. Information on the number of these claims where the habitual residence test has not been satisfied is not collected centrally.

  Source:

  Management Information Statistics Program (MISP).

  Appeals data are not available by parliamentary constituency.

  Preserved Rights Residents
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been given to preserved rights residents in care homes for each region and local authority in each of the last five years; and how much has been transferred to local authorities for former preserved rights residents for 2002–03. [65142]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table. The figures in the table show the actual preserved rights benefit expenditure by Government office region for the last five years. The figures reflect a case load that has had no new preserved rights cases since 1993 and declines by 10,000 cases each year. The total transfer payment to Department of Health was based on forecast expenditure for 2002–03. It included an amount to reflect the loss of disability benefits by preserved rights customers, but was net of on—going benefit liabilities which will continue to be met by this Department.

  A total transfer of £714 million was made for Great Britain. £614 million was transferred by the Department for Work and Pensions, for 2002–03, to fund the transfer of preserved rights cases. In addition an extra £100 million was agreed by HM Treasury to cover the shortfall between care fees and preserved rights limits.
  1011W

  Income support claimants in residential care and nursing homes with preserved rights: Expenditure by Government office region (GAR)

  £ million

  GAR

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  North East

  51

  42

  34

  29

  27

  North West

  173

  143

  117

  102

  91

  Yorks and Humber

  114

  95

  80

  71

  64

  East Midlands

  89

  76

  63

  55

  50

  West Midlands

  97

  83

  71

  61

  55

  East

  75

  68

  61

  53

  49

  London

  86

  77

  70

  64

  59

  South East

  192

  174

  155

  139

  128

  South West

  167

  148

  130

  113

  105

  Wales

  63

  50

  41

  34

  28

  Scotland

  93

  80

  67

  55

  50

  Great Britain

  1,199

  1,035

  887

  778

  705

  Notes:

  1. 2001–02 expenditure is estimated outturn.

  2. Derived using sample data, therefore subject to sampling variation.

  Income support claimants with preserved rights in residential care/nursing homes

  All preserved rights cases

  Residential care

  Nursing homes

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  May 1998

  All cases

  103.7

  100.0

  68.6

  100.0

  35.1

  100.0

  Fees equal to or below IS

  57.8

  55.7

  38.6

  56.3

  19.2

  54.6

  Fees above IS

  45.9

  44.3

  30.0

  43.7

  15.9

  45.4

  of which above IS by:

  £0.01 to £14.441

  16.4

  15.8

  8.1

  11.9

  8.3

  23.6

  £14.45 to £20.00

  3.5

  3.4

  2.2

  3.2

  1.3

  3.6

  £20.01 to £30.00

  4.3

  4.1

  2.7

  4.0

  1.6

  4.4

  £30.01 to £40.00

  4.0

  3.9

  2.7

  3.9

  1.3

  3.7

  £40.01 to £50.00

  2.2

  2.1

  1.4

  2.1

  0.7

  2.1

  £50.01 to £60.00

  1.6

  1.6

  1.1

  1.6

  0.5

  1.4

  £60.01 to £70.00

  1.4

  1.3

  1.0

  1.4

  20.4

  1.1

  £70.01 and over

  12.6

  12.1

  10.7

  15.6

  1.9

  5.4

  May 1999

  All cases

  86.3

  100.0

  59.3

  100.0

  26.9

  100.0

  Fees equal to or below IS

  49.2

  57.1

  33.4

  56.3

  15.8

  58.8

  Fees above IS

  37.0

  42.9

  25.9

  43.7

  11.1

  41.2

  of which above IS by:

  £0.01 to £14.74'

  11.6

  13.5

  6.6

  11.2

  5.0

  18.6

  £14.75 to £20.00

  2.8

  3.3

  1.7

  2.8

  1.1

  4.2

  £20.01 to £30.00

  3.8

  4.4

  2.3

  3.9

  1.4

  5.3

  £30.01 to £40.00

  2.7

  3.1

  2.0

  3.4

  0.6

  2.4

  £40.01 to £50.00

  1.9

  2.2

  1.4

  2.3

  0.6

  2.1

  £50.01 to £60.00

  1.2

  1.4

  0.8

  1.3

  20.4

  1.5

  £60.01 to £70.00

  1.3

  1.5

  0.9

  1.6

  20.3

  1.3

  £70.01 and over

  11.7

  13.6

  10.2

  17.1

  1.5

  5.7

  May 2000

  All cases

  74.3

  100.0

  52.7

  100.0

  21.6

  100.0

  Fees equal to or below IS

  40.2

  54.1

  27.6

  52.4

  12.6

  58.4

  Fees above IS

  34.1

  45.9

  25.1

  47.6

  9.0

  41.6

  of which above is by:

  £0.01 to £15.441

  11.1

  15.0

  7.0

  13.2

  4.2

  19.3

  £ 15.45 to £20.00

  2.1

  2.9

  1.1

  2.0

  1.0

  4.8

  £20.01 to £30.00

  2.9

  4.0

  2.0

  3.9

  0.9

  4.2

  £30.01 to £40.00

  2.4

  3.2

  2.0

  3.8

  20.3

  1.6

  £40.01 to £50.00

  1.4

  1.9

  0.9

  1.8

  20.5

  2.2

  £50.01 to £60.00

  1.2

  1.6

  1.0

  1.8

  20.2

  0.9

  £60.01 to £70.00

  1.2

  1.6

  0.9

  1.7

  20.3

  1.5

  £70.01 and over

  11.8

  15.8

  10.2

  19.4

  1.5

  7.1

  1012W
  3. Individual figures may not sum to totals due to rounding.

  4. Figures for North West include Merseyside. Merseyside merged with North West in February 1999.

  5. There were no new preserved rights cases after March 1993 when the community care arrangements came into force. The amount paid for preserved rights cases has declined in line with the case load which reduces by about 10,000 cases each year.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry.

  2. DWP expenditure data.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 145W, on preserved rights residents, if he will give comparable figures for the previous three years for which figures are available. [67697]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested is in the following table which shows income support claimants with preserved rights in residential care/nursing homes for the years requested, May 2000, May 1999, and May 1998.
  1013W
  1Below the personal expenses allowance of £14.45 in May 1998, £14.75 in May 1999, and £15.45 in May 2000.

  2These figures are subject to a high degree of sampling variation and should be used as a rough guide to the current situation only.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  2. Based on a 5 per cent. sample and therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1998–2000.

  Manufacturing Redundancies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what help has been given to manufacturing workers who have been made redundant in finding alternative employment. [66159]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: We recognise the devastating impact redundancies can have on local economies and the people directly affected. Wherever major redundancies occur, in manufacturing or any other sector, Jobcentre Plus together with other key regional partners, will set up a task force to identify and provide the support needed by those affected. This can include help through the Rapid Response Service where appropriate.

  The aim of the Rapid Response Service is to provide support for those affected by redundancy and help people make the transition into sustainable new jobs. The nature of the help provided by the service will be tailored to the needs of the individuals, the employer, and the local labour market. This could include offering information, advice and guidance to those affected, help with jobsearch, facilitating retraining where necessary, or developing customised retraining programmes. People affected by redundancy can also have early access to Jobcentre Plus programmes such as the New Deals and Work Based Learning for Adults. Assistance is currently being made available to over 13,000 people from 47 different companies.

  On 1 April 2002, the Rapid Response Service became fully operational, supported by a further investment of £6 million over two years.

  Benefit Entitlements (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what measures he is taking to increase(a) awareness and (h) accessibility of benefit entitlements in rural areas. [66787]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: We are leading a fundamental overhaul of the welfare system, transforming it from a passive organisation paying out benefits to an active system that fights poverty, creates opportunity and helps people become self-sufficient and independent. To do this service delivery is being overhauled to offer distinct services that meet the different needs of the Department's client groups: pensioners, people of working age and children. We are investing in improved and modernised services that are easier for customers to access, make better use of technology, and are more accurate and secure.

  Jobcentre Plus is addressing the difficulties faced by people living in rural areas, both in securing employment and gaining access to its services. A key part of the new Jobcentre Plus process involves initial contact being made by telephone, improving service for people whose nearest office is a distance from their home.
  1014W
  Customers can also access Employer Direct, Jobseeker Direct and the Benefit Enquiry Line (for people with disabilities) by telephone. In addition, they can access Worktrain, Learndirect and UK Online centres through the internet. Jobcentre Plus will continue to look for innovative ways of delivering and marketing its service, building on current experiments such as locating Jobpoints and other services in retail outlets and post offices.

  The local service element of the Pension Service is being developed to reflect the communities it serves in rural areas and it will take full account of the needs of individual communities. Among other things, it will raise awareness and encourage the take-up of benefits to which pensioners may be entitled. At present, a visiting service is provided for customers. From October 2002, we plan that the local service will start to provide surgeries for both appointments and drop-in calls.

  Drop-in surgeries will be available from April 2003 such as community centres or the premises of voluntary bodies regularly visited by pensioners, increasing awareness and accessibility of the Pension Service and its work. There will also be a network of formation points in similar locations and a benefits information service for care workers, volunteers and others to raise awareness of pensioner benefits.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to(a) the Government of Sudan and (b) the United Nations regarding plans to legalise female genital mutilation. [64600]

  Mr. MacShane
  Our embassy in Khartoum has made representations at ministerial level in Khartoum, both bilaterally and in co-ordination with EU partners, on the Sudanese Government's reported plans to legalise female genital mutilation (FGM). The Government of Sudan reassured us that there were no plans to legalise the practice. The embassy also works closely with Sudanese civil society groups in advocating the eradication of FGM. It forms part of the campaign for ratification of the UN Convention on the Eradication of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in which we have actively supported the growing women's rights movement and UN attempts to address these issues. In particular, our embassy has on—going discussion with UNICEF. We have also funded various project aimed at eradication of FGM, including the national advocacy campaign for 2002–03.

  Arms Sales
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the
  1015W
  licence applications his Department has examined for arms exports to (a) India and (b) Pakistan since January 2000; and how many of his Department (i) supported and (ii) opposed. [65413]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  For a list of application approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry to the right hon. and learned Member for North-east Fife (Mr. Campbell) on 13 June 2002,Official Report, column 1377W.

  However, views expressed by any individual Department involved in the licensing process fall under the description of "internal discussion and advice", the disclosure of which would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion. Such information is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the(a) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, (b) Secretary of State for Defence and (c) Secretary of State for International Development regarding arms export licences to (i) Pakistan and (ii) India. [65414]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with his counterparts in the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development on export licensing issues but details of specific discussions fall under the descriptor of "internal discussions and advice" and are exempt from disclosure under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Union travel ban on President Mugabe. [65245]

  Mr. MacShane
  On 18 February, EU Ministers imposed a travel ban on 20 named members of the Zimbabwe regime (common position 2002/145/CFSP). Under Article 15 of the Treaty on European Union, all member states are obliged to implement common positions.

  Mugabe was recently refused entry to France. Where international commitments to the UN and Interpol have obliged member states to let Mugabe and others into the EU, the terms of their entry have been as restrictive as possible.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) Commonwealth, (b) European Union and (c) other countries have sanctions against Zimbabwe; and what form they take. [67127]

  Mr. MacShane
  On 19 March, Zimbabwe was suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth.

  On 18 February, the EU imposed a travel ban and asset freeze on 20 senior members of the Zimbabwe Government. It also imposed an arms embargo.
  1016W
  A travel ban has been imposed by the United States, Norway, Switzerland and New Zealand.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and where the ZANUPF members who are under travel sanctions have travelled since the inception of the travel sanctions. [67416]

  Mr. MacShane
  On 18 February, EU Ministers adopted a common position (2002/145/CFSP) which imposed a travel ban within the EU on Mugabe and 19 other named members of the Zimbabwe regime.

  The EU common position allows member states to grant exemptions to the travel ban 'on the grounds of humanitarian need, including religious obligation, or on grounds of attending meetings of international bodies or conducting political dialogue that promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe'.

  Under the terms of the EU travel ban, France was obliged to permit Police Commissioner Chihuri to attend an Interpol meeting in Lyon on 14–16 May, and Italy was obliged to permit Mugabe to attend a UN conference in Rome on 10–13 June.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) Government colleagues and (b) other Governments about potential measures the international coalition could take regarding the actions of the Mugabe regime. [67125]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, has discussed Zimbabwe with Government colleagues. He remains in regular touch with EU, US and Commonwealth colleagues on further international responses to the situation in Zimbabwe.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was discussed at his meeting with the Southern African Development Community concerning Zimbabwe; and what the outcome of this meeting was. [67132]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, has not attended a meeting with the Southern African Development Community.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met a member of ZANU-PF; and what was discussed. [67129]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, raised the situation in Zimbabwe with Foreign Minister Mudenge, in New York on 10 November 2001.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings with non-EU countries he has scheduled in the next six months on the topic of Zimbabwe. [67121]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, will discuss Zimbabwe, at every appropriate opportunity, with concerned members of the international community.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Nelson Mandela on his potential inclusion in seeking a solution to Zimbabwe's problems; and what his response has been. [67123]
  1017W
  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, has not held discussions with Nelson Mandela on seeking a solution to Zimbabwe's problems. The Foreign Secretary discussed Zimbabwe with South African Foreign Minister, Zuma, on 20 June.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of the international community's freezing of ZANU-PF's assets. [67131]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK has frozen £76,000 in assets belonging to the members of ZANU-PF who are covered by the EU common position (2002/145/CFSP on 18 February). The freezing of ZANU-PF assets has put the financial markets of the EU and Switzerland off limits to those on the banned list. It has also helped signal the increasing isolation of the ZANU-PF elite.

  Nepal
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what level of military assistance is to be offered to the Government of Nepal; and if he will make a statement. [67426]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are very concerned about the situation in Nepal. The brutal Maoist insurgency is undermining Nepal's young democracy and fragile economy, and adding to the regional instability. The Nepalese Government will continue to have our full support in dealing with the political, military and developmental aspects of the crisis. We are working with our international partners to develop an integrated approach to security, reform and development. We believe military assistance should be considered as part of a comprehensive approach to a resolution of the conflict.

  We have provided considerable assistance to the Nepalese Government in the form of training and logistical support for the RNA. This includes training for the Royal Nepalese Army in media operations training, civil affairs training and human rights awareness training. We have also provided low level assistance in the form of various items of logistical equipment. This includes communications equipment and a number of used vehicles.

  We plan to give further assistance in the areas of intelligence, military training and equipment in the future.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on using 0870 telephone numbers for inquiries by the public to the Department and its agencies. [66204]

  Mr. MacShane
  Once the integrated voice recognition system for consular travel advice is operational, it will be accessible via an 0870 number. Travel advice is also available on the FCO website.

  Macedonia
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom Government will ratify the Association and Stabilisation Agreement with the FYR of Macedonia. [67180]
  1018W
  Mr. MacShane
  The EU has made clear that further progress in Macedonia's relations with the European Union is closely tied to the implementation of the August 2001 Framework Agreement. We will continue to monitor progress, particularly during the forthcoming election period. If the conditions in Macedonia are right the UK hopes to ratify the Stabilisation and Association Agreement after the summer.

  Refugees
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's obligations pertaining to refugees under the 1951 Geneva Convention. [67126]

  Mr. MacShane
  As a State party to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol relating to Refugees, the UK has an obligation under international law to protect people fleeing persecution.

  This is enshrined in Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention relating to the status of refugees, which provides that
  "No contracting state shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion".

  Further rights include the right not to be expelled under certain, strictly defined conditions (Article 32); exemption from penalties for illegal entry into the territory of a contracting state (Article 31); the right to work (Article 17); the right to housing (Article 21); the right to education (Article 22); the right to public relief and assistance (Article 23); the right to freedom of religion and to free access to courts (Article 4 and 16); freedom of movement within the territory (Article 26); the right to be issued with travel documents (Articles 27 and 28).

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he discussed at his recent meeting with South African Foreign Minister Zuma; arid what the outcome was. [67130]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, met South African Foreign Minister, Zuma, on 20 June. They discussed a range of issues including Zimbabwe and the world summit on sustainable development (WSSD).

  European Institution Costs
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total cost is in the latest available year of the(a) European Union. (b) Council of Europe, (c) Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and (d) Western European Union. including their respective parliamentary assemblies; and how much the United Kingdom contributes to each. [67760]

  Peter Hain
  The adopted EU budget for 2002 totals euro 95,655 million (or £58.2 billion). The UK financing share, after abatement, is 13.51 per cent. (approximately £7.863 billion). The Council of Europe's budget for 2002 is £103 million, of which the UK contributes £15 million. The 2002 budget for the Organisation for Security and
  1019W
  Cooperation in Europe is euro 177.5 million: the UK contribution (including staff costs etc.) amounts to some £22.6 million. The Western European Union's budget for 2002 totalled euro 16.8 million, of which the UK share was approximately euro 2.7 million.

  European Arrest Warrant
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what powers the Government have to withhold their consent to decisions reached at the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement, with particular reference to the context of the European arrest warrant. [68331]

  Peter Hain
  The resolution of the House of Commons dated 17 November 1998 sets out the terms under which the Government may agree to legislative proposals in the Council of Ministers. The Government are required to withhold their consent to legislative proposals until parliamentary scrutiny has been completed. The resolution allows Ministers to give their agreement in certain limited circumstances before scrutiny has been completed.

  In negotiations, the Government can withhold their consent to a proposal for legislative action by the Council of Ministers at any stage up to its formal adoption. However, opposing or abstaining on a proposal would not necessarily prevent the proposal being adopted if the voting was QMV.

  On the question of the European arrest warrant, a general approach on the framework was agreed in December 2002. The framework decision was formally adopted at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in June 2002.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether an agreement has been reached to share sovereignty of Gibraltar with Spain. [R] [68456]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to my statement in Westminster Hall on 8 June 2002,Official Report, column 38WH.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy that any(a) agreement concerning the sovereignty of the military base in Gibraltar and (b) agreements on any aspect of the future status of Gibraltar will be put to the people of Gibraltar in the form of a referendum. [68309]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on 16 April 2002,Official Report, column 451. As previously stated, the Government will continue to stand by their commitments to the people of Gibraltar as set out in the preamble to the Gibraltar constitution.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy that the military base in Gibraltar will remain under sole British sovereignty under the terms of any agreement on the future status of Gibraltar. [68311]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on 16 April 2002,Official Report, column 451.
  1020W
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on which occasions since 1996, and how, the Government raised with the Government of Gibraltar matters of concern relating to pensions and related benefits. [67848]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 8 May 2002,Official Report, column 243W. I raised the matter again in a letter to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar on 16 May.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role Lord Hannay performs in the present discussions taking place between the President of Cyprus and Mr. Denktash on Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [68439]

  Peter Hain
  Lord Hannay was appointed as the special representative of the British Government in 1996 to give support and new impetus to UN efforts to find a Cyprus settlement; he has worked hard at this for more than six years and the Government are grateful for his efforts.

  The current direct talks to find a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement are attended by the two leaders in Cyprus and the UN. We understand and support the request of the Secretary-General of the United Nations that the content of the talks should not be publicised.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on a suitable settlement between the two communities in Cyprus. [68193]

  Peter Hain
  The Government are committed to seeing a major, sustained effort towards securing a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement in Cyprus and strongly support the direct talks in Cyprus between the two leaders which have been in progress since January under the auspices of the UN Secretary General's Good Offices Mission. Our aim is for a reunited Cyprus to accede to the EU.

  It is for the two sides in Cyprus to agree the terms of a settlement.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the Government's policy that a settlement on the future of Cyprus should involve(a) the establishment of a new central state with a new flag, and (b) one Turkish state in the north and one Greek state in the south; if it is his policy to regard Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots as two peoples; if Lord Hannay's recent statements on the matter represent the Government's policy; and if he will make a statement. [68195]

  Peter Hain
  It is for the two sides in Cyprus to agree the terms of a settlement and it is thus for them to agree on such matters as the powers and attributes of the common state and the component states, as they are currently being labelled in the negotiations. However, it has been common ground, since as long ago as the negotiations in 1992, that the outcome of any successful negotiations would be a new Cyprus. with different institutions from those in the 1960 constitution. These 1992 negotiations envisaged a Cyprus composed of a Greek Cypriot Federated State and a Turkish Cypriot Federated State.
  1021W
  I used the phrase "two peoples" when visiting the island of Cyprus in April 2002. Lord Hannay repeated this phrase in a recent interview in his capacity as the Government's Special Representative on Cyprus. I often refer to the Welsh and Scottish people. In no way am I suggesting that people cannot be Welsh, British and European at the same time.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications of the International Criminal Court for British soldiers and citizens. [68542]

  Mr. MacShane
  The purpose of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is to ensure that the most serious crimes of international concern—genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity—do not go unpunished. The Rome Statute establishing the Court is based on the principle of complementarity: the ICC only steps in where states are unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute. The crimes covered by the ICC have been incorporated into UK law. Since the United Kingdom would investigate any serious allegations, it is inconceivable that the ICC would assume jurisdiction.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage the United States to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. [67794]

  Mr. MacShane
  We are in regular contact with the US Administration in respect of this issue. Officials have made several approaches, both bilaterally and in conjunction with EU partners, encouraging the US to ratify the Rome statute. And we have repeatedly made clear that, while we understand US concerns that the court might bring malicious or politically-motivated charges against US personnel, we do not share them, since the statute contains safeguards against this.

  EU Information/Communication Strategy
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards the European Commission document on a Strategy of Information and Communication for the European Union; and what measures he will undertake to ensure impartiality in such information campaigns. [68332]

  Peter Hain
  We welcome the Commission's document, which is a useful analysis of efforts so far by European Union institutions and member states to explain the European Union's work to the people of the European Union. It includes recommendations on how the institutions could do that job better, in partnership with member states.

  The Government fully support the aim of explaining the practical benefits of British membership of the European Union to our citizens, in a straightforward and factual way. We look forward to working with our European partners to do just that.

  European Council (Public Access)
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with reference to Presidency Conclusions of the Seville European Summit, Annex II, Section E. what plans the Government have for 1022W
  (a) providing public facilities for viewing and listening to Council deliberations on legislation adopted by the co-decision procedure with the European Parliament (i) in London, (ii) in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and (iii) in major towns and cities in England, (b) publicising such facilities and the dates and times of the relevant Council meetings and (c) ensuring that access to such premises will be free of charge. [68341]

  Peter Hain
  The detailed arrangements for greater Council transparency, agreed at Seville, are still under discussion. It is clearly too early to judge the likely extent of media take-up of Council proceedings. But the Government remain committed to the principle that the work of the European Council should be accessible to the widest possible European public.

  Chagos Archipelago
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the latest phase of the feasibility study into resettling the outer islands of the Chagos Archipelago will be completed. [69418]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have now received Phase 2B of the consultants report on whether it would be feasible for the Chagossians to return and live on the outer islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory (the Chagos archipelago). Copies of the report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. We are also sending copies to the Government of Mauritius and the Chagossians' lawyers in the United Kingdom.

  While the report concludes that short term habitation for limited numbers on a subsistence basis is possible, it also emphasises that any long-term resettlement would be precarious and costly.

  Minority Languages
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government will submit its first report on implementation of the Council of Europe Charter for regional or minority languages. [69419]

  Mr. MacShane
  I am pleased to announce that the report was submitted to the Council of Europe on 1 July. The report details the measures taken by the Government and the devolved Administrations to fulfil the UK's obligations under the Charter for Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish, Scots and Ulster-Scots. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations, and when, his Department has made to the Governments of(a) Afghanistan, (b) the Bahamas, (c) Bolivia, (d) Brazil, (e) Burma, (f) Cambodia, (g) China, (h) Colombia, (i) Dominican Republic, (j) Ecuador, (k) Guatemala, (l) Haiti. (m) Hong Kong, (n) India, (o) Jamaica, (p) Laos, (q) Mexico, (r) Nigeria, (s) Pakistan, (t) Panama, (u) Paraguay, (v) Peru, (w) Taiwan, (x) Thailand, (y) Venezuela and (z) Vietnam, concerning the trafficking of illegal drugs to the United Kingdom through their territories; and if he will make a statement. [67696]
  1023W
  Mr. Straw
  We are in regular dialogue with the Governments of countries where Class A drugs are produced or trafficked. Our strategy has been to build local law enforcement capability to interdict the supply of drugs destined for the UK as close to its source as possible.

  In Afghanistan, which is the source of 90 per cent. of the heroin found on the UK's streets, we are co-ordinating international anti-narcotics assistance. By working with international partners and agencies we aim to eliminate opium poppy, build institutions, increase law enforcement capacity, assist the creation of alternative livelihoods and address growing drug demand. The UK also provides anti-drugs assistance, in the form of training and equipment, to Afghanistan's neighbours and other countries on the heroin supply route to the UK.

  We also have regular contact with the Governments of Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, who together produce virtually all of the world's cocaine. We are providing training and equipment for local law enforcement agencies in all three states to assist their respective Governments to tackle the problem. We are also active in supporting projects to build local capability in other South American countries through which drugs are trafficked. The Caribbean, through which much of the cocaine trafficked to the UK is transshipped, has also been the focus for much of our assistance, both bilaterally, and through multi-lateral fora.

  Laeken Declaration
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's understanding of the meaning of the phrase "political union" in the Laeken declaration; and if he will cite the previous occurrences of that phrase in documents agreed by the European Council. [67793]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe gave to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 273W.

  Ivory Coast
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government have taken to ensure that the recommendations of the National Reconciliation Forum in Cote d'Ivoire have been implemented, including the granting of nationality to Alassane Ouattara; and if he will make a statement. [66691]

  Mr. Straw
  The UK followed closely the National Reconciliation Forum in Cote d'Ivoire. The Minister for Africa, my noble Friend Baroness Amos, sent a message to the President of the Forum, welcoming its conclusions.

  We have taken every opportunity, along with our European partners, to encourage the Ivorian Government to implement the forum's recommendations.

  The Government consider the recent granting of a nationality certificate to Mr. Ouattara a positive step forward. We hope that further implementation of the forum's recommendations will follow.
  1024W
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government have taken to ensure that the election process in Cote d'Ivoire prior to the local elections on 7 July has been fair and free for all parties concerned, with special regard to the distribution of identity cards required for voter registration; and if he will make a statement. [66692]

  Mr. Straw
  Officials from our embassy in Abidjan have participated, along with our European partners, in several meetings with the CEI (Independent Electoral Commission) and made representations to the Ivorian Government to emphasise our concerns that the elections should be free, fair and inclusive.

  We welcome the Ivorian Government's commitment to distribute new identity cards in advance of the poll on 7 July.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent tensions between Government supporters and opposition party supporters in Daloa, Cote D'Ivoire. [66693]

  Mr. Straw
  A state of emergency has been announced and Daloa placed under curfew until 15 July. The Ivorian Minister of the Interior, Boga Doudou, accompanied by the head of the armed forces, General Doue, visited Daloa on 26 June for talks with local political and community leaders in an attempt to defuse the situation further.

  We welcome the lvorian Government's actions to calm the situation and support their call to all political parties to exercise restraint during the election campaign.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many opposition supporters he estimates were killed during the clashes between Government supporters and opposition party supporters in Daloa, Côte d'Ivoire. [66694]

  Mr. Straw
  According to official Ivorian Government estimates, six people have been killed and approximately 50 injured in clashes in Daloa, Cote d'Ivoire, since 25 June.

  UK/US Relations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to strengthen ties between the United Kingdom and the United States. [67795]

  Mr. MacShane
  The United States is one of our closest allies. The closeness of the relationship was reinforced by the events of 11 September. There are regular UK ministerial meetings with State Department and other Administration officials in Washington. The Foreign Secretary talks regularly with the Secretary of State. Parliament has close links with Congress and our ambassador in Washington and his embassy have access to the US Administration across a wide range of issues. The UK probably has more high level daily contacts with the US than any other country allowing us to foresee problems and work hard to iron out our differences. HMG would welcome increased contact between legislators in the Commons and Congress.
  1025W
  We will maintain and build on these ties to strengthen the relationship with the US, our largest bilateral trading partner and inward investor.

  EU Budget
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the contribution of an average UK family to the EU budget in 2000. [67796]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  No such estimate has been made. However, based on data published by the European Commission and European Court of Auditors, the UK's net contribution to the EC budget in 2000 was £63.1 on a per capita basis. This figure includes the UK's payments to and receipts from the EC budget, but does not, however, capture other benefits which membership of the EU brings to the UK through closer economic ties with our neighbours. For example, over three quarters of a million UK companies now trade with the rest of the EU, which accounts for over 50 per cent. of the UK's total exports, and affects around 3 million UK jobs.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Queen's Counsel
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many complaints she has received from applicants for appointment as Queen's counsel about the way the system has operated in the last three years. [67932]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Prior to the creation of the Commission for Judicial Appointments in March 2001, there was no formal complaints procedure for unsuccessful applicants for Queen's counsel. It has not been possible to identify from departmental records whether any complaints were received, and if so, how many prior to the creation of the commission. Since the establishment of the Commission for Judicial Appointments, three complaints have been received.

  Child Contact Centres
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which members are undertaking work on the Child Contact Centre Working Group; and when it plans to set out standards for child contact centres. [67601]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Child Contact Working Group is facilitated by the Lord Chancellor's Department. It comprises 20 representatives from the National Association of Child Contact Centres (NACCC), other child contact centre services, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and legal practitioners. The working group launched its consultation on definitions of contact centre services on 11 May 2002. The consultation ends in October 2002. The working group aims to reach conclusions in December 2002.

  Court Buildings, Somerset
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what damage has been sustained by court buildings in Somerset in the last two years. [67591]

  Yvette Cooper
  There have been two significant incidents of damage within the last two years. On 19 April 2002 at Taunton combined court there was flood damage caused by excessive water mains pressure. Works are due to be completed in July 2002 at a cost of £85,000. On 17 December 2001 at Yeovil county court, the coping stones in the car park wall were dislodged when hit by a car. Remedial work was completed in May 2002 at a cost of £1,410.

  Justices of the Peace
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to require employers to give paid leave to Justices of the Peace in their employment; and if she will make a statement. [67666]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Lord Chancellor has no such plans. Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires employers to allow reasonable time off for undertaking magisterial and other duties. Many employers do allow time off with pay, but where they do not, a magistrate may claim financial loss allowance at a fixed rate.

  The Lord Chancellor has taken initiatives in the past, including a handbook for employers, produced in collaboration with the Magistrates Association to encourage employers to play an active part in the local community by allowing time off for staff to undertake magisterial duties. He will consider further ways of encouraging the support of employers as part of a national recruitment strategy.

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary., Lord Chancellor's Department if she will revise the provisions under the guidance notes on justices' allowances, so as to base the daily allowance for loss of earnings on actual earnings; and if she will make a statement. [67665]

  Yvette Cooper
  The financial loss allowance is based on average earnings. I appreciate this may not fully compensate some justices for the loss they suffer, but using this method is considered the most equitable way of striking a balance to cover the differing trades and professions within the magistracy.

  Crown Court, Buckinghamshire
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary. Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria she is using to determine the best location for a new Crown court in Buckinghamshire. [68504]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Lord Chancellor's Department will consider a variety of factors including the following: population densities (current and projected), quality and range of existing transport links including public services, travel distances for court users, accessibility to court users including the disabled, availability of suitable accommodation, location of other justice agencies, security, cost, existing services and facilities.
  1027W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what degree of importance he is giving to accessibility in deciding the location of a new Crown Court in Buckinghamshire. [68502]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Lord Chancellor's Department places a very high level of importance on the accessibility of any potential new courts. Consideration is given to a number of factors including public transport, road and rail links, parking and access for the disabled.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the accessibility of a new Crown Court in(a) Milton Keynes and (b) Aylesbury to people living in Buckinghamshire. [68503]

  Yvette Cooper
  To date, no detailed assessment has been undertaken on the accessibility of a potential new Crown Court for Buckinghamshire. Plans are at the preliminary stage and the Court Service is still considering all of the various options available, taking into account the outcome from the current Spending Review.

  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Ms Munn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Legal Services Ombudsman intends to publish her Annual report for 2001–02. [69358]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Legal Services Ombudsman has today published her eleventh Annual Report. and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service Pension Scheme
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the proportion of the rise in Government liabilities resulting from unfunded parts of the civil service pension scheme in the last five years due to(a) wage inflation, (b) longevity, (c) extension of the rights of part-time workers and (d) other factors; and if he will make a statement. [67022]

  Mr. Alexander
  The principal civil service pension scheme (PCSPS)—the occupational pension arrangement for civil servants—is an underfunded pension scheme made under the Superannuation Act 1972. All payments of pension and related benefits to former members of the PCSPS or their dependants are made from the civil superannuation vote, for which the Cabinet Office is accountable.

  The PCSPS is subject to regular actuarial review by the Government Actuary. Intermediate valuations are produced for resource accounting purposes which provide updated liability figures. The actuarial reviews include full allowance for the effects on the liabilities of the PCSPS of such factors as price inflation, salary growth, membership changes and pensioner mortality assumptions.

  The liabilities of the PCSPS at the earliest review during the last five years were calculated to be £45.4 billion as at 30 September 1966. They were

  1028W
  estimated at &58.6 billion as at 31 March 2000 in the latest resource accounts (HC 554). The increase over the period is in line with that expected by the actuary

  Information in the form requested is not readily available. However, allowance for the continuing improvement in pensioner longevity, price inflation and real wage growth are in order of importance the main factors behind the increase in liabilities. Extension of the pension rights of part-time workers is not a significant factor.

  Ministerial Salaries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the annual cost was of ministerial salaries in his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2001–02. [60951]

  Mr. Alexander
  The level of ministerial salaries are recommended by the senior salaries review body. From May 1997, in this Department there were two Cabinet Ministers, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Leader of the House of Lords, at an annual salary of £43,991 and £58,876 respectively; one Minister of State at an annual salary of £31,125; and one parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at an annual salary of £23,623. From June 2001, there were two Cabinet Ministers, the Deputy prime Minister and First Secretary of State, and the Leader of the House of Lords, at an annual salary of £68,157 and £90,562 respectively; two Ministers of State, at an annual salary of £35,356, one Minister of State (the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) at an annual salary of £70,283; and one Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, at an annual salary of £26,835.

TREASURY

  Female Staff
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the staff of his Department are women; and what the percentage was in June 1997. [66915]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Cabinet Office on 5 July Official Report, column 622W.

  Infant Deaths
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many infant deaths per 1,000 live births there were in each constituency in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [67870]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Marsden dated 10 July 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many infant deaths per 1,000 live births there were in each constituency in each year since 1997. (67870).
  Figures are available for the years 1997–2001. A combined rate for these years has been calculated for each constituency, as the number of infant deaths for individual years in some constituencies was too small to reliably calculate a rate or prevent disclosure. These rates have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Elderly People (Definition)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government's definition of elderly is; and what proportion of the population in each region is considered elderly. [68535]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Bill Wiggin dated 10 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the definition of what elderly is, and what proportion of the population in each region is considered elderly. (68535).

  In response to your question, there is no official definition of what elderly is, but it is usually taken to include those who have reached retirement age, currently 65 for men and 60 for women. On this basis, the percentages of total population by Government Office Region for England. and for Wales, are given in the attached table.

  Estimated resident population mid-2000: retirement age population as percentage of total Percentage of population by Government Office Region for England, and for wales

  percentage of total GOR population

  North East

  18.8

  North West

  18.2

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  18.3

  East Midlands

  18.4

  West Midlands

  18.2

  East

  18.5

  London

  14.3

  South East

  18.5

  South West

  21.0

  Wales

  19.0

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, Population Estimates Unit

  Statistics
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the figures on marriage, divorce and domestic violence will be added to the neighbourhood statistics section of the Office for National Statistics website. [68482]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Willetts, dated 10 July 2002:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning when the figures on marriage, divorce and domestic violence will be added to the neighbourhood statistics section of the Office of National Statistics website. (68482)
  There are no plans to add information on marriage, divorce and domestic violence to the Neighbourhood Statistics section of the ONS website in the near future. The next major update to the site will be the addition of statistics from the 2001 Census in 2003 and these will include information about the marital status of the population in local areas. Further datasets for nine statistical domains will be added to the website from 2003/04 onwards, in line with the need for better information set out in the Report of Policy Action Team 18 Better Information to meet the priorities for the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal.

  Royal Mint
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Royal Mint independent review will be complete; and if he will make a statement. [68078]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Royal Mint has issued an invitation to tender for an independent review to be completed. They expect to award a contract within the next dew days. Those invited have been told that the Mint would like the review to commence as soon as possible and to be completed as soon as feasible.

  EU Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the EU Contact Committee on Combating Money Laundering is next due to meet; whether representatives of the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if he will make a statement. [68605]

  Ruth Kelly
  The role and responsibilities of the Contact Committee on Money Laundering are set out in Article 13 of Council directive 91/308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering ("Official Journal" L166, 28/06/1991 P.0077–0083).

  The committee meets at the request either of the chair or of the delegation of a member state. Since May 2001, it has met three times. The UK is represented by officials from HM Treasury and the Home Office. Representatives of the Scottish Executive do not attend, as money laundering is not a devolved matter.

  Bulk Tankers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to the United Kingdom marine insurance industry of the loss of bulk tankers in each of the past five years. [68328]

  Ruth Kelly
  None.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff have contributed to his Department's input to the spending review. [68687]

  Mr. Boateng
  A range of staff across the Treasury have contributed to work on the 2002 spending review. The work has been co-ordinated in the Public Services Directorate, which presently numbers around 220 staff.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what proportion of the public service agreements of his Department set out in the document, "Public Services for the Future 1998", have been met; and if he will make a statement. [68719]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information relating to the Treasury's public service agreement targets can be found in the Treasury's departmental report 2002 (Cm5425).

  Devolved Administrations
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Treasury sets limits on the contingent liabilities into which the devolved Administrations may enter. [68027]

  Mr. Boateng
  No. Contingent liabilities entered into by the devolved Administrations fall to be met within their existing departmental expenditure limits if the contingent liabilities materialise.

  Fire Prevention
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had on reducing the rate of VAT for fire prevention materials in the home. [66901]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor has had no recent discussions on this specific subject. Under the longstanding agreements which govern VAT law across the European Union, member states are only permitted to introduce reduced rates of VAT for a prescribed list of goods and services set out in annex H of the sixth VAT directive. General 'fire prevention materials' for use in the home are not among the items included in the annex H list.

  However, the UK's zero rate for the construction of new dwellings does include fire retardant building materials, as well as fire alarms, smoke detectors and fire safety equipment installed when a new home is being built. Similarly, the 5 per cent. reduced rate for residential conversions and renovations includes fire retardant building materials, fire alarms, smoke detectors and fire safety equipment installed at the time of the conversion.

  We have also reduced to 5 per cent. the VAT on grant funded installation of smoke alarms when these are installed at the same time as energy saving materials or central heating systems. This is part of the VAT reduced rate introduced to support DEFRA's home energy efficiency scheme (HEES). HEES grants are primarily targeted at less well off people aged over 60 or receiving specified benefits, so the related reduced rate is similarly well targeted at those who need help most.

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the increase in the Financial Services Authority fees for industrial and provident societies. [66902]

  Ruth Kelly
  The setting of fees is the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority in relation to the duties it performs under the relevant industrial and provident society Acts. The new level of fees has not yet been finalised and through consultation the FSA has listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised by some in the movement. That is why they have decided to review their proposals and have recently presented further options to societies and their representative bodies.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to make deaf employees exempt from paying tax on their hearing aids; and if he will make a statement. [66702]
  1032W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are continuing to remove barriers to work and ensure that disabled people do not face discrimination in the workplace. Regulations came into force on 9 July 2002, which will ensure that benefits for disabled employees which may be used both in and out of the workplace, such as a hearing aid, will not be liable to a tax charge.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax credit applications have been identified as appropriate for further investigation; how many have been investigated; how many of these investigations have proved fraudulent or non-compliant activity; how many penalties have been levied as a result; how many unsuccessful prosecutions have occurred; how many successful prosecutions have occurred; and how many custodial sentences have been passed in each of the last three years for the(a) WFTC and (b) DPTC. [58767]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is given in the table.

  1999–20001

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Cases identified for investigation2

  (a) 14,162

  (a) 28,898

  (a) 23,123

  (b) 251

  (b) 808

  (b) 824

  Cases investigated3

  (a) 4,022

  (a) 30,543

  (a) 21,816

  (b) 110

  (b) 644

  (b) 801

  Cases found to be non compliant

  4250

  45,213

  48,108

  Penalties imposed

  (a) 3

  (a) 235

  (a) 512

  (b) 0

  (b) 2

  (b)12

  Unsuccessful prosecutions5

  (a) 0

  (a) 0

  (a) 0

  (b) 0

  (b) 0

  (b) 0

  Successful prosecutions5

  (a) 0

  (a) 2

  (a) 29

  (b) 0

  (b) 0

  (b) 0

  Custodial sentences imposed

  (a) 0

  (a) 0

  (a) 7

  (b) 0

  (b) 0

  (b) 0

  1Six months

  2Awards selected for inquiry with applicants in the period

  3Inquiries completed in the period

  4Separate figures are not available for WFTC and DPTC

  5Prosecutions completed in each period

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many air journeys to and from(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scottish airports were subject to the (i) standard and (ii) higher rate of air passenger duty in each of the last five years. [67845]

  John Healey
  Air passenger duty is applicable only to journeys by chargeable passengers on chargeable aircraft departing from a UK airport. Journeys to the UK from outside the UK may be subject to duties and taxes in the country of departure.

  Until 31 March 2001 there were two rates of duty, a lower rate for destinations within the European Economic Area (EEA) and a higher rate applicable to all other destinations. From 1 April 2001 four rates of duty have been in force, standard rates of duty for both EEA and non EEA destinations and reduced rates of duty for both EEA and non EEA destinations. An exemption from duty for flights from airports in the Scottish Highlands and

  1033W
  Islands was introduced on 1 April 2001. The numbers of journeys made (in thousands) by chargeable passengers from the UK for the previous five financial years are given in the table.

  £000

  Financial year

  Higher rate (non EEA destinations)

  Lower rate (EEA destinations)

  1997–98

  19,359

  39,328

  1998–99

  20,583

  42,986

  1999–2000

  21,304

  45.363

  2000–01

  23,069

  49,197

  2Non EEA

  3Non EEA

  2EEA

  3EEA

  2001–021

  2,669

  19,349

  4,433

  52,152

  1Provisional

  2Destinations (standard rates)

  3 Destinations (lower rate)

  (b) No separate breakdown exists for chargeable journeys from Scottish airports.

  Pharmaceuticals (Tax Incentives)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will respond to the letters from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan of 12 April and 5 June regarding tax incentives for pharmaceutical corporations that donate medicines overseas. [67647]

  John Healey
  I have done so.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the adequacy of staffing levels at customs declaration desks at ports and airports of entry to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [67780]

  John Healey
  Customs regularly review the allocation of their resources and deploy their staff based on the volume of work and an assessment of the risk related to the variety of international movements of freight and persons. Customs are also deploying their resources in a flexible and mobile way to optimise their ability to respond to the ever-changing patterns of international activity.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter being issued to working families tax credit recipients in advance of the renewal of their six-monthly awards regarding method of payment. [67860]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 291W, on National Insurance (Reduced Rates), on what basis the amount of the reduction in national insurance contributions available to married women paying the reduced rate is calculated. [68244]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is nothing I can usefully add to what I said in my answer of 2 July 2002,Official Report, column 291W.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what obligation there is on(a) employers and (b) individual employees to inform the Inland Revenue of a change of employee's address; and if he will make a statement. [68989]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None.

  Condemnation Hearings
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a defendant at a condemnation hearing is allowed to view evidence prior to the hearing being brought by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in support of the case. [68122]

  John Healey
  In condemnation proceedings, it is Customs practice to disclose voluntarily the witness statements upon which they seek to rely, prior to the hearing. These statements are provided as a matter of courtesy once they are available.

  Finance Bill
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officials from his Department were in attendance in Parliament to Ministers during the proceedings on the Finance Bill on Wednesday 3 July. [68666]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As is customary, there were a number of officials from the Treasury in attendance, together with officials from the revenue departments appropriate to the issues tabled for the proceedings.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the cases of waiting list manipulation his Department recorded in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000, (e) 2001 and (f) 1 January 2002 to date. [61444]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Audit Office report 'Inappropriate Adjustments to NHS Waiting Lists' (HC452 Session 2001–02, 19 December 2001) is available in the Library. The table lists the trusts involved in inappropriate adjustments and the timescales involved.

  Trust

  Timescale involved

  St. Bartholomews and The London

  1996 to November 2000

  Guy's and St. Thomas'

  Four years

  Plymouth Hospitals

  1998–1999

  Salford Royal

  September 1998 to July 2001

  South Warwickshire General

  My to September 2000

  Stoke Mandeville

  August 2000 to January 2001

  Surrey and Sussex Healthcare

  About one year

  University College

  May 1999

  Since publication of the report a further case at Bath has come to light which was highlighted by a press release (2002/0211) on 3 May 2002.

  The Government takes waiting list manipulation very seriously. The Department has asked the Audit Commission to initiate a system of spot-checks on waiting list statistics hospital-by-hospital. These spot-checks began this month.
  1035W
  We will also from this year move to publish on the internet and elsewhere regularly-updated information on waiting for all major treatments at all providers.In future, any manager found to have deliberately distorted waiting figures will face dismissal on grounds of gross misconduct. This will be supported by a new code of conduct for National Health Service managers. Anyone who breaches that code of conduct will not be re-employed as a manager—anywhere in the NHS.

  Radiographers
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many radiographers in London have left the NHS and been re-employed as agency staff during the last year; and if he will make a statement. [60874]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the projected average time is from conception to completion for a National Health Service Private Finance Initiative project; and if he will make a statement. [61671]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is no prescribed timescale set by the Department for schemes to progress through the stages up to advertising a project in the Official Journal of the European Commission (OJEC). The length of time taken to produce the outline business case, undertake necessary consultations and obtain outline planning permission will depend upon circumstances specific to each scheme.

  The current indicative timetable from OJEC to financial close to eighteen months for major schemes; since March 2002 new initiatives have been introduced to further enhance the procurement process and ensure that the National Health Service obtains the best value from the current market and these aim to reduce this period.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many National Health Service Private Finance Initiative projects(a) have been, (b) are and (c) are projected to he behind their initial completion date; what the (i) projected start date, (ii) actual start date, (iii) projected completion date and (iv) actual completion date is in each case; and if he will make a statement. [61669]

  Mr. Hutton
  Indicative timetables are set for all schemes as part of good project management. Complex schemes experience difficulties for a variety of good reasons; these have their timetables revised as appropriate.

  Firm completion dates (for example when the hospital is open) are only set once contracts are signed for private finance initiative (PFI) schemes. The private sector suffers penalties if the completion date is not met. To date, all major PFI schemes have been opened on or ahead of their planned completion target date.

  Arms-length bank
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in drawing up the legal and financial framework for the Arms-Length Bank controlled by the NHS. [64317]
  1036W
  Mr. Hutton
  Details regarding the legal and financial framework of the National Health Service Bank are under consideration.

  Consultants
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the relationship is between the professional and executive groups of a primary care trust and consultants in hospital trusts; and what guidance has he given to ensure regular meetings between hospital consultants and the primary care trust. [62313]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 June 2002]: The Department has not issued any guidance on this subject and has no plans to do so. Devolving power within the national health service recognises that frontline clinicians are best placed to make decisions on how to run the local health service and gives the freedom for them to decide how they will develop relationships in running the health service locally. However, 'Shifting the Balance of Power: The Next Steps' (January 2002) makes it clear that primary care trusts (PCTs) need to develop close working relationships with partners in NHS trusts. The relationship that PCTs develop with their colleagues in NHS trusts, including consultants, will be central to PCTs effectively discharging their functions for example planning and commissioning services for their local populations. PCTs will need to ensure that they engage in effective dialogue with clinicians working within NHS Trusts if they are to secure the best possible services to meet the needs of the local population. It is, however, a matter for PCTs and hospitals to decide the detail of how they do this.

  Car Parking Fees
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he takes account of money received by hospital trusts from car parking fees in the allocation of funds; and if he will make a statement; [64712]

  (2) what recent representations he has received on the levying of car parking fees for (a) hospital staff and (b) visitors to hospitals; [64715]

  (3) if he will estimate how much money was received by hospital trusts from car parking fees in the last year for which figures are available. [64714]

  (4) what policy guidelines he issues to hospital trusts over the levying of car parking fees for (a) visitors and (b) staff; and if he will publish such guidelines. [64713]

  Mr. Lammy
  National health service trusts can charge for car parking in order to raise additional income to improve the health service using income generation powers. Amounts collected from individual income generation schemes are not reported separately in trusts' accounts and the income raised is not taken into account in the allocation of funds to NHS trusts.

  The Department issued guidance to NHS trusts in January 1996 in the booklet 'NHS income generation, car parking charges, A guide to Implementation'. A copy of this is available in the Library. It is left to individual hospitals to decide whether or not to charge for car parking and the cost of such charges in light of local circumstances. Where car parking charges are introduced,

  1037W
  patients who are eligible to claim reimbursement of travelling expenses under the hospital travel costs scheme may have the charges reimbursed.

  The Department of Health receives a small number of enquiries about car parking charges each year.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute psychiatric beds were available for(a) children, (b) the elderly and (c) other ages in secure units within each (i) region and (ii) authority area in each of the last five years; what the occupancy rate was; and what delayed discharge issues occurred. [65251]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information is not available in the format requested.

  Inappropriate Medication
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate the(a) number and (b) percentage of over 75 year olds affected, and the cost to the NHS and the number of bed days lost from hospital wards from older people experiencing an adverse reaction or being prescribed inappropriate medication in the last 12 months; [65140]

  (2) how many older people died from (a) experiencing an adverse reaction and (b) being prescribed inappropriate medication in the last 12 months. [65139]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) receive reports of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) submitted by doctors, dentists, pharmacists and coroners via the Yellow Card Scheme by doctors, and there is a legal requirement for companies to report 'suspected' ADRs to their drugs. In 2001, a total of 21,350 reports of 'suspected' ADRs were received through this scheme of which 1,964 ( 9 per cent.) occurred in patients over 75 years of age. The number of reports received via the yellow card scheme does not directly equate to the number of people who suffer adverse reactions to drugs for a number of reasons including an unknown level of under reporting. It is important to note that the reporting of a reaction does not necessarily mean it was caused by

  New registrations with the GMC in 2001: place where primary medical qualification obtained

  U.K.

  European Economic Area

  Rest of world

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Full registration

  4,462

  50

  1,237

  14

  3,088

  36

  Provisional registration

  4,279

  94

  188

  4

  103

  2

  Limited registration

  n/a

  n/a

  2,720

  Total

  8,741

  54

  1,425

  9

  5,911

  37

  Source:

  General Medical Council

  Renal Transplant Services
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received about the proposal to transfer renal transplant services from St. Helier to St. George's hospitals. [54279]
  1038W
  the drug and may relate to other factors such as the patient's underlying illness or other medicines taken concurrently.

  According to the Department's hospital episode statistics (HES) it is estimated that 151,571 bed days were lost in patients over 75 years of age during 2001 due to the adverse effects of drugs, medicaments and biological substances in therapeutic use. This estimate is based on 16,747 finished consultant episodes (FCEs) where the primary reason for admission was due to adverse effects of drugs, medicaments and biological substances in therapeutic use. FCES are not the same as the number of patients treated because a hospitalised spell can consist of more than one FCE. These figures would only include adverse drug reactions occurring in hospital if a different FCE resulted where the primary cause was the adverse drug reaction. Cost of treatment is not recorded in HES.

  Over the last 20 years, 'suspected' ADRs with a fatal outcome account for 2-3 per cent. of the reports submitted via the yellow card scheme. A total of 643 reports with a fatal outcome were received during 2001, of these 130 occurred in patients aged over 75 years. The Office of National Statistics also collates data on deaths certified by doctors and coroners as due to adverse effects of drugs in therapeutic use. The quality of these data may be inconsistent as many thousands of doctors write certificates with a wide variation in knowledge, training and practice. The latest available figures are for 2000, during which 84 of the 159 deaths that were certified as due to adverse effects of drugs occurred in persons aged 75 years and over.

  Figures are not available on adverse reactions resulting from patients being prescribed inappropriate medication.

  Medical Training
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of doctors registered in(a) the UK and (b) Scotland in the last year have trained outside the UK. [65415]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information available is shown in the following table. The General Medical Council, the body responsible for the registration of doctors, does not hold registers separately for different parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hutton
  On 17 December 2001, I met with Lord Taverne to discuss the proposals to transfer renal transplant services from St. Helier Hospital to St. George's Hospital.

  The Department has also received forty-seven items of correspondence and four parliamentary questions about the same issue.

  GPs
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies for general practitioners there were in the Portsmouth, South constituency in(a) 1997 and (b) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [65371]

  Ms Blears
  We are aware of the difficulties experienced in the Portsmouth area in recruiting general practitioners. The reply of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Ms Cooper) to the hon. Member of 4 February 2002,Official Report, column 784W, set out what action was being taken locally. As stated in that answer, information collected centrally on staff vacancies is published on the Department's website.

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures were taken in awarding the contract for smallpox vaccines to Powderject, to ensure value for money. [54658]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 May 2002]: Since the eradication of smallpox worldwide, new, second-generation smallpox vaccine is not a well-established product subject to normal market pricing pressures. The price quoted by all the companies involved for their products were compared against each other, and the prices were also compared with the price being paid by the United States Government for its smallpox vaccine. Prices were also compared with those for current supplies from old vaccine stocks. On the basis of consideration of all the price information available relating to similar products. the vaccine was deemed to represent value for money at the price quoted.

  Major publicly procured schemes operational

  NHS Trust

  Value (£ million)

  Approved to go ahead

  Operational date

  Rochdale Healthcare

  24.00

  14 August 1998

  1 August 2000

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals

  24.00

  19 September 1998

  1 February 2001

  Major publicly procured schemes with tender awarded

  NHS Trust

  Value (£ million)

  Approved to go ahead

  Planned Operational date

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospital 1 May 2004

  75.00

  24 August 1998

  27 July 2002

  Guys and St. Thomas

  50.00

  19 September 1998

  1 May 2004

  Front-line Staff
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings Ministers from his Department had with members of the advisory task force on utilising front-line NHS staff; and when. [56993]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service taskforce on staff involvement was established in 1998 to look at successful approaches to involving front-line staff and make recommendations to Ministers. It was disbanded once their report had been submitted to Ministers. The taskforce included thirteen representatives from across the NHS, a trade union and the private sector. The taskforce met the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), in
  1040W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when(a) the first official contact between ministers in his Department and Powderject concerning the smallpox vaccine and (b) the signing of the contract was; and if he will make a statement. 154656]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 May 2002]: Ministers had no contact with Powderject concerning the placing of the smallpox vaccine contact. The contract was signed on 11 April 2002. All meetings and subsequent discussions with the pharmaceutical companies were conducted by officials from the Department and the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the smallpox vaccine ordered from Powderject will need to be trialled before it can be used. [67546]

  Mr. Hutton
  No, the vaccine can be used without clinical trials. There are currently no plans to undertake clinical trials of the smallpox vaccine in the UK. Since smallpox does not currently exist in the population, trials of protective efficacy are not possible. The EU committee for proprietary medicinal products is currently developing the requirements for the manufacture of second generation smallpox vaccine. which will include guidance on the design of any clinical trials.

  Capital Projects
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many major acute hospitals(a) have been procured and (b) are being procured via the non-PFI process; what the capital value of each project is; and what stage they are at in their procurement process. [59837]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since May 1997, the following schemes have been approved under the public capital procurement process.

  July 1999 at the launch of the taskforce's report on staff involvement. The Department is currently working with the Modernisation Agency, the unions and NHS trusts to implement the recommendations of the report.

  Director of International Recruitment for Health Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) salary and (b) support costs are of his Department's Director of International Recruitment for Health Services in 2002–03. [66167]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department currently has no plans to recruit a Director of International Recruitment.
  1041W
  The central Department team has been strengthened to enable all strands of international recruitment to be brought together and ensure that we continue to build on the success of the last 18 months using the international recruitment networks that have been established and the work force development confederations.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the decision-making powers of(a) primary care trusts and (b) the Department of Health in the contracting of one of the new international establishments in a primary care trust's area. [65574]

  Mr. Hutton
  Work is in hand, through the Department's Directorate of Health and Social Care, with the local leadership of the national health service to identify local health economies in which international establishment schemes can respond to real and sustained capacity needs. As the prospectus notes, NHS commissioners will have a key role, in conjunction with the Department, in defining requirements from such initiatives.

  International Establishments Prospectus
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the international establishments prospectus, what more complex and larger-scale projects overseas companies will be involved in. [65573]

  Mr. Hutton
  As set out in paragraph 4.8 of the prospectus, these projects are likely to involve a wider range of specialities, to involve more substantial capital investment, and/or to raise more complex contracting challenges than the first projects that are expected, depending on the nature of demand in local health economies to focus on orthopaedic and cataract services.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the UK vaccine evaluation consortium is undertaking work on a vaccine against foot and mouth disease. [66087]

  Ms Blears
  The United Kingdom vaccine evaluation consortium evaluates vaccines for use in humans. As such, it would not be appropriate for this group to undertake work on a vaccine against foot and mouth disease.

  Nursing
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps the Government have taken to recruit nurses to the NHS since 1 May 1997: [65537]

  (2) what steps the Government have taken to improve recruitment to nursing in the NHS since 1 May 1997. [67618]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are implementing a range of measures to improve recruitment and retention of all staff, including nurses. These include an increase in pay, encouraging the national health service to become a better employer through the "Improving Working Lives and Positively Diverse" programmes, increasing training commissions, reducing student attrition, running national and local recruitment and return to practice campaigns, and 1042W
  supporting international recruitment where appropriate. Further information on improving working lives is available at www.doh.gov.uk/iwl.

  Since 1997. the nursing work force has grown by 31,520. Between September 1999 and September 2001 there was a net increase in nurses working in the NHS of 20,740—the NHS Plan target has been reached two years early. Pay will have increased across the board for nurses and midwives by at least 26 per cent. since 1997 in cash terms.

  Northwick Park Hospital
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects work to begin on modernising Northwick Park Hospital's maternity service. [66111]

  Mr. Hutton
  The full business case for the modernisation of maternity services at Northwick Park hospital was approved in April 2002. Work is expected to begin in March 2003.

  Harrow Primary Care Trust Board
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the members of the Harrow Primary Care Trust Board and indicate which of them are resident in the Harrow, West constituency; [66112]

  (2) if he will list the members of the North West London Hospitals Trust board; and which of them are resident in the Harrow, West constituency; [66113]

  (3) if he will list the members of the Hillingdon and Mount Vernon Hospitals NHS Trust board; and which of them are resident in the Harrow, West constituency. [66114]

  Mr. Hutton
  Current membership of the three national health service boards, together with details of those living in Harrow, West constituency is as follows:

  Harrow Primary Care Trust:

  Chair:

  Mr. Geoffrey Derek Rose (lives in Harrow, West)

  Non-Executivess:

  Ms Patricia Anne English

  Mrs. Maxine Offredy

  Mr. John Hunter

  Mr. Peter James Commins (lives in Harrow. West)

  Dr. Gillian Schiller (lives in Harrow. West)

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chair:

  Dr. Alastair Hugh McDonald

  Non-Executives:

  Dr. John Green

  Ms Sally Anne Kirkwood Ms Marvelle Brown

  Mrs. Lettyce Angela Heath (lives in Harrow West)

  Ms Moira Black

  Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  Chair:

  Mr. Stephen John Coventry

  1043W
  Non-executives:

  Mrs. Christine Beatty

  Mr. Obaid-Ur-Rahman Siddiqui

  Councillor Catherine Stocker

  Mr. Anthony Edmund Valentine

  Mrs. Ann Chapman.

  NHS Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent by the relevant pension fund on paying pensions to retired(a) NHS staff and (b) GPs in 2001–02; if he will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in (i) five years' time, (ii) 10 years' time, (iii) 20 years' time and (iv) 30 years' time; if he will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (a) unfunded pension schemes and (b) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes, if he will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [66564]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service pension scheme for England and Wales does not keep a separate record of the pensions paid to retired NHS staff and general practitioners. However, the total amount paid for 2001–02 by the NHS pension scheme in respect of pensions to retired members and their dependents was £2.8 billion.

  Using assumptions consistent with the periodic valuations of the NHS pension scheme the Government Actuary's Department has estimated the corresponding total amounts of pension expenditure in future years as follows (in constant earnings terms):

  Five years: £3.1 billion

  10 years: £3.5 billion

  20 years: £4.7 billion

  30 years: £5.8 billion.

  The NHS pension scheme is an unfunded scheme with members and employers paying contributions, as determined by the Government Actuary, to defray the cost of benefit provision. Because there is no pre-funding of the scheme's liabilities, these contributions have not been included as an offset to the above figures, although in practice they will be an offset to the cost.

  Cancelled Operations
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether statistics relating to cancelled operations include those cancelled at cottage and community hospitals. [65167]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]: Data are collected on the number of operations cancelled by English national health service trusts for non-clinical reasons on, or after the day the patient was due to be admitted. This definition covers all elective operations carried out as in-patient or day cases. Elective operations carried out in a cottage or community hospital are therefore included, but not separately identified by unit.

  Mumps Vaccines
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what grounds the MCA in May ordered the 1044W
  destruction of mumps vaccines made in Switzerland that had been bought by Direct Health 2000 in the UK; and if mumps vaccines in the same batch were delivered to pharmacies in the UK. [66258]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 2 July 2002]: The Medicines Control Agency has no record of ordering the destruction in May 2002, of mumps vaccine made in Switzerland and bought by Direct Health 2000 in the UK. Consequently the MCA is not in a position to comment on supplies of any of the alleged batch of mumps vaccine made in Switzerland being delivered to pharmacies in the UK.

  Overseas Treatment
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the scheme to send patients overseas for treatment; and if he will make a statement. [66819]

  Mr. Hutton
  Following a competitive tender exercise, the York University Health Economics Consortium were commissioned to evaluate the scheme to refer national health service patients overseas. That evaluation is almost complete. Copies of the final report will be placed in the Library, and published on the Department's website.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to increase the use of information technology across primary care; and if he will make a statement. [66813]

  Mr. Hutton
  The new national health service information technology programme was outlined in the document, "Delivering 21st Century IT Support for the NHS: National Strategic Programme", published by the Department in June 2002.

  This outlines a major programme of investment in information technology, including the primary care sector. The NHS will build on the successful implementation of projects such as the Project Connect programme, which connected 98 per cent. of general practices to NHSnet, giving general practice staff full access to email and web resources, including the clinical evidence base; the electronic transfer of prescription pilots; and decision support developments such as PRODIGY.

  Hospice Authorities
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends(a) blood products, (b) oxygen and (c) clinical waste to be financed by the NHS in connection with voluntary hospice authorities. [66365]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: The Chief Executive Bulletin (10–16 May) issue 117 reminded them that hospices should be reimbursed the full agreed pharmacy costs for medicines. This arrangement includes blood products that are licensed medicines and oxygen, in so much as it is permissible to prescribe it on the national health service.

  In the case of clinical waste, the responsibility for the disposal of clinical waste cannot be passed over to another party. Under the requirements of the Environmental

  1045W
  Protection Act 1990, waste producers have a legal duty of care to properly dispose of their waste. In this case the hospice concerned would be the waste producer.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 309W, what funding is available in 2002–03 for the strategy for hepatitis C. [66847]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: Advice from the multi-disciplinary steering group, set up to assist the Department in developing a strategic approach to hepatitis C, is currently under consideration as are related funding issues.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make a decision on the provision of recombinant to haemophiliacs. [66842]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) gave him on 11 June 2002, Official Report, column 1212W.

  Teaching Hospital, Hertfordshire
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to create a university teaching hospital in Hertfordshire; and if he will make a statement. [66767]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer Thursday 4 July 2002]: There are currently no plans to create a university teaching hospital in Hertfordshire.

  Copaxone
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Copaxone will become available on the NHS. [66740]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: Copaxone (glatiramer acetate) is available on the national health service under the "risk-sharing scheme" for disease-modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis that came into operation on 6 May 2002.

  Insulin Pump Therapy
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive guidance from NICE on insulin pump therapy. [66739]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: I understand that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's provisional publication date for its guidance on insulin pump therapy is April 2003.

  DNA
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals to prevent DNA samples being obtained from the public without consent. [66871]
  1046W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: It is a general legal and ethical requirement for a health professional to seek consent before starting to treat or examine a patient, which would include the obtaining of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) samples. The position is laid out clearly in the Department's reference guide to consent for treatment and examination.

  There are exceptions to the principle of consent for certain uses of DNA samples, for example the obtaining of non-intimate DNA samples by the police for use in the prevention, detection or investigation of a crime.

  The human genetics commission's report "Inside Information" has recommended a new criminal offence of the non-consensual or deceitful obtaining or analysis of genetic information for non-medical purposes. The Government are still considering this report and will respond in due course.

  Macular Degeneration
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on the use of photodynamic therapy for age-related macular degeneration. [66877]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence published its final appraisal determination on photodynamic therapy on 12 June. This has been appealed against. An appeal panel will now be convened to hear the appeal and decide the outcome. If the appeal is not upheld then guidance will be published; however, if it is upheld, then the appeals panel will ask the appraisal committee to reconsider the evidence in light of the appeal panel's decision. The earliest guidance could be available to the national health service is early August.

  Improving Working Lives Standard
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of(a) primary care and (b) hospital trusts have put Improving Working Lives standard into practice. [68286]

  Mr. Hutton
  "Improving Working Lives" (IWL) is an integral part of the human resources performance management process within the national health service. Existing NHS organisations are required to achieve "Practice" stage of the standard by April 2003, and the target for new organisations is April 2004.

  Twenty trusts have already been assessed against the IWL standard and recommended as achieving "Practice" status ahead of the target date.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of PC SPES as a treatment for prostate cancer. [66870]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 July 2002]: PC SPES has not been licensed as a medicinal product in the United Kingdom. However, I understand that it has been recalled by its American manufacturers as it has been found to contain undeclared prescription drug ingredients. The four research studies into its effectiveness that are being

  1047W
  funded by the national centre for complementary and alternative medicine in the United States have also been put on hold.

  "Feet First Two"
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the recommendations of the report, "Feet First Two", are regarding(a) removal of regional and local variations in service provisions and (b) improving the availability of services in the south of England. [66344]

  Jacqui Smith
  We currently have no plans to publish any findings from the review of "Feet First". In April 2001, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made a statement about the review in his response to a question from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 604W.

  NHS Appointments Commission
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of appointments to health trusts and authorities by the NHS Appointments Commission have been(a) women and (b) black or Asian. [68515]

  Mr. Hutton
  The latest figures available (for April 2002) show that since the National Health Service Appointments Commission was established, 44.6 per cent. of appointments made to NHS boards have been women, and 8.9 per cent. from black and ethnic minority communities.

  Cardiologists
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cardiologists are working in the NHS; and how many will be working in the NHS in 2002–03. [68273]

  Mr. Hutton
  There were 590 hospital consultants working within the cardiology specialty in England as at 31 March 2002. This represents an increase of 26 per cent. since 19991.

  NHS trusts

  Elective in-patients

  Non-elective in-patients

  Day case patients

  Number

  Unit cost (£)

  Number

  Unit cost (£)

  Number

  Unit cost (£)

  Diabetes with hypoglycaemic emergency (aged more than 69 or with co-morbidities)

  48

  1,395

  3,027

  954

  10

  222

  Diabetes with hypoglycaemic emergency (aged less than 70 or without co-morbidities)

  198

  796

  2,406

  567

  97

  352

  Diabetes with hyperglycaemic emergency(aged more than 69 or with co-morbidities)

  22

  1,808

  3,164

  1,126

  4

  253

  Diabetes with hyperglycaemic emergency (aged less than 70 or without co-morbidities)

  26

  1,024

  6,072

  659

  9

  261

  Diabetes with other hyperglycaemic disorder(aged more than 69 or with co-morbidities)

  392

  1,534

  7,132

  1,288

  946

  224

  Diabetes with other hyperglycaemic disorder (aged less than 70 or without co-morbidities)

  389

  871

  6,250

  686

  2,503

  274

  Diabetes with lower limb complications

  523

  2,183

  5,280

  1,726

  82

  323

  Source:

  Reference Costs 2001—published on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/nhsexec/refcosts.htm.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on his spending priorities relating to diabetes; [68011]
  1048W
  We expect to see further significant growth this year.

  1Source:

  Department of Health March 2002 Medical and Dental Consultant Workforce Census.

  Nurse Consultants
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurse consultants are employed in the NHS. [68281]

  Mr. Hutton
  Over 750 nurse, midwife and health visitor consultants' posts have now been approved in 10 tranches, the first in January 2000 and the latest in June 2002.

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died from AIDS in the United Kingdom in the last 12 months. [67798]

  Ms Blears
  There were 362 HIV/AIDS-related deaths in 2001 reported in the United Kingdom by the end of March 2002. This total, which includes deaths in HIV-infected individuals without reported AIDS, is likely to rise as late reports are received.

  Source:

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  Diabetes
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's estimate is of the average cost to the NHS of treatment for a diabetic in each of the last five years. [68008]

  Mr. Lammy
  The only cost data currently collected centrally on diabetes relate to treatments undertaken by National Health Service Trusts. These exclude costs for diabetes within general practice and other primary care settings. Costs in the financial year 2000–01 are shown in the table. Comparable data are not available for earlier years.

  (2) if he will make a statement on the adequacy of funding for the Diabetes National Standards Framework to meet the costs of diabetics in the period up to 2010. [68009]
  1049W
  Mr. Lammy
  Funding for diabetes is being considered as part of the current Government spending review, together with other priorities. The Budget provides the highest sustained growth in national health service history with annual average increases of 7.4 per cent. in real terms over the five years 2003–04 to 2007–08. Decisions about the allocation of the increased funding will be announced later this year.

  The pace of change for delivery of diabetes national service framework will take account of the resources that will be available.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment his Department has made of the link between diabetes and CHD. [68010]

  Mr. Lammy
  There is a well established association between diabetes and coronary heart disease. There are a number of common risk factors. In particular, people who are overweight or obese, those who are not physically active and those who do not enjoy a balanced diet are at greater risk of both Type 2 diabetes and coronary heart disease. The standards for the diabetes national service framework, published in December 2001, highlight the importance of common strategies for prevention and treatment. In doing so, they build on the frameworks for coronary heart disease and older people.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's estimate is of the likely rise in cases of diabetes by 2010. [68006]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department provided the following prevalence projections to the Wanless review team for diabetes in England for the years up to 2010:

  Year

  Diagnosed prevalence

  Total patients (million)

  2002

  2.63

  1.316

  2003

  2.7

  1.355

  2004

  2.78

  1.399

  2005

  2.87

  1.448

  2006

  2.97

  1.502

  2007

  3.07

  1.561

  2008

  3.19

  1.624

  2009

  3.31

  1.689

  2010

  3.44

  1.759

  There are considerable uncertainties involved in predicting the increase in numbers of people with diabetes, due to the many factors that affect estimates including obesity, aging and ethnicity.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's estimate is of(a) the number of patients awaiting diagnosis for diabetes and (b) the percentage of newly diagnosed diabetics who show signs of complications. [68007]

  Mr. Lammy
  Estimates of the number of people awaiting diagnosis for diabetes vary depending on which study is consulted. The Department has based its estimates upon the health surveys for England. Extrapolation from the 1993 survey, the largest and most representative study on this question, leads to an estimate of around 550,000 people currently with undiagnosed diabetes. However, other smaller studies suggest that the number could be greater.
  1050W
  We have not estimated the percentage of people with newly diagnosed diabetes who show signs of complications.

  Births and Abortions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women aged under 18 have(a) given birth and (b) had an abortion, in each year since 1997. [68480]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Willetts, dated 10 July 2002:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many women under 18 have (a) given birth and (b) had an abortion in each year since 1997. (68480)
  Figures are available for the years 1997–2000; these are shown in the table.

  Births and abortions to women aged under 18, residents of England and Wales

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Births1

  number

  15,977

  15,887

  15,118

  14,305

  rate2

  16.9

  16.9

  16.2

  15.2

  Abortions3

  number

  16,092

  17,186

  16,561

  17,082

  rate2

  17.0

  18.3

  17.7

  18.1

  1Inclusive of live births and stillbirths.

  2 Per 1,000 women aged 15–17.

  3Legal abortions under the 1967 Abortion Act.

  Sources:

  Births Statistics, Abortions Statistics (National Statistics Annual Reference Volumes published by the Stationery Office). Population estimates used to produce the rates were projected from 1991 census figures.

  Private Sector
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will publish its response to the First report of the Select Committee on Health on the role of the private sector in the NHS. [69218]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government's response to the First report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Health, on the role of the private sector in the national health service, Cm 5567, has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Organs and Tissue
  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish his consultative report on the law on the removal, retention and use of human organs and tissue. [69417]

  Mr. Lammy
  I am pleased to announce that today, together with the Welsh Assembly Government, we have published a consultative report, "Human Bodies, Human Choices", on the law in England and Wales relating to human organs and tissue. Copies have been placed in the Library. Responses have been requested by 14 October.
  1051W
  We are doing this in response to one of the main recommendations made to the Government last year by the Chief Medical Officer of England, Sir Liam Donaldson, in "The removal, retention and use of human organs and tissue from post-mortem examination".

  The knowledge that organs or tissue were removed from someone close to them has brought profound sorrow to many families. We understand their distress and are grateful to those families, and others, who have already offered their views on how things might be improved for the future.

  This is a complex area, and while a number of interim measures have been put in place, we need for the future an effective and coherent framework that not only commands widespread support, but also has legal force.

  The report seeks views on all issues, including organ donation and transplantation, relating to the use of human organs and tissue from the living as well as following post mortem examination. We look forward to receiving views from a wide range of organisations and groups.

  Housing Adaptations
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department will produce the joint guidance on housing adaptations which will include a health and safety rating system. [57184]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department of Health will publish joint guidance on housing adaptations as a consultation document in the autumn. The then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions published a consultation paper on the housing health and safety rating system in March 2001. Full implementation of the rating system, which will replace the housing fitness standard, requires primary legislation which will be introduced as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity occurs.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Home Detention Curfew
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the prisoners under home detention curfew(a) broke their curfew and (b) re-offended while under curfew in (i) January, (ii) February and (iii) March; and if he will make a statement. [61473]

  Hilary Benn
  The table covers the period January-March 2002. It provides a breakdown of breaches of the Home Detention Curfew scheme as reported to the Prison Service by electronic monitoring contractors. A breach report may be submitted if an offender:is absent during part or the whole of a curfew period; or
  threatens or attacks a monitoring officer; or
  damages the monitoring equipment; or
  is absent when the equipment is due to be installed.

  The table also provides a breakdown of offenders who are reported to the Prison Service as having been cautioned, convicted or who are awaiting prosecution for an offence committed while they were subject to the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme.
  1052W
  The Home Detention Curfew scheme is designed to ensure a better transition for short-term offenders between custody and the community. The safety of the public is paramount at all times.

  Month

  Breaches of curfew reported to the Prison Service

  Offenders reported as having committed a further offence while subject to HDC

  2002

  January

  45

  7

  February

  36

  13

  March

  39

  15

  Immigrants and Emigres
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people successfully immigrated to the UK in each year since 1995, broken down by country of origin; [66473]

  (2) how many people successfully emigrated from the UK in each year since 1995. [66472]

  Beverley Hughes
  Estimates are available from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on the overall migration of persons to and from the United Kingdom (UK), where migration is defined in terms of a change of country of residence for a year or longer. These data include temporary migration of, for example, students and workers. The available statistics for 1995 to 2000, are given in the table.

  Table 1: Total international migration to and from UK1 1995–2000

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Inflow

  All citizenships

  320.7

  331.4

  340.7

  401.5

  450

  482

  British

  91.3

  103.7

  96.5

  111.3

  118.1

  105.7

  Non-British

  229.4

  227.8

  244.2

  290.2

  331.8

  376.2

  European Union

  59.1

  69.5

  71.5

  77.6

  65.7

  62.8

  Commonwealth

  Old

  29.5

  32.1

  34.6

  59.9

  57.1

  60

  New

  58.3

  50.7

  62

  53

  66.4

  90.9

  Other foreign

  82.6

  75.5

  76

  99.6

  142.6

  162.5

  Outflow

  All citizenships

  212

  238.4

  248.8

  223.7

  268.5

  298.5

  British

  121.7

  142.8

  134.5

  114.6

  126.5

  152.3

  Non-British

  90.2

  95.6

  114.2

  109.1

  141.9

  146.2

  European Union

  36.6

  42.7

  52.3

  47.1

  58.4

  55.1

  Commonwealth

  Old

  16.3

  15.8

  18.5

  18.6

  28.5

  30.9

  New

  9.4

  11.8

  15.8

  10

  9.7

  12.5

  Other foreign2

  27.92

  25.3

  27.6

  33.4

  45.3

  47.7

  1Includes adjustments for asylum seekers, and for persons admitted as short-term visitors who are subsequently granted an extension of stay for other reasons-for example, as students or on the basis of marriage. Also includes migration flows between the UK and Irish Republic

  2Figures for all years include Hong Kong.

  The Home Office measure of immigration is different from that of ONS. Our statistics relate to the number of people granted settlement in the UK. These are mainly current residents, who have already migrated and are making their stay legally permanent, ie allowed to stay indefinitely. Data for 1995–2000 are given in the table.
  1053W
  Unfortunately it is not possible for the Home Office to provide information on how many people have left the information can he obtained. country, as the Immigration Service no longer routinely

  Table 2: Acceptances for settlement, by nationality, 1995–2000

  United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Geographical region and nationality

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  All nationalities

  55,480

  61,730

  58,720

  69,790

  97,120

  125,090

  Europe European economic area1

  Austria

  10

  †

  †

  —

  Belgium

  10

  †

  †

  †

  Denmark

  10

  10

  †

  10

  Finland

  10

  †

  †

  †

  France

  30

  30

  10

  30

  Germany2

  40

  10

  10

  30

  Greece

  10

  10

  10

  20

  Iceland

  †

  †

  †

  —

  Italy

  20

  20

  10

  20

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  20

  10

  20

  30

  Norway

  10

  10

  10

  †

  Portugal

  20

  20

  20

  110

  Spain

  †

  †

  10

  20

  Sweden

  20

  10

  10

  †

  European economic area3

  220

  120

  110

  270

  Remainder of Europe

  Bulgaria

  150

  200

  160

  180

  280

  300

  Cyprus

  220

  240

  240

  280

  430

  510

  Fortner Czechoslovakia

  190

  290

  280

  400

  500

  760

  of which:

  Czech Republic4

  240

  270

  420

  Slovakia

  160

  230

  340

  Hungary

  130

  200

  180

  180

  190

  250

  Malta

  80

  80

  60

  70

  60

  90

  Poland

  580

  640

  570

  580

  620

  830

  Romania

  190

  270

  220

  240

  290

  310

  Switzerland

  150

  210

  200

  250

  220

  220

  Turkey

  1,170

  3,720

  4,230

  2,360

  5,220

  5.210

  Former USSR

  610

  820

  870

  1,180

  1,400

  2,070

  of which:

  Estonia

  20

  20

  20

  Latvia

  40

  30

  60

  Lithuania

  50

  110

  130

  Russia5

  860

  870

  1,180

  Ukraine

  140

  200

  380

  Other former USSR

  80

  160

  300

  Former Yugoslavia

  550

  680

  590

  1,500

  6,650

  4,440

  of which:

  Croatia

  180

  320

  650

  Slovenia

  10

  20

  20

  Yugoslavia6

  870

  5.760

  2.640

  Other former Yugoslavia

  440

  550

  1,130

  Other Europe

  20

  20

  30

  60

  130

  140

  Remainder of Europe

  4,030

  7.370

  7,640

  7,300

  15,980

  15,100

  Europe

  4,250

  7,500

  7,740

  7,570

  15,990

  15.110

  Americas

  Argentina

  60

  50

  50

  60

  60

  80

  Barbados

  70

  80

  60

  100

  70

  100

  Brazil

  330

  390

  330

  350

  410

  460

  Canada

  940

  970

  980

  1,050

  1,010

  1.320

  Chile

  40

  60

  70

  50

  50

  80

  Colombia

  280

  270

  240

  370

  650

  810

  Guyana

  190

  200

  170

  180

  130

  200

  Jamaica

  1,400

  1,420

  1,030

  1,120

  1,080

  2,100

  1054W
  operates embarkation controls from which statistical information can be obtained.
  1055W

  Table 2: Acceptances for settlement, by nationality, 1995–2000

  United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Geographical region and nationality

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Mexico

  90

  110

  130

  120

  90

  130

  Peru

  100

  80

  110

  100

  140

  160

  Trinidad and Tobago

  380

  340

  280

  320

  280

  490

  USA

  3,960

  4,030

  3,900

  3,940

  3,760

  4,580

  Venezuela

  40

  50

  50

  60

  60

  80

  Other Americas

  310

  430

  390

  2,950

  750

  940

  Americas

  8,180

  8,470

  7,790

  10,780

  8,520

  11,520

  Africa

  Algeria

  440

  400

  370

  710

  1,130

  1,010

  Angola

  40

  30

  60

  90

  520

  310

  Congo (Dem. Rep.)7

  120

  90

  90

  120

  2,580

  910

  Egypt

  270

  330

  330

  360

  380

  480

  Ethiopia

  170

  140

  210

  190

  2,170

  2,730

  Ghana

  1,820

  1,970

  1,290

  1,550

  3,480

  3,130

  Kenya

  530

  590

  500

  530

  760

  1,120

  Libya

  70

  110

  120

  160

  160

  370

  Mauritius

  390

  480

  380

  450

  460

  680

  Morocco

  430

  480

  410

  430

  430

  590

  Nigeria

  3,260

  3,220

  2,540

  2,950

  3,180

  6,520

  Sierra Leone

  440

  570

  470

  540

  1,060

  1,070

  Somalia

  760

  680

  990

  2,950

  3,180

  12,290

  South Africa

  1,300

  1,040

  1,290

  2,260

  2,950

  4,300

  Sudan

  150

  360

  2,180

  470

  540

  1,520

  Tanzania

  250

  220

  150

  220

  240

  420

  Tunisia

  80

  90

  70

  110

  160

  130

  Uganda

  440

  1,040

  690

  500

  1,400

  3,440

  Zambia

  190

  220

  180

  210

  240

  440

  Zimbabwe

  330

  360

  340

  410

  430

  980

  Other Africa

  490

  600

  550

  870

  1,570

  2,060

  Africa

  12,000

  12,970

  13,200

  16,090

  27,020

  44,480

  Asia Indian sub-continent

  Bangladesh

  3,280

  2,720

  2,870

  3,630

  3,280

  3,680

  India

  4,860

  4,620

  4,650

  5,430

  6,290

  8,050

  Pakistan

  6,310

  6,250

  5,580

  7,350

  11,860

  11,010

  Indian sub-continent

  14,450

  13,590

  13,080

  16,420

  21,440

  22,730

  Middle East

  Iran

  1,120

  1,720

  1,060

  930

  1,560

  1,920

  Iraq

  540

  1,580

  1,610

  1,650

  2,210

  2,710

  Israel

  290

  290

  280

  300

  260

  360

  Jordan

  150

  120

  150

  130

  140

  250

  Kuwait

  30

  20

  40

  60

  60

  60

  Lebanon

  400

  660

  640

  590

  760

  990

  Saudi Arabia

  40

  40

  30

  50

  60

  50

  Syria

  100

  110

  120

  110

  140

  240

  Yemen

  160

  180

  150

  230

  260

  290

  Other Middle East

  60

  70

  90

  120

  140

  210

  Middle East

  2,880

  4,790

  4,160

  4,180

  5,590

  7,090

  Remainder of Asia

  China

  1,130

  1,180

  1.230

  1,550

  1,520

  1,710

  Hong Kong

  1,310

  1,240

  900

  810

  490

  800

  Indonesia

  100

  90

  90

  120

  200

  210

  Japan

  1,870

  1,780

  1,760

  1,880

  1,590

  1,720

  Malaysia

  660

  610

  500

  550

  510

  780

  Philippines

  1,090

  1,030

  890

  950

  1,190

  1,910

  Singapore

  170

  150

  160

  120

  170

  230

  South Korea

  260

  270

  220

  270

  300

  480

  Sri Lanka

  1,370

  2,180

  1,620

  2,100

  5,370

  7,530

  Taiwan

  40

  60

  80

  100

  120

  180

  Thailand

  520

  550

  500

  540

  830

  950

  Other Asia

  270

  350

  420

  530

  770

  1,230

  Remainder of Asia

  8,790

  9,500

  8,370

  9,520

  13,060

  17,720

  Asia

  26,120

  27,880

  25,610

  30,120

  40,090

  47,540

  1056W 1057W

  Table 2: Acceptances for settlement, by nationality, 1995–2000

  United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  Geographical region and nationality

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Oceania

  Australia

  2,020

  2,120

  1,920

  2,200

  2,410

  2,930

  New Zealand

  1,390

  1,360

  1,150

  1,440

  1,670

  1,920

  Other Oceania

  40

  40

  30

  50

  40

  50

  Oceania

  3,450

  3,520

  3,100

  3,690

  4,120

  4,900

  British overseas citizens

  690

  620

  540

  960

  560

  330

  Stateless*

  780

  780

  740

  580

  820

  930

  Other countries not elsewhere specified

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  All nationalities

  55,460

  61,730

  58,720

  69,790

  97,120

  125,090

  1Includes all current EEA countries throughout the period covered.

  2Includes acceptances from the former German Democratic Republic—prior to the reunification of Germany on 3 October 1990—throughout the period covered.

  3Includes Liechtenstein.

  4Includes Czechoslovak passport holders.

  5Includes Soviet Union passport holders.

  6Includes holders of passports of the former Yugoslavia.

  7The Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly known as Zaire.

  8Includes refugees from South East Asia.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in North Tyneside. [65530]

  Number of anti-social behaviour orders issued as from 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2001 within Northumbria by area

  Area

  From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 20001

  From 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2000

  From 1 January 2001 to 31 December 20001

  Total

  Police force area/MCC2

  Northumbria

  8

  5

  5

  18

  Local government authority

  Gateshead MBC

  3—

  3

  —

  3

  Newcastle upon Tyne, City of

  3—

  —

  2

  2

  North Tyneside Council

  3—

  —

  2

  2

  South Tyneside MBC

  3—

  1

  1

  2

  Sunderland CC

  3—

  1

  —

  1

  1Total figure only available for Northumbria police force area within this period.

  2MCC—Magistrates Courts Committee area.

  3Not available.

  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to reduce antisocial behaviour among young people. [66716]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are introducing a range of initiatives to reduce antisocial behaviour among young people. We are evaluating the success of Acceptable Behaviour Contacts and will be disseminating good practice for practitioners. We are enhancing the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour orders so the community can be protected more quickly. The range of other measures being introduced includes truancy sweeps and the safer schools partnerships scheme. These initiatives build on the work being delivered through the youth inclusion programmes and the Connexions Service as well as a range of programmes introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
  1058W
  Mr. Denham
  Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) were introduced from 1 April 1999. The data given in the table covers the period up to the end of December 2001.

  We are currently considering whether any further checks are needed to ensure the accuracy of this information.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) parenting orders and (b) antisocial behaviour orders have been brought into force in London in each year, broken down by London borough, since their introduction; and if he will make a statement. [66816]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of parenting orders imposed in London between 1 July 2000 to 31 December 2001 are set out in the table. This information comes from the Youth Justice Board.

  Antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) were introduced from 1 April 1999. The data given in the table show the number of ASBOs reported to the Home Office covering the period up to the end of December 2001.

  We are currently considering whether any further checks are needed to ensure the accuracy of the number of ASBOs reported.
  1059W

  Number of parenting orders imposed in London from July 2000 to December 2001

  Borough1

  July to December 2000

  January to December 2001

  Total

  Barking and Dagenham

  4

  12

  16

  Barnet

  1

  7

  8

  Bexley

  0

  2

  2

  Bromley

  0

  4

  4

  Croydon

  6

  7

  Ealing

  1

  9

  10

  Enfield

  6

  1

  7

  Greenwich

  5

  18

  23

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3

  5

  8

  Haringey

  1

  0

  1

  Havering

  2

  5

  7

  Hillingdon

  0

  8

  8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4

  0

  4

  Kingston upon Thames

  9

  6

  15

  Lambeth

  2

  11

  13

  Number of antisocial behaviour orders issued as from 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2001 within London by local government authority

  Area

  From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 20001

  From 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2000

  From 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001

  Total

  Police force area/MCC2

  GLMCA/Metropolitan police3

  9

  19

  13

  41

  Local government authority (LGA)4

  Barnet

  5—

  0

  2

  2

  Bexley

  5—

  2

  0

  2

  Bromley

  5—

  1

  0

  1

  Camden

  5—

  5

  1

  6

  Croydon

  5—

  1

  0

  1

  Greenwich

  5—

  0

  3

  3

  Hackney

  5—

  0

  1

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5—

  0

  2

  2

  Lambeth

  5—

  1

  0

  1

  Lewisham

  5—

  0

  2

  2

  Newham

  5—

  0

  2

  2

  Sutton

  5—

  3

  0

  3

  Westminster

  5—

  6

  0

  6

  1Total figure only available for Metropolitan police force area within this period.

  2 MCC—magistrates courts committee area.

  3Including City of London.

  4Only those LGAs reporting an ASBO in the period shown are listed.

  5Not available.

  Speeding
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives the police on the margins to be allowed in speeding offences. [65778]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest guidelines on speed enforcement thresholds were issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in February 2000. They stress proportionality in applying the law, targeting of enforcement action and consistency of approach among police forces. I welcome the guidelines as providing a sound and transparent basis for police enforcement action in what is a sensitive area of policing. While they are designed to promote a consistent approach by police forces, the police retain full discretion to take account of the particular circumstances of any individual speeding offence.

  The speed enforcement guidelines are available to the general public on the ACPO website at www.acpo.police.uk
  1060W

  Number of parenting orders imposed in London from July 2000 to December 2001

  Borough1

  July to December 2000

  January to December 2001

  Total

  Lewisham

  4

  6

  10

  Merton

  5

  5

  10

  Newham

  1

  3

  4

  Redbridge

  1

  2

  3

  Richmond upon Thames

  0

  8

  8

  Southwark

  16

  15

  31

  Sutton

  5

  1

  6

  Tower Hamlets and (City of London)

  11

  0

  1

  Waltham Forest

  2

  4

  6

  Wandsworth

  0

  11

  11

  Westminster

  6

  7

  13

  Total

  90

  156

  246

  1Only those boroughs that have imposed parenting orders within the period shown are listed.

  Identity Theft
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the level of identity theft; what action he is taking to prevent it; and if he will make a statement. [66482]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) gave the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) on 9 April 2002,Official Report, column 702W.

  Since my right hon. Friend's answer, these figures have been revised. The Cabinet Office published a report on 3 July 2002 stating that the minimum cost of identity fraud to the economy is now estimated to be in excess of £1.3 billion per annum. Two key reasons for this are the weaknesses in the process used to issue documents used as identity, and the weaknesses in processes used to check identity at point of use.

  My right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary published a consultation paper on the subject of entitlement cards and identity fraud on 3 July 2002 which details, and seeks

  1061W
  views on, the potential initiatives to counter identity fraud outlined in the answer to which I referred. The paper also sets out the Home Office's intention to set up a new Identity Fraud Forum to steer the work of the identity fraud work programme.

  Crime and Disorder Act
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [66832]

  Mr. Denham
  The private sector has a key role in contributing to the delivery of crime and disorder reduction. The 1998 Act requires that the private sector are invited to participate in the development and implementation of crime and disorder reduction strategies for their area in co-operation with the local crime and disorder reduction partnership. We will shortly be embarking on extensive consultation with representatives from business organisations on how best to create a more effective partnership between business, Government and other key stakeholders to deliver reductions in crime and disorder.

  Tetra Communication System
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the safety aspects of the Tetra Communication System used by police forces. [66719]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: Airwave, which uses terrestrial trunked radio system (Tetra) technology, will enhance officer safety by providing the police with a modern and reliable communication system. Concerns have been expressed, in general, about the safe use of mobile phones and, in particular, about pulsed signals. Current evidence suggests that it is unlikely that the unique features of Tetra pose a hazard to health. However, a precautionary approach is being taken and the Home Office, advised by independent experts, is commissioning further scientific studies.

  Anti-drug Programmes
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the total amount of money seized from drug barons and put back into anti-drug programmes in each year since 1996; and if he will make a statement. [66291]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 4 July 2002]: The receipts remitted to the Secretary of State from confiscation orders made under the Drug Trafficking Acts 1986 and 1994, for each year from 1996 were:

  £7,415.000 for 1996–97;

  £9,458,000 for 1997–98;

  £ 10,476,000 for 1998–99;

  £9,333.000 for 1999–2000; and

  £11,757,000 for 2000–01.

  The figure for the year 2001–02 is not yet available.

  Between April 1999 and March 2002 a total of £12 million was recycled through the Confiscated Assets Fund (CAF) and disbursed on anti-drug programmes.
  1062W
  The amounts disbursed in each year were £3 million in 1999–2000, £5 million in 2000–01 and £4 million in 2001–02.

  No recycling of confiscated assets to anti-drugs programmes occurred during the period between 1996 and 1999, the year when the Confiscated Assets Fund was established.

  Extradition
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many requests he has received for extradition since 7 June. [68013]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The United Kingdom has received three extradition requests since 7 June 2002. In addition, requests are awaited for six fugitives who have been provisionally arrested since that date.

  The figures do not include requests received from Ireland which are subject to a simpler backing of warrants regime. Those figures are not kept centrally.

  Mayfield College
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what approaches he has received from Sabre Developments Ltd. regarding the potential use of Mayfield college, Mayfield, East Sussex, as an asylum accommodation centre. [67941]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: We have no contact from Sabre Developments Ltd. in respect of using this site as an accommodation centre for asylum seekers.

  Air Weapons
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what recent representations he has received on banning the private ownership of air weapons; and if he will make a statement; [67154]

  (2) what recent representations he has received on increasing the age at which unsupervised use of air weapons is allowed; and if he will make a statement; [67155]

  (3) what steps he is taking to control the advertising of air weapons; and if he will make a statement. [67158]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  /holding answer 8 July 2002]: We have recently received a number of representations about the private ownership of air weapons, both for and against banning them or changing the age limits for unsupervised use.

  The Government totally condemn the irresponsible use of air weapons and are presently reviewing the overall effectiveness of the current range of controls, including those regulating the age at which air weapons can be used without supervision and the way in which they are sold.

  An absolute ban on the ownership of air weapons was considered by the Home Affairs Committee in their second report on controls over firearms. They concluded that such a ban would not be appropriate, but did recommend that the existing laws relating to air weapons be rigorously enforced and that this should be coupled with a programme of education on their safe and

  1063W
  responsible use. We accepted that recommendation and are currently considering advice from the Firearms Consultative Committee on how best to take this forward.

  There are no statutory restrictions at present on the advertising of air weapons. Generally, advertising in the non-broadcast media is subject to self-regulation under the advertising industry's British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion, compliance with which is overseen by the Advertising Standards Authority. The authority will investigate all complaints of non-compliance with the codes, including any about advertisements which appear to condone or are likely to provoke violence or antisocial behaviour.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for selling an air weapon to a person under the age of 18(a) were commenced and (b) resulted in a conviction in each of the past five years. [67153]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The available information is contained in the table and relates to 'selling or letting on hire an air weapon or ammunition to a person under 17'.

  Statistics for 2001 will be available in the autumn.

  Persons proceeded against and found guilty at all courts for selling an air weapon or ammunition to a person under the age of 17, England and Wales 1996 to 20001.2

  Offence description/Statute

  Persons proceeded against

  Persons found guilty

  Selling or letting on hire an air weapon or ammunition to a person under 17: Firearms Act 1968, Sec 24(1)

  1996

  4

  2

  1997

  2

  1

  1998

  4

  3

  1999

  1

  1

  2000

  —

  —

  1These data are on the principal offence basis.

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

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 22 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. B. Benbaziz; [68199]

  (2) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 22 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. and Mrs. Islam; [68200]

  (3) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 22 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Um-Kalthovma; [68202]

  (4) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 22 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. A. R. Nazari; [68197]
  1064W
  (5) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 22 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Sirwan Abdulrehman. [68203]

  Mr. Blunkett
  A reply was sent to my right hon. Friend on 9 July 2002.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Blackpool, South dated 26 March, ref 6529/2. [65620]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 1 July 2002]: A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 27 June 2002.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the letters of 23 January and 23 March from the solicitors to Mr. D M of Aylesbury (ref. M1002217); when he intends to reply; and if he will make a statement. [68507]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The letter of 23 January was received by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) on 25 January 2002 and a reply was sent on 2 May 2002. There is no trace of IND receiving a letter dated 23 March 2002, although a letter dated 25 March 2002 with copies of an application and other documents was received on 27 March 2002. Unfortunately, these documents were not linked to the file until after the reply was sent.

  The application is now being considered urgently and Mr. D M's representatives will be contacted as soon as a decision has been made. I am sorry for the delay in IND actioning this case.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has received the recorded delivery letter RB 6205 2931 OGB, dated 1 May, from Mrs. 0 P of Aylesbury (ref. P404417) concerning her asylum application; when he expects to reply; and if he will make a statement. [68508]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: This letter has been received but regrettably has since been misplaced within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND). Officials are contacting Mrs. 0 P to clarify her inquiry and will then reply to her as soon as possible.

  Passports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new passport applications were approved during 2001. [68448]

  Beverley Hughes
  Of the 5,668,272 passport applications made during 2001, 2,678,935 were classed as new applications. Of these, 1these, 1,209,017 were adult first-time applications and 1,469,918 were child applications. The remainder were made up of renewals, amendments and extensions.

  Child Curfew Orders
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many child curfew orders have been imposed to date in Surrey. [68631]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: No applications have been received to impose child curfew schemes under section 14 of the Crime and Disorder Act

  1065W
  1998. Sections 48 and 49 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. which took effect on 1 August 2001, extended the upper age limit to 15 and allowed the police, as well as local authorities, to initiate schemes. Local areas are assessing the implications of these changes and we know that local consultation is taking place.

  Heartbeat Detectors
  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions a heartbeat detector machine at Dover has broken down or failed to function in the last six months. [68627]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The heartbeat detector requires a structure to protect it from adverse weather, such as high winds. The mechanical doors allowing entry and exit from this structure have, on occasion, failed.

  There have also been occasions when the heartbeat detector itself has required minor attention, but rarely has the fault caused the equipment to be taken out of service. Where it has, the Immigration Service has been able to rely on other methods to detect clandestines, including body detection dogs, carbon dioxide detectors, X and gamma ray scanners, to maintain an effective deterrent and detection capability.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many heartbeat detector machines are installed at(a) Dover, (b) Folkestone, (c) Coquelles and (d) Calais. [68625]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The Immigration Service currently deploys two heartbeat detector machines—one in Dover and one in Coquelles.

  At present there are no ferry services using the port of Folkestone, and consequently, there is no current demand for the deployment of detection technology there. Freight vehicles using the Eurotunnel Freight Shuttle service do, however, arrive at Cheriton, near Folkestone. These are subject to search at or before the British Control Zone at Coquelles before travel.

  A programme is now under way to procure additional heartbeat detectors and other detection technology for deployment at various continental ports serving the United Kingdom, including Calais.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of lorries passing through Dover from France are checked by a(a) dog, (b) heartbeat detector machine, (c) carbon dioxide stick and (d) X-ray machine. [68628]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: Based on collated intelligence and profiling, the Immigration Service currently checks approximately 12 per cent. of lorries which arrive at Dover on cross-channel ferries. Immigration Officers use a combination of all the methods of detection referred to, the choice of which is determined by the characteristics of the vehicle to be searched. No figures are held which illustrate the frequency of use of one method over another.

  National Identity Card Scheme
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the(a) costs
  1066W
  and (b) change in the levels of crime which would result from a compulsory national identity card scheme; and if he will make a statement. [67693]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement to the House on 3 July 2002 announcing the publication of a consultation paper on Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud. The consultation period will last until 10 January 2003. The Government have made it clear that the introduction of an entitlement card would be a major step and that it would not proceed without consulting widely and considering all the views expressed very carefully. The consultation paper rules out a scheme where it would be compulsory to carry a card but does raise the option of a universal scheme where everyone would have to register and obtain a card.

  The paper includes a number of estimates of what a scheme would cost, depending on the sophistication of the card. A reasonable estimate would be that a scheme would cost around £1.3 billion over a 13-year period covering the three years it would take to set up the necessary information technology systems and the 10-year period for which the first cards would be valid.

  This would include much more stringent identity checks than currently apply for passports and driving licences in response to increased levels of fraudulent applications.

  It would also include the costs of using biometric information (fingerprints or iris images) which would uniquely link the card holder with a card.

  A universal entitlement card would be a powerful weapon in the fight against crimes of identity fraud which cost the economy at least £1.3 billion each year. It could also help to combat illegal immigration and illegal working. The degree to which a card scheme could reduce these crimes would depend on the type of card scheme introduced, to what services it was linked and the speed of its introduction. The Government will be consulting on these and other issues during the consultation exercise.

  Police
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of general calls to the force switchboard were not answered within 20 seconds in each police force in England in each year from 1990–91 to 2001–02, ranked from best to worst performance for the most recent year for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [66884]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 July 2002]: The information requested is not collected centrally, and I understand that forces do not routinely measure how long it takes to answer calls to their general switchboards. Times for answering 999 calls are collected and this information has been provided in response to a separate question.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken since 7 June 2001 to ensure that vacancies for the post of chief constable are advertised as quickly as possible. [66334]

  Mr. Denham
  In April 2001, we established the Senior Appointments Panel, chaired by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, to offer advice on the approval
  1067W
  of chief officer candidates and to assist police authorities in the co-ordination and timetabling of the appointments process.

  Work is currently under way to develop detailed guidance for police authorities on the recruitment and selection of chief officers, drawn up in close consultation with key stakeholders. That will replace the current guidance in Home Office Circular 52–96. The new guidance will set out a wide range of best practice on all aspects of chief officer recruitment and selection procedures, including the setting of an appropriate timetable for key steps in the process at the point a vacancy arises.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was spent by the relevant pension fund on paying pensions to retired members of the police force in 2001–02; if he will estimate the corresponding amounts to be spent in(a) five years' time, (b) 10 years' time, (c) 20 years' time and (d) 30 years' time; if he will estimate in each case the proportion of such liabilities which will arise from (i) unfunded pension schemes and (ii) pre-funded pension schemes; and in the case of pre-funded schemes; if he will estimate the value of the corresponding pre-funded funds in each of these years. [66560]

  Mr. Denham
  The Police Pension Scheme is an unfunded scheme. The cost of police pensions in England and Wales in 2001–02 is estimated at £1.1 billion. Estimated costs to individual police authorities in 2001–02 are set out in the table. No projections of police pensions' costs in five, 10, 20 and 30 years' time are available. These are matters for individual police authorities.

  As we made clear in the White Paper 'Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform', we are aware of the need of police authorities and chief officers for a system which brings greater clarity about pensions obligations on individual police authorities. With the Treasury we are examining the options for a revised system of funding which would bring this about.

  Net pensions expenditure

  Force

  £000

  Avon and Somerset Police

  31,585

  Bedfordshire Police

  9,078

  Cambridgeshire Police

  10,674

  Cheshire Police

  16,599

  City of London

  9,578

  Cleveland Police

  13,478

  Cumbria Police

  10,765

  Derbyshire Police

  14,473

  Devon and Cornwall Police

  28,313

  Dorset Police

  12,728

  Durham Police

  10,991

  Dyfed Powys

  8,435

  Essex Police

  25,211

  Gloucestershire Police

  10,301

  Greater Manchester Police

  66,792

  Gwent Police Authority

  9,621

  Hampshire Police

  24,537

  Hertfordshire Police

  12,308

  Humberside Police

  18,572

  Kent Police

  26,759

  Lancashire Police

  28,568

  Leicestershire Police

  14,706

  Lincolnshire Police

  12,820

  Merseyside Police

  43,542

  1068W

  Net pensions expenditure

  Force

  £000

  Metropolitan Police (GLA)

  254,767

  Norfolk Police

  12,354

  North Wales

  13,249

  North Yorkshire Police

  14,757

  Northamptonshire Police

  8,484

  Northumbria Police

  32,794

  Nottinghamshire Police

  21,457

  South Wales

  30,169

  South Yorkshire Police

  22,805

  Staffordshire Police

  22,866

  Suffolk Police

  11,130

  Surrey Police

  11,605

  Sussex Police

  29,312

  Thames Valley Police

  24,971

  Warwickshire Police

  10,300

  West Mercia Police

  18,183

  West Midlands Police

  51,133

  West Yorkshire Police

  47,066

  Wiltshire Police

  9,272

  Total

  1,117,108

  Source:

  The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Police Statistics 2001–02 (Estimates)

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police vehicles were involved in road accidents resulting in(a) slight injuries, (b) serious injuries and (c) fatal accidents in the last five years. [65786]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information is set out in table and relates to the number of injuries and deaths involving police vehicles engaged in immediate/ emergency response or pursuit only.

  Deaths

  Serious injury

  Slight injury

  1997–98

  15

  200

  1,923

  1998–99

  11

  210

  1,653

  1999–2000

  14

  115

  1,645

  2000–01

  19

  163

  1,973

  2001–02

  24

  168

  1,768

  Notes:

  (i) The information has been provided by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), to which forces submit statistical returns.

  (ii) Data are missing from one force in 1998–99 and 1999–2000; and from two forces 2000–01.

  (iii) All figures are for financial year.

  (iv) The figures are numbers of deaths/injuries, not numbers of accidents.

  (v) The figures include both police and civilian casualties.

  (vi) The figures for 2001–02 are provisional only. Data are missing from four forces.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police vehicles committed traffic violations and what was the(a) nature of these violations and (b) number of prosecutions arising from them in the last 12 months. [65758]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many guns each police force possesses, broken down by type; how many officers each force has trained in the use of guns, broken down by rank;
  1069W
  and how many incidents there have been in each force in which guns have been used by officers in each of the last five years; and how many fatalities have resulted. [65641]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the numbers and types of firearms held by each force, and details of the ranks of authorised firearms officers, is not held centrally. The collection of this information could only be done at disproportionate cost.

  I have attached the most recently published figures on the number of authorised firearms officers and also on operations in which firearms were issued. The number of persons shot by police over the same period and the number of those whose wounds were fatal, are also attached.

  Number of operations in which firearms were issued

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Total

  12,379

  11,842

  10,928

  10,915

  Avon and Somerset

  312

  139

  88

  90

  Bedfordshire

  345

  323

  260

  190

  Cambridgeshire

  54

  96

  43

  75

  Cheshire

  288

  216

  299

  386

  Cleveland

  1,026

  103

  35

  76

  City of London

  308

  307

  147

  125

  Cumbria

  72

  68

  52

  24

  Derbyshire

  109

  147

  176

  178

  Devon and Cornwall

  160

  133

  61

  65

  Dorset

  36

  54

  69

  79

  Durham

  131

  103

  114

  114

  Essex

  331

  505

  590

  497

  Gloucestershire

  41

  51

  52

  52

  Greater Manchester

  214

  165

  160

  224

  Hampshire

  245

  217

  129

  103

  Hertfordshire

  96

  82

  75

  73

  Humberside

  291

  472

  317

  193

  Kent

  236

  423

  92

  85

  Lancashire

  333

  338

  616

  267

  Leicestershire

  155

  89

  109

  222

  Lincolnshire

  58

  52

  57

  155

  Merseyside

  671

  675

  484

  489

  Metropolitan

  2,439

  2,578

  2,742

  2,862

  Norfolk

  166

  128

  185

  239

  Northamptonshire

  64

  77

  51

  57

  Northumbria

  1,360

  823

  683

  465

  North Yorkshire

  65

  102

  69

  61

  Nottinghamshire

  84

  306

  266

  255

  South Yorkshire

  155

  302

  135

  237

  Staffordshire

  257

  240

  209

  174

  Suffolk

  180

  193

  174

  165

  Surrey

  133

  87

  60

  143

  Sussex

  235

  330

  123

  185

  Thames Valley

  215

  227

  158

  110

  Warwickshire

  97

  152

  291

  194

  West Mercia

  106

  132

  130

  110

  West Midlands

  270

  227

  305

  362

  West Yorkshire

  617

  630

  662

  813

  Wiltshire

  26

  26

  24

  19

  Dyfed-Powys

  17

  27

  38

  37

  Gwent

  89

  86

  64

  39

  North Wales

  233

  310

  386

  371

  South Wales

  59

  101

  148

  255

  Number of authorised firearms officers (AFOs)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Total

  6,738

  6,585

  6,308

  6,262

  Avon and Somerset

  165

  161

  153

  150

  Bedfordshire

  46

  42

  50

  46

  Cambridgeshire

  90

  80

  80

  77

  Cheshire

  70

  82

  70

  75

  1070W

  Number of authorised firearms officers (AFOs)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Cleveland

  86

  84

  78

  80

  City of London

  88

  81

  55

  73

  Cumbria

  108

  122

  98

  98

  Derbyshire

  110

  100

  87

  77

  Devon and Cornwall

  151

  147

  82

  119

  Dorset

  74

  72

  72

  66

  Durham

  138

  144

  96

  101

  Essex

  228

  217

  235

  228

  Gloucestershire

  82

  84

  79

  77

  Greater Manchester

  209

  182

  217

  218

  Hampshire

  106

  112

  110

  111

  Hertfordshire

  42

  41

  43

  52

  Humberside

  90

  102

  102

  97

  Kent

  150

  150

  130

  136

  Lancashire

  132

  125

  132

  143

  Leicestershire

  104

  94

  90

  90

  Lincolnshire

  82

  85

  75

  78

  Merseyside

  147

  165

  121

  96

  Metropolitan

  2,035

  1,971

  1,951

  1,977

  Norfolk

  98

  102

  109

  110

  Northamptonshire

  92

  92

  92

  75

  Northumbria

  173

  126

  123

  114

  North Yorkshire

  108

  95

  83

  59

  Nottinghamshire

  128

  129

  120

  116

  South Yorkshire

  110

  108

  90

  100

  Staffordshire

  78

  86

  92

  81

  Suffolk

  82

  96

  101

  98

  Surrey

  76

  61

  69

  71

  Sussex

  180

  146

  156

  131

  Thames Valley

  185

  194

  179

  187

  Warwickshire

  41

  38

  44

  54

  West Mercia

  155

  159

  139

  129

  West Midlands

  88

  95

  92

  93

  West Yorkshire

  131

  114

  128

  110

  Wiltshire

  134

  105

  88

  89

  Dyfed-Powys

  70

  71

  67

  65

  Gwent

  70

  59

  64

  68

  North Wales

  72

  90

  97

  92

  South Wales

  134

  176

  169

  155

  Persons shot by police

  Fatally wounded

  1997

  1

  —

  1998

  5

  2

  1999

  7

  3

  2000

  6

  2

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) policemen and (b) police women there were in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [66468]

  Mr. Denham
  At 30 September 1997 there were 107,505 full-time equivalent male police officers and 19,357 full-time equivalent female police officers in England and Wales.

  At 30 September 2001 there were 105,136 full-time equivalent male police officers and 22,094 full-time equivalent female police officers in England and Wales.

  We have reversed the long-term decline in police strength. Police officer numbers had reached a record number by the end of January 2002. We are on track for our target of 130,000 officers by spring 2003.

  The proportion of female officers has risen from 15 per cent. to 17 per cent., and raising the representation of women in the Police Service is an area we are continuing to address.
  1071W
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are issued to police forces regarding(a) colour blindness tests for recruits and (b) the standards which recruits must attain to be accepted. [66465]

  Mr. Denham
  Guidelines issued by the Home Office (Home Office Circular 7/98) state that candidates for the police service need to be able to pass the City University Colour Vision Test and achieve 7/10 of the plates to pass.

  The Home Office are currently funding research to develop new job related medical and eyesight standards. The research includes whether there is a continuing need for a colour vision requirement. Draft recommendations on eyesight requirements are due shortly. These will be discussed with The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and police interest groups and are expected to be introduced later this year. All forces will be expected to apply the new standards consistently.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his review of police pension arrangements. [65633]

  Mr. Denham
  As we stated in our White Paper "Policing a New Century: A Blueprint for Reform", we are looking at ways of modernising police pensions to make them more flexible and affordable for future entrants and to reflect modern lifestyle patterns. This is a complex area, which needs careful consideration.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) arrests and (b) prosecutions there were in the Peterlee Sub Division for (i) use of illegal substances, (ii) possession of illegal substances and (iii) the dealing in illegal substances in (a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [65586]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The available information, relating to illegal drugs, is as follows.

  Persons1proceeded against in the Easington petty sessional area for the possession of and dealing in a controlled drug, 1999 and 2000

  Easington petty sessional area

  Possession of a controlled drug

  1999

  21

  2000

  61

  Dealing in a controlled drug2

  1999

  21

  2000

  61

  1Persons for whom these offences were the principal offence for which they were dealt with.

  2Includes offences of importation/exportation, production, supplying, possession with intent to supply etc.

  The number of arrests within the Peterlee Sub Division of Durham Constabulary are not available centrally. The `use' of illegal drugs is not an offence.

  Statistics for 2001 will be available in the autumn.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on improving public access to police stations in local communities; and if he will make a statement. [62291]
  1072W
  Mr. Denham
  The management of police property and allocation of resources are matters for each police authority and the chief officer who are best placed to assess local needs for the policing plan and local operational priorities, taking local opinion into account.

  In guidance issued in 2001 we made it a requirement for police authorities to include in their annual policing/best value performance plans details of any police stations which have opened or closed in the previous financial year.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables are serving, and what the total was on 1 May 1997, broken down by individual police authorities; how many special constables(a) were recruited to each police authority in each year since 1997 and (b) left; what regulations govern the method of recruitment and enlistment of special constables, and whether they vary between police area; and how long a gap there was on average in the last 12 months between a potential special constable's volunteering and eventual enlistment, broken down by police area. [65493]

  Mr. Denham
  Statistics on the strength of the special constabulary are collected by the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate for the end of March and September each year.

  The tables show the strength of specials, by force, in 1997 and 2001 and details, by force, of recruitment and wastage for each year since 1997.

  The Special Constables Regulations 1965 (as amended) specify that a person appointed as a special must have attained the age of 18 years and be of good character and health. Beyond that, the regulations leave qualification for appointment to the discretion of the chief officer. However, the Home Office has issued guidance on the eligibility and recruitment of specials, in particular, Home Office Circular 12/2000, copies of which have been lodged with the Library.

  Information on time taken between the application and appointment of specials is not collected centrally.

  Special constable strength by police force area

  March 1997

  September 1997

  March 2001

  September 2001

  Avon and Somerset

  759

  629

  400

  391

  Bedfordshire

  182

  186

  115

  119

  Cambridgeshire

  303

  336

  218

  197

  Cheshire

  475

  491

  290

  233

  Cleveland

  160

  157

  93

  98

  Cumbria

  189

  184

  156

  125

  Derbyshire

  428

  414

  275

  263

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,148

  1,079

  796

  780

  Dorset

  289

  325

  267

  258

  Durham

  184

  178

  146

  146

  Essex

  634

  641

  445

  413

  Gloucestershire

  297

  287

  183

  153

  Greater Manchester

  685

  657

  367

  355

  Hampshire

  621

  681

  454

  444

  Hertfordshire

  297

  306

  198

  177

  Humberside

  340

  348

  212

  207

  Kent

  589

  588

  392

  366

  Lancashire

  483

  500

  360

  325

  Leicestershire

  415

  402

  162

  155

  Lincolnshire

  271

  273

  166

  160

  City of London

  86

  84

  43

  34

  1073W

  Special constable strength by police force area

  March 1997

  September 1997

  March 2001

  September 2001

  Merseyside

  401

  407

  541

  507

  Metropolitan police

  1,714

  1,528

  774

  753

  Norfolk

  402

  346

  259

  240

  Northamptonshire

  316

  314

  188

  184

  Northumbria

  533

  480

  300

  276

  North Yorkshire

  362

  337

  182

  186

  Nottinghamshire

  620

  597

  335

  281

  South Yorkshire

  308

  295

  188

  189

  Staffordshire

  685

  643

  402

  395

  Suffolk

  379

  300

  349

  322

  Surrey

  297

  231

  149

  176

  Sussex

  472

  465

  306

  301

  Recruitment and wastage 1997–2001–-specials recruitment/wastage in the 12 months to 31 March, by force (England and Wales)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Police force

  Recruitment

  Wastage

  Recruitment

  Wastage

  Recruitment

  Wastage

  Recruitment

  Wastage

  Recruitment

  Wastage

  Avon and Somerset

  203

  171

  138

  140

  98

  172

  38

  126

  57

  124

  Bedfordshire

  35

  29

  39

  31

  II

  42

  17

  20

  7

  43

  Cambridgeshire

  106

  53

  103

  86

  62

  36

  58

  76

  43

  79

  Cheshire

  272

  71

  140

  119

  64

  119

  15

  59

  4

  58

  Cleveland

  16

  29

  25

  21

  39

  22

  13

  27

  7

  10

  Cumbria

  30

  41

  39

  31

  40

  28

  18

  46

  7

  25

  Derbyshire

  105

  54

  62

  110

  29

  92

  30

  65

  46

  53

  Devon and Cornwall

  194

  162

  192

  256

  158

  179

  119

  139

  87

  131

  Dorset

  70

  25

  90

  42

  54

  50

  48

  31

  22

  48

  Durham

  47

  49

  41

  41

  47

  37

  36

  30

  34

  43

  Essex

  185

  154

  173

  165

  84

  130

  61

  106

  92

  128

  Gloucestershire

  34

  51

  33

  48

  12

  55

  20

  38

  13

  36

  Greater Manchester

  156

  217

  94

  181

  66

  141

  73

  139

  41

  131

  Hampshire

  235

  88

  222

  128

  252

  190

  90

  235

  50

  177

  Hertfordshire

  61

  74

  53

  43

  33

  62

  31

  42

  27

  41

  Humberside

  61

  108

  44

  61

  138

  85

  18

  30

  12

  43

  Kent

  220

  102

  202

  199

  138

  203

  89

  179

  102

  143

  Lancashire

  182

  230

  97

  87

  60

  90

  41

  75

  36

  58

  Leicestershire

  84

  31

  61

  70

  17

  107

  25

  94

  0

  85

  Lincolnshire

  46

  50

  60

  66

  27

  71

  14

  30

  8

  40

  City of London

  32

  23

  22

  32

  17

  29

  8

  14

  0

  15

  Merseyside

  145

  61

  141

  58

  111

  52

  55

  24

  77

  57

  Metropolitan police

  191

  246

  127

  264

  7

  94

  1

  39

  41

  29

  Norfolk

  154

  71

  64

  129

  84

  83

  36

  86

  35

  61

  Northamptonshire

  89

  68

  39

  63

  26

  76

  35

  76

  53

  64

  Northumbria

  121

  60

  63

  153

  72

  103

  60

  71

  58

  79

  North Yorkshire

  96

  40

  68

  72

  32

  114

  32

  114

  25

  60

  Nottinghamshire

  200

  112

  69

  131

  70

  126

  24

  32

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  40

  115

  50

  76

  53

  99

  24

  69

  37

  55

  Staffordshire

  120

  140

  69

  108

  55

  121

  64

  58

  17

  91

  Suffolk

  56

  78

  86

  69

  107

  92

  90

  119

  55

  97

  Surrey

  49

  15

  46

  60

  44

  29

  23

  56

  28

  33

  Sussex

  76

  116

  105

  134

  55

  83

  41

  82

  27

  58

  Thames Valley

  192

  168

  119

  100

  85

  95

  49

  100

  51

  108

  Warwickshire

  65

  64

  66

  119

  44

  128

  44

  128

  0

  41

  West Mercia

  66

  72

  72

  79

  81

  71

  61

  50

  64

  334

  West Midlands

  398

  350

  213

  243

  145

  206

  115

  116

  120

  150

  West Yorkshire

  207

  221

  81

  200

  117

  130

  163

  180

  102

  126

  Wiltshire

  1—

  39

  36

  22

  61

  25

  23

  34

  45

  66

  Dyfed-Powys

  57

  89

  80

  112

  29

  46

  21

  44

  24

  45

  Gwent

  13

  18

  0

  46

  13

  20

  16

  10

  38

  17

  North Wales

  119

  35

  57

  52

  38

  56

  10

  82

  11

  18

  South Wales

  80

  179

  79

  74

  48

  64

  18

  37

  37

  33

  Total all forces

  4.908

  4,169

  3,660

  4.321

  2,823

  3,853

  1.867

  3,208

  1.640

  3,133

  1Not available.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in each of the last five years the Metropolitan police has lost the files of those seeking to enlist as special constables. [65612]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that current records indicate there have been no missing files during the course of 2002. Information is not centrally available to the Metropolitan police service in order to indicate the position regarding the proceeding four years.
  1074W

  Special constable strength by police force area

  March 1997

  September1997

  March 2001

  September 2001

  Thames Valley

  656

  694

  418

  377

  Warwickshire

  381

  379

  221

  208

  West Mercia

  582

  558

  399

  364

  West Midlands

  945

  949

  617

  604

  West Yorkshire

  690

  604

  415

  371

  Wiltshire

  154

  150

  152

  160

  Dyfed Powys

  283

  241

  191

  174

  Gwent

  157

  149

  137

  148

  North Wales

  341

  388

  207

  203

  South Wales

  361

  362

  254

  250

  Total all forces

  19,874

  19,163

  12,722

  12,068

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the establishment is of the Honourable Artillery Company's Metropolitan Special Constabulary; what its strength is; how many constables enlisted in each year since 1997; and what the delay between recruitment and enlistment was. [65611]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that there is no specific establishment figure for the Metropolitan Special Constabulary Unit associated with the Honourable Artillery Company. The current strength of the unit is 14 special constables. It is understood that three special
  1075W
  constables have joined the unit since 1997, but data on their year of joining or how long it took to process these individuals is not centrally available to the Metropolitan police service.

  Yarl's Wood Fire
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons charged with criminal offences arising out of the fire at Yarl's Wood have received legal aid to instruct solicitors and counsel; [68635]

  (2) in relation to the fire at Yarl's Wood, how many criminal charges have been preferred; what the nationalities of those charged are; and what the charges are; [68652]

  (3) in relation to the fire at Yarl's Wood, what allegations of crimes against Kosovan women were reported which did not result in charges being preferred. [68633]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: These are all matters which should be addressed to the Chief Officer of the Bedfordshire police. However, I understand that 12 people have been charged with violent disorder in relation to the incident at Yarl's Wood. Of these, five are Nigerian, two are Algerian, two are Albanian, one is Kosovan, one is Yugoslav and one is from the Ivory Coast. I further understand that all of these people have received legal aid to instruct solicitors and counsel.

  Reported allegations of crimes against Kosovan women is also a matter for the Chief Officer of Bedfordshire police. However, I understand that there have been no such allegations.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many potential witnesses in relation to criminal trials arising out of the Yarl's Wood fire have been(a) removed and (b) deported; and whether arrangements will be made for their return to give evidence. [68654]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: Information about the number of witnesses who have been removed is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by an examination of individual case files. There is, however, an existing procedure in place for the police to contact the Immigration Service should they wish to request the return of a prosecution witness to attend a trial where there is a reason to believe that a person will not qualify for entry.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to the fire at Yarl's Wood, how many persons absconded following the fire; how many have been recaptured; and what criminal charges have been laid against those recaptured. [68653]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: In the immediate aftermath of events at Yarl's Wood on 14–15 February 2002 there were 21 detainees unaccounted for. Of these 15 remain unaccounted for. They are believed to have absconded during the fire and disturbance and efforts to trace and apprehend them are continuing.

  Whether there should be any criminal charges against those concerned is a matter for the police.
  1076W
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the cause of the clashes between detainees and Group 4 staff at Yarl's Wood prior to the fire; and if he will make a statement. [67676]

  Beverley Hughes
  Stephen Moore is currently heading a Home Office investigation into the events at Yarl's Wood and we await his recommendations. It would be inappropriate to comment further at the present time.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been released from Oakington Centre pending their appeals; and what proportion are at addresses known to the authorities. [68632]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: From 20 March 2000 to 31 December 2001, 10,075 principal applicants received at the Oakington Reception Centre have lodged appeals. Of these, all would have been released either to an agreed address and required as a condition of their temporary admission to notify the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) of any change of address, or to a secure detention centre.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the asylum processing procedure. [66893]

  Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary pub White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven" on 7 February 2002, followed on 12 April 2002 by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, which is currently before Parliament. These both outline the steps that we are taking to improve the asylum processing procedure.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he has made of the use of barges to house asylum seekers in the Netherlands; and if he will make a statement. [68621]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: No such studies have been made. The Home Office has, however, commissioned research to examine the reception policies and practice of four European countries (Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany).

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase and improve the training of initial decision makers in asylum cases. [68641]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: There are no current plans to increase and improve the training of initial decision-makers in asylum cases.

  Current training plan supports business delivery of asylum decision making targets.

  Training is continually evaluated, post course and after several months in post to make sure that it is meeting needs.

  Changes are made in light of feedback from asylum staff or in response to legislative/procedural changes.
  1077W
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to initial decision makers in asylum cases, what educational or legal qualifications are required; what period of training is required; and what the relevant salary scales are. [68639]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The majority of initial decision makers in asylum cases are appointed at executive officer level within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND).

  No formal educational or legal qualifications are required for entry to this grade. Selection to the grade is competency based.

  Those appointed to the posts receive a three day induction programme on the organisation of IND and the Integrated Casework Directorate, followed by a two week programme on asylum knowledge and processes. Thereafter, caseworkers receive two weeks mentoring in a dedicated unit and a three day training programme in interviewing skills.

  The minimum starting salary for an executive officer in Croydon is £16,663 per annum.

  Progression to higher salaries is based on an annual review of performance in the grade.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many initial decision makers in asylum cases were in post in January of each year since 1997. [68640]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The latest available information is shown in the table.

  Number of initial decision makers in post in January of each year since 1997

  Number in post in January

  1997

  Records not available

  1998

  Records not available

  19991

  Records not available

  2000

  174

  2001

  761

  2002

  697

  1The Integrated Casework Directorate started recording staffing data in December 1999. Staffing records identifying initial decision makers in asylum cases before then are not available.

  All data relates to asylum initial decision makers in the Immigration Nationality Directorate (IND).

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) current asylum seekers and (b) asylum seekers who have been refused asylum but have lodged appeals are held in custody in detention centres or prisons. [68638]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The latest available information on the number of persons detained solely under Immigration Act powers relates to 30 March 2002. As at that date, 1,140 persons (to the nearest five) were being detained at immigration service removal centres, immigration short-term holding facilities and prison establishments who are recorded as having claimed asylum at some stage.
  1078W
  I regret that information on the number of these persons who are awaiting an initial decision on their asylum claim or who have lodged an appeal is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  Information on Immigration Act detainees as at 29 June 2002 will be published on 30 August 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ rds/immigrationl.html.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to identify on French territory asylum seekers who might have a valid claim to asylum in the UK. [68643]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: Intensive discussions are continuing between the United Kingdom (UK) and French governments on illegal immigration through France to the UK. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his French counterpart Nicolas Sarkozy met on 25 June 2002. The two Ministers plan to meet again on 12 July 2002. There are no present plans for the UK authorities to process asylum applications in France.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will commission studies to ascertain the comparative costs of housing asylum seekers in(a) Germany, (h) the Netherlands and (c) the United Kingdom. [68622]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: The Home Office is not planning to commission research on the comparative costs of housing asylum seekers in (a) Germany, (b) the Netherlands and (c) the United Kingdom. The Home Office has however, commissioned research to examine the reception policies and practice of four European countries (Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany). This includes an analysis of the impact of accommodation centres on (1) application rates, (2) the speed of the determination process, (3) the facilitation of return and removals, and (4) integration.

  Comparative costs of accommodation centres and dispersal support and accommodation in the United Kingdom will be evaluated as part of the accommodation centres trial.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his figures on removals of failed asylum seekers include dependants; and whether this policy has operated in each of the last five years. [68636]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: Information on dependants of asylum seekers removed was not routinely collected until April 2001. Asylum removals statistics prior to this time relate to only the number of principal applicants removed and exclude dependants. The statistics since April 2001 show both the number of principal applicants removed and the number of dependants removed.

  Asylum removals statistics are published on a quarterly basis on the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html, as well as annually in the Home Office Statistical Bulletins `Asylum Statistics' and 'Control of Immigration Statistics'

  1079W
  and the Command Paper 'Control of Immigration Statistics', copies of which are available in the Library and on the Home Office website.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the changed circumstances are that have led to the decision not to use the special urgency provisions of circular 18/84 relating to proposed accommodation centres at Hemswell Cliff. [50497]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 16 April 2002]: We took the decision in response to representations from local councils and residents.

  Immigration and Nationality Department
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent by his Department on advertising for posts in the Immigration and Nationality Department in 2001. [68014]

  Beverley Hughes
  The amount spent on advertising for posts in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate for the period 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001 is £332,263.14.

  Immigration and Customs Officials
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British immigration or customs officials are deployed at(a) Coquelles, (b) Calais and (c) Brussels Station. [68626]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: A total of 129 immigration officers are currently deployed in the British Control Zone at Coquelles. There are no immigration officers currently deployed at Calais port or at Brussels station.

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have an approximate complement of 270 officers who operate in both the tourist and freight lanes, of the United Kingdom Control Zone at Coquelles. There are no customs officers based at Calais or Brussels station.

  Illegal Entrants
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal entrants have been discovered at Waterloo Eurostar in each of the last six months. [68646]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002] There have been no illegal entrants discovered at Waterloo International terminal in the last six months.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal entrants have been discovered at Dover in each of the last six months. [68645]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: In the first six months of this year the Immigration Service at Dover detected and initially detained 275 illegal entrants in January, 230 in February, 207 in March, 268 in April, 322 in May and 329 in June.

  These figures exclude illegal entrants who had evaded controls concealed in vehicles and were subsequently discovered by Kent Police and those illegal entrants who attempted to enter the United Kingdom concealed in rail wagons and were intercepted at the Dollands Moor freight yard at Cheriton.

  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of(a) lorries and (b) other vehicles passing through Dover from France were not checked for purposes of seeking to discover illegal entrants over the last 12 months. [68620]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 9 July 2002]: Approximately 2,500 lorries arrive at Dover every day on hoard cross Channel ferries. The majority of these vehicles will have undergone pre-boarding checks conducted by agents for either the carrier or the port authority. In addition, over the last 12 months the Immigration Service has checked on average of almost 8 per cent. of lorries on arrival at Dover. With effect from May 2002 the search ratio has increased to 12 per cent. Selection is based on collated intelligence and profiles.

  Other vehicles such as private cars and vans are not systematically checked by Immigration Officers at Dover, but checks are carried out where a vehicle fits a particular profile or where the Immigration Officer's suspicions are otherwise aroused.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Overseas Research Students
Lord Hunt of Chestertonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will increase the funding, via the Higher Education Funding Council, of exceptionally talented overseas research students to ensure the continuing excellence and international competitiveness of scholarships and research in leading United Kingdom universities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, decisions on funding for the overseas research student awards scheme are determined by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The scheme's budget for the 2002–03 academic year will be a maximum of £12 million, compared with £11.2 million last year. Up to 850 new awards and 1,400 renewals will be made under the scheme to individual research students.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, are the Government aware that without further expansion of the current scheme or an equivalent one, and without improved work permit arrangements, leading UK universities which are losing UK university research students will not be able to offer places to the ablest scholars from around the world, who will clearly be deflected to the United States?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we are very concerned to ensure that we have as many opportunities as possible for students to come here from overseas to engage in research. My noble friend will be aware of the initiative to that effect launched by the Prime Minister. I am pleased that the number of international higher education students in this country is increasing dramatically. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that the non-EU total for international students has increased this year to 141,000, compared with 110,000 in 1996–97. In looking at our strategy for higher education, the valid points which my noble friend has made are taken into account.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, while I support the concept behind the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, I hope that the Minister believes it is important that, when these students have completed their studies here and obtained their degrees or done their post-doctoral
680
work, they will return to their own countries and have a strong input into the development of excellence in science there. Is that not important?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. It is essential that, as part of the global scientific community, we ensure that we have the right kind of research and those opportunities to collaborate. Those students benefit this country, and they should be able to do the same for their own nation.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I should first declare an interest as a governor of the LSE and as vice-chairman of the Open University. In view of the mounting financial crisis in universities, does the Minister agree that if our universities are to maintain the standards of excellence necessary to attract the outstanding students for whom this ORS scheme is designed, the Government clearly have to set free the universities not only to increase their fees significantly, but of course to retain the proceeds?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. I am sure that noble Lords are fully aware of the current review of student finance. They may also be aware from this morning's press of the major strategy paper that we shall publish in the autumn. These questions are very much part of the Government's thinking.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to confirm or deny the story in The Times this morning that education is a big winner in the Comprehensive Spending Review?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that is a great question for the noble Lord's birthday, which I understand is today. However, I am unable to confirm or deny that. Noble Lords may have noticed that I have my fingers crossed.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the prestigious Marie Curie scholarships which are granted by the European Commission. To what extent is Britain receiving its fair share of these young scholars to work in our laboratories, and to what extent are our own scholars gaining this opportunity to work in laboratories abroad?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as I knew that the noble Baroness is interested in this issue, I was careful to ensure that I had the information. The United Kingdom has the highest take-up rate among those receiving awards under the Marie Curie scheme. The noble Baroness will be very pleased to hear that the United Kingdom is the number one destination for award recipients. Some 30 per cent come here, with 17 per cent going to France and 10.5 per cent to Germany. I have been unable to ascertain the flow of traffic in the opposite direction, but I shall of course write to her when I have that information.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, will the Minister soon be reviewing the salary level of all those working in higher education, to ensure that our students do not become overseas students in the near future?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord raises the important issue of academic pay. Noble Lords will not only have heard me and others talk about that issue; they will also be aware of the additional funding for higher education pay—£170 million for 2003–04, for example—that we made available in the last spending review. We are also considering introducing a scheme of "golden hellos" for new staff in shortage subjects. As noble Lords will be aware, we expect to announce those plans in the autumn. We very clearly examine what is happening to academic salaries around the globe. Research by organisations such as the Association of Commonwealth Universities and the US National Center for Education Statistics shows that, although there are disparities in some cases, academic salary levels are roughly the same.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the immense value of the Chevening scholarship scheme—which I realise is not sponsored by her department—in bringing the younger generation of potential world leaders to British universities? Can she assure us that that scheme will be maintained and, if possible, expanded further? A number of my former students are now rapidly rising up the political, administrative and other ladders in their own countries. That is a long-term investment for Britain.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, indeed, I can give that commitment. I assure the noble Lord that we are keen to ensure that we have long-term relationships with other countries. I understand from my noble friend that we have increased the Chevening scholarship.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I declare an interest as a professor emeritus in an American university. Does the Minister accept that the real comparison has to be between the salaries paid in the United States and those paid in this country as most able graduates who are in the market for academic jobs are attracted to the United States rather than to anywhere else? Does she not agree that salaries in the United States are of the order of one-and-a-half to two times greater in real terms than in this country and that there is a serious continuing brain drain to American universities?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have looked carefully at the figures for American universities. As the noble Baroness will be aware—she deservedly holds a post at a prestigious American university—salaries at American universities vary considerably. The noble Baroness makes an important point. The average professor at certain American universities receives a salary well in excess of 100,000
682
US dollars. As I say, there is great variety in that area. We consider carefully what we should be doing in that regard across the whole field of higher education.

British Museum Great Court
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Strangeasked Her Majesty's Government:
How much the refurbishing of the British Museum's new Great Court cost, and how great are the annual costs for maintaining this museum.
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the museum's Great Court project cost a total of £99.6 million. The Millennium Commission contributed £30 million, the Heritage Lottery Fund £15.4 million, the Garfield Weston Foundation £20 million and the remaining £34.2 million was funded by private sponsorship. The museum's operating costs in 2000–01 were £51.4 million and its estimated outturn in 2001–02 is £57.8 million.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her courteous and informative reply. Does she agree—as I am sure she does—that the British Museum is a splendid, world-renowned and great building? It is the British Museum. That does seem a great deal of money but the Great Court is absolutely marvellous in every way and something of enduring value. Could she perhaps tell us by contrast how much the Millennium Dome, which is beautiful but ephemeral, cost?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, says, the British Museum is a great institution with fantastic collections, marvellous scholarship, wonderful visitor facilities and extremely interesting exhibitions. It is extremely important to Britain's cultural life and it is important that it should continue to operate as a successful institution. I do not believe that the noble Baroness's question about the Dome has very much to do with the future of the British Museum.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I declare my interest as joint president of the All-Party Arts and Heritage Group. Has my noble friend seen the letter from Sir Patrick Cormack, the chairman of that group, explaining the problems of the British Museum? It is probably the greatest museum in the world. This autumn Neil MacGregor will move from the National Gallery to become the Director of the British Museum. We must encourage him to use his talents in the best way by ensuring that there will be sufficient funds not to close any of the great rooms and to be able to maintain the standards of that great institution. Will my noble friend continue to show her enthusiasm for the British Museum which she has shown in the past?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, my enthusiasm for the British Museum knows no bounds. I shall certainly continue to try to demonstrate it. I have had a number of discussions with Neil MacGregor who will, as my noble friend said, become the Director of the British Museum. He has some extremely exciting and interesting plans for it. As regards its funding, the Government have provided a 4.7 per cent real-terms increase in funding for the museum since 1998. Clearly, I am unable to say what the future holds for its funding until the outcome of the spending review.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, in view of these great financial difficulties, will the British Museum sell off any items from its collection, as I am afraid that it has done sometimes in the past in the case of the Benin Bronzes, many of which were not duplicates?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not believe that the British Museum has any intention of selling off any of its collection. Indeed, it is proscribed by law from doing so, with the exception of duplicates. I understand that the Benin Bronzes that were given to the Government of Nigeria to allow them to establish a museum for them were all duplicates.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, is not the problem with the British Museum somewhat more profound than that of the criticism it has received about the Great Court, its cost, its magnificent roof and the other improvements? Those at the museum must have been disappointed about the kind of stone that was used, which was not that which was ordered, but that pales into insignificance beside the fact that, as has been said, it is one of the greatest museums in the world. However, in a way, through no fault of its own, it has riot quite caught up with the demands of the 21st century. After all, it was a 19th century institution. It maintains high standards but it is finding it difficult to balance its books. Will the Government give an undertaking that they will not only support it financially, but also support it in trying to develop a new strategy so that it attracts more people through its portals and thus generates more income to pay its staff, among other things?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was absolutely right to imply that the Great Court is not the cause of the museum's present financial problems. The Great Court has been enormously successful as an exciting piece of architecture and in providing additional facilities for the museum. I believe that it has also helped to attract more visitors. The museum's financial problems are a result of lower than expected visitor numbers, which are partly due to foot and mouth and September 11th, a downturn in spend per head from American visitors in particular and a poorer than expected trading performance in general. The Government will work with the museum to help it to deal with those problems. I am glad to report that visitor numbers are now on the increase.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords—
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, would my noble friend comment on—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I think that it is our turn. I thank the noble Lord.
In view of the fact that the British Museum is one of the museums that attracts most overseas visitors, will the Government continue to refuse to allow it to charge for entry to its ordinary exhibitions?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government are convinced that the policy of free entry to our great national museums and galleries is absolutely right. That policy has led to a 60 per cent increase in the numbers of people visiting our great museums and galleries since it was introduced in December last year and to a 65 per cent increase in the numbers of people coming from social groups that do not normally visit museums. We intend to maintain what has been a hugely successful policy.

Bypasses: Funding
2.51 p.m.
Lord Marlesfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider introducing a scheme whereby those individuals whose quality of life, or whose property's value, would be enhanced by the provision of a bypass for their community would be enabled to make a voluntary financial contribution to public funds to defray part of the cost of providing such a bypass.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have no plans to introduce such a scheme.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am not surprised that that is a fact. However, does the Minister understand my surprise that Her Majesty's Treasury should not welcome the idea of private contributions to the public purse, especially when those contributions are for public purposes and because in this situation, although the more affluent contribute, the less affluent will also enjoy? Does he recognise that this country urgently needs more bypasses for people whose quality of life has been made miserable by the increase in traffic, particularly on trunk roads? My suggestion is one means whereby more bypasses could be made available. Will he at least have another look at it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my first Answer was an answer of fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, knows. Of course our minds are never closed to any new ideas. If the noble Lord would like to prepare a paper on the subject putting forward his arguments, I am sure that John Spellar, the Minister responsible for roads, would be interested to read it and, no doubt, to meet him to discuss it. He will be aware, as we all are, of the potential difficulties. Any

685
road scheme benefits some people and disbenefits others. The thought of private money coming in to pay for an enhanced quality of life and property values for one person, although that might have the reverse effect for somebody else, is clearly a potential difficulty.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the main obstacle to building such bypasses is the time that it takes to consult, plan and to get the line of route orders, which usually take up to 15 years? Will he also tell us what the Government's policy is towards the problem that besets us all; that is, road traffic congestion?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, part of the answer is one that I perhaps should have given to the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford; that is, that we recognise the benefit of bypasses. Of the 56 road plans in the current programme, about half are bypasses.
I shall answer the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, more directly. Since the roads review in 1998, we have very much speeded up the process of approval for new road schemes. In the old days, under the previous government, the road programme was something of a wish list and it could indeed take 15 or 20 years before anything was done. Now, because we have set more precise criteria, nothing goes into the road programme until there is a real desire to complete it and the money has been allocated.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is there not a danger in the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that the priorities might be distorted in terms of providing bypasses? If one group can provide some of the money, that might attract the available money from the Government or from local government, although the priority for that bypass might not be as great as the priority for another scheme that was squeezed out?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is one of the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, will no doubt address in the paper that he will write for the Minister responsible for roads. Imagine, for example, that someone proposed a bypass around Woodbridge in Suffolk and that there were questions about whether it should be on the east or the west side. Would that be decided on the basis of which side paid more in contributions?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, can we take it that the noble Lord's answers are an acceptance of the fact that financial contributions to the Treasury are already at a more than adequate level?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that the Treasury would ever agree with that! On the issue of road projects, to which I am sure Lord Peyton wished to refer—I am sure that he would not wish to stray from the Question on the Order Paper—it is true that there are private contributions towards
686
road projects. If a trading estate, for example, needs access to a new trunk road, those who run and pay for the trading estate will pay for that access; and quite right, too.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords—
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords—
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords—
Noble Lords: This side!
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, would not the answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, be an unconditional "yes" in the event that he would consider deleting the words "part or in line five of his Question?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the issues that have emerged in this short debate make it clear that it is not the amount of the contribution that is the problem but the issue of equity between one citizen and another.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House consider it correct that one of his Ministers should continually reject the advice of the Procedure Committee on appellations, which we discussed a week ago? He continues to call people just "Lord So-and-so"—he referred to "Lord Peyton"—as opposed to "the noble Lord, Lord Peyton".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that it is for me to answer the question of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if any Member of the House is offended by the appellation that I use, I undertake to address him as I have addressed the noble Earl.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, does the Minister accept in general terms that my noble friend Lord Marlesford has a point? As Treasury money is certainly going to run out on present forecasts in the next few years unless income tax is raised, any suggestions for new public/private partnerships should surely be welcomed by the Treasury rather than spurned. Whether the money is for bypasses or private contributions to healthcare plans, a broader vision is needed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept the premise—the forecast—that Lord Renton of Mount Harry advanced.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, however, if there is anything in the idea, I repeat that our minds are not closed to new ideas.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, surely the answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is that rich villages should be able to fund a bypass and that they should also be able to put a toll on it so that we can get back to the days of turnpikes!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is another issue that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, might well consider in his paper, which he has not yet undertaken to write. However, I am sure that he will.

SA80-A2 Rifle
2.59 p.m.
Lord Redesdaleasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the performance of the new SA80-A2 rifle used by British Forces in Afghanistan is satisfactory.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the SA80-A2 is operating in a very difficult environment in Afghanistan with both dusty conditions and extremes of temperatures. We have had reports from Afghanistan of equipment failure. In any operational environment, such reports must be investigated as a matter of urgency, but we need to establish all the facts before commenting further.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a degree of confidence must be built into the SA80-A2 because the SA80 needed modifications? Those included a new breech block, breech bolt, cartridge extractor, cartridge ejector, recoil springs, extractor spring, firing pin, cocking handle, magazine, gas plug and cylinder, and the light support weapon has been given a new barrel and hammer. I do not believe that many parts of the rifle have stayed the same. Considering those minor modifications in changing from the SA80 to the new A2, can the Minister say whether the soldiers are confident in their weapons? If they are, can he say why the LSW was not used in Afghanistan?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we believe that servicemen are confident in this weapon. The earlier weapons to which the noble Lord referred by implication came on stream well before our watch.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bach: My Lords, I believe it is right to point that out. However, investigations are ongoing and it would he foolish to tell the House anything that is not the result of those investigations. We do not believe that the weapon is faulty. When on patrol, it is necessary for the weapon to have dust removed from the main parts and it should also be appropriately
688
oiled. It does not need to be fully stripped. Such cleaning can be carried out in a very short time—seconds rather than minutes.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that four weeks ago today members of the Defence Study Group visited the admirable School of Infantry at Warminster? There, we met the experienced officers and senior NCOs who are very familiar with the weapon. Some had been involved in the extensive trials which were undertaken in a wide variety of environments. We were shown the new weapon and the changes were explained to us. We were able to fire the weapon on the range and it worked. Therefore, does my noble friend consider that this is another example of some sections of the press trying to make mountains out of molehills?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I would never accuse any sections of the press of doing that. However, I am grateful to my noble friend. He told me that he and others had visited Warminster on that occasion. I believe that what he found when trying out the SA80-A2 was what most other people have found when using it. It has gone through the most severe tests and has been successful in all of them.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House of the failure rate in rounds fired from the SA80-A2, the M16 and the AK47 rifles? Have any faults been reported by the SAS in their use of the Demarco rifle?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as to the last part of the noble Lord's question, he knows that we do not comment on equipment that special forces may or may not have. As to the first part of his question relating to failure rates, extensive trials were undertaken before the SA80 was issued. As I replied a moment or two ago, those trials demonstrated that the SA80-A2 was a very reliable weapon system. The testing included trials in Kuwait in very high temperatures with strong winds and blowing sand.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, when I held the position that he now holds with so much greater distinction that I did, I took delivery of the first SA80 for the British Army? In the subsequent target-shooting competition with the then Chief of the General Staff, I was the clear victor. Clearly there cannot be too much wrong with the weapon.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord had had such a great victory. But it was some time ago and I am glad that he remembers it so well.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, as I understand it, the refurbishment of the weapon cost £93 million. What would be the cost of starting again from scratch and

689
producing another weapon in which all the forces have confidence or of using any of the other rifles which are available on the market at present?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as a very small correction, I believe that the figure is £92 million. The cost of replacing the SA80 would be in the region of £500 million. That would be the cost of buying a new system, including spares, additional infrastructure, rifle racks, blank firing adapters, and so on. We have no intention of doing that.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that this matter is part of a bigger problem? Does he recall that as recently as November 2000 the Public Accounts Committee of the other place produced a very critical report on procurement in the Ministry of Defence? It pointed out, among other things, that 60 per cent of weapons examined by the National Audit Office after acceptance into the Armed Forces had not fulfilled the users' requirements. Can he confirm that, since then, we have had problems with armoured vehicles in Oman, with the hunter-killer submarine and with the upgrading of the Tornado aircraft? Do not our Armed Forces deserve something rather better than that?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am aware of the Public Accounts Committee report which the noble Lord mentioned. I am sure that he is aware of one published just a week or so ago which expressed in clear terms the progress being made on defence equipment. I know that the noble Lord would want to be fair and recognise that there are many great successes in defence equipment going back many years under both governments. I believe that sometimes we should talk more about those than about others. So far as concerns the SA80, I ask the noble Lord, along with other noble Lords, to await the outcome of the investigations.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the Government's drugs policy.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Clause 15 [Support for destitute asylum-seeker]:
Lord Bhatiamoved Amendment No. 107A:
Page 9, line 16, at end insert "and
() there is a place available in an appropriate maintained school for any dependant of school age"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 107A, I shall speak also to Clauses 31 and 32. I want to focus on the issue of education for children. Perhaps I may relate to the Committee the experience that I, as an immigrant, have had when dealing with children.
The children who come with their families as immigrants are, in many cases, in a highly disturbed mental state. They have been asked to leave their homes without understanding why their families have suddenly decided to leave their country and to settle in a new one. Their minds are full of fear because of what they hear from their parents. They do not understand what is being said, but the fear stems from hearing their parents talking, in some cases, about prisons and police. One fine morning their family decides to leave their country, more often than not clandestinely and without a specific or normal form of transport.
Such children arrive in this country satisfied by the one notion which their parents are able to give them—that they are going to a country that is free and fair and to a home where they may be able to settle down without fear or isolation. Those are the children who arrive with their parents in this country. The impressions they carry from the past are those of repression, persecution, prison and so forth. Their expectations are of coming to a free country. They hope to find sanctuary, as their parents tell them.
On both those issues, the children are in a confused state, to say the least. My amendment deals with that situation. One of the things the children probably most understand is that they will attend school as soon as they reach England. If a child suddenly finds that he is being isolated from normal schools, which perhaps are just outside the centre, and that he is expected to attend a specially designed education centre within the accommodation centre, that could bring back images of isolation, persecution and all the other issues which are in the minds of children who arrive here.
Clauses 31 and 32 remove the duty on the local education authorities to provide education for children in accommodation centres. That means that children in the centres will no longer have the right to be educated in mainstream schools. My amendments would remove those clauses and require that families with children of school age may be placed in accommodation centres only if there are school places available locally.
The issue was not debated in the House of Commons. That is a great shame, given the depth and breadth of feeling about it. Indeed, over 140 MPs, over 100 of whom were Labour, signed a Motion calling on the Government to withdraw this part of the Bill. As a result of some of that pressure, the Home Secretary offered to ensure that after six months the education of

691
children in accommodation centres would be reviewed. But that does not represent any significant change in the Government's position, given that they have always indicated that asylum seekers would spend about six months in the centres.
The Government have also sought to justify the proposal by saying that most asylum seekers who end up being recognised as refugees will remain in accommodation centres for only two months. But in the Standing Committee, in response to calls for a six-month time limit on a stay in an accommodation centre, Angela Eagle said that six months was "a tough call" in terms of processing claims.
Segregated education is regressive and discriminatory. Our education system should be freely available to all children living in this country, as was envisaged when it was created. To say that a child's refugee status should determine whether they can attend mainstream school is a dangerous and unprecedented attack on the principle of universal access to mainstream schools.
The concept of "separate but equal" was discredited decades ago. What is more, such an argument misses the point. Opposition to this proposal is grounded not on differing opinions on the nature of the quality of the education that will be provided, but on the fundamental principle that is at stake. That principle is simple: no group of schoolchildren should be compulsorily educated separately from other children on the basis of their immigration status.
It is interesting to note that some of the arguments used by the Government to defend this policy were also used to defend vouchers. We were told that vouchers would be equal to what other people receive, only different, and that they would be necessary for short periods, so the strong opposition was unwarranted. Vouchers were abolished and I believe that this discriminatory policy on education for children will fail, like all other discriminatory policies before it.
Children (like adults) and asylum seekers (like all of us) have fundamental human rights. Those are set out in detail in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK signed up in 1991. The convention makes clear that rights within it must apply to all children without discrimination. Furthermore, Article 28 sets out a child's right to be educated on the basis of equal opportunity and states that different forms of secondary education should be available and accessible to every child. It is difficult to see how refusing refugee children access to mainstream schools could not be in violation of Article 28.
Article 3 of the convention is also relevant. It states that in all actions concerning children,
"the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration".
I strongly contest any assertion that the best interests of the child are guiding this policy. The Government state that it will be better for children seeking asylum to be educated separately, but that flies in the face of what we are told by the charities and organisations which work with such children. On what evidence is the claim that the children will be better off
692
being educated in the accommodation centres based? In particular, which professional organisations and other experts have endorsed that view?
The list of experts and broad spectrum of organisations fiercely opposed to the education proposals on the basis that they are not in the interests of children and violate their rights includes: Save the Children; the Refugee Council; the T&G Union; the Children's Society; the National Union of Teachers the National Society for the Protection of Children the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association Barnardo's; Oxfam, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers; UNICEF, and many others.
Children seeking asylum have deep concerns about the proposals. One child consulted by Save the Children said that they would feel as if they were in prison if they were not allowed to go to the local school from the accommodation centres. Another pointed out that they would learn English more quickly if they went to school. The Joint Committee on Human Rights recently issued its report on the Bill. In respect of education proposals the report stated in paragraph 62:
"We understand the disquiet which has been expressed at the prospect of removing the children of destitute asylum-seekers residing in accommodation centres from mainstream schools, and educating them separately in accommodation centres. It gives rise to troubling echoes of historical educational regimes in some other countries where children were educated separately on the basis of race or colour, under the now discredited pretence that the separate provision was equal. Separate education on the basis of ethnicity or national origin breeds and entrenches social and educational inequality and inhibits or even deters integration".
It is difficult to see how this disturbing policy squares with the Government's broader social inclusion agenda, particularly in terms of ensuring that the same opportunities are available to all children in the UK, whatever their circumstances. Elsewhere, the Government are making strenuous efforts to promote inclusion and integration. Those efforts will clearly be undermined by the ramifications of the segregated education system. The draft children's strategy published by the Children and Young People's Unit at the end of 2001 states:
"We believe that all policies and services for children and young people should be: Equitable and non-discriminatory. All children and young people should have access to, and be enabled to participate in, services that they need, when they need them, in a way which respects diversity and their individual needs."
It would be interesting to know how much the Home Office talked to colleagues in the Children and Young People's Unit and in the DfES when this policy was formulated. It certainly does not inspire confidence in the Government's claim to be promoting joined-up thinking across departments. It is important to recognise that for children, integration cannot wait until a final positive decision has been made on their asylum claims. What may be a relatively short period for an adult can seem like a lifetime for a child and represents a significant part of childhood and development.
Proposals to provide services and to educate refugee children separately will have a long-term detrimental effect on their development and successful integration into society.

693
Save the Children works with children seeking asylum in this country and, based on its experience, believes that inclusion is a vital ingredient of rehabilitation. It has found that mainstream schools are the ideal starting point for refugee children to rebuild their lives and to enable the genuine inclusion of all children and their families in our communities. The structure and routine of a regular school day can help to provide a sense of normality and security in a child's life, which is vital to promoting their emotional, educational and social well-being.
It is interesting—and disturbing—to consider what kind of messages we are sending to the public by not just sanctioning a system of segregated education but actually creating one. There is surely a danger that that kind of measure has the unintended but predictable consequence of giving oxygen to prejudice and signalling to the public that discriminatory treatment of asylum seekers is acceptable. It is a sad lesson to teach children that if you are different you are set apart.
The status of children seeking asylum as asylum seekers should always take second place to their status as children. Uppermost in our minds as we formulate policies that affect these vulnerable children should be a clear and a genuine desire to discharge our duties to protect and care for them and at all times to promote their best interests.
If Amendment No. 107A is accepted, Clauses 31 and 32 would be redundant as refugee children would be educated in mainstream schools. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I express my warm support for the amendment. I believe that it goes to the heart of the question of whether the Government really and seriously put the welfare of the child before any other consideration in caring for them while they are in this country and preparing them, in many cases, to be fully integrated into British society.
Yesterday the Minister said on a number of occasions that he believed that accommodation centres would be good places for asylum seekers to be. That may be the case for some people. It may be the case for some of the adults. I believe that it is not the case for any children. It is self-evident that children will be better cared for if they are educated in mainstream schools.
There are serious worries about the educational provision that might be made in accommodation centres. The teachers there will not necessarily be required to have completed an initial teacher training course. What will the quality of teaching be? Matters such as anti-bullying policies and discipline will not be covered by statutory duties but set out in individual agreements made for each accommodation centre. There will be no obligation for an accommodation centre to have a child protection policy in place. That is a serious worry.
No one quite knows what the role of the LEA will be in the delivery of education in such places. It becomes clear that the education to be provided in
694
such places would be less good than the education in maintained schools. By definition, we cannot want asylum-seekers' children to be educated in this way.
It is important to recognise the experience in mainstream schools of caring for asylum-seeker children, which, by and large, is quite good. It can be challenging but it can be successfully achieved. Some comments made by head teachers are relevant here. One said:
"We challenge anyone to stand in our playground and pick out the refugees from the rich array of children happily playing together. We regard the presence of refugee children with their particular experiences as a unique benefit to other pupils".
Quite apart from the benefit to themselves of being in that place,
"They [other pupils] learn a great deal from them and develop knowledge, respect and acceptance".
Another head teacher said:
"My point is not that the proposals are illegal"—
which of course they would not be if the Bill were to be enacted—
"nor that they are morally indefensible (which I believe them to be), but that they are unnecessary, resource-inefficient and fundamentally at odds with the Government's avowed commitment to pluralism and social inclusion. I am convinced that educating refugees and asylum seekers in a mainstream school actually works, and that my experience, backed by the judgement of Ofsted and HMI, supports that conviction".
There is evidence that it works; that it can be done; and that it is a better way of doing it. Certainly children, so far as they know their own minds, want to go into schools, as the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, has said. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has commented critically on that part of the provision of the Bill.
I wonder whether the Minister has done his sums on the matter. Yesterday it was claimed that 80 per cent of asylum seekers would be young single men and that 20 per cent would be partly single women and partly families. Families comprise parents as well as children. Might it be reasonable to suggest that 5 per cent of asylum seekers will be children of school age? Even if we have accommodation centres on the scale of 700 people, which I hope we do not, we shall have 35 children in each centre. One does not have to be a genius in educational policy or mathematics to know that schooling provided in such a place for 35 children, ranging in age from five to 16, would be an educational disaster, however good the teaching. The evidence is that the teaching will be less good than that provided in maintained schools.
It is self-evident that this amendment is a highly desirable one. I beg the Government to accept it so that families will go into accommodation centres only if schooling is available for school age children in mainstream schools.
Lord Moser: I strongly support the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. This is one of the most regrettable—I feel almost like saying disgraceful—parts of a Bill which sets out to be positive and welcoming to asylum seekers and to refugees generally. I dread to think what would have

695
happened to me if, when I came here at the age of 13, I had been somehow prevented going to a mainstream school.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia has said, these clauses send exactly the wrong signals to the rest of the country and to communities. They send a signal that for some reason or other best known to the Government these children will be educated in ghettos called "accommodation centres". That is exactly the wrong signal. The clauses go against all the worthy remarks that we have heard from Ministers about integration. On the first day in Committee, when I spoke about naturalisation, I questioned the Government's insistence that applicants for naturalisation, who were probably previously children of asylum seekers, should be tested not just for English, which is desirable, but for their knowledge of society. The whole signal was meant to be that these people should be integrated totally into our society. How do the Government square that with this attempt to separate children to begin with from the hope of total integration? It goes exactly in the opposite direction.
There are other objections of a more technical kind. What will happen to these children after six months when, having been in the obscure accommodation centre and separately taught, they go into a mainstream school—if that is what happens. I could go on, but the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, has made all the points. There are no sound arguments in favour of Clause 15 of the Bill.
I regard the Home Office's attitude to this amendment—the Home Office, as I remember from my days in Whitehall, is not always the most flexible of government departments—as a litmus test of its attitude in general.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: We would like to hear much more from the Minister about some of the important issues raised by the three noble Lords, and, in particular, by the excellent contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, on the issue.
So far we have not disputed the establishment of accommodation centres. The Minister is well aware of our approach. There should be a time limit. Asylum seekers should not find themselves in such accommodation centres for more than six months. However, one of the difficulties is the blanket approach that the Government seem to have taken to the matter of education.
I shall cite an example. We must recognise that, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said, there will he children and young people with different educational needs. We must bear in mind that a substantial number of asylum seekers are well-qualified people—doctors, vets and engineers. They have left their country to seek asylum here because of the persecution that they have suffered. Their children would have been to an educational establishment in their own country and are here only because of the persecution that their parents suffered. How will we arrange for the education of people who have obtained
696
certain qualifications in their homeland? Will we, for example, provide classes in the accommodation centres for youngsters doing something in physics, botany or zoology? It is highly improbable that accommodation centres would have the facilities. That is why it is so important that we recognise the different needs.
We are talking of cases in which it is perfectly possible for youngsters to benefit from mainstream education in the area in which they find themselves. If the Minister or the system were, ultimately, to decide that those families do not qualify to stay in this country, we should try to ensure that, at the least, they return to their homeland with a high opinion of the standard of education that they have received, rather than adopting the broad-brush approach that accommodation centres would provide all the relevant facilities.
That important exception must be made. I hope that the Minister will consider seriously the substantial arguments made by noble Lords about the matter.
Baroness Whitaker: I should like to express some concern about the amendment, although I do so with great trepidation and with apologies to the NGOs that have discussed the matter with me. I also apologise to the noble Lords who moved the amendment, for whom I have a high regard.
It seems to me that education in accommodation centres could be safer—safer than some secondary schools that I know—not only for the children but for the parents who would take them to and from school. I say that with knowledge of secondary schools. Such provision could also be more appropriate for children who have, almost certainly, come through a traumatic experience. It ought, of course, to be of a standard equivalent to that in mainstream education. However, it must be for only the short period in which the families seek asylum. The matter is entirely different when such people become refugees.
Like other noble Lords, I have had many letters about the contribution made by refugee children, and I have direct knowledge of it. However, those letters are about refugees. I wonder whether some pressure groups have been confounding refugees with asylum seekers. The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, used the term "refugee children" when moving his amendment, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford when he quoted the head teachers.
I add two riders to my feeling that education in accommodation centres might be better. First, the education must really be appropriate and be provided by qualified, expert and committed teachers who know about the context of asylum seeking, not by those who cannot get work elsewhere. Secondly, it must last for only a short period. As was said yesterday, six months is too formative a period in a child's life.
I remind noble Lords who referred to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the committee did not come down entirely against education in accommodation centres. The report says that such matters call for careful judgment an d that the

697
new clauses will be useful in various ways. I invite my noble friend the Minister to show such balanced, careful judgment in dealing with the amendment.
The Earl of Sandwich: I am sure that my noble friend Lord Bhatia is right to say that universal education should mean just that and that no group in our society should be denied it. Those who seek refuge from persecution and arrive on our shores already belong to our society. In contrast, various clauses in the Bill provide for asylum seekers to be left in a kind of limbo of accommodation centres and with another version of education, until they are recognised as refugees.
Children who enjoy a range of rights under the two UN Conventions and our Children Act 1989 would, apparently, be denied those rights because of a perceived failure on the part of their parents, rather than the state. There is a duty on local authorities that goes back to the Education Act 1944, and it should not be interfered with. That point was reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland—I see that she is in her place—who, in reply to a Parliamentary Question in January, said that children of asylum seekers and refugees had the same rights of access to the education system in the United Kingdom as any other child. We might argue about the word "system", but I submit that the noble Baroness might well be thought to be sympathetic to the amendment.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford referred to the JCHR report, so I shall not quote from it. However, I refer noble Lords to section 62, on page 24. I recognise that the amendment does not solve the problem of asylum seekers for whom there are no places in local schools. However, the Bill would represent a retrograde step, and I strongly support the amendment.
I must apologise to the Minister. I have an urgent appointment and must leave the debate.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Government's problem is the size of the centres that they plan to have. There might easily be 50 children descending on a village school. We cannot do that; it would not work. If the centres were smaller, there would be no problem, and I agree with the noble Lord who moved the amendment that that is the ideal solution. There is a problem, and it must be seen from the point of view of the local authorities who run education.
Lord Joffe: Normally, it would be indefensible for us to create a law that stipulated that a particular group of children was to be prohibited from going to school because of their immigration status. That would be legislating for discrimination. However, in order to understand the Government's proposals, we must consider whether there are compelling reasons that would, none the less, justify having segregated education for the children of asylum seekers.
Many of the Government's arguments in defence of the policy are flawed and inconsistent. On the one hand, they say that they want to promote the integration of asylum seekers; on the other, they
698
develop a policy that is in stark contradiction to that, proposing to segregate children in accommodation centres. On the one hand, they say that they want schools to be inclusive; on the other, they say that a particular group of children is not allowed to go to school. On the one hand, they say that the quality and nature of the education in accommodation centres will mirror that in schools; on the other hand, they say that it has not yet been decided whether the teachers in accommodation centres will even be required to complete initial teacher training or whether the full national curriculum will be available.
I shall put aside those flaws and contradictions, for the moment. A better starting point for objective consideration of the issues would be to apply the test that flows logically from the justification for trialling accommodation centres that the Minister provided yesterday. I shall paraphrase what he said when he spoke of accommodation centres being the best way of providing the support that asylum seekers need while waiting for their applications for asylum to be speedily determined.
Extrapolating from those remarks, the crisp issue in relation to education is whether segregated education is the best way of providing the support that the children of asylum seekers need. Certainly the major children's charities and teaching unions that have the practical experience of teaching refugee children do not think so. In recent weeks the major children's charities and teachers' unions have been saying repeatedly and unequivocally that children seeking asylum are better off in mainstream schools where they can gain the full benefits of the richness and value of social interaction with peers and can enjoy fully the social and developmental dimensions of the school experience so vital to their well-being.
Another message emerging from schools with refugee children is that their presence benefits all children by helping them to learn in practice—not just in theory—about tolerance, respect and diversity. The head teacher of a school with a significant proportion of refugee children among the pupils has been quoted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. Another headmaster, this time of a secondary school in south Camden, says:
"I believe the most appropriate place for refugee students to be educated from the time of their arrival is in mainstream schools. I am very proud of the asylum seeking children we have in our school. They contribute a great deal to our school and I very much respect their commitment to education and their parents' commitment to their children's education".
Nobody is trying to argue that the inclusion of children seeking asylum in mainstream schools does not present a substantial challenge to individual schools, teachers and local education authorities. But it is worth remembering that the inclusion of other groups of children, such as homeless children and those whose first language is not English, can bring similar challenges. We have successfully found ways of rising to those challenges. Surely we have all reached a common understanding over the years that the answer is not to segregate groups of children who are viewed as problematic, but rather to share the good practice

699
that has been developed and to work closely with schools and teachers to ensure that adequate and appropriate strategies and resources are in place. A different approach in the case of children seeking asylum sets a dangerous and undesirable precedent.
The National Union of Teachers states:
"The Home Secretary's proposals are a denial of every tenet of education and equality legislation".
The union argues that education within the confines of an accommodation centre cannot equal the range of provision within a school or education authority. It is possible that at any one time in an accommodation centre, there will be children who range from the under-lives to primary, secondary and post-16s. No school in the United Kingdom could replicate that range of provision, let alone an accommodation centre.
The Government have said that the nature and quality of education provided in accommodation centres will be comparable to that of schools. I wish to explore that. I should be grateful if the Minister would provide more information on the following questions. What qualifications will teaching staff in accommodation centres be required to have? What types of support staff will there be in accommodation centres? Will they include educational psychologists and youth workers, for example? What vocational courses will be available to young people aged over 14?
I have further questions for the Minister. What are the estimated costs of setting up and running accommodation centres and, separately, what are the costs of setting up and running the educational services that must be provided? How do those education costs compare with the costs of refugee children attending mainstream schools? It may be that solely in the light of those costs and ignoring the important principles that have been outlined a better way of supporting the children of asylum seekers would be to subsidise the mainstream schools they could attend which, in turn, would overcome all the other problems that exclusion from such schools will generate.
In conclusion, I cannot resist the temptation to refer to another experiment in tailoring courses for a particular group of underprivileged people, which happened in South Africa. I do not compare for a moment the motivation of this Government with that of the South African Government which led to the lack of education for a vast sector of the population. But the lesson to be learned from that regime is that there is great danger in setting precedents in education for particular groups of people. I support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: I say immediately that I share the care and concern expressed on all sides of the Chamber about the education of the children of asylum seekers who are placed in accommodation centres while their applications for asylum are dealt with. I underline that because the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, have confused the debate to the extent that the terms "refugee children" and "asylum children" have been used as if they were interchangeable, which they are not.
700
It is as well that the Committee reminds itself that the purpose of accommodation centres is not the education of the children within them. I say that not in a brutal way. The reason for discussing the establishment of accommodation centres is to provide safe and secure accommodation for people, including families, while their applications for asylum are considered and appeals subsequent to such applications are dealt with. The mathematics, as I calculate them, are that the stay in an accommodation centre will be between 16 weeks and a maximum of 26 weeks, with many families arriving when local schools are closed in any event—for six or seven weeks in the summer, for example, and at intermittent periods throughout the year.
We must focus on the purpose of accommodation centres and swiftly afterwards concentrate on the best way of attending to the educational needs of the children of those who have made an asylum application. Without seeking to cause offence, I have to say that we are not talking about a family discussion as the education of our sons and daughters, or grandsons and grand-daughters is being planned and we decide where they will go to school. We are dealing with adults and children who, under the 1951 convention, have been forced into the hands of people smugglers. In order to make an application for asylum in the United Kingdom, we insist that people travel half-way across the planet, putting themselves at the mercy of people smugglers. Your Lordships have heard me say before that it is a crazy way to run a system, but that is another matter and does not arise on this amendment.
Some, if not all, of the parents and children to whom the amendment refers will have spent many weeks, or several months in some cases, being smuggled and ferried across international borders at least half-way across the planet. That is the state in which those adults and children arrive in this country.
Earl Russell: If the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, wants to discourage people traffickers, as I do, would he not be more effective by attacking carriers' liability than by segregating the children of their victims?
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: Certainly not. That is an entirely different issue. Members of the Committee may have heard me try to argue my view that under the 1951 convention, applications for asylum should be made in the first safe country in which the asylum seeker finds himself and dealt with by the diplomatic posts in that country. But that is another matter.
I was describing the dreadful state in which such children and their parent or parents arrive in this country and are sent to accommodation centres. They will remain in the centres for between 16 and 26 weeks. What then is the point of saying, "Yes, go into the nearest local school, but if your application is refused, and if that is confirmed on appeal, you will be out of that school"? That further change is avoidable if they are educated properly in accordance with the national curriculum, as my noble friend will confirm

701
will happen. After all, these children have already experienced turmoil and disturbance over several months. That is an argument for the establishment of the accommodation centres. A further strong argument is that those who reside in them have time to become accustomed to new and different surroundings.
At that stage, the children are not refugees; they are the children of asylum seekers. There is no reason why the education provided in accommodation centres for that short period should be isolated from that being delivered in local schools. In fact, there is every good reason why every attempt should be made to foster links between local schools and the children in the centres. I am sure that that is the view of teachers, too.
We are losing sight of the fact that we are dealing with children who have not had regular experience of education. That is not for one minute a reason to deny them proper educational provision, but it is not as though they are moving school from Durham to Surrey. Most of the children come from extremely deprived circumstances and, if recent events in Afghanistan were anything to go by, the girls were banned from attending school.
We should concentrate on getting the education delivered within the accommodation centres right during the relatively brief period in which the children are expected to be there, rather than assuming that they will suddenly become refugee children and be denied mainstream education. That is not the Government's intention.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I approach this difficult question on the premise that it will be better for a child in an accommodation centre to be educated in the local school than in the centre. The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, knows a great deal about these matters and was a distinguished chairman of the All-Party Home Affairs Committee in the other place. However, I was disturbed by his speech because it leads to the conclusion that because many of the children have had a rough and rotten deal for many months, they shall be exposed to a rough deal in the context of education for up to 26 weeks.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: That is a conclusion, if my initial premise is correct. The noble Lord said that it is not the purpose of the centres to educate the children. I agree that the primary purpose is to give them somewhere safe to live. But an extension of that argument might be that it is not the purpose of the centres to maintain the children's health if we do not propose to exclude them from the local hospitals.
In that regard, I object to the fact that the Bill makes it mandatory that no such child shall attend the local maintained school. A Member of the Committee—I have forgotten who—said today that we are trialling accommodation centres. That echoed what the Minister said yesterday. With customary frankness, the Minister said that the Government are not certain
702
that they have got everything right, but let us give them a trial. That was in the context of the numbers of people the centres were to contain. Why do we not carry out a trial of allowing the children to go to the local schools?
The provision need not be mandatory, because of course there are problems. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour pointed out a most important one; that in some schools there is not sufficient accommodation. That will not always be the case. Indeed, we heard significant second-hand evidence from head teachers about the advantages to the schools and their pupils of having the children attend.
I ask merely that the Government should think again about the matter. They should delete the mandatory prohibition and, in proper cases after proper consultation, allow children to attend mainstream schools. That is all I ask. The arguments I have heard so far have not persuaded me in favour of maintaining the Bill as it is.
Lord Chan: I strongly support the amendment. I make a plea as one whose professional career has been in the care of sick children. The number of children likely to be housed in accommodation centres, as calculated by the right reverend Prelate and confirmed by the Minister, is small. They are not all of the same age. However, it is important to appreciate that all the children have been subjected to psychological trauma. They will continue to be segregated from other children in the community, whom they will see on the streets. I understand that the centres will not be behind barbed wire. Segregating them from a normal school environment will merely prolong their sense of isolation and psychological trauma.
Most of the children in accommodation centres are likely to stay there for up to six months, unless the Minister has plans to shorten the period. If one of the considerations relates to the security and safely of asylum seekers, surely keeping children away from school will not help. Allowing them to attend a mainstream school in a normal environment will have two advantages. First, they will recover from their psychological trauma more rapidly. Secondly, they will meet normal children. Their parents will certainly not abscond, because they and the children live together in the centres.
However, even more important is the consideration of our high reputation for fair and humane treatment of all people in this country. The Government's proposals will deal that reputation a severe blow. If we are found to be segregating the children of asylum seekers, where is the reputation for fair and humane treatment? The welfare of all children, irrespective of their status, surely must be kept uppermost in any arrangements we make for asylum seekers in this country.
Finally, when the trial on the four accommodation centres commences—I agree with the comment made a little earlier—we should place at least one or two children in normal schools, even if we did want a group to be educated within the centre.

703
Most important, I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that the results of this experiment will be analysed. As I have said, the issue with regard to children that should be considered as uppermost is their welfare. That is of paramount importance.
4 p.m.
Earl Russell: If I had been addressing a medieval congregation rather than a modern House of Lords, I would have found the notion of the noble Lord, Lord Moser, being prevented from attending a mainstream school—and then being greeted by a roar of anger from the heavens—an irresistible subject for a sermon. However, I do not intend to preach a sermon, but I shall treasure that as one of the nicest moments of drama that I have heard in this House.
The proposers of the amendment have made a very powerful case. I refer in particular to the questions asked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. He referred to the disapplication of much of our education legislation, covering teacher qualifications and so forth. They will require a deal of response. On the other hand, I was also extremely interested in the right reverend Prelate's arithmetic. He assumed that there would be 35 children in each centre, which is not unreasonable. If we presume that a range of subjects is to be taught, then more than one teacher will need to be available. That will create a pupil:teacher ratio which will be the gross envy of the indigenous population outside. The difficulties of the argument "separate but equal" should work both ways.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is rapidly becoming the conscience of the House on this Bill. He expressed a dislike of segregated education, which I believe we all feel. But on the first day of our deliberations he also expressed a dislike of accommodation centres, which I also feel. My late friend Lady Seear, when addressing a Liberal summer school on ethics in politics, once commented that, in politics, the problem is always trying to choose the lesser of two evils. That is why we on these Benches will reserve our position until we have heard and probed what the Minister has to say on the forthcoming government Amendment No. 114A, containing a regulation-making power to fix the length of time that people may be required to stay in an accommodation centre. That is because our highest priority is to keep the time during which people are consigned to a centre as short as possible, a wish also expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. We hope that six months will mean six months.
I felt somewhat disappointed on reading the Minister's response to a point put by my noble friend Lord Greaves last night while I had a belated bite of supper after our debates on the regulations. He appeared to assume that in all cases it would be necessary to detain people in accommodation centres for as long as their cases and appeals were pending. I hope that that is not to be his final word on the matter. If it were, then on Report it would affect very materially indeed our position on this amendment.
704
If people can be taken out of accommodation centres within six months, then I think that we might be induced to tolerate the Government's proposals. But were there to be a serious slippage in that position, we would have to reserve our opinion and think through the whole thing again.
Meanwhile, by far the most practical and helpful speech of the debate was that made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. If there is to be a way forward, I hope that the Minister will consider whether perhaps that might be the direction in which the way might lie.
The Earl of Listowel: If she is to reply to the debate, could the Minister elaborate on the proposals put forward by her noble friend Lord Corbett to establish links with local schools. How would such links be promoted? Where would the funding be found for them? What would be the specific intention with regard to sporting and other activities between local schools and accommodation centres? I would find that information extremely helpful.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may pursue a little further the question of arithmetic. If the right reverend Prelate is right in his assumption that, of the 750 inmates in each accommodation centre only 35 will be children, then 18 per cent of those children would be released into mainstream education after two months; that is, at the point at which their families' applications were successful. According to the arithmetic detailed yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, a further 10 per cent would then be released after a further four months; that is, at the point at which their families were successful on appeal. So we are not referring to 35 children spending the whole six months in the accommodation centre, but to a gradually diminishing number as families are successful in their applications. Thus my noble friend Lord Greaves was correct to point out that the final outcome would be that, if 50 per cent of the cases were successful, then by the end of six months only some 17 children would be left in the accommodation centre. How will adequate education for a handful of children be provided across the whole age range that might be represented in a particular centre?
That question leads me to put the following question to the Minister: is it to be the Government's policy to distribute the families evenly over the four accommodation centres, or will single people be housed preferentially in two or three centres, reserving the fourth centre for families? A much greater concentration of children would then be achieved in one centre. In so doing, it would be possible to provide better educational facilities than if the resources to be made available for this purpose had to be spread across four different centres. We have not discussed this point, but surely it would be sensible to concentrate the necessarily limited resources in a smaller number of centres rather than seek to provide adequate arrangements in all four of them.
I wish to put a further question to the Minister. It arises out of the undertaking given in response to the criticisms voiced by the Joint Committee on Human

705
Rights to the effect that the success of accommodation centres in their efforts to provide education for the children residing in them should be one of the criteria to be considered when evaluating the initial trial. In pursuance of that undertaking, will the Government give a further undertaking to the Committee that if, at the end of the trial, they find that the outcomes for the children are less favourable than they would have been had they been provided with mainstream education, they will review the whole policy? That would meet the logic of what they said to the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Lord Bridges: The powerful speeches made by my noble friends Lord Bhatia and Lord Moser have thrown light on the difficult question of discrimination. We have all found that a most disagreeable aspect of what is involved here. Perhaps I may suggest a rather more practical approach when considering the problems faced by children as they arrive with their parents at the accommodation centres. If they are to make progress, then their greatest single need is to acquire some knowledge of English.
In my family it happens that we have some experience of those difficulties. Some 20 years ago, when I was posted to work in the Foreign Office in London, my wife qualified as a teacher in English as a foreign language in order to make a contribution to the family income. Subsequently she taught for a year or so in a GLC school. When listening to her account of the way in which those classes were conducted, it became apparent that there is a very particular art to teaching English to a group of people who have one thing in common: they do not know our language.
I suggest that it might be a focus of whatever educational activities take place in these accommodation centres to equip the children with a sufficient knowledge of our language. In that way, if they have to stay there for a long time they could then be transferred to local schools where they could be absorbed into school life and have a normal school education. I hope that this suggestion will help.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: We all have considerable sympathy for the Government because of the sheer size of the problem they face and the numbers involved. Obviously there are tremendous advantages in having accommodation centres with, perhaps, temporary courts alongside so that rights are protected, and so on, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Bridges that it is absolutely essential that English is taught in the accommodation centres from the word go. The possibility for learning English should be available.
I strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Bhatia. When children have suffered to the extent that these children will have suffered—and, let us face it, we cannot be sure that the period we are talking about will be only six months; we know how things drag on—it must make sense to put families with children in separate areas, smaller areas if possible, where the children can go to local schools.
706
This is a crucial area. We must be able to accommodate them and we must know that there is space for them in such schools. Only this morning I heard about one part of the United Kingdom which is so overcrowded with looked-after children that the local area is not able to cope. I know that will be of concern to the Secretary of State for Education.
I firmly support the amendment. I hope that the Government can assure us that the considerable concerns that have been raised and the pleas that have been made will be listened to and taken into account.
Lord Dubs: I plead with the Government to show flexibility in their approach. After all, some asylum-seeking children or children of asylum seekers may well speak fluent English and have a reasonable educational attainment. They could move into a local school, if it is not too far away, seamlessly and quickly. Others would not be able to cope with a local school because they would need to learn English first, as has been said.
In some instances the accommodation centre may be close to local schools, which could take some of the children; in other instances the accommodation centre may be too far away. We should be flexible. Where children can move to a local school as soon as possible, they should; where there is no appropriate local school or the children's English is not good enough, they should stay and receive their education in the accommodation centre. In that way we can move forward in the best interests of the children.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful to—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It is appropriate that I should speak at this time. We have now had more than an hour's debate on a very important issue and it is right that the Opposition Front Bench should state its position. It has come across very clearly that all noble Lords have firmly at the front of their minds the welfare of the child, and there has been some debate about how that may best be achieved. We have made it clear in the past—we do so again—that many of the problems highlighted so carefully and clearly today could be resolved if the Government would reconsider the way they are going to structure accommodation centres, so that the processing of applications would be far brisker and would leave the children in education in those centres for a much shorter time.
We acknowledge that the longer children remain in accommodation centres the more difficult it becomes to maintain the argument that they should be educated there. Who can fail to be impressed by the number of teachers and parents who have written to noble Lords to say how they would welcome children into their schools? That surely shows what a tolerant society we are trying to build in this country, and succeeding in many respects.
There has been reference to the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden. As ever, I pay tribute to his ability to think of a practical new approach. He suggested that the Government might trial a system whereby children

707
could go to local schools because accommodation centres in themselves are projects and not finished products.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, referred to the distinction between asylum children and refugee children as though the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford was perhaps using the wrong term. As regards the distinction between asylum-seeking children and refugee children, can the Minister confirm that the 1951 convention defines refugees as those outside their country with a well-founded fear of persecution, and that NGOs therefore use the term in its broadest sense while the Government use it in its narrowest, legalistic sense? Is it correct that the Government cannot grant refugee status but can only recognise it? That is important given that the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, raised a question in regard to that definition.
4.15p.m.
Lord Greaves: I congratulate—
Lord Filkin: Perhaps I may now reply to the debate.
Lord Greaves: I have been trying to intervene. I can speak after the Minister if he wishes, but I would rather speak before the Minister so that he can answer my questions.
Lord Filkin: Very well.
Lord Greaves: I am grateful. I congratulate the mover of the amendment on allowing this important debate to take place, particularly at this time of day. As to numbers, if the figures the Minister gave last night are correct—that perhaps 40 per cent of people in an accommodation centre of 750 residents will be either asylum seekers who are heads of families or members of those families—then the number of children in such centres could be 200 or perhaps higher. Can the Minister clarify the numbers we are talking about because it will make a great deal of difference?
The debate today has been polarised. I support the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that more flexibility is required. What is possible will depend on the size and location of the accommodation centres. If you have a centre of 750 in the countryside, with 200 or 300 children in that centre, it will be impossible for them to attend local schools. The location and the size of the centre will be absolutely critical.
Another critical factor is the amount of time people will spend in the accommodation centres. In the debate last night periods of two months, six months and so on were mentioned. I understand all the points that have been put forward, but it seems to me that children who do not possess English would benefit from separate education within the accommodation centre for a limited period of time—perhaps two months—which might indeed be in the summer when ordinary schools are closed.
708
What will be the curriculum for these children? To talk of the national curriculum in such circumstances is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether they can be given a course which concentrates heavily on the learning of English so that if they then move on into the community the children will have those English skills and will be at a much greater advantage when going into ordinary mainstream schools.
If, unfortunately, from their point of view, they have to be removed and returned to their countries of origin, they will have a facility in basic English which will benefit them for the rest of their lives. The point of view that under no circumstances should these children be educated in accommodation centres is wrong, provided that they receive only an initial course which does not last very long. In my view, six months would be too long.
My final point relates to staffing. It is very important that these centres are staffed by qualified teachers, paid on ordinary teacher scales. Their jobs, in what will be akin to continuous reception classes, may be considered more onerous, if that is possible, than those of teachers in ordinary primary school nowadays. Will the staff be qualified teachers, will they be paid at least on the ordinary pay scales for qualified teachers and will the LEAs have a role? Provision is made in later clauses for the School Inspections Act 1996 to apply. What will be the precise role of Ofsted or other bodies in inspecting the facilities provided by the accommodation centres?
Lord Filkin: We have today, as yesterday, had an important debate on an important subject. I regret that I shall have to cover briefly some of the issues that we debated yesterday, because many Members of the Committee who have spoken today were not present when we discussed the broader picture of accommodation centres. However, I shall try to be succinct.
I begin by addressing, as far as I am able, the reality of the situation that the Government and society are seeking to manage. If I have to make one or two generalisations, I hope that I shall be forgiven. We are referring to families with children who arrive in the UK asking for refugee status that has not yet been granted. If they ask for support, by definition they are without shelter or security, will often have come a long way and will be in fear and perhaps traumatised. They arrive in difficult circumstances, and one can well imagine that the children of such families will be distressed or in turmoil. They form a diverse group. One cannot sensibly generalise about what refugee children are like. They have often had interrupted or limited education, or none at all, although there will obviously be exceptions. There has also been evidence that they have experienced some bullying when in mainstream schools in certain areas of Britain.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, put down a challenge. The current system is that when they apply for support, they are moved initially into emergency accommodation, with or without schooling, for perhaps one or two weeks, until dispersed accommodation is sought for them, where

709
they stay for however long it takes for their asylum applications and any appeals that they choose to exercise to be determined. If they are successful in their applications for refugee status or exceptional leave to remain, they are allowed to settle in the country permanently, or for as long as their ELR lasts. Without labouring the point, that system is evidently not perfect in a number of respects.
The central argument about accommodation centres, on which we had a good debate yesterday—I regret yet again boring the Front-Benchers—concerns whether it is possible to accelerate the decision-making timetable rapidly for refugee families by putting them into accommodation centres in ways that give them access to proper decision-making processes, legal support for their applications and fair hearings, and at the same time provide them with better support so that they receive fair decisions much more quickly than has been the case to date. The Government accept the challenge of considering whether, by managing accommodation centres well, they can achieve those objectives.
The relationship of accommodation centres to the education of children is fairly clear. First, if by that process we can rapidly determine that someone has refugee status—in cases determined on initial application, we expect to be able to do that within two months or less—they will then be integrated immediately into British society, as we all wish and accept. Secondly, while children are in accommodation centres, one can provide them with a supportive environment and the quality of education that is at least as good as they would experience in dispersed accommodation in the rest of Britain. I do not intend to oversell the case. The Government believe that there is strong evidence that we can do that.
However, we have also said that this is a pilot scheme. We have said that we shall monitor the process through the first four centres and evaluate it carefully to see whether that hypothesis is true. If it is, it will serve the interests both of the parents, because they will have a faster affirmative or negative determination—whether affirmative or negative, it is better that it should be faster than not—and of the children, who can be moved on while they have had some beneficial educational experience. That is the challenge.
Other challenges have been made in the debate. Yesterday, we discussed the potential benefit of accommodation centres providing a more supportive environment for families and children because of the concentration of support and services in that area. Let me deal with some of the educational aspects of that. First, the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, asked whether the DfES and other parts of the Government had been involved. The categorical answer is that they have. Officials have worked closely together. My noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland shares my view that accommodation centres have a great potential to offer a better quality of education and support for children than would be the case in dispersed accommodation.
710
The Government are obliged to provide the national curriculum for any child of school age in this country, but have the freedom to target the way in which it is delivered, better to meet the particular circumstances of a number of children who may have very limited English or have suffered some trauma as a result of their recent experiences. Ofsted's writ will apply specifically to accommodation centres. It will inspect and report on quality and provision, as with mainstream schools. If an inspection report highlights concerns about a centre, it will be required to produce an action plan. Even if there are no concerns, it will be expected to produce an action plan on how it intends to take provision forward. There will be no escape. These educational facilities will be the subject of proper public scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, suggested that the accommodation centres may have a long-term detrimental effect on children. I strongly doubt that. The centre managers will employ qualified teachers. There will be a commitment to monitoring, both through Ofsted and through the Department for Education and Skills' monitoring processes. The objective is to make them centres of excellence for the provision of education for groups of distressed children who, if their applications are accepted, are in the process of transition between their own societies and becoming settled into our mainstream society.
The current arrangements for dispersal put children under pressure. They are often thrown in at the deep end, without preparation. One needs to take a child's-eye view of that. We believe that putting them into accommodation centres for what in many cases will be a very short period may give them breathing space, targeted support, language training and an education that they would not otherwise have received.
I have answered the question of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford about qualified teachers. He also asked about the role of the LEAs. The Bill specifies a number of ways in which the role of the LEAs will still exist. However, we expect a partnership to be formed with LEAs on how to take forward that role.
I was also asked about numbers, some of which we gave yesterday. These are early days, but a rough-and-ready assumption is that there could be between 120 and 150 children in an accommodation centre of this type. A further suggestion was made as to whether it might make sense to concentrate all, or many, children in one centre. That is an interesting idea on which, without commitment, we shall reflect in an effort to decide whether such a suggestion is worthy of consideration.
Challenges have been made as to whether the Government are compliant with CRC guidelines. We believe that placing children in accommodation centres is in their best interests. If the family is successful in its application, the process will be speeded up and integrated faster. That is significant. If the family is not successful, there is no case for integration. Indeed, if the application is unsuccessful, the family will unfortunately have to leave Britain. We do not

711
believe that it is in the interests of the child to be moved into a school, or two or three schools—as I instanced could be the case through dispersal—and then have to leave again because the claim and the subsequent appeal have been rejected.
I turn to the questions raised on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as regards Article 28 and Article 3. We are not denying an education; we shall be mirroring the nature of education in mainstream schools. The quality and standard will be the same, and Ofsted inspected. I believe that I have covered most of those points.
We are not talking about ghettos; these centres are an attempt by a civilised society to try to manage a process with both humanity and care in an effort to provide the level of care and education support at least to the standard that is possible. If we are right in that aim, as I said yesterday, these centres will be a beacon of quality across Europe. We shall show that it is possible to manage this difficult problem better than is currently the case in Britain or elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to the wide range of schools. I grant his point. Clearly, a wide range of ages and, indeed, a wide range of schools will be involved. It is perhaps a model based on smaller village schools that currently deal most effectively with children representing a range of ages and abilities. Clause 32 also provides for children with very specialised needs to be educated outside the unit, subject to certain conditions, as we believe should be the case.
Mention was made of teachers in these centres. In so far as there is evidence, it shows that these centres will be likely to attract good teachers. Often refugee children, asylum children, are keen to learn and are highly motivated. Of course, one should not generalise, but there is some truth in what I say. It is quite a satisfactory teaching experience. Therefore, we do not envisage any problem with attracting good teachers who are keen to participate in the process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, quite rightly highlighted the current burden on schools in some areas. From the evidence supplied by the University of London, it appears that this is as much about the churning effect that takes place; in other words, the constant moving. I shall not go into detail at this stage because time is pressing. However, there is good evidence to show the burden that that places on the school—its teachers and management; and, indeed, on other children—without in any sense seeking to label asylum seekers' children as problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, asked about teacher qualifications. Clearly, there will be a necessity for support staff. Some vocational courses will be available for adults. No doubt older children could take part in such courses after school. As regards costs comparisons, we are at the beginning of a procurement process. Therefore, for confidentiality reasons, I cannot put such information into the public domain. But, broadly speaking, we imagine that the costs should be comparable with the current cost of running education in normal situations.
712
I was asked about the involvement of parents. Again, accommodation centres provide considerable potential for that to take place. The noble Lord, .Lord Chan, asked about experimentation and whether it would be evaluated. I reiterate that it will be so. All our discussion yesterday was about four centres initially that we shall evaluate to see whether they provide faster decision-making. A crucial part of that process will be to ascertain whether there is evidence to show that children do at least as well in terms of their educational and their emotional support, as would have taken place if they had followed the existing routes of dispersal. I can also assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that that will be done.
We should also recognise that we have the basis for such an evaluation. There is an alternative system in terms of a dispersal model. There are currently 62,000 asylum children in London alone who are waiting for the result of their decision processes, or for exceptional leave to remain. Therefore, we already have a comparison in that respect.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister a question. He referred to Clause 32 and specifically to "specialised needs". I cannot understand where that clause relates to special needs. It refers to "special cases", but not special needs. It seems to me that the intention of the clause is to provide an over-ride on the general provisions in this area of the Bill.
Lord Filkin: When we debate the clause, I am sure that we will inspect that aspect in more detail. In essence, the clause provides the opportunity for an identification of whether children have special needs; and, therefore, whether alternative provision for them might be appropriate.
I turn to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the period of six or three months. I am not certain that I have seized the challenge that the noble Earl put to me. However, I believe that we are at one in wishing to ensure that the Home Secretary's commitment given in the other place, which we shall be introducing in a later amendment, is both clear and firm. In short, there will be a reassessment if a family is still in the centre at the six-month point. That process will seek to consider the interest of the child. If the family is still in the unit at the end of nine months, it would, if it wished, have a right to move elsewhere, irrespective of the stage of the appeal.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. In that case, the question from this side of the Committee would be whether at the end of six months the children would be released into mainstream education.
Lord Filkin: Possibly, but not automatically, is the response to that query. It would depend on the conclusion of the assessment.

713
As ever, I am guided by higher, distant forces. I am advised that I should be referring to Clause 31, rather than Clause 32. One can always count on the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to catch one out on these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, spoke powerfully on fostering links with local schools. Although education will be provided in the centre, one should have an open mind as to the benefits of actual linkages with the wider society and with other schools. It would be both interesting and helpful to see how that could be developed.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether there would be a biased intake as regards families. I have touched on that as a question, and will leave it there. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, mentioned sufficient knowledge of language, which is totally germane. One is talking about a particular group of people whose common characteristic, apart from not knowing much about Britain, will be that most of them will not speak English well. Therefore, a short period—even a two-month period—in a school with intensive English training would be of benefit of them, whether or not they were accepted for refugee status.
I am aware that I am exceeding the patience of the Committee. It is almost impossible to answer all the points raised. However, we shall have plenty of other opportunities to discuss such matters. I look forward to taking forward this policy in its development with my noble friend Lady Ashton of Upholland. We are committed to the belief that this is in the interests of both families and children. We accept the challenge to demonstrate that that is true in practice, and the evaluation will allow us to do so.
Lord Greaves: The Minister answered my question as to whether qualified teachers would be employed. However, he did not say whether all the teachers who would be employed would have to be qualified. Can the Minister clarify that point? Further, I do not believe that the noble Lord answered my question about whether the teachers employed in these centres would be paid on pay scales/rates commensurate with those that apply to similar teachers in mainstream schools.
Lord Filkin: Yes, and I do not know.
Lord Bhatia: I do not wish to delay the debate any further. However, I should like to thank Members of the Committee for participating in the debate. It is good to take account of the variety of views expressed on all sides of the Committee. I hope that the Minister will take heed of all the views that have been put forward.
Before I conclude the debate I wish to refer to two or three of the points that were raised. It is necessary to draw the Minister's attention to a debate that took place in the other place on 22nd May during which the Minister, Stephen Timms, said that no decision had been taken as to whether those who would be teaching
714
in the accommodation centres for asylum seekers would be required to have completed initial teachers' training. As things have obviously moved on, I should like an assurance that that is the case.
There were various comments on the length of time in which people will stay in the accommodation centres, and various figures—three months, six months, two months—were mentioned. However, I think that most of the major children's charities believe that a week out of school is a week lost. A critical principle is at stake here. Should there be universal access to mainstream schools? If the answer is that, in principle, access should be universal, the matter of length of stay is neither here nor there.
Whatever we decide, we should think first and foremost about children and their emotional and educational needs. I make only one plea. Let us think about the children who will be in the accommodation centres as if they were our own children. By taking such an approach we might arrive at the right decision. Because of my personal experience—which, 30 years on, I do not wish to think about or remember—I concluded that I had to move this amendment. I hope that those of us deciding this law will think of children and their needs before anything else.
The Minister's answers are good enough for now, but I await the Government's proposals at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Drugs
4.42 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement in responding to the Home Affairs Select Committee report on drugs. In doing so, I wish to make it clear that I will publish a substantial update of the 1998 drugs strategy this autumn.
"On 23rd October, in my evidence to the Select Committee, I laid out a number of key themes which are reflected in the Committee's report. I am grateful for the excellent work which the Chairman and Members of the Committee have done and to all those who have assisted both the Committee and myself, including my drugs unit. I also thank the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the many agencies and authoritative bodies who have contributed.

715
"I cannot imagine that there is a Member of this House who does not wish to ensure that those we represent are free from the misery that is caused by drug abuse. Class A drugs are the scourge of our time and are potential killers. Over the past 30 years the huge increase in the use of drugs, particularly hard drugs, has caused untold damage to the health, life chances and wellbeing of individuals. This has undermined family life, fuelled criminality and damaged communities. The estimated social and economic costs of drug misuse are well in excess of £10 billion a year. Around three quarters of crack and heroin users claim to be committing crime to feed their habit.
"I am grateful for the considerable progress made by my predecessors. I am also grateful to the Secretary of State for Health for the announcement we are able to make today of an additional investment, which will total £183 million over the next three years, for treatment services and harm minimisation. The numbers entering treatment have increased by an average of 8 per cent each year since 1998. In 2000, seizures worth £780 million were made. Last year, 3.4 tonnes of heroin and 10.9 tonnes of cocaine were seized, exceeding targets.
"Today, I wish to inform the House of the overall direction of the review of the drugs strategy and the Committee's report. There will be an increased focus on class A drugs. The message is clear. Drugs are dangerous. We will educate, persuade, and, where necessary, direct young people away from their use. We will not legalise or decriminalise any drug, nor do we envisage a time when this would be appropriate.
"As recommended by the Committee, there will be a better focus on those whose drug addiction causes the most harm to themselves and to society; those described as problematic drug users. In the past two years, we have established the National Treatment Agency and invested more than half a billion pounds. We have begun to fill the gaps in services for crack addicts. We will continue the rapid expansion of referral for treatment of offenders.
"We accept that expansion in managed prescribing for the most appropriate cases of heroin addiction will be necessary; the right treatment for the right patient. But more than treatment is required. Aftercare and rehabilitation must become part of the package of care for those leaving treatment, or from prison. Harm minimisation will be given greater priority. But in the form in which the term is normally used, we are not persuaded that shooting galleries would, at this moment, be helpful.
"We will use the powers in the Proceeds of Crime Bill to confiscate the assets of those whose lifestyle depends on the misery of others and target the regional or 'middle' drug markets. We will clamp down on the dealers who prey on the young. We will increase the sentences for trafficking and dealing in class B and C drugs to 14 years. This will avoid mixed messages to those dealing in more than one
716
drug, and will establish a lead in European-wide discussions. But we do not agree that it is necessary to introduce a supply for gain offence.
"We will support parents and families to help them cope with the effects of addiction. In line with the Committee's recommendation, we will ensure that carers and families are involved in the development of services. We will launch an education campaign targeted at young people with the message that all drugs are harmful and class A drugs are killers. We are not persuaded that ecstasy should be downgraded; it can kill. However, the message to young people and families must be open, honest and believable. That is why I asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the classification of cannabis.
"They have recommended that the current classification is disproportionate in relation to harmfulness and the nature of other con trolled drugs. They were clear, and so am I, that cannabis is a potentially harmful drug and should remain illegal. However, it is not comparable with crack, heroin, or ecstasy. They were clear that greater differentiation between drugs which kill and drugs that cause harm would be both scientifically justified and educationally sensible.
"I have considered this advice along with the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. I have taken account of the Metropolitan Police experiment in Lambeth, which has seen a 10 per cent increase in the arrest of class A drug dealers. The Metropolitan Police will today announce that the pilot will be adjusted and will be applicable across London in the months ahead. I can tell the House that I will seek to reclassify cannabis as a class C drug by July of next year.
"Let me be clear: cannabis possession remains a criminal offence. I am determined that the police are able to control the streets and uphold order. They will be able to arrest for possession where public order is threatened or where children are at risk. The Association of Chief Police Officers will shortly issue national guidance to ensure that in the vast majority of cases officers will confiscate the drug and issue a warning. Police time saved will be refocused on class A drug dealing.
"Where communities are strong, drugs do not take hold. Drug-related crime and disorder devastate communities. That is why last year we launched the communities against drugs fund to provide £220 million over three years to enable communities to become part of the solution. It is the vulnerable who succumb to drugs. Statutory and voluntary agencies, families and communities all have a role to play in protecting them.
"Through education, harm minimisation, treatment and tough action against dealers and traffickers, we have a winning strategy. It will require positive commitment, rather than grandstanding. Last October, I called for a mature and intelligent debate. I hope that this is what we can continue to have. I hope that, in moving this

717
Statement today, we continue that sensible approach to a difficult and sensitive issue. I commend the Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.49 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. His closing words are absolutely right; it is very much a sensitive issue. However, the House will recognise that it is indeed an extraordinary Statement made on an extraordinary day.
There are two coherent strategies on cannabis. The Government, in the Statement today, choose not to adopt either of them. I recognise that a serious argument can be made for complete legalisation of cannabis with sale being taken out of the hands of the drug dealers and the substance being treated like tobacco or alcohol, licensed and taxed. It is not an argument to which I subscribe. The alternative policy which we prefer can be constructed—as it is in Sweden—to make serious efforts to lead young people away from cannabis use. The Government have not adopted either of those courses. In fact, they are giving control over cannabis to the drug dealers, but with the police turning away.
This is not just the day on which the Home Secretary made a Statement about a muddled and dangerous policy; today is also the day when the Government's chief adviser on drugs, Mr Keith Hellawell, resigned in protest at that muddled and dangerous policy. He told the "Today" programme that,
"this is causing a great deal of problems on the streets. It's causing a great deal of problems for parents who just don't know where they are".
Commenting later on the Home Secretary's Brixton experiment, Mr Hellawell said that it had become "open season" for those peddling drugs.
I invite the Minister to explain whether the Government intend that the police should arrest people who are openly selling cannabis—as they are on the streets of Brixton today—or whether they are asking the police to look away. I remind the Minister what local people think of the experiment in Brixton. The Reverend Chris Andre-Watson, youth group leader at Brixton Baptist Church, said on 5th July this year,
"This area has become saturated with cannabis and we even have drug dealing going on outside playgrounds. Young people feel that cannabis has been legalised".
Why are the Government introducing a system whereby they say, "We shall not prosecute you if you possess a small amount of cannabis. We are happy to let you go on buying this from your criminal drug dealer, but we will perhaps try to get hold of you and prosecute you if you try to buy harder drugs or if that same criminal who is supplying you with the cannabis tries to sell you harder drugs. What you have to do is say no to them. We shall not try to stop you if you say yes in the first instance to cannabis but we shall stop you if you say yes to the harder drugs". That is not a
718
clear choice for people to make. The Government are making a mockery of the "Just Say No" campaign. What are people to say no to these days?
Will the Minister explain how it can be right to tell one set of people that it is all right to smoke cannabis but to tell another set of people that they may be put in prison for 14 years if they sell it? Will the Minister explain how, with a policy that consists of deeply confusing mixed messages, he can expect to reduce drug dependency and criminality in this country?
The Statement says that the police,
"will be able to arrest for possession where public order is threatened or where children are at risk".
But how will the police determine the threshold for public order incidents before they decide to take action? Is that a strict legal reference to Section 4 or Section 5 public order offences and, if so, will the higher level of 4 or the lower level of 5 apply? Or do the Government intend the police to take action when other crime such as theft or burglary occurs at the same time? I am confused—as much of the Statement is confused—about when the police will have to take action. The Government say that the police will take action where children are at risk. Do they mean when children are at risk on the streets or in schools or at home? Where will the police be directed to arrest people on those occasions?
I am afraid that just saying in the Statement that the Government's message is clear does not make it so. It is hopelessly muddled. The saddest thing about the policy is that it owes its origins not to the advice of the Government's chief adviser on drugs, nor to a well considered examination of the results of the Brixton experiment, and certainly not to the views of the people whose children's lives are being destroyed by drugs, but to a political stratagem.
The Government adopted this policy because they believed that they could wrongfoot all their opponents, perhaps buying off the libertarians with increased liberalisation and buying off the anti-drugs lobby with a show of toughness. But, as the Government's own adviser said today:
"There is just a sort of repackaging, a respinning of the issue to appear as if something has been done".
The Government's clever stratagem has disintegrated in the past 24 hours and has presented the Government with a massive liability. Far more importantly, it will present many of our most vulnerable communities with the prospect of social disaster.
But it is still not too late. It is not too late for the Government to think again before this disastrous Order in Council is implemented. In the interests of the Government and in the interests of the young people of the whole of our country they should do so.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in your Lordships' House. We look forward to the publication of the update of the 1998 drugs strategy.

719
First, I express my concern about the inconsistencies in the Government's approach to the drugs policy and about the way in which the police seem to be implementing it. We do not have to go too far back to the time when Jack Straw, the then Home Secretary rejected some of the key recommendations of the report of the Police Foundation. In fact, the appointment of the drugs czar at that time gave a pointer of the Government's intention to be tough instead of liberalising some aspects of their drugs policy. The certain demise of this high level appointment is a clear indication of the change at the heart of the Government in handling this subject. However, there is the question of the confusion of the public with regard to the different messages that seem to be filtering through from the Government.
We agree that drugs policy is an important, difficult and sensitive issue. Does the Minister therefore accept that this makes it all the more important that the Government have talks with opposition parties to seek maximum political agreement before the national drugs strategy is updated in the autumn? Does he accept that despite some progress and successes, drugs policies and the present law are still failing badly? The real signs of success are reduced numbers of drug users, drug addicts and drug-related deaths.
Does the Minister agree that dealing with users and addicts should be seen principally as a health issue whereas tackling the dealers and traffickers should be seen principally as a crime issue? Is not that distinction important? If treatment services are to be significantly increased, which we certainly welcome, what then is the Minister's alternative to so-called shooting galleries for moving heroin addicts out of the clutch of criminals and into the hands of health professionals?
Although prison will be entirely appropriate for dealers and traffickers, does the Minister accept that crirninalisation and imprisonment are an inadequate response to the addiction of the addict while at the same time adding thousands more people to our already overcrowded gaols? The Minister mentioned an additional investment that will total £183 million over the next three years. It would he helpful to know precisely what is included within that figure.
On classification, what is the new logic for having different harm categories for amphetamines and cannabis, for example, if the maximum punishment for dealing in them will in future be the same? On cannabis, where the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls among many others shares the view that the present law has fallen into disrepute, we welcome the changed status of cannabis to a class C drug and the announcement that there will in future be a common police response across London to cannabis possession. However, it should not apply simply to London but should be a national policy.
Does the Home Secretary not see the horrible danger of muddled messages if it becomes national policy that cannabis use will not normally be arrestable unless the police consider it a public order matter, that the police will not be expected to look for people using cannabis but that the police will be expected to confiscate it if people use it?
720
If the Government agree with us that the main focus of the criminal justice and education systems should he to prevent young people being caught up in much more dangerous drugs, such as heroin and crack cocaine, is not the only logical, clear and consistent message that cannabis for personal use will never be the subject of criminal proceedings anywhere in the country but that dealing for profit in cannabis, as is the case with other drugs, will always be subject to prosecution by the law?
5 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, "Don't make any change" and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in effect said, "Legalise the possession of cannabis".
We take a middle and sensible course. Our strategy, as set out clearly in the Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place, is to focus on class A drugs; it is not to legalise cannabis. It remains unlawful and a crime to possess it. However, as the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Select Committee advised us, one's policy on drugs must be coherent and credible. They advised us that the distinctions that need to be drawn between different sorts of drugs must be more credible. That is why those two bodies recommended that we reduce cannabis from class B to class C. That advice has been taken by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It involves not legalising cannabis but having a coherent and credible policy that people will understand. I believe that they will understand it very clearly indeed.
As for the increase in penalties for dealing in cannabis, again, people will not have any difficulty understanding the distinction between, on the one hand, possession and, on the other hand, clamping down hard on dealing in illegal drugs such as cannabis. There is no question of a mixed message; the position is perfectly clear. We have dealt with the matter with a degree of clarity that matches people's experience.
The noble Baroness asked whether the effect of the approach involved saying that it was okay to smoke cannabis. No, it does not say that. It says that it remains a criminal offence, albeit class C rather than class B.
Will there be arrest for simple possession? The answer is that there will not be arrest for simple possession but that there will be arrest in aggravated circumstances, such as those involving public order or where there is a risk to children. That is in accordance with the advice given by ACPO. On the circumstances in which there is a risk to public order, I do not believe that ACPO will have any difficulty giving appropriate guidance to its members. Police officers regularly make such judgments on the streets. We have complete confidence that they will be able to continue to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, focused on the need to reduce the numbers of drug users, of drug dealers and of people who continue to take drugs having started to do so. We thoroughly agree. That should be the aim of our drugs policy. He said that possession—I believe that he was referring to all

721
drugs—should be regarded as a health issue whereas dealing and trafficking should be regarded as a criminal issue. There is a role in respect of both approaches.
The noble Lord indicated that when people go to prison, they frequently do not get sufficient treatment for their drugs problems. I agree. There has to be a real focus on providing help to people in prison who have drug problems.
The noble Lord asked: what is the Government's response to shooting galleries and are we in favour of some kind of authorised shooting gallery? Our position, which is set out more fully in the response to the Select Committee's report, can be summarised by saying that we support the provision of safe, medically supervised areas with clean needles for the administration of heroin prescribed as part of a comprehensive package of measures for treating heroin addicts, but not for those who have not been prescribed heroin. I hope that that answers the question.
I said in answer to the noble Baroness that we do not believe that our messages are mixed; they are quite straightforward. They seek to deal with the issue that many people face on the streets; those people need a coherent and clear response.
I turn to what the people of Lambeth thought of the experiment. The noble Baroness will know that the Police Foundation, in alliance with MORI, conducted a poll of Lambeth residents towards the end of last year. It showed that 83 per cent of residents supported the Lambeth cannabis scheme, although for 40 per cent of the total that was conditional on the police spending more time reducing serious crime. It also showed that 74 per cent believe that the scheme would result in police time being redeployed into tackling serious crime, that 64 per cent agreed that the scheme would improve community relations and that 71 per cent saw the scheme as a better way of dealing with young people who use cannabis. I wonder whether the noble Baroness has a better angle on what the people of Lambeth think.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Statement on cannabis is totally illogical and leads to the worst of all possible worlds? He said, on the one hand, that it is the Government's intention to declassify cannabis as a class C drug. I do not believe that that is right, but that is not the point. The fact is that that is bound to be taken by people as a clear message from the Government that there is really nothing wrong with taking cannabis. The Statement is bound to be looked on as encouraging experimentation and use of the drug among young people.
To attempt at the same time to increase the penalties on dealers is utterly illogical. Where is the supply, which the Statement will encourage, met other than through dealers? As my noble friend Lady Anelay said, are not the Government really throwing the control of
722
drugs and of young people into the hands on those very dealers? Does the noble and learned Lord really believe that those dealers, who will be encouraged to sell cannabis as a result of the declassification to class C, will be satisfied with going no further than that? Or does he accept that the chances are that they will encourage those who are going to them for class C drugs to advance to harder drugs—class A drugs—to the greater profitability of the dealers and the greater devastation of society, as the noble and learned Lord said?
I beg the noble and learned Lord to think again about how to deal with the situation. One cannot make Statements that appear to encourage the use and possession of cannabis and which imply that cannabis in small amounts is no concern without taking some view of the supply. If one goes down that road, surely it would be better to go the whole way, to decriminalise and to have open supply rather than to leave the situation as it currently is; that is, making cannabis a class C dangerous drug with supply only through the dealers.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord suggested that there is an illogicality between reclassifying—he referred to declassifying—cannabis as class C rather than class B, on the one hand, and, on the other, increasing the maximum penalty for trafficking in class C drugs. The answer to his suggestion is that there is no illogicality there. The basis for reclassification—all the advice—is that one needs to make distinctions between the top of the tree (heroin, crack and cocaine), which involves class A drugs, and class C drugs such as steroids, pain-killers that are not authorised and cannabis. They are all illegal but the distinctions between the three classes should be accurate, understood and coherent to people. That is a clear reason for the reclassification.
Equally, there is nothing illogical or inconsistent between that and saying, "We take an extremely serious view of people dealing and trafficking in drugs". We believe that the right course is to increase the penalties for that in relation to classes B and C. That is what we have done. There is no illogicality.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement. I find it clear in its commitment to tackling real problems. As chair of the National Treatment Agency, I shall focus mainly on treatment issues. The treatment agency was set up last year to monitor and improve the provision of treatment and to oversee the core treatment budget. Extra funding for treatment will be welcomed by all those who are active in the field.
As the Minister said, drug misuse affects the health of individuals, the health of families and the health of communities. It also has an impact on crime. But there are many challenges and I believe that those are addressed in the Statement. The challenges involve ensuring that integrated care facilities exist for individuals; that is, care services which stretch from referral right through to assessment and aftercare for

723
all people—prisoners, men, women, young people and black minority ethnic groups, all of whom have very different needs.
I also welcome the emphasis on educating young people to become more aware of the dangers of all drugs and the emphasis on tackling dealers and traffickers. The inter-departmental approach to drugs from the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary is encouraging. It is also encouraging that the Association of Chief Police Officers has placed an emphasis on treatment rather than on punishment as a solution to the problem of drugs.
How does the Minister envisage that the joint action between departments on tackling drugs will work in practice? I should also like an update on the alcohol strategy and the drug target document.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's question. It is very important to emphasise and re-emphasise that the drugs strategy to which my right honourable friend's Statement refers is about focusing, in criminal terms in particular, on class A drugs. It is about bearing down on drug traffickers and drug dealers. But it is also about treatment and rehabilitation, and, most importantly, it is about joining up between departments. Therefore, it is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, simply a criminal, health or education issue; it is a combination of all those.
The strategy will be delivered on the basis of close liaison between all the relevant departments, reinforced from time to time by a ministerial group with representatives from all the departments.
On targets, the Statement makes it clear that we shall publish a detailed update of the drugs strategy in October this year. I shall restrict my answers at present to the drugs strategy and not deal with the alcohol strategy.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, if I heard aright, I believe that there was one reference in the Statement to cannabis being potentially harmful. Is it not the case that cannabis can do appalling harm? Is there not now abundant evidence that it can, for example, precipitate schizophrenia? Do the Government accept the great body of evidence which indicates that cannabis is an extremely dangerous substance and that it can cause schizophrenia?
If the Government accept that body of evidence—I cannot for the life of me see how they can ignore it—how on earth can they go forward with a misguided policy that is bound to convey to young people that they can smoke cannabis with no risk at all? How can they simultaneously tell people, "For goodness sake, don't take cannabis or you risk ruining your lives"?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my right honourable friend's Statement makes it clear that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs took the view that cannabis is a potentially harmful drug. My right honourable friend in another place made it clear that he, too, considered it to be a harmful drug. There is no question of there being any other view than that.
724
However, the central point is that, while cannabis should remain illegal, it is not comparable with, say, crack, heroin or ecstasy. It is placed in a different category from those drugs. Again, I make it absolutely clear that the advisory council and my right honourable friend in another place considered it to be a potentially harmful drug and that it should remain illegal.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble arid learned Lord did not answer my question. Do the Government accept that the use of cannabis can precipitate schizophrenia?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not want to duck the issue, but I feel slightly reluctant to answer a specific question such as that. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord about that.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister kindly ensure that the House will be told if any guidance is to be given about the exact effects of cannabis? If noble Lords have listened to teenagers over the past 20 years, they will be aware of the great myth that cannabis does no harm at all. There are other stories which say that it will kill you after taking your first puff. There is a huge amount of disinformation about the substance. As everyone knows, such information is widespread. Will the noble and learned Lord undertake to ensure that the young are made aware of the exact chemical effects of the substance? An important point about the cannabis culture is that it has great layers of rubbish floating around in it concerning what happens when it is taken.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is an important point. It is extremely important that there should be an education campaign setting out the harmful effects of all the relevant drugs—classes A, B and C—in order to get rid of myths and to inform people of the dangers Of taking all drugs, including class C drugs. We hope shortly to begin an education campaign in which the precise information to which the noble Lord refers will be made as public as possible and will be directed in particular towards those in schools.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, is the Minister aware that government departments have run an education campaign about all drugs, including cannabis, for more than 10 years? I believe that we have just discovered why such education campaigns are not very successful.
I declare an interest. I have been involved in providing day care treatment for drug addicts in London for many years. I also now chair the Mentor Foundation, which is the leading drug prevention organisation in Britain. Therefore, over the past 15 years I have listened to a lot of Statements about drugs in your Lordships' House. I wonder whether the Minister is aware that, apart from a few details, that Statement could have been made at any time over the past 15 years.

725
The noble and learned Lord told your Lordships that the policy focuses on class A drugs. Does he believe that we have not been focusing on class A drugs for the past 25 years? We have. He talked about extending treatment services. I welcome that and, of course, I welcome the new money. We welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and her National Treatment Agency. That is a good step forward. But there is a very simple answer to why those treatment services do not work. There are not enough of them; they are colossally under-funded; there are not enough places; and the standards are too low. It is fairly simple.
The noble and learned Lord said that education is very important. It is, but have we not just heard an example of how difficult it is to educate people about drugs? The noble and learned Lord talked about departmental co-ordination. Of course, he is right. I cannot remember—perhaps the noble and learned Lord can help me—how many Ministers from that Front Bench have stood at the Dispatch Box and talked about co-ordination.
Is the noble and learned Lord aware—probably he is not—of how excited the drugs world was when, in 1997, the Prime Minister made it clear that his Government would focus on drugs? He appointed a co-ordinator, who resigned today. Then responsibility was moved and the Secretary of State took charge. Now the issue is back where it was in 1996—with a junior Minister at his department.
The noble and learned Lord talked about prevention. That is very important. I spent two long, frustrating meetings in the noble and learned Lord's department. Is he aware that the prevention strategy that was written up so carefully in 1997 simply does not exist?
I could not—nor would I wish to—address every point in this complex Statement. Some of it is very good and some of it is very sensible. But is the noble and learned Lord aware that, when he tells the House that this is a winning strategy, no one believes him? No one who works in the field considers it to be a winning strategy. He also said that he would like to have a mature and intelligent debate. My last question is whether the House can have a mature, intelligent debate. We have not been able to debate a drugs policy in your Lordships' House since before 1997. Does the noble and learned Lord believe that it would be a good thing if we were able to do so?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the last issue is a matter for the Business managers and I would not dream of trespassing into that dangerous territory. The experience of the noble Lord in dealing with drug addicts and people suffering from the effects of drugs is well known in this House. We all respect the work he has done. No one ever suggested that a drugs strategy would be easy to deliver.
I detected in the noble Lord's response that he does not dispute the fact that the things said in the Statement are good things; the question is whether
726
enough is being done. I shall make two points. First, this issue is treated as an extremely high priority. It is at the forefront of the priorities of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and has been since he became Home Secretary. Secondly, as I indicated in the Statement, we have put significant additional amounts of money into fighting drugs. There will never be enough, but the problem has a high priority and we are doing our level best to deal with it.
Lord Prior: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord defended himself on the grounds that the MORI poll carried out at the end of last year gave him evidence to support his case. Is that the latest information he has? Is there not further evidence to suggest that that information is miles out of date?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there has been much reporting and anecdotal evidence in relation to what is happening in Lambeth. The poll to which I referred is the most recent polling evidence with which I have been provided. If there is a later poll, I should be interested to hear about it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware—I am sure he is not—that a friend of mine telephoned me the other day because, on visiting a friend, he walked through Brixton and was stopped on many occasions and offered drugs. He was simply horrified. He is a strong young man of six foot two inches, in his early thirties, and he felt vulnerable and concerned.
Does the noble and learned Lord think that Brixton is out of control as regards drugs and drug pushing? If so, many people will shy away from Brixton and it will become a no-go area. If that is the result of the experiment, it is not very good.
Following the point raised by the noble Lord. Lord Waddington, can the Minister tell the House about the effect of cannabis on mentally ill people who take legal drugs? What happens when the two are mixed? Can he also comment on terminally ill people who have campaigned for years to use cannabis legally as part of their treatment? They say that cannabis helps them. Why not include them in an experiment? They are willing people, who say that cannabis helps them. As they are terminally ill, perhaps the damaging effects of the drug are not so important. They want to use it, and we should do all we can to help people in their last stages of life.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, obviously I was not aware of the conversation referred to by the noble Baroness. However, the point being made is whether drug dealing is increasing dramatically in Lambeth or Brixton. That is the essence of the first part of the question. There is no statistical evidence that there have been more dealers in Lambeth since the cannabis scheme started in July 2001. However, as I said, there has been anecdotal evidence. The evidence given by the noble Baroness is obviously anecdotal to that extent.

727
Dealer arrest figures, which have just been provided by the Metropolitan Police, show that there have been 224 arrests for supplying class A drugs from July 2001 to May 2002 compared with 204 arrests between July 2000 and June 2001. That is an increase of 10 per cent in 11 months, not 12 months. The Metropolitan Police acknowledge that certain areas have been a centre for crack supply for some years. The policing of crack and heroin has not been relaxed in any way as a result of the cannabis scheme. The police are taking tough action against dealers. As can be seen from the figures I have given, they have had some success. Obviously, one does not know the precise nature of the drugs offered to the friend of the noble Baroness. However, that is the view of the Metropolitan Police about what is happening in Lambeth. That should be set against all the other available evidence.
I turn to the effect of cannabis on the mental health of people taking legal drugs. It would be unwise to try to answer that question from the Dispatch Box. However, perhaps I may deal with that point when I write to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. We have indicated that we should welcome further tests to discover the effect of cannabis as a palliative. That is not in relation to the terminally ill. However, in order to give the correct answer, I would need notice of the question. Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
5.27 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 15.
[Amendment No. 107 B not moved.]
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 108:
Page 9, line 25, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Earl said: During the course of the debate on the Bill I shall talk a good deal about rights. Rights include those of noble Lords to an occasional night's sleep. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I propose to group together six of the amendments I have tabled in the hope that one slightly longer speech may take rather less time than six short speeches, and in the hope that it may clarify the issues I want to debate.
The amendments I want to group together are Amendment No. 108, which gives the power to make regulations in which applications for support may not be considered; Amendment No. 110, which would delete a regulation-making power not to consider a person to be destitute; Clause 21 stand part, which involves the requirement to reside in an accommodation centre; Clause 23 stand part, which concerns the right of the Home Secretary to withdraw support; Amendment No. 122, which imposes the power of curfew, and Amendment No. 139A, which allows a restriction of support to those who are in accommodation specified. That does not succeed in covering all the amendments which deal either with the
728
requirement to reside or the right to withhold support. Where possible, I shall try not to spend ally time on the others, unless they raise separate issues.
My principal concern is that which was expressed most of the way through yesterday's proceedings by my noble friend Lord Greaves. He was concerned that the power to require people to reside in accommodation centres, combined with the power to withdraw support may have the effect of making the accommodation centres creep inch by inch into the area of detention centres.
There is a grey area between imprisonment and liberty. House arrest is a classic example It was a clear issue of parliamentary proceedings in 1628. It is difficult to resolve the boundary between imprisonment and unlawful detention. My concern about the amendment is that the two powers taken together shall not be so used as to become unlawful detention. If they do, that would involve not only the misgivings of these Benches and of the Chamber, but it would engage the courts in powers of arbitrary imprisonment, the Human Rights Act and Strasbourg. That might lead the Government into rather deeper waters than those in which they wish to walk.
The Oakington judgment caused a good deal of thought in the Home Office. It created an unresolved dialogue. Clause 22, which we on these Benches welcome, provides a right to give support outside accommodation centres. That is good. But Clause 23 provides the right to withdraw such support. Clearly, a dialogue is still in progress about which of those powers the Government intend to implement. In fact, they have kept their options open.
I shall not be greedy. I shall not try to insist that the Minister accepts all these amendments. But he has a choice to make if he wants to put himself legally in the clear. He must retreat either on the power to make residing in the accommodation centre compulsory or on the power to withhold support. It will be his decision as to which of those he does.
I am not at all sure what he will do about this matter, but he is running himself into some fairly deep legal water. If he goes into a question which might get him into detention, he will have to engage with Article 5.1(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights. I think that he will probably be in the clear where he is dealing with people whose removal has already been decided on. Article 5.1(f) authorises,
"the lawful arrest or detention … of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition".
I do not make an issue of that.
However, we have talked for most of today about the need to detain people who are making an application and still hoping for success. I doubt whether that is covered in the first words of Article 5.1(f), which authorise,
"the … detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country".
Under Article 31 of the refugee convention, I hardly think that the people in the accommodation centre, making lawful applications for asylum, should be construed as having made unlawful entry into the

729
country and be detained for that purpose. Therefore, I do not think that the Government can rely on that. If they cannot, they must engage with Article 5.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It states:
"Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him".
That applies to detention and will be dealt with in later stages of the Bill. But I do not think that the Government want that to apply to ordinary accommodation centres. They will have to modify their position somewhat if they are to avoid that.
The Government will also, on the withdrawal of support, have to take account of the argument of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—which I read with a great deal of interest—that the withdrawal of support constitutes inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the convention. I do not know whether there is any case law on that subject. But it is a high-powered committee which would not make such suggestions lightly.
If I were the Government, I would be reluctant to put that particular point to the issue in the courts. For one thing, it would not look particularly good while the debate was in progress. Nor would I be entirely confident of success. I would not be entirely certain of failure. But it is a matter on which one does not particularly want to become a lawyer's "interesting case".
I am also interested in Article 24 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which provides that refugees shall be accorded the same treatment as is accorded to nationals in matters of social security.
I know that the Government will say that that does not apply. They will rely on the judgment in 1996 of Lord Justice Simon Brown in ex parte B. He accepted the Treasury's contention that the word "refugee" applies only to those whose claims to asylum have already been accepted.
I believe that it could be argued that, in a judgment which was otherwise extremely critical of the Government, that remark by Lord Justice Simon Brown was obiter. It was a matter which had not been argued before him. It was not material to the resolution of the case and was not supported by any body of argument. It also contradicts the wording of the UNHCR handbook.
In matters of interpreting the UN Convention on refugees, the proper guide to the intention of the legislature is the UNHCR handbook. It is its convention. It also seems to be contrary to the plain words of Article 1, which state that a refugee is any person who is outside the territory of his country with a well-founded fear of persecution and therefore unable or unwilling to avail himself of its protection. There is nothing there whatever about the need to have had one's application accepted.
There is also the authority of the judgment in 1993 of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan in the Khaboka case. He accepted the meaning of the UN
730
convention put forward by UNHCR and regarded the point as "absolutely clear". The Government would be unwise to take it as impossible that any future judge will follow the line taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. It is perfectly possible that they might.
In this context, the power of curfew makes it look even more like a detention, and the power, which I have taken up in Amendment No. 139A, to refuse support to those who do not reside in the accommodation centre looks suspiciously like a penalty. This at least is near cousin to detention. I think that the Government—unless they have more confidence in the courts than the Home Secretary usually appears to show—would be unwise to let these matters be resolved in the courts. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: Amendment No. 122, which deals with the power of curfew, is grouped with this set of amendments. When the Minister replies, perhaps he can say a bit more about how the Government intend to apply the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations. Under those regulations he can impose conditions requiring.
"a person not to be absent from the [accommodation] centre during specified hours without the permission of the Secretary of State or the manager".
That sounds as though the Government intend to lock these centres up at a fixed hour in the evening. No one will thereafter be allowed to enter or depart. It is rather like the old days in an Oxford college when the gates were locked—if I remember rightly—at 10 o'clock. My noble friend Lord Russell says that he still bears the scars.
I used to have a room on staircase 14 in Balliol with a drainpipe running up to the window. My sleep was disturbed almost every night with people coming in after the fixed hour.
I do not suppose that there will be drainpipes outside the accommodation centres. But if the noble Lord proposes to impose that kind of restriction on people, then we should know about it at this stage and not wait until the regulations are published.
In any normal society in this country people go about their business in the evening. They go out to the cinema, to the pub and to visit friends. Obliging people in accommodation centres to return at a fixed hour every evening would place an unreasonable restriction on their freedom to do what every other person in this country can easily do without any restriction.
Furthermore, under the provision in the following subsection, if a person breaches that condition, he can immediately be deprived of his right to remain in the accommodation centre. As I understand it, he would be cast into outer darkness without any means of support. What do the Government think will happen in these cases? Let us suppose that the person who inadvertently comes in late one evening has a family. The offence is absolute; there is no qualification. The Bill does not say that he will be subject to the penalty if he has no reasonable grounds for failing to returning by the specified hour. That is why we need the Minister

731
to spell this out in far more detail, so that we can judge whether to give these powers, knowing how they will be exercised.
Lord Kingsland: The mesmerising oratory of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has almost expunged from my mind what I had intended to say. He is right, of course, to say that if the restrictions on the activities of someone in an accommodation centre are so severe that they amount in effect to detention, then those restrictions must meet all the legal criteria laid clown, both by the convention and by our own courts, in permitting it.
In addition, I suggest that the Minister has to take into account bail criteria. It is not enough to say: "So long as I meet the detention criteria, I can introduce what restrictions I like". I suggest that the Minister must also apply the circumstances in which someone detained in an accommodation centre ought to have been granted hail and, therefore, freedom of movement. So there are two gateways through which these restrictions must pass in order to be valid in law.
I have a question of my own for the Minister. In circumstances where an asylum seeker breaches restrictions made on him in an accommodation centre before the final decision about his status is determined, would his so-called bad behaviour have any effect on the way in which the ultimate decision was reached?
Lord Filkin: I acknowledge with some appreciation the grouping that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has undertaken. It allows for a potentially more efficient consideration of these issues. We need that, given the distance that we have to go in the proper scrutiny of the Bill.
My response at this stage will be the Government's view of these matters, but I do not want to be rapid or rash in my response to the points raised on these clauses by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. On this occasion, it may be useful if I take some time to reflect on them, and either respond or not on or before Report if it would seem wise to do so. I hope that both noble Lords will take this as an interim response pending further reflection.
I shall deal first with some of the specific points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, before painting the overall picture of the Government's view on these issues. On the points about Article 5 and the ECHR and preventing a person effecting an unauthorised entry, the meaning of this is subject to the decision of the House of Lords in the Oakington case, which we are still awaiting, as the noble Earl knows. In any event, there is no intention to detain at an accommodation centre. It is not our intention that the conditions set out in Clause 27 will amount to detention or to drift towards that, which was clearly the central thrust of the question.
With regard to withdrawal of support breaches under Article 3, the answer is: we believe not. Simple destitution alone would not in our view meet the minimum level of severity required under Article 3.
732
The withdrawal of support could potentially breach Article 3, but whether it is breached will be a matter of fact in each case. We shall take decisions on withdrawing support on a case by case basis, with a clear awareness of the potential challenge and risk that might be implied by engaging Article 3. We consider that Article 24 of the UN convention on refugees applies only to recognised refugees.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the question of whether bail rights should be considered. We suggest that this is not necessary because this is not detention. Essentially, the noble Lord's challenge was that if it moved towards detention, then bail rights might do so. We shall seek to ensure that it is riot detention.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My point, which I ought to have made more clearly than I did, was that, in looking at the limits to restrictions that can be placed on the freedom of movement of someone in an accommodation centre, the test should be, first, the detention test, providing a kind of floor below which the Secretary of State could not fall. Above that, there should also be the bail test; namely, even if an individual was in detention, given all the circumstances, would a court have granted that person bail? This provides a second gateway through which the Secretary of State has to pass before he can impose a restriction on an individual at art accommodation centre. That was the point that I wanted to make.
Lord Filkin: As usual, the noble Lord was not unclear. He was explicitly clear on his first point. What was not set out was my response. I am still going to leave that in store. I shall reflect on it and come back to him, if I might.
The noble Lord raised a point about breach of conditions on bad behaviour and whether that would engage the credibility of an asylum case. This is clearly extremely sensitive territory. It is obvious that it does not automatically do so. Perhaps I may give an example that was used in another place. If someone in an accommodation centre was frequently absent without the approval of the centre and without acceptable reasonable grounds, and if he was then found to be working illegally in a job which had been arranged before his arrival in the United Kingdom, such circumstances might be relevant to the credibility of the claim. Clearly, I am choosing my words carefully, but I seek to illustrate a circumstance in which it is possible that a breach of the understanding and expectations in an accommodation centre might engage the credibility of the asylum claim. I preface that with a clear statement that this is not by any means an automatic situation—not for one second—and one has to be extremely careful in these matters that there is a clear relationship between the two or more sets of events.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether coming in late would be a breach of a person's residence conditions. The aim, under the conditions in Clause 27, is that the Secretary of State should act

733
reasonably and that reasonable conditions of residence should be set to try to ensure that a centre is a place where people can live as a community with some reasonable consideration for each other. At the same time, we want to ensure that the person has fulfilled his obligations to be present in an accommodation centre as part of his side of what is effectively an understanding of his receiving the support applied for on the grounds that he has stated that he is destitute and needs help from the state.
The Secretary of State is not obliged to withdraw support for breaches of conditions. Nor would it be right automatically to do so. Each decision to withdraw support would have to be taken individually. It would have to be proportionate and reasonable. In most circumstances, one would expect that it would be taken only after a process of proper warnings and communication. We are talking about human beings. One would seek to draw to the person's attention the fact that there was a breach, to hear any views about the breach, to affirm that the breach was serious if, in the light of that, it was felt to be so, and to point out potential consequences.
Earl Russell: Would the decisions to withdraw support be judicially reviewable?
Lord Filkin: They would certainly be appealable. Therefore, I expect that they would also be judicially reviewable if there were felt to be a failure of process in the appeal. We shall come to that when I speak more fully in a moment.
Lord Avebury: I am sorry to pile one interruption upon another, but the Minister has not answered my question. At what time will those restrictions be imposed, bearing in mind that the four centres the Government intend to build are not immediately adjacent to a large town? If someone wants to go out for a drink in the evening or wishes to attend a cinema, he must be allowed reasonable time to do so and to return to the centre. If a restriction were imposed that everyone had to be in by midnight, they could not lead a normal social life and comply with that condition.
Lord Filkin: The detail of what one might call house rules on considerate behaviour towards other residents will need to be considered by the Government in regulations and by the centre management with regard to how those are developed. For example, speaking loosely, one could envisage that if there were young children it might be unreasonable to come in at two or three o'clock in the morning and start making a lot of noise, because people have a right to their sleep. On the other hand, people are not being detained in accommodation centres. They are also expected to be able to lead a normal life.
The best analogy I can give relates to the block of flats in which I live. I have a certain amount of freedom in what I can do, but I do not have freedom to play my music system after eleven o'clock at night. One seeks to have house rules that reflect other people's needs. In
734
some senses, those are slightly different from the issue of fulfilling residence obligations in the accommodation centre. If a person is in an accommodation centre, the Government—the state—say, "We shall provide you with accommodation and support in what we hope will be a very decent place, but you are expected to give evidence that you are living there rather than living somewhere else without approval". In that area, there have to be some expectations and some warnings were a person repeatedly to breach the expectations of occupation in the centre.
Without getting myself into trouble, let me give an example. If someone wanted to go away for a night or two because there was a family funeral at the other end of the country, one could not imagine that that would not be allowed. But if someone repeatedly wanted to be away for two or three nights a week one would expect the centre manager to inquire why that person was going away for two or three nights, particularly if that were without permission, when they were expected to live in the accommodation centre to receive the support from the state for which they asked.
I leave it at that point. There are two issues: fulfilling the residence requirements and house behaviour. No doubt we can debate those issues further if appropriate.
I now place on the record the Government's general position and explain why we do not think that opposition Amendments Nos. 108, 110, 122 and 139A are appropriate. Equally, we think it important that Clauses 21 and 23 stand part of the Bill.
On Amendment No. 108, Clause 15 sets out a category of persons who can be supported within an accommodation centre: that is, asylum seekers and their dependants who are destitute, or likely to become destitute within a period to be prescribed. It also contains a power to make regulations to set out the particular procedure to be followed in providing such accommodation and gives examples of particular provisions which can be included in such regulations. Amendment No. 108 would prevent the Secretary of State being able to specify in regulations the circumstances in which an application may not be considered.
We need this ability to ensure the process works as smoothly and efficiently as possible. A particular example of the type of circumstance which is likely to be included is that an application may not be considered where the appropriate application form has not been completed. If we are to process applications efficiently it is necessary to make these requirements and ensure that those who are seeking support comply with our procedures for the benefit of all concerned. We believe that Amendment No. 108 would lead to potential delays and confusion in the application process.
On Amendment No. 110, Clause 17 contains a definition of destitution. Subsection (6) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations. Paragraph (a) makes clear that the regulations may include provision

735
for a person not to be treated as destitute in specified circumstances. The amendment would prevent the Secretary of State specifying circumstances in regulations where an application for support in an accommodation centre may not be considered; that is, when a person is not to be treated as destitute.
We believe that there is nothing sinister in Clause 17(6)(a). The power reflects an existing provision in Schedule 8 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The asylum support regulations made under that Act specify the circumstances which are likely to be equally applicable for accommodation centres. They include, for example, a person who is eligible for interim support from a local authority under the Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999 and a person who is eligible for social security benefits. Clearly, people eligible for support under other provisions should not be able to benefit from additional support. The asylum support regulations currently also excluded persons who have not made a claim for asylum. Again, we anticipate following a similar approach for accommodation centres. Naturally, we do not want to support non-asylum seekers under asylum support provisions. It is sensible to spell out these categories in secondary legislation so that the position is clear. Amendment No. 110 would prevent that.
Clause 21 is important because it sets out the relationship between provisions in Part 2 of the Bill and paragraph 21 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act and Section 4 of the 1999 Act.
A person subject to entry control may be examined by immigration officers to determine whether he is admitted to the UK and, if so, on what terms. Persons in that position are liable to detention but may be temporarily admitted as an alternative to being detained pending examination of their claim. Where they are granted temporary admission, they may be subject to residence and reporting requirements; similarly for people released from detention pending deportation.
Clause 21 makes clear that a residence requirement under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act may include a requirement to reside at an accommodation centre in the same way as a person may currently be required to reside at a private address or NASS accommodation. Clause 21 also makes clear that where a person is required to leave the accommodation centre following, for example, a breach of conditions, he is treated as having broken the residence restriction imposed under the Immigration Act 1971. This means that he may be liable for detention under current detention policy in the same way as a person breaching a residence restriction imposed at the present time under the Immigration Act 1971. This is an important part of our approach to honouring our obligations and expecting compliance with our procedures as a result.
Clause 23 deals with the withdrawal of accommodation centre support about which we have spoken. We need some protection against abuse of our
736
asylum support system. The clause sets out that support may be stopped where the Secretary of State suspects that a person or a dependant has committed an offence set out in Clause 30—for example, a person making false representations with a view to obtaining support for himself or any other person or a person making dishonest representations with a view to obtaining any benefit or other payment or advantage for himself or any other person. Support may also be stopped if a person or a dependant of his has failed to comply with any directions as to the time or manner of travel to an accommodation centre.
If support has been stopped under one of those provisions, it is right that we should be able to take account of that if a further application for support is made. We want to make sure that people are aware of the consequences of their actions. If they do not comply, they should not automatically expect to benefit in the same way as those who are fully compliant.
Clause 23(3) also allows the Secretary of State to take into account the fact that support has been withdrawn from a person following a breach of condition at an accommodation centre. Conditions of residence will be set out in regulations made under Clause 27 and will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I hope that that will he helpful.
The provisions are entirely consistent with those in the Asylum Support Regulations 2000. Regulation 20 deals with the suspension or discontinuation of support. Stopping support is a serious matter. We would assess cases on their merits and consider the precise circumstances of each case before taking that option. However, if our systems are to command the confidence of all those here and of the asylum seekers themselves, we must make clear what we expect of those who seek sanctuary and what may happen if our hospitality is abused. Asylum seekers whose support is withdrawn under the provisions of Clause 23 have the safeguard of a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator, as I said.
Amendment No. 122 would fundamentally undermine our policy for accommodation centres. We have made it clear that we intend residents to be subject to reporting and residence requirements. That is a crucial part of providing better contact management. If we cannot require accommodation centre residents to be present in the centre at specified times—such as overnight—how can we be sure of their whereabouts? It is a sad fact that some asylum seekers abuse our systems. I shall not go on about that. Our study of what happens in Denmark produced evidence that, in some circumstances, people will live elsewhere, if there is no residence requirement.
It may help if I make clear that, in operating residence conditions under Clause 27, the Secretary of State is obliged to be reasonable. That is an explicit and enforceable principle of administrative law. We will not make asylum seekers subject to unreasonable residence conditions. We want the centres to be self-contained communities in which people can live as normally as possible. As I said, we expect that

737
someone who wanted to visit a relative for a particular reason would be permitted to do so under Clause 27(3).
In short, if people behave reasonably—we have made clear our expectations—and do not abuse our hospitality, they should be able to abide by the residence conditions with minimal fuss and with minimal impact on their daily life. There would also be an understanding that exceptional circumstances would require reasonable consideration.
The Government cannot accept Amendment No. 139A. Taking a power to end the provision of subsistence-only support is wholly consistent with our policy of developing a more managed asylum system and developing ways of keeping better contact with asylum seekers during the asylum process. Given what we have discussed, it is clear that the replacement of the present system of dispersed accommodation with accommodation centres is some time in the future. Indeed, there is no certainty that that will happen; it is equally plausible that we might have a mixed system including some centres and some dispersal. However, if it does happen, we intend to offer support only in those accommodation centres.
Under current arrangements, asylum seekers can stay with friends or relatives and claim support to cover essential living needs. We have no control over where they live, which makes it difficult to maintain contact. As the Committee knows, large numbers of those who take up cash-only support remain in London and the South East. As of December 2001, over 17,000 of the 25,000-plus asylum seekers taking subsistence-only support lived in London. That presents problems and does nothing to help alleviate the pressure on services in the areas that the introduction of the dispersal scheme was designed to help. In deciding whether and when to exercise the power, the Government will take all relevant factors into consideration, including our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
It is anticipated that any increase in accommodation costs will be offset by savings delivered elsewhere in the asylum system as a result of improved contact. I recognise that we are talking about events that are conjectural and some way into the future. However, the power must be there, should we need to cross that bridge.
I hope that the assurances that I have offered—for now, at least—will be sufficient to allow the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for the care, courtesy and consideration with which he has handled the amendments. In offering to reflect on them over the summer, he has offered me the central assurance for which I asked.
I am painfully aware that I am not a lawyer. What I said should be regarded as being, largely, in the interrogative mode. If I can be certain that the Government will consult their legal advisers and
738
consider with them whether there is any weight in the questions that I have raised, I will have achieved my main purpose. For that, I thank the Minister warmly.
Some questions remain. I was relieved by what the Minister said about the reasonableness required by Clause 27. I hope that that will meet some of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Avebury. When he spoke on Clause 21, he made clear the element of compulsion in that clause. I happen to know a Kosovar refugee who has settled in London. She would, I think, have come to London in any case because she wanted to be near her sister who lives here. That is not unreasonable. Making it compulsory not to do it would raise questions.
The Minister skilfully and carefully considered the accommodation centres and the withdrawal of support as two separate lines of argument. However, the central point of what I said was that, in such cases, they may need to be taken jointly, not severally. It is the combination of the compulsion to reside with the penalty—we must call it that—of withdrawal of support from someone who breaches it that raises questions in my mind about whether that might amount to a form of detention.
Lord Filkin: Having said that I would reflect on the points raised, I shall add that point to the pile that the noble Earl has already offered me.
Earl Russell: That is exactly the note on which I was about to conclude my remarks. I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Destitution: definition]:
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Dependant: definition]:
Lord Bhatiamoved Amendment No. 110A:
Page 11, line 9, at end insert—
"() is over 18 years of age"
The noble Lord said: I want to raise another issue relating to children in the accommodation centres. Earlier, we debated Amendment No. 107, which dealt with the issue of providing education for children in accommodation centres. My amendment deals with the issue of whether children should he placed in accommodation centres with their families. It would also he useful to consider whether children should be placed in the proposed accommodation centres at all. That issue has not been explored in the Bill's passage to date. but it should be an important consideration for us.
Children's charities and refugee organisations are concerned that accommodation centres will not afford children the care and protection they need and will not uphold their rights under human rights law. My amendment would ensure that children and their

739
families were not housed in accommodation centres. It would mean that dependants of asylum seekers, as defined in Clause 18, would not include children. There are concerns that because of the repeated reforms of the support arrangements for asylum seekers, children are losing out. We cannot continue to experiment with children's lives by testing policies on them to see whether they are feasible and withdrawing them after some children have been irreparably damaged. If there are genuine fears that living in accommodation centres could do lasting harm to a child's development, the policy should not proceed.
An understanding of the degree of trauma, upheaval and loss that children seeking asylum have suffered should always be uppermost in our minds as we determine policies that impact on them. Their emotional and mental health are likely to be extremely fragile and they will often be disorientated, confused and frightened. They will need specialist, and sensitive care and support.
It is highly unlikely that accommodation centres of the kind proposed will provide the right kind of care and support in the best environment for the child. Moreover, placing children in institutions that are not focused on meeting their individual needs is likely to delay substantially the healing process, if not exacerbate their problems, by adversely affecting their development and well-being.
As we know, the centres will be large, sited in remote places and insular in so far as they will not encourage residents to engage with the local community by providing all services on site. Is that the environment that any of us would wish for our own children? More to the point, should we force such an environment on extremely vulnerable children, many of whom will have acute needs?
The Government have sought to justify their proposals by saying that most asylum seekers who are recognised as refugees will remain in the accommodation centres for only two months, but in Standing Committee in response to calls to have a six-month limit on a stay in an accommodation centre, Angela Eagle said that six months was a "tough call" in terms of processing claims.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child should provide our guiding principles in all decisions relating to children. The convention provides a critical standard against which our treatment of children seeking asylum can be assessed. In particular, the best interests principle, which is set out in Article 3 of the convention, should be our overriding consideration as we develop policy. Children's charities point out that the Government have failed to demonstrate that placing children and young people in accommodation centres is in the best interests of those children.
The placement of children and their families in accommodation centres also gives rise to serious concerns under other articles of the convention. Under Article 6, there is a duty on the state to ensure to the maximum extent possible the development of the child. Article 15 refers to freedom of association, but
740
living in isolated areas will make it difficult for families to make cultural links and participate in normal community life. The communal experience of accommodation centres may militate against the rights of children to privacy and a family life, to which Articles 16 and 18 refer. Families will be denied a say in the location and type of accommodation that would best meet their needs and the best interests of their children under Articles 5 and 18. The removal of opportunities for children to participate in social, leisure, recreational and cultural activities available to other children in the UK is covered by Article 31. Children will be denied a voice in major decisions that affect them, to which Article 12 refers.
All those concerns were considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which concluded that the most serious concerns were in respect of Articles 3, 12, 15 and 31. In particular, the Committee emphasised that the duty on the Government under Article 3 is to make the best interests of the child the primary consideration in all actions concerning children. In respect of Article 15, which sets out children's rights in relation to freedom of association, the Committee stated:
" … in our view, it would be a matter of real concern if life in an accommodation centre for destitute asylum seekers and their dependants were to be regarded as an example of that 'normal community life' with which children are entitled to make cultural links and in which they are entitled to participate. We accept that the Department intends to make efforts to make life in the centres as pleasant as possible, but such a life would be inherently abnormal by most people's standards. It would also be likely to be somewhat cut off from local communities. The proposal to educate most children inside the accommodation centres rather than in local schools … would deprive the children of an important opportunity to forge links with the local community, and could delay the process of integrating into the community those who are successful in establishing a right to remain. Making links is likely to be particularly difficult if accommodation centres are located in isolated areas, as seems to be quite possible in many cases. We are concerned that this will make it difficult to meet the requirements of children's rights under CRC Article 15".
If it is in the best interests of children to be housed in accommodation centres, we would expect children seeking asylum to welcome the Government's proposals. However, young people consulted by Save the Children felt that accommodation centres were not a good idea for children and they were particularly concerned about being segregated from local communities. One of the children said:
"Young people need to get out and experience things".
Another said:
"We will not be able to make friends, especially with local people"
A third person said:
"Some people [in accommodation centres] will make trouble and noise and there will be no space to be individual".
What is the alternative to accommodation centres? We should not forget that, while the pilots are taking place, the vast majority of asylum seekers will still be dispersed in the normal way. More importantly, many organisations working with asylum seekers are of the view that dispersal is starting to work much better in some areas. Where the right infrastructure is in place

741
and community partnerships of service providers have been built, there is growing evidence that dispersal placements can be very successful.
The Government's operational review of the dispersal scheme last year, made a series of practical recommendations on how the dispersal system could be further improved. It addressed issues such as clustering, and improving communication between NASS and other local agencies better to prepare communities in dispersal areas and to ensure that there is a better match between children and families and the services that they need. But the Government have given no time for those recommendations to be implemented before coming up with yet another proposal on how to accommodate asylum seekers. That is difficult to understand, particularly given that the emerging evidence on dispersal was increasingly positive.
The priority should be to improve existing services to enable children to access mainstream services and to piece their lives back together in as normal an environment as possible, rather than create new systems that divide, disrupt and exclude. The onus is on the Government to evaluate whether or not, according to objective criteria, it is in children's best interests to be placed in an accommodation centre rather than in their own home with their family in the community.
The Government have failed to demonstrate, or even to argue that it is better for a child seeking asylum to be placed in an accommodation centre than in his own home. It is difficult, therefore, to accept the Government's claim that they treat such children as children first and foremost. Indeed, it seems that the rights and needs of those vulnerable children are being subordinated to the demands of an inflexible, politically driven asylum policy. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Select Committee on Delegated Powers in its 24th report referred to this clause and Clauses 59 and 60. The report stated that the definition of dependant would be prescribed in regulations. However, a Home Office memorandum to the Committee before it considered the Bill suggested that the Government were thinking that they might define what a dependant was and could consequently remove the delegated power. Does the Minister know whether it was the Government's intention to do that? I do not think that an amendment has been tabled to that effect. To leave the definition to delegated legislation is slightly worrying and perhaps some of those worries were encapsulated in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.
Lord Elton: Perhaps the Minister could at the same time tell us where to find the definition of "a prescribed class", mentioned in Clause 18. I cannot find it anywhere.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was referring to that issue.
Lord Renton: With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, who has taken a great deal of trouble to put his case, I do not see how the Government can accept the amendment. It seems to conflict with Clause 16(1)(a), which states:
"For the purposes of this Part a person is an 'asylum-seeker' if—
(a) he is at least 18 years old".
Here we are dealing with dependants. To provide that no one under the age of 18 can be a dependant could create immense hardship and trouble. I believe that a large proportion of the dependants will be teenagers between the ages of 13 and 17 inclusive. If they are not treated as dependants, with all the rights that the Bill gives to dependants, they could be deprived of accommodation, education and even medical treatment. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, would not want to see such a situation and therefore I hope and believe that the Government will reject the amendment.
Lord Filkin: The noble Lord is right. The amendment would prevent our supporting dependent children under the age of 18 in accommodation centres. In effect, it is a repeat of the previous debate. Having spoken rapidly and at, I thought, excessive length, I shall only weary the Committee if I repeat the points I made. In short, they are faster decision-making, the potential for high-quality education and support, and a proper evaluation which will be open for all to see.
I shall not add further to that reply except to refer to why we believe that placing families with children in accommodation centres is in the best interests of the child. If the family is successful in its application, it is likely to happen faster and the family will then be able, at an earlier stage, to integrate into British society. If the family is not successful and is due to be removed, it will not be in the interests of the child for him to be integrated, only then to be removed. There is no reason to suppose that a place in an accommodation centre would breach the rights of the child. On the contrary, it would fully meet his needs at that stage.
As regards the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, the definition of "dependants" is still under consideration. We intend to have a wider pragmatic definition of "dependant" and may well steer a leaner path to ensure flexibility to react to experience and changing circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked about the definition of "a prescribed class". Clause 33(1) provides that "prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State by order or regulations. That is one of those delicious circular definitions for these purposes.
Having made those points, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: On the point of definition of "dependant", could a person be taken to be a dependant because he was too old to be self-sufficient?

743
As the Minister was speaking, I suddenly had a picture if Eneas emerging from the flames of Troy bearing his father on his shoulders.
Lord Filkin: Certainly in the common-sense understanding of the word, but I would need to reflect on whether that is the meaning we will want to give it in the regulations. The expectation was that we would be looking at children as dependants rather than older people. But we will reflect on the point.
Lord Elton: Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that he referred to Clause 32(1). If so, the definition still eludes me.
Lord Filkin: If I said Clause 32(1) I was wrong. I should have said Clause 33(1), which is a repetition of the problem we had earlier.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall be brief. I wholly agree with the Minister that a debate on this issue would simply be a re-run of the debate on Amendment No. 107A. On the other hand, the debate in the Commons on the same amendment lasted 70 minutes. Until the Minister spoke, four Labour MPs representing London constituencies took part. I took the trouble to read the whole of that 70-minute debate comprising the views of Labour MPs. It reinforces powerfully the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, in the debate on Amendment No. 107A, that flexibility is immensely desirable. If trialing can include some of the points made in the debate in the Commons, so much the better.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: We are in the sphere of speculation and conjecture, and I do not want to weary the Committee by prolonging the debate. However, some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, about what life might be like in an accommodation centre need to be taken seriously. There is the strange paradox that it would deny families the kind of privacy in which they are entitled to expect to live. Accommodation centres will be unnatural communities, probably intimidatory from time to time. At the same time, Article 15 on the rights of the child and freedom of association is breached. Confining families in accommodation centres, even with the theoretical possibility of going out and about, will not enable the children to experience any kind of normal life.
It may be that the alternative is even worse. I know of many scandalous cases of immoral and irresponsible private landlords making life extremely unpleasant for asylum-seeking families. If that were the case and nothing could be done about it, life in accommodation centres would be less bad. It would certainly not be good. The best solution would be the better running of the dispersal system with better support for those dispersed into the community.
Will the Minister reassure the Committee that real efforts are being made to support families who are dispersed so that they are not intimidated and that in the creation of communities in accommodation
744
centres there will be both concentration on privacy and the possibility of the children being able to engage with community life more widely?
Lord Filkin: What the right reverend Prelate says about children having association while in accommodation centres is right. We will seek to foster that in their development. Seeking to make dispersal work better will be an objective of government policy, come what may, because on any conjecture of how quickly we move forward on accommodation centres, dispersal will be with us for some years. Therefore, the right reverend Prelate is right to mark it and we are signalling that we must seek to improve.
Lord Joffe: I support the amendment, which is different from Amendment No. 107A. That amendment dealt solely with the education of children in accommodation centres. This amendment proposes that children should never be placed in accommodation centres.
I want to raise only one point in addition to those mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bhatia. There is much concern among children's charities about the child protection framework in accommodation centres. The information that has emerged through responses to questions in the other place raises serious concerns about the inferior level of protection that will be afforded children in accommodation centres and, indeed, whether the Government have properly thought through this aspect of their policy.
It is disturbing that in an answer to a question raised in the other place on 10th June, the Government stated that accommodation centres will not have a statutory duty to have a policy on child protection but that such matters will be left to individual contractual arrangements. The Government have also stated that accommodation centres will not be required to register under the Care Standards Act 2000, even though they meet the criteria for a requirement to register as set out in that Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could advise us on whether all the relevant provisions of the Children Act 1989 will apply to children in accommodation centres.
Children seeking asylum are particularly vulnerable. It is unjustifiable to place them in an institutional setting that has inferior child protection and welfare frameworks compared with those that must be in place by law for other children.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Filkin: For the record, although the Committee may weary of hearing this. we do not accept the suggestion that life for families in accommodation centres will be poor. The centres will not be camps; they will be more akin to self-contained villages with all the facilities needed to enable people and their children to lead decent lives without fear.
The categorical answer to the noble Lord's specific question whether the provisions of the Children Act 1989 will apply to children in accommodation centres is yes. Section 47 of the Act places a duty on local

745
authorities to respond if they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child living in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm.
Lord Bhatia: I am grateful to the Minister for his views on the amendment. All Members of both Houses of Parliament must think first about the needs of children and secondly about the asylum process. Children are vulnerable. In many cases they will be isolated. Often they will be bewildered and confused. The best solution would be not to place such children in accommodation centres. Perhaps an element of flexibility should be introduced whereby families with young children seeking asylum should be allowed to live in the community from the start. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Sections 15 to 18: supplementary]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): I cannot call Amendment No. 111 because it has already been debated.
Earl Russell: I do not think that it has been debated. Does the Minister have an opinion on that?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I may offer some clarification. We have a white sheet and a green sheet for the amendments. I think there is an error on the white sheet. That error has been corrected on the green sheet.
While I have no great desire to ask for an extra debate, in all honesty and fairness I should point that out.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must apologise to the Committee. I am not in possession of the green sheet; I have the white sheet, which contains the error. Perhaps we may revert to Amendment No. 111.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 111:
Page 11, line 12, after "Secretary of State" insert ", after appropriate medical advice,"
The noble Earl said: I am most grateful to the Minister and to the Deputy Chairman of Committees. I shall not take long over the amendment, which concerns proof of age. In societies that have not been through the transition from memory to written record, sometimes proof of age can be difficult.
Some hilarious proceedings have been recorded in medieval and Tudor English jurisprudence in which every villager recollected that the birth of a child happened in the year when he broke his leg or when the church steeple was struck by lightning. These dates demonstrate many of the difficulties presented by the dates at the beginning of St. Luke's Gospel.
746
Occasionally decisions by immigration officers are based purely on appearance at first sight, without making allowance for the very different rates and ways in which groups of people develop. The Bill provides that,
"The Secretary of State may inquire into and decide a person's age".
The amendment would insert the words, "after appropriate medical advice". That would not remove the possibility of error, but it would greatly lessen it. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As ever I am grateful to the noble Earl for his discourse into history. Dates of birth are important in modern society. I recall being very excited when my son was born, but I am still unclear as to whether he was born five minutes before or five minutes after midnight. We settled on five minutes after the hour.
The Government's position on this matter is simple and straightforward. It is necessary to be accurate and certain about a person's age. For that reason, the Secretary of State will need to establish age, because with it comes eligibility for different kinds of support. The principal issue here is that of single adults claiming to be unaccompanied minors. That is due to the perceived benefit of remaining within the area of the local authority providing support, which is often London or the South East.
We believe that the amendment is unnecessary as all those claiming to be unaccompanied minors are referred to social services for an assessment before the Secretary of State makes a decision on their age. That decision will determine whether the applicant will be supported by the local authority or whether they would be eligible to be supported by the Secretary of State in an accommodation centre. Those aged 18 will fall to be supported by the Secretary of State. For that reason, the Secretary of State needs to have the power to determine age in order to minimise disputes.
An equivalent provision enabling the Secretary of State to inquire into and decide a person's age for the purpose of provision of support through NASS is contained in Section 94(7) of the 1999 Act. That does not refer to medical advice.
We are grateful to the noble Earl for the amendment, but we think that it is unnecessary and that the provisions in place will work well enough.
Lord Avebury: For the avoidance of any doubt, can the Minister confirm that X-rays are not used for age determination purposes? The matter was raised not long ago in this House. It was not apparent to some noble Lords, including noble Lords who are medically qualified, that in 1982 when the then Secretary of State went into the matter in some detail, it was decided that, on the benefit of medical advice—including advice from the British Medical Association—it was inappropriate to use X-rays for the purpose of age determination. The decision was reached because of the possible effects on the health of the child.

747
Whatever advice and whatever inquiries the Secretary of State may pursue on determining the age of an applicant, I should be grateful for the Minister's assurance that X-rays will not be used.
Earl Russell: I was well aware that this provision was not included in the 1999 Act because I moved the same amendment at the time and received the same response.
I do not think that social services are necessarily competent to take this decision. It is an expert medical matter. Rates of development can be very different. In the days when it was still open, I would regularly pass by St. George's School, Westminster. I would see members of the same class coming out of school. It was an inter-racial group. Young people who were clearly from the same class, obviously friends and contemporaries, looked to the casual observer as if in age they might differ by as much as five years. I do not believe that everyone in social services is competent to deal with that. It is a reasonably expert area of medicine.
I hope that the Minister will think further on the matter, but I shall not pursue it this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, s. 5]:
[Amendment No. 111A not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Person subject to United Kingdom entrance control]:
[Amendment No. 111B not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Provisional assistance]:
[Amendments Nos. 112 to 114 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 114A:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
"LENGTH OF STAY: FAMILY WITH CHILDREN

(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring him to consider whether accommodation should be provided for a person and his dependants outside an accommodation centre under a provision of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) where—

(a) they have been residents of an accommodation centre for a continuous period of time specified in the regulations, and

(b) at least one of the dependants is under 17.

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring him to provide accommodation for a person and his dependants outside an accommodation centre under a provision of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) where—

(a) they have been residents of an accommodation centre for a continuous period of time specified in the regulations,

(b) at least one of the dependants is under 17, and

(c) the person requests that he and his dependants be provided with accommodation outside an accommodation centre.

748

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that where paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection apply to a person and his dependants, the Secretary of State must consult the person in the course of the consideration required by that subsection.

(4) Regulations under subsection (2) must provide that where paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection apply to a person and his dependants, the Secretary of State must give the person an opportunity to make a request of the kind referred to in paragraph (c).

(5) Where the Secretary of State provides accommodation outside an accommodation centre in pursuance of regulations under this section he shall take any necessary steps to ensure that residence in the accommodation provided does not breach a residence restriction within the meaning of section 21.

(6) The Secretary of State may inquire into and decide a person's age for the purpose of regulations under this section.

(7) Section 45 is subject to regulations under this section."

The noble Lord said: As I said previously, we wish to bring forward an amendment at this stage of the Committee proceedings following the Home Secretary's announcements on Report in another place.
We have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by organisations such as Save the Children and the Refugee Council about the length of time children may spend in accommodation centres. We recognise that a few months may seem much longer in the lives of younger children. We can also see the need to consider whether what one might call a more normal social setting outside an accommodation centre would be appropriate for children at a particular stage having regard to their developmental needs.
The amendment therefore allows the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring him to consider a case after a period of time to be specified in regulations. I want to make it clear that we currently intend this period to be six months. At that stage the Secretary of State will consider whether a family should continue to be supported in an accommodation centre or whether support should be provided in a dispersal area. A number of relevant factors will be looked at—for example, the stage the asylum claim has reached and how soon a final determination will be reached.
We also envisage the education provider at the accommodation centre producing a report or an assessment in which any particular developmental needs of the child could be raised. This clause makes it absolutely clear that the parents must be consulted.
If the Secretary of State decides at the end of this six-month period that the family should remain in the accommodation centre, subsection (2) allows him to make regulations which would require him to provide accommodation to the family if they wish to leave after a period of time, which again will be specified in regulations. I want to make it clear that we currently intend this period to be nine months—that is, three months after the Secretary of State would have been required to consider the case.
At that stage the parents must be given an opportunity to request that they be supported outside the accommodation centre. If they wish to move to a dispersal area at that point they will be able to. The only way they will remain in the accommodation

749
centre is if they themselves wish to. There will be no power for the Secretary of State to require their further stay for any other reason.
Government Amendment No. 134A is consequential and sets out that regulations made under this clause will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
So we have listened and responded accordingly. However, I want to emphasis some important points in general. Accommodation centres are designed to provide a supportive environment for asylum seekers. Those who have come seeking refuge will have a roof over their heads, adequate food, activities to occupy their time, interpretation facilities and will be in contact with many other residents who speak the same language. They will also be in a centre which is designed to keep them informed about the progress of their case so that they are not left bewildered and understand fully what we expect of them in return. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The Minister is well justified in moving this new clause. However there is one item in it that he should reconsider. Subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new clause states:
"at least one of the dependants is under 17".
Surely that should be "under 18". Elsewhere in the Bill the age of 18 is regarded as the age of maturity. To choose 17 creates a rather unusual situation. I do not expect the Minister to reply at once, but I suggest that on Report he should consider amending it to 18 rather than 17.
Lord Dholakia: I welcome the amendment. We discussed yesterday the role of the visiting committees and the monitor. It would be very helpful if information of this nature was examined very thoroughly in order that no pressure is put on a family to stay in an accommodation centre. There should be an independent assessment of people's needs and there should be no pressure put upon them to stay there.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: I warmly support my noble friend's amendment. He knows that I believe six months is a rather long time for a child. I hope to press him to reduce the period.
My question relates to subsection (3) which states that,
"the Secretary of State must consult the person"—
by which he means, I think, the parents. I remind him that the Joint Committee on Human Rights complained that the department—that is, the Home Office—appeared to envisage the children's parents acting as the main channel for children's views. I draw to his attention that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires due weight to be given to the views of children—all children—particularly in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting them. That appears under Articles 12(1) and 12(2). Perhaps
750
my noble friend will confirm that he envisages the children themselves being consulted under the amendment.
Earl Russell: This amendment also has been moved in response to representations from my honourable friend Mr Hughes. It is one of considerable importance to these Benches and to our attitude to other parts of the Bill. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the care and trouble he has taken with it and for his serious efforts to be helpful.
He is of course handicapped by the extremely wide, permissive language in which regulations are now normally drafted. The amendment refers to,
"a continuous period of time specified in the regulations".
Like the Minister, we shall need to reflect and consult during the Summer Recess. Is there any chance whatever of our seeing the draft regulations during the Recess? This would materially assist us in regard to matters to do with Clause 31.
Is the Minister saying that it will always be the case that people will need to be held in the centre during the six plus three period while their appeals are being considered, or will there be some cases where after the six months they may be allowed out? Will the Government allow flexibility in such cases or not? Anything the Minister can say to help us on this matter will be taken very seriously and discussed very carefully.
Lord Filkin: As to the good question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about why not under 18, let me give him the Government's response. This will give him two or three months to reflect on the matter before we come back on Report.
We have made it under 17 because we believe that the situation is different for those of compulsory school age and below. Young people aged 18 and over will be able to seek, for example, voluntary activities in the local community or attend further education outside the accommodation centre, subject to meeting the requirements of colleges. So there is more opportunity for people of that age to address any concerns about developmental needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made good points in regard to visiting committees and the monitor. One would expect that these are the kind of issues that could well be within their purview to ensure that people and families were being treated appropriately in the centre.
As to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, she will not be surprised to hear—I said this a few minutes ago—that there is no change in our position in regard to six months. It is right that parents or the person in the parental role should be consulted. When conducting his consideration, there is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State taking into account the views of the child. We shall consider slightly more positively how best to do this.
I am absolutely certain that it will come as no shock to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it is unlikely that draft regulations will be available during the Summer

751
Recess. However, we could have further discussions on these issues in order to focus down on areas of particular concern. I should be delighted to do so if that would be helpful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 25 agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 115:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
"PROHIBITION OF PERSONS DISQUALIFIED FROM WORKING WITH CHILDREN FROM WORKING IN ACCOMMODATION CENTRES: AMENDMENT OF SECTION 36 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURT SERVICES ACT 2000 (C. 43)
There shall be inserted after section 36(2)(a) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) (meaning of "regulated position")—
"(aa) an accommodation centre provided under section 14 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,""
The noble Baroness said: This amendment, by which I hope to remedy a perhaps unintended loophole left by the Government, is essential for the welfare of children who will reside in accommodation centres. The amendment adds to the meaning of "regulated position" in Section 36 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 and "accommodation centre" created by this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Joffe—I am disappointed that he is not in his place—raised in his earlier amendment the much wider question of child welfare. I focus on the much narrower and, I hope, resolvable issue of accommodation centres. The Refugee Children's Consortium, for whose briefing last week I am grateful, made it clear that it is important that such centres, whether or not they have a statutory duty to provide a child protection policy, should have designated staff to deal with child protection issues and that children must not be at risk.
My concern is that the Bill as drafted could place children at risk because sex offenders would not be covered by the regulations contained in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 if they sought work in a voluntary or employed capacity in an accommodation centre. My amendment is therefore very tightly drawn to solve a single problem. It fairly and squarely ensures that sex offenders could not be engaged in employment or voluntary work in accommodation centres where, I believe, they would put children at risk. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept this amendment or that he can draw to my attention other legislation which ensures that such people would be prevented from accepting such positions in accommodation centres. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, which we support, has some substance. I therefore hope that the Minister will give it further serious consideration.
Lord Hylton: In view of the scandals that have plagued a number of children's homes in a variety of English and Welsh counties, it is very important to
752
prevent, by whatever means possible, similar occurrences in accommodation centres. Should they happen, the whole concept of accommodation centres would be brought into grave disrepute.
Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment, which deals with the important issues to which the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Hylton, have referred.
We agree that the safeguarding of children in accommodation centres is of paramount importance. In accommodation centres, they will be with their families. Therefore, the situation is not identical to that in other establishments, such as children's homes or local authority secure accommodation, which are for the exclusive use of children not accompanied by their families. Nevertheless, concern for their protection still prevails. That does not remove the need to ensure that people working in accommodation centres are properly vetted and suitable to be working there.
The existing statutory framework will apply, including the child welfare provisions in the Children Act 1989. It is also the case that those disqualified from working with children are already prohibited from employment in those positions that meet the definition of "regulated position" within the scope of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.
The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act uses the concept of regulated positions and provides that it is a criminal offence for an individual who is disqualified from working with children to apply for, offer to do, accept or undertake any work in a regulated position. It is also an offence for an employer knowingly to offer work to or employ such a disqualified person. A regulated position is so defined that it can relate both to type of establishment and type of work. Thus, for certain types of listed establishments—children's homes, children's hospitals and the like—all employees are considered to be in a regulated position. Noble Lords opposite seek to add accommodation centres to that list.
However, in addition, a person is considered to be in a regulated position if he undertakes work of a type listed in Section 36 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act. Therefore, accommodation centre staff would be in a regulated position if their normal duties involved caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of children. Thus, accommodation centre teachers, créche workers and the like will be caught by the legislation. We need to consider more fully the position of ancillary staff.
We shall ensure that any contract with an accommodation centre provider enables the Home Office to approve staff before they start work at the centre. We shall also require the contractor to undertake the highest possible level of criminal records check for each member of staff. Our initial view is that those contractual requirements, together with the existing statutory protection, are sufficient. However, in the light of this amendment, we shall consider whether there is merit in providing some additional statutory protection.

753
We should like time to consider in more detail the legal position and the extent to which accommodation centres are already covered or not. We should therefore he grateful for an opportunity to reflect on this amendment. Should we conclude that it is necessary, we shall look forward to tabling a suitable amendment at Report stage.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am half grateful for the Minister's response. My amendment is certainly intended to raise a serious issue. I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the differences in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act between the definition of categories of places of employment and listing work of a type. My concern is that volunteers involved in the activities of an accommodation centre, or volunteer members of a visiting advisory group who are not doing remunerative work, may not be caught by the definition of "work of a type". However, I am grateful for the Minister's concession that, having taken the initial view that the Government always regard themselves as right about such matters and do not want anyone to touch their beautiful baby Bill, on this occasion they consider that if they pay attention to my amendment, the baby could grow a little healthier.
The Minister said that he looks forward to returning to the matter on Report. I should say that he will definitely look forward to it because, of course, I shall have an opportunity to consider what he has said and will naturally table an amendment in anticipation of the noble Lord tabling his own. At this stage, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Facilities]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 116:
Page 13, line 6, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Baroness said: Clause 26 sets out a list of the facilities and services that can be made available at accommodation centres. Our debates over the past few days have strayed very much into the nature of those services. As presently drafted, the clause simply states that the Secretary of State "may" provide those facilities. As the Immigration Advisory Service has pointed out to me, the Secretary of State should not have a discretion to make arrangements for food and other essential items and services for people who are forced to take up residence in accommodation centres. We believe that there should be a duty on the Secretary of State to provide those services.
People who take up residence in accommodation centres will often have arrived there following long and hazardous journeys. As we have heard over the past two days, they face stays of up to six months or perhaps longer. The services provided by the accommodation centres will be their lifelines and should give them the fairest opportunity properly to present their cases to be allowed to remain here. The services listed in Clause 26 should not be regarded, either in whole or in part, as pick-and-mix options.
754
As currently worded, the clause would allow the Government to choose to provide perhaps only one or some of all the services listed in Clause 26. That would not be good enough. If the Government are determined to keep the word "may", will the Minister tell the Committee which services the Government "may" at some stage decide not to provide? Will they decline to provide food, money, education and training, health, religious observance? Perhaps the Minister will say which of those facilities the Government may in the future decide are unnecessary? I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: On this side of the Committee agree with the amendment and are happy to support it. I alluded a short time ago to the extremeley wide flexibility that the wording of regulations allows the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State "may" simply means that he might do this, he might do that, or, indeed, he might do something else. It is not really the imposition of an obligation. In fact, I once described it as an approach that is flexible to the point of contortionism.
The Government talk a great deal about rights and responsibilities, but responsibilities rest on government and well as on others. Those responsibilities involve their admitting occasionally that they actually place a duty on the Secretary of State. To say that the Secretary of State "may" provide food and other essential items is simply not good enough. We support the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am not sure that these requirements are covered by regulations under subsection (1). It seems to me that regulations come under subsection (2) of the clause. I believe that my noble friend's amendment has one flaw. I would not have thought that the Secretary of State could be forced to provide anything that he thinks is necessary because of exceptional circumstances. I am not sure, but that seems to me to be a slight flaw. However, the gist of the amendment is extremely important. If the Minister does not like it, I hope that we shall ensure that it happens at some point.
Lord Filkin: The Government understand the objectives advanced for the amendment but believe the proposition placing a duty on us to provide all the facilities listed in Clause 26 to residents of accommodation centres to be flawed. As drafted, the wording of Clause 26(1) reflects the equivalent wording in Sections 95 and 96 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. In principle, it would be illogical to have a duty to provide particular types of support to residents of accommodation centres, but not in respect of Section 96, which sets out what may be provided by way of asylum support under the 1999 Act.
We are committed to supporting destitute asylum seekers. We are also committed to providing an appropriate range of services to residents of accommodation centres. However, as we discussed yesterday, we are trialling the centres and we do not

755
know what the future will bring. We do not want to tie our hands with a specific duty rather than a more flexible power.
A genuine trial means that we should not have a fixed concept about what might work. One has to start with a clear hypothesis about what one believes would work while being guided by both evidence and experience. We have already said that we are prepared to consider a different configuration of accommodation centres in response to concerns raised about 750 beds. A smaller centre might impact on the types of service that it is practical or necessary for the Home Office to provide. For example, with a smaller centre it may become less likely that there is need to provide transport to and from the centre because residents may be more easily assimilated on local public transport. It is prudent to be prepared for all eventualities. We would not want a provision on the face of the Bill placing an obligation on the Home Office to arrange for the provision of something that it was not sensible for us to provide.
Further, irrespective of the trial, some of the facilities listed in Clause 26 may not be necessary for the Secretary of State to provide in all circumstances. It is arguable whether it would always he necessary for the Home Office to provide religious facilities to all asylum seekers in every accommodation centre. If, for example, there is a convenient local church, or mosque, say, it might be sensible to make use of that rather than go to the expense of providing dedicated on-site facilities for those particular denominations. However, as I indicated yesterday—I hope, clearly—we will provide on-site facilities in the trial centres.
The use of the word "may" does not mean that we have any intention of ducking out of our responsibilities towards destitute asylum seekers. As a matter of policy, we will provide the following facilities in the trial centres: basic living needs; education for children on site; primary healthcare; purposeful activities for adults, including English language training; facilities for religious observance; interpretation facilities; assistance with travel to appeal hearings and asylum interviews, in the event that these do not take place on site, and the initial journey to the centre; and access to legal advice.
In the light of the assurances that I have given about what will happen in the trial centres and the argumentation for why we need to keep an open mind about how best to support asylum seekers, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: Is not the solution to the problem simply to take my noble friend's amendment and perhaps add some wording to it so that, for example, it would read:
"The Secretary of State shall arrange for such facilities as he considers reasonable to be provided"?
That would have the effect of putting a duty on the Secretary of State to provide such facilities if it was reasonable for them to be provided. There may be another more appropriate set of words, but, at present,
756
the Secretary of State can fail to provide the listed facilities in the clause and there is no comeback against him. However, if, as I suggest, the word "shall" was included, alongside a duty, there would be a comeback against the Secretary of State if he was manifestly unreasonable in not making such provision. That would be a better state of affairs.
Lord Avebury: When outlining the list of facilities to be provided in the four pilot centres, the Minister made no mention of means of communication with the applicants' legal advisers. Does the noble Lord recall that some difficulties arose in Yarl's Wood because faxes that went to and fro between the residents in the centre and their legal advisers were occasionally passed through the Immigration Service and were thereby delayed for periods of up to 36 hours? Can the Minister confirm that proper and sufficient facilities will be provided at these centres to enable residents to communicate with their legal advisers by fax, telephone, or e-mail, so that they will not have to wait hours in a queue in order to use them?
Lord Clinton-Davis: Although I support the views expressed by the noble Lord, is he not anticipating a later debate?
Lord Filkin: I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I am certain that such access will be in place. Indeed, in common sense arid practicality, it needs to be in place to enable people to communicate with their advisers.
I should like to reflect upon the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, although I wonder whether it actually takes us back to the point at which we started. However, the Government arc not prepared to move from what I said in my initial response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. There is always a duty on the Secretary of State to act reasonably. Therefore, as Members of the Committee know that it is already clearly implied, it is not essential to put such a provision in the Bill.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I cannot help but say that I am disappointed by the noble Lord's response. Although these centres are being set up as trials, what goes to the heart of the issue is the fact that such centres are the only place in which 3,000 people will live every six months. It is important for us to get this right from the first instance. My noble friend Lord Lucas was trying to provide some way out of the impasse and helpfully suggested the idea of some reasonableness as a test. Unfortunately, as the Minister observed, that brings us back to where we started. We return to the subjective test of the Secretary of State. From what the Government have said so far, I do not see enough evidence to suggest that I should trust that test.
The good will of the Minister is beyond reproach, but I must take into account what we have been told throughout the previous three days of debate. Despite the fact that the Bill has passed through the other place, we have not been promised any sight of the

757
regulations, or any information about what will really happen in these accommodation centres, before we reach the Report stage.
Moreover, notwithstanding the Minister's assurances—and however well-meaning he may be—I am reminded that behind any government Minister there looms the brooding presence of the Treasury. I should not rely on any civil servants in the Treasury, any more than I would on the Ministers in that department. But I wonder at the back of my mind what would happen if, during a future spending round, the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided that the money given to service supply at accommodation centres should not be increased, or even that it should be reduced. What would a future Home Secretary have to do to decide which of the services should be pruned? Might he decide that some services are not appropriate? Might he decide that it is all right if a church is available within one or 10 miles, whereas a disabled person might need on-site services?
I do not intend to draw out the argument, but I am deeply disappointed. There are times when it is important to provide a clear picture of what shall be provided for those whose lives will be in these centres. I feel that, on this occasion, I must test the opinion of the Committee.
7.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 116) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 94.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alderdice, L.

Fowler, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Goodhart, L.

Attlee,E.

Goschen, V.

Avebury, L.

Greaves, L.

Barker, B.

Higgins, L.

Blaker,L.

Hooper, B.

Boardman, L.

Hooson, L.

Bowness, L.

Howe, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Howell of Guildford,L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hylton, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Kingsland, L.

Burnham, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Byford, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Lucas, L.

Cox, B.

Luke, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Lyell, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L

Denham, L.

McNally, L.

Dholakia,L.

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mancroft, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Elton, L.

Methuen, L.

Falkland, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Ferrers, E.

Montrose, D.

Flather.B.

Noakes, B.

758

Northbrook, L.

Seccombe, B.

Norton of Louth,L.

Selsdon, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Pym, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Rees, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Vivian, L.

Sandberg, L.

Walpole, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Alli,L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Amos, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jones, L.

Berkeley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Laird, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Blease, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brennan, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brett, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brookman, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Chandos, V.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Clark of Windermere, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Nicol B

Crawley, B.

Patel, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Desai, L.

Rea, L.

Dixon, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Dubs, L.

Rooker, L.

Elder, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Simon, V.

Evans of Watford, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Filkin, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Fitt, L.

Thornton, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Turnberg, L.

Gilbert, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Goudie, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Whitaker, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Whitty, L.

Greengross, B.

Wilkins, B.

Grenfell, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seat)

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Haskel, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage be resumed not before 8.21 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Court of Appeal (Appeals from Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission) Rules 2002
7.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)rose to move, That the Draft rules laid before the House on 14th March be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to debate as a package these three sets of rules as shown on the Order Paper—the Pathogens Access Appeal Commission (Procedure) Rules 2002, the Court of Appeal (Appeals from the Pathogens Access Appeal Commission) Rules 2002 and the Court of Appeal (Appeals from Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission) Rules 2002. These rules have each been debated and approved in the other place.
There is no statutory requirement to consult on any of these rules, but we did consult members of the judiciary on the two sets of Court of Appeal rules, and a copy of the Court of Appeal (Appeals from Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission) Rules was sent to members of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. All three sets of rules derive from recent terrorism legislation.
The Terrorism Act 2000 was introduced following a review of terrorism legislation and put in place many of the powers needed to protect UK citizens. Following the events of September 11th, the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 expanded those powers to ensure that robust and rigorous systems are in place to take account of the changed threat. One of the new measures in the 2001 Act is to provide for better security in dealing with pathogens and toxins. The Secretary of State may issue directions to an occupier to require that any person be denied access to dangerous substances where this is in the interests of national security or public safety. This provides for the establishment of a Pathogens Access Appeal Commission to hear appeals by individuals such as students, doctors or researchers—against the Secretary of State's decision to deny them access to dangerous substances. The Act provides for the practice and procedures to be followed on appeals to the commission.
The commission will need to consider high classification intelligence material and ensure that information is not disclosed which is contrary to the interests of national security or the detection and prevention of crime, or in any other circumstances where disclosure is contrary to the public interest. Where the commission considers it necessary, appeals may be heard in the absence of the appellant. This will be mainly where the Secretary of State has objected to disclosure of certain material to the appellant. In these cases, the Attorney-General will appoint a special advocate to represent the interests of the appellant. I assure noble Lords that the rights of the appellant will
760
be protected, without compromising any sensitive information that might form part of the Secretary of State's opposition to the appeal.
The 2001 Act provides for further appeal from a decision of the commission heard in England and Wales to the Court of Appeal on a question of law with the permission of the commission or the Court of Appeal.
Unless noble Lords wish me to expand further, I commend the draft procedure rules and both sets of Court of Appeal rules to the House. I confirm that it is our view that they are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 14th March be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the principle behind these rules—the special advocate principle—was debated extensively both during the passage of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. It is one which we on these Benches accepted. We did so with some reluctance but, recognising the very special circumstances attaching to terrorism, we ultimately accepted it. Therefore, I certainly have no intention whatever of challenging the principles behind it.
I wish to make two points of which I have given notice to the Minister. I hope that she will be able to respond to them. The first point that I wish to raise applies to all three sets of rules; namely, that the commission in one case, or the Court of Appeal in the other two cases, must,
"secure that information is not disclosed contrary to the interests of national security, the detection and prevention of crime, or in any other circumstances where disclosure is contrary to the public interest".
That is a formulation based on the public interest in non-disclosure.
However, an appellant has a right to a fair hearing, including in principle the disclosure of evidence which is intended to be used against him. There is a general public interest above and beyond that of the appellant personally that trials should be fair. We believe that the right to disclosure of evidence can be overridden only in exceptional cases. I should like an assurance that, in deciding whether or not to disclose information, the commission or the court will be required to take into account the personal interests of the appellant and the general interests of the public in the disclosure of evidence which is material to the trial and that any order to withhold information will be made only where that is a proportionate and necessary response to the damage that would be caused by the disclosure of it.
My second point applies only to the Pathogens Access Appeal Commission (Procedure) Rules 2002. It arises under the special advocate regulation in Rule 8. Rule 8(1) states:
"At any time prior to issuing a reply under rule 9(1), the Secretary of State shall inform the relevant law officer"—

761
which, in the context of England and Wales, is the Attorney-General—
"of the proceedings before the Commission, with a view to the law officer, if he thinks fit to do so, appointing a special advocate to represent the interests of the appellant in the proceedings".
Rule 8(2) states:
"Paragraph (1) applies unless—

(a) the Secretary of State does not intend to oppose the appeal, or

(b) he does not intend to object to the disclosure of material to the appellant".

Under Rule 8(1) the Attorney-General is not required to appoint a special advocate. He does so only if he thinks fit to do so. Therefore, he clearly has a discretion. But the special advocate will play an essential role in protecting the rights of the appellant who is excluded from being present at his appeal. Therefore, I should like to ask in what circumstances, other than those already specified in paragraph (2) of Rule 8, is it envisaged that the Attorney-General might not appoint a special advocate? In such a case will the appellant be notified that the Attorney-General has decided either to appoint, or not to appoint, a special advocate? Will the appellant have a right to judicial review of a decision of the Attorney-General not to appoint a special advocate? I await with interest the noble Baroness's reply.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I have only one matter to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said. These provisions—on balance I think understandably—involve, particularly in one case, a substantial diminution of individual rights. Is the Minister able to give to your Lordships' House tonight an undertaking that the operation of the special advocate procedure will be kept under careful review; and that there will be some form of accountability over a period of time for the procedure to your Lordships' House and another place?
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I want to raise two matters with the Minister. First, I commend the Government on consulting with the judiciary about the rules. Secondly, I invite comment on two consequences, by way of example, from Rule 4 in the Court of Appeal (Appeals from Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission) Rules. First, I invite the Minister to be careful before proposing in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, a suggested basis for judicial decision-making about how to interpret Rule 4. I should have thought that it is for the court to determine what it thinks is in the public interest, having regard to the evidence that it has heard, and not for the Government to dictate to the judiciary the way in which it should approach matters. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that there may be Ministers who would give the judiciary different advice from that which he mentioned.
Secondly and much more importantly, I raise a matter that needs clarification. In an appeal to the Court of Appeal under the rules or under similar rules that might emerge from the Anti-terrorism, Crime and
762
Security Act, the court, in deciding a point of law, has to listen to evidence of a kind mentioned in Rule 4 on the appeal if it excludes the appellant and his representatives. Do those rules envisage that a special advocate will have a right of audience in the Court of Appeal to address those matters before the court makes its decision?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can answer my noble friend's final question briefly simply by saying, "yes".
I bear in mind the caution given to me by my noble friend Lord Brennan on the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The noble Lord was right. The Secretary of State will not take such decisions lightly and will consider all relevant issues. However, it will ultimately be for the commission or the court to decide whether a party should be excluded from a hearing or part of a hearing where such material is under consideration. That is not in the sole discretion of the Secretary of State, although he could choose not to rely on evidence that would otherwise need to be disclosed.
The Secretary of State is unlikely to give reasons for his decision when he issues directions requiring denial of access. However, if the excluded person appeals, any evidence in the public domain will be heard in the proceedings before the commission or the court, at which the appellant or his representative can be present. If the commission or the court determined that it would be against the public interest for the evidence to be made public, the evidence on which the Secretary of State based his decision would be heard without the appellant. However, the special advocate would be present and able to voice his view.
In respect of the second question of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, it is envisaged that the Attorney-General will in practice appoint a special advocate where a party or his legal representative are to be excluded from the hearing. The Attorney-General will seek representations from the appellant or his legal representative before official nomination of the special advocate. On issues of conflict of interest that may arise, we are satisfied that the decision of the Attorney-General is ECHR compliant and is not subject to judicial review. A special advocate is appointed by the Attorney-General but not instructed by him. I hope that that assists the noble Lord.
On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, there is a provision for a review of the rules. The noble Lord will remember that Section 122(4) of the 2001 Act contains a provision for that Act to be reviewed by a commission after two years. It states:
"The committee shall complete the review and send a report to the Secretary of State not later than the end of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed".
Although the rules are not specifically caught, noble Lords will know that there will be an opportunity to examine the operation of the Act. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will be content.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Court of Appeal (Appeals from Pathogens Access Appeal Commission) Rules 2002
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pathogens Access Appeal Commission (Procedure) Rules 2002
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Specialized Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2002
7.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to the draft United Nations and International Court of Justice (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2002.
These two orders were laid before the House on 12th June 2002, together with Explanatory Memoranda now required for all affirmative statutory instruments. They are similar and so, for the convenience of the House, I shall discuss them together. They provide for refunds of insurance premium tax (IPT) and air passenger duty (API)) to the United Nations and International Labour Organisation paid in the exercise of their official activities.
Thirty-five international organisations already have relief from IPT and APD under existing legislation. Those are international organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member and which have headquarters or offices based in the United Kingdom and those others, although not based here, to which we are legally obliged to give relief from such taxes and duties. The United Nations and ILO will bring the total to 37. Unlike the majority of the other international organisations, there were legal complexities in this instance which had first to be resolved.
Refunds of IPT and APD are given to meet our international obligations. It is established international practice that a state should not tax other states through the intermediary of an international
764
organisation and that the host state should not derive undue fiscal advantage from the presence on its soil of an international organisation.
IPT is levied on buildings, on household contents and on vehicle insurance policies. Some areas of insurance, such as life, pensions and permanent health insurance, are exempt. Basic liability to pay and account for the tax rests with the insurance company.
APD applies to all passengers departing from UK airports, irrespective of when and where the ticket was acquired. APD is collected by the carrier or agent issuing the ticket and charged to the customer at the time of purchase. Rates vary depending on whether the destination is within or beyond the European economic area and the class of travel. Both IPT and APD were introduced in 1994.
The orders confer only those privileges and immunities that we are internationally obliged to confer and will allow us to treat the United Nations and ILO on the same basis as 35 similar organisations. I am satisfied that the orders are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee]—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we on this side have no dispute with the purpose and aim of these two orders. But perhaps I may clarify one or two relatively minor aspects. I understand that the orders extend relief to the International Labour Organisation and to the International Court of Justice, thereby bringing from 35 to 37 the number of international organisations to which we extend these reliefs. As the noble Baroness said, they give freedom from paying insurance premium tax and air passenger duty.
I believe that the general principle, which is one of complete common sense as well as being established, is that states do not go around seeking to benefit fiscally from international organisations which happen to be based on their soil. The principle is a large one, but I believe—the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong—that the revenue implications of this are extremely small.
I believe that the figures of £3,000 for immunities for ILO officials and £2.000 for International Court of Justice officials have been mentioned in another place. Perhaps I may ask whether that is right and whether that money is now to be returned from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to those organisations, having been removed from them previously, or whether it relates to future revenues foregone. Secondly, do we know approximately how many personnel are covered by the orders? Does the total also include expert consultants who may be employed by those two organisations or by their representative offices in the UK?

765
Those are small queries. If the noble Baroness does not have the answers to hand immediately, I shall fully understand that, and perhaps she will write to me later. Those are the only queries that I have.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, these orders seem to be very much in line with standard practice, and we have no objection to them.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall try to respond to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. IPT was introduced from 1st October 1994 and APD from 1st November 1994. The tax and duty have already been collected and therefore should be refunded. The money has been allocated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for that purpose.
With regard to the amounts involved, we estimate that the figures which the noble Lord quoted are correct. The amount will be in the region of £3,000 per annum for the United Nations and £2,000 for the ILO. I am unable to answer the noble Lord's question concerning the number of personnel covered or whether consultants would be included. I shall be happy to write to him on that point.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it is possible that I am confused, but the orders refer to the "United Nations" as a type of generic label. They also refer to the International Labour Organisation and the International Court of Justice, which I am not sure the noble Baroness mentioned. Are we dealing with three organisations here or simply two?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, one order with which we are dealing is the draft United Nations and International Court of Justice order. The other deals with the specialised agencies of the United Nations. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

United Nations and International Court of Justice (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2002
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Maritime Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2002
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Amosrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May be approved [31st Report from the Joint Committee].
766
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 23rd May 2002, together with an explanatory memorandum now required for all affirmative statutory instruments. It confers full diplomatic privileges and immunities on the permanent representatives, or acting permanent representatives, of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) member states and on the holders of five posts at divisional director level. Members of their families forming part of their households will enjoy the same privileges and immunities.
The draft order is the culmination of a lengthy dialogue with the IMO, which is the only specialised agency of the United Nations based in this country. It brings the United Kingdom into step with accepted practice for UN specialised agencies based elsewhere in the world and will allow senior representatives and officials at the IMO to enjoy the same status as they would enjoy if attached to UN specialised agencies in, for example, Paris, Geneva, Vienna or Rome.
The IMO is an important international body that plays an invaluable role in promoting the safety of life at sea and preventing pollution from ships. All major shipping nations are members of the IMO, and we are very pleased and honoured to have the IMO headquarters based in London. We should accord the senior representatives and officials of the IMO the status that is recognised internationally as being appropriate for them to carry out their duties effectively.
The legal basis for the order and the legislative context and existing legal position are set out in the explanatory memorandum laid before the House. The order will enable the Government to give effect to the agreement contained in an Exchange of Notes with the IMO (command paper 5473) and to accept the revised Annex XII to the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, which was approved by the IMO Assembly on 22nd November 2001 (command paper 5474).
The order also consolidates and updates five previous orders made under the International Organisations Act 1968. Those orders are revoked and are listed in the schedule to the present order. I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May be approved [31st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. As before, in principle we have no dispute with the perfectly sensible and straightforward proposal in the order. It does, indeed, confirm full diplomatic privileges and immunities on the personnel of the International Maritime Organisation.
The organisation is extremely valuable and we applaud the dedicated work that it does and the vast responsibilities that it carries in relation to maritime

767
affairs and, in particular, to aspects of pollution and safety on the high seas. Therefore, we have no wish to stand in the way of this proposal.
Again, perhaps I may ask two small questions. Am I right in saying that the order covers only an additional seven officers of the International Maritime Organisation and that all the other staff of the organisation here in London already have immunity from other sources? If that is so, this is a very modest extension. Is seven the right number? Again, is there any figure for the loss of revenue involved? I should be grateful for answers to those questions, if not now, then in due course; otherwise, we have no difficulty with the order.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we, too, are obviously very happy that the International Maritime Organisation is based in London. We believe that the order is entirely appropriate and are happy to support it.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments. I shall deal with the specific questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. The noble Lord is absolutely right. An extra seven people are involved. Five are in the IMO Secretariat at divisional director level and two are permanent representatives, or acting permanent representatives, who do not already enjoy such status from accreditation to their London diplomatic missions.
Three countries are involved: Russia, Liberia and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which maintain independent missions to the IMO. The Liberia permanent representative is cross-accredited to the Liberia Embassy. Therefore, we are talking of Russia and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea plus the five divisional directors.
I do not have the answer to the noble Lord's second question but I shall be happy to write to him. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Offshore Installations (Emergency Pollution Control) Regulations 2002
7.49 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeyrose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the regulations before the House today implement the recommendations of the review by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, of salvage and intervention and their command and control in so far as they relate to the UK oil and gas industry. The report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, which followed the grounding and subsequent salvage of the "Sea Empress" in 1996, was presented to Parliament in March 1999. The report was thorough and comprehensive. It made 26 recommendations, five of which related to offshore oil
768
and gas installations, and which these regulations cover. Those of the remaining recommendations which have not yet been implemented and which require legislative change will be covered in a Bill to be introduced by the Department of Transport.
Specifically, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, recommended that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is responsible for the regulatory control of offshore installations, should be given powers to intervene where there is significant pollution or the risk of it. Furthermore, those powers should be delegated to the nominated representative of the Secretary of State, or SOSREP for short. The noble and learned Lord also recommended that there should be provisions for the payment of compensation in certain circumstances. The powers for offshore installations would be similar to those which exist for shipping under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and which are exercised by the Secretary of State for Transport.
The regulations before the House today will give the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the necessary intervention powers, which will be exercised by the SOSREP. They also make appropriate provision for the payment of compensation. For reasons of achieving clarity and clear communication in what could be difficult circumstances, the SOSREP for offshore installations will be the same person who exercises the power in relation to shipping. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will therefore appoint, on the day the regulations come in to force, Mr Robin Middleton as her representative. Mr Middleton is currently the SOSREP for the Department of Transport, and is based in the offices of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in Southampton. He has an extensive background in salvage, enforcement, emergency planning and response.
A full consultation process was undertaken and a regulatory impact assessment prepared. Industry raised concerns over the cost of implementation, but those will not be large and are estimated at £500,000 for the industry as a whole, which equates to an average cost of less than £16,000 per operator.
Greater concern was expressed over the potential conflict between the health and safety of personnel and the protection of the environment. I make clear that health and safety will always be paramount, and industry has been assured of that. The nature of incident response is such that priority is always given to human safety over pollution control. The DTI has had detailed discussions with the Health and Safety Executive on that issue and a small amendment to the regulations was made to make the position clear. Another concern has been over the claiming of compensation. Should such a claim be made, it will be a matter for the courts to decide in accordance with the tests set out in the regulations. While the industry has asked for firm guidance, it is not possible to prejudge such an event.
I take into account the concerns of industry. However, I believe it will ultimately benefit from this legislation. The first priority after health and safety is

769
to safeguard the public interest in a pollution, or potential pollution, situation by bringing to bear the resources of government. The DTI has kept the industry fully informed and involved in the progress of the regulations through individual discussions, by holding a national exercise and by a workshop with the industry and other government departments.
In presenting his thorough report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, who I am glad to see in his place, recognised the excellent record of the offshore industry in limiting the size and number of spills, and that the likelihood of a major incident was low. But he also recognised the need to reflect the balance of the public and national interest against commercial pressures. I do not believe that the regulations will be a burden on the offshore industry but rather, in the event they are ever activated, will facilitate the setting up of a partnership for dealing with a major oil spill, which will reduce or prevent pollution. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committed].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I welcome wholeheartedly the regulations, which are essential. It is right and equally essential that the same SOSREP—I apologise for the word; we tried all kinds of other words which conveyed wrong messages—on behalf of the Secretary of State, the DTI and the Department of Transport should be the same person. One has only to visualise a collision between a ship and a platform to realise that chaos would ensue if different people were in charge from different angles. Therefore, I welcome the provision.
I should like some help from the Minister on his remark that health and safety will be involved. I do not think he means that the Health and Safety Executive will be involved, at any rate in the activities of the SOSREP. The SOSREP—I know him well—is well aware of the need to conduct operations in the safest possible way without any threat to health in so far as it can be done. He is also aware—I have seen this in practical terms when he has been working for the Department of Transport—of the need to put safety and life before all else. However, I should not want the remarks of the Minister to be construed as meaning that the Health and Safety Executive can come along to the SOSREP in the middle of an operation and say, "You cannot do that", or "We do not want you to do that". It has nothing to do with that organisation. The essence of the SOSREP system is that he has complete and utter control. The only option open to either Secretary of State is to sack him or back him.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, the draft statutory instruments are non-controversial. They are widely seen as sensible by the industry. Likewise, we see them as sensible. However, I have two questions for the Minister. I refer first to Regulation 3(4), on page 2. In paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) reference is made respectively to "she", "she" and "her". Has Parliament
770
adopted the convention that "she" will act also for "he" when "she" or "her" becomes "he"? That is a minor point, but I should be grateful for an answer. Secondly, Article 4(4) refers to the Admiralty jurisdiction. Will the Admiralty Court be able to claim funding to carry out that additional duty?
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I, too, welcome the regulations and give them every support. Unfairly, I take the opportunity to observe, as someone who lives in north-east Scotland, that the continuing day-to-day pollution emanating from the various oil rigs in our northern waters on to our onshore areas is a constant disgrace.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to support these important regulations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his observations and support and to all noble Lords who have spoken. The noble and learned Lord is right in saying that there is no possibility of the Health and Safety Executive entering an incident such as an oil spill or an accident to an offshore installation and countermanding the authority of the SOSREP.
The regulations make the same provision for offshore installations as existing powers for ships under Sections 137 to 140 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Regulation 3(6) is modelled on Section 137 of that Act. To ensure consistency between the two pieces of legislation, the SOSREP will carry out that duty. He will always ensure that health and safety take priority. In practical terms, if there is an accident to an offshore rig and dangerous activities such as capping off the flow have to be undertaken, the workers on the rig will be taken off first. Only those people who need to be there to undertake the capping will he present while it takes place. The SOSREP will take advice on health and safety issues from specialist advisers because he will not necessarily have the skills in that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, asked me two questions. The first related to references to "he" and "she". Under the Interpretation Act, words denoting masculine can mean feminine and vice versa. We use "she" to refer to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at the present time because it is a she—Patricia Hewitt. However, if a man were to take over the post regulations under his jurisdiction would refer to "he". That is the only reason for it. SOSREP happens to be a he at the present time. If it were a she it would say so.
The noble Lord asked whether there is funding for Admiralty jurisdiction under Regulation 4(4). I think that I can give him the assurance that there will be sufficient funding. If I am wrong about that I shall write to him.
I understand and sympathise with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. That is not relevant to the content of the regulations. The noble Lord agrees.

771
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for his support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (Schedule 4) (Amendment) Order 2002
8.2 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldhamrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am satisfied that this draft order is compatible with convention rights. The purpose of the order is to remove the restrictions on the form of refreshments, other than alcohol, which may be sold in licensed betting offices in Great Britain.
Currently, betting offices are only allowed to sell their customers pre-packaged food. In the vast majority of cases that means packets of crisps and chocolate bars. There is no good reason to retain this restriction. Indeed, on nutritional grounds there may be good reasons to abolish it.
If bookmakers have the facilities to provide a wider, better range of food products then surely they should be allowed to do so.
Following the report produced last year by Sir Alan Budd and his team in the independent Gambling Review Body, the Government published their response earlier this year in a paper called, A safe bet for success. It outlined the strategy for updating the regulation of gambling and for a range of measures that would help the industry thrive in the 21st century. Most of those measures require further consideration of detailed points, but they will form the basis of a new wide-ranging gambling Bill.
However, where we can help the industry in the meantime with some interim changes, such as those contained in this order, it is right that we should do so. It does not represent any fundamental change in policy and will serve to implement a specific recommendation contained in the Gambling Review Body's report. It is a timely sensible extension of what is already permitted and, as such, it should be welcomed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Lord Luke: My Lords, the Minister will be pleased to hear that there is absolutely no objection from these Benches to the measure. I do not have any questions either.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, the last time I spoke about betting offices in this House was nine years ago regarding the Licensed Betting Offices (Amendment) regulations. On that day I had grave reservations about those regulations. I am happy to tell the noble Lord that I have no such reservations today.
772
On that occasion we discussed extending the opening hours for betting shops on Saturday evenings to 10 o'clock. My remarks were mainly about the employment of women and what I thought were the unsatisfactory preparations which bookmakers had made.
I made some fairly trenchant remarks on that occasion. They were provoked, if I may say so without speaking ill of the dead, by the late Lord Wyatt of Weeford. In extolling betting shops he described them in a manner which I thought presented them as places full of daffodils and families. Indeed, he said:
"Betting is a high, moral occupation".—[0fficial Report, 22/2/93; col. 34.]
That so incensed me that I am afraid I went slightly over the top and talked about many betting shops having a seedy and dispiriting atmosphere and being full of people chasing their losses and sometimes people of criminal intent.
I was taken to task for that by the only daily publication which—happily—is not in your Lordships' House. It describes itself as the newspaper adults read and has "Sport" in its title. Three pages were devoted to reviling my remarks on that occasion. I was referred to not only as a "dotty peer", but as a "pain in the `orse". Of course a copy of that paper has become a treasured possession of mine. In the past two or three years, however, the Sun—a very respectable newspaper in comparison—has been kind enough to label me "the punters' friend", and my birthday is now regularly reported in the Racing Post. So whatever misdemeanours I committed on that occasion have probably vanished well into the past—at least, I hope so.
On a serious point, one cannot object to people wanting refreshments in betting shops. I do not want to appear too familiar with betting shops, but I do know something about them and have been in them over the years. At present, when people want refreshment they go round the corner to buy it—and in London they are well served with sandwich bars and cafes of all kinds. That is not a good thing for bookmakers, who rely on a steady turnover. If people leave the betting shop to eat and drink elsewhere, they may miss the next dog race. The great thing that bookmakers want to do is to get people betting all the time.
However, if people are expecting betting offices to be centres of gastronomic excellence, they can think again. One of the characteristics of betting shops—if I can paint this picture without making them seem too seedy and dispiriting—is that most of the people in them who back horses regularly are chain-smokers. Betting offices are absolutely thick with smoke. I do not think that anyone, apart from the most compulsive punter chasing his losses, would want to enjoy a sandwich in a betting shop. But good luck to the bookmakers if they can produce something tolerable that people want to eat. I have no objection to that. It is the business of bookmakers to get as much turnover as they can—and now, under the excellent new tax structures introduced by the Government, that benefits racing as a whole.

773
In summary, I hope that I have not been "a pain in the 'orse" to the House, or to the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench. I repeat: on behalf of these Benches, I welcome the order.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, for his wholehearted support, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for his slightly more conditional support. I recognise that the noble Viscount has had to learn the error of his ways over an earlier decade. I refer to the stance that he took with regard to betting shops in the 1990s—although it may not be "the error of his ways", because betting shops have improved immeasurably since that time. I imagine that not all are of a universally high standard. We can only quote as we see. My visit to a betting shop tends to be an annual one—on the day of the Grand National when I join the vast majority of my fellow citizens in a wager. I must say that my annual visit is always attended by an extraordinary improvement in the facilities for punters who use the betting shop with somewhat greater regularity. People get a great deal of innocent pleasure out of betting. Why should we not make the experience as comfortable and enjoyable for them as we can?
The noble Viscount is right to indicate that in some areas of the country—certainly in most parts of London—it may be extremely convenient to nip out for refreshment within easy reach elsewhere. But that may not be the case universally. There are some betting shops where punters do not have easy access to refreshment when they need it. Therefore, it is only right that we recognise that a diet largely restricted to crisps and chocolate can now be extended—with nothing but benefit for those who take advantage of the opportunity. On that basis, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.21 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.11 to 8.21 p.m.]

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 26.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 117:
Page 13, line 7, at end insert—
"() access to competent legal advice;"
The noble Earl said: I begin with argument on Amendment No. 119 that touches on a point with which we have not dealt previously. Amendment No. 119 deals with expenses in connection with communications or meetings with a legal adviser. During discussions on the way the system works under the 1999 Act, we have heard constantly of people unable to communicate with their lawyer because they
774
did not have change for the telephone, money for a fax or access to a fax machine or—my noble friend Lord Avebury raised the case just before dinner—because the faxes ended up in the hands of the Immigration Service. I am sure that was an oversight and I hope that it will not occur again.
Meetings are a nightmare for the client and the legal adviser. If you have been dispersed to, say. Preston and have to get to London it can be very expensive, as many of us know well. In order to have justice done, people need to be able to undertake reasonable expenses in order to meet and communicate with their legal advisers. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 119 and of a later amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss them together as we seek the same aim.
Amendment No. 117 provides for asylum seekers to have access to competent legal advice. I put forward my arguments on that issue on the first day. I shall not do so again. The Minister knows them perfectly well. In Amendment No. 121A he has responded generously. That amendment states that,
"the Secretary of State may arrange for the provision of facilities in an accommodation centre for the use of a person in providing legal advice to a resident of the centre".
That meets the case exactly in all words save one. I thank the Minister warmly for doing so. The Minister will be in no doubt about the one word: it is "may". When the Minister has been so generous, I am sorry to say that that is not good enough. Providing access to competent legal advice has to be a duty on the Secretary of State. Were there to be any failure in that duty, it could turn out to be judicially reviewable. On these Benches, we do not divide in Committee, but I think I can promise the Minister that the word "may" will be the subject of an amendment on Report.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am largely on the noble Earl's side. However, if "shall" is substituted for "may", the Secretary of State is obliged to enable the applicant to seek legal advice. I do not think that that is right. It is right that he should pause and think again about the issue.
Earl Russell: If someone has to return to a place every night and therefore cannot travel to London to meet a competent lawyer—by "competent" I mean someone competent in asylum law, which is not in all respects the same as immigration law—there must be a duty on the Secretary of State to allow them access to competent legal advice. If you impede them in that duty you deprive them of their legal right. You are preventing a level playing field in litigation and you may even be at risk of legal proceedings yourself. While I respect the noble Lord's point, I cannot bring myself to accept it.
Whatever we may say about the words "may" and "shall", I am deeply grateful for the remainder of the amendment, in particular for the speed with which the Minister responded to my remarks on the first day. For that I thank him very much indeed. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I wish that the noble Earl had gone a little further. Advice in an accommodation centre is not sufficient. The person may seek advice on a rather abstruse point of law. It is not always practicable for the legal adviser to come to the accommodation centre. I see no reason why, in appropriate circumstances, the asylum seeker should not go to the chambers of the barrister or the office of the solicitor, which may not be coincidental with the accommodation centre. I accept the view of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the word "may", but I do not think in practice that there should be any permissive nature about the duty of the Secretary of State.
However, we should address ourselves to the possibility of a bogus point being taken by the asylum seeker. In that event, it is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to provide the asylum seeker with the facilities to seek advice. I hope that at a later stage of the Bill the Minister will respond favourably to the proposal. It is not revolutionary. It is a simple proposition. The Minister should reply affirmatively. In other words, where it is essential for the asylum seeker to be able to visit a competent legal adviser— and I take the point that the legal adviser has to be competent in this area of the law—the Secretary of State should be obliged to enable that asylum seeker to go to the chambers or office of a suitable and competent legal adviser.
It may be that the advice sought is outside the competence of the person first consulted. In that case, the Secretary of State should also be obliged to provide facilities to enable the asylum seeker to obtain legal advice. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that my noble friend the Minister has, in Amendment No. 121A, made a good attempt to meet the points that have been raised. However, in my respectful submission, it does not go far enough. I would like to return to the issue at a later stage, but I hope that my noble friend will agree in principle with the point that I have made.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is, of course, right that there may be points with which the adviser on the spot may not be able to deal. That was the purpose for which I put down Amendment No. 119, which would allow for the provision of expenses for travel to meet the legal adviser.
Bogus points have been put forward ever since Adam said, "Woman tempted me". The Secretary of State is not the best person to decide whether the point is bogus.
Lord Hylton: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned my amendment, Amendment No. 139. It is not in this group, and I would like to move it separately. It goes wider than just what happens within accommodation centres.
Having said that, I warmly welcome Amendment No. 121A. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that, although the Government's amendment is a good effort, it does not go nearly far
776
enough. For example, it does not say that the legal advice made available should be independent. That is crucial. Therefore, I would prefer Amendment No. 117, perhaps combined with Amendments Nos. 118 and 119. The question needs further and deeper consideration.
I was glad to hear the Minister say, during our discussion of Amendment No. 116, that interpretation would be provided. That is a good start. However, unless there is adequate legal advice, as well as interpretation, we will not get the quality of first decisions about which I have gone on at some length at previous stages. Nor will we get the speed of process that all members of the Committee wish to see.
Lord Dubs: I welcome Amendment No. 121A. However, I wish it went it a bit further— in a different direction from that suggested by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis.
One of the strengths of the refugee world in Britain is that there are active and effective refugee community organisations that provide support to their members. Sometimes, they provide legal advice, hut, more often, they provide broader advice and, above all, support to members of their community. It is well known that that support for newly arrived asylum seekers, which familiarises them with our language and culture, is invaluable in helping them to adjust to being here and to deal with their asylum claim. Unfortunately, Amendment No. 121A simply says, "in providing legal advice". If it said,
"in providing legal and other advice and support",
I should be happy. Will my noble friend the Minister consider that for a later stage?
Lord Avebury: Yesterday, the Minister said that a generic model for how facilities at accommodation centres would operate already existed. Presumably, those facilities include premises for the use of the legal advisers who will serve the inhabitants of the centre. Can the Minister give us an idea of the scale of the facilities envisaged?
We might take Oakington for comparison. I understand that the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service have separate office blocks containing rooms used by legal advisers as interview rooms and so on. Space of, roughly, 30,000 square feet is available to each agency in which to serve the residents at Oakington. There will be more people in the accommodation centres, so I take it that, in the generic model that the Minister said we could see, there are two blocks—one for the RLC and one for the IAS. What sort of square footage will they occupy?
Lord Kingsland: We have two difficulties with Amendment No. 121A. The first was eloquently explained by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The second is connected with the expression "provision of facilities".
Amendment No. 121A arranges for,
"the provision of facilities … for the use of a person in providing legal advice to a resident of the centre".

777
It does not guarantee the provision of the legal advice itself. That is why we believe that our amendment, Amendment No. 118, takes the correct approach. It would ensure that residents of an accommodation centre would have access to on-site legal advice for the purposes of their asylum claim, rather than having to travel many miles to meet their legal representatives—as far, perhaps, as a barrister's chambers in London.
Lord Clinton-Davis: What happens if a rather abstruse point of law—beyond the competence of the person at the accommodation centre—arises and it becomes necessary to go to see a barrister in chambers? It may not be practicable for the barrister to come to the accommodation centre.
Lord Kingsland: It may, ultimately, be desirable for the asylum seeker to go to the barrister's chambers, but he is likely to do so only after the advice offered in an initial consultation with his solicitor. So, in order to recognise that he needs expert legal advice, the asylum seeker must have general legal advice first. The Government should guarantee that such general legal advice is available on site. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 118.
I accept that our amendment does not provide for the further step. It may be necessary on Report to refine the amendment, so that we can approach the problem in two stages. Stage one is the on-site advice, and stage two concerns the legal consequences that flow from that advice.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Does the noble Lord agree with the proposition that the second stage should be included in the Bill? In other words, it may be necessary, in certain circumstances that he has defined, for the asylum seeker to go to the chambers of someone who specialises in this area of the law.
Lord Hylton: It would be helpful if the kind of provisions that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, rightly wants were enlarged to cover not only residents of accommodation centres but asylum seekers in general.
Lord Kingsland: May I suggest that between Committee and Report stages, we might put our heads together and consider the possible elaboration of Amendment No. 118 in the unlikely event that the Minister does not concede both points?
Perhaps I could elaborate on the approach that we have adopted under Amendment No. 118. We entirely accept and appreciate that the Government did move in the direction suggested by the Opposition in another place. We appreciate the steps that they have taken so far. At col. 171 of the Official Report of the Standing Committee in another place, it was argued that there was no reference to "legal services" in the Bill. It is the Legal Services Commission rather than the Home Office that provides such services, and which is already empowered under existing statutory provisions to
778
provide services to asylum seekers. I understand that that is the main reason why the Government have resisted including the matter in the Bill.
The noble Lord the Minister is neither nodding nor shaking his head, so I await his response with interest. We believe that it is vital to recognise that the accommodation centres will become a one-stop shop for asylum applications. I welcome Amendment No. 121, which reflects the concerns expressed both here and in another place. In the Standing Committee in another place, the Minister said that legal services would be freely available in accommodation centres as required.
However, I must press the Minister for an explanation as to why it cannot be specified in the Bill that legal advice should be provided in those centres. That is what the Government have said they intend to happen, so why not make it plain?
Lord Renton: I apologise for not having been present when this group of amendments was first discussed. I have been here for some time now and have heard valuable proposals. I support the proposition that between now and Report stage, the Front Benches and others if they feel like it, should consult to find a suitable method of achieving legal representation in the way in which the various amendments suggest. They all have a different emphasis, which is unfortunate in a way, but it is leading us in the right direction. I think that it would be a good thing if we did not press the issue tonight. It would be valuable if the Minister when replying says that he would be willing to have discussions about the best way of embracing the motives of the various amendments. I very often agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I agree that there should be access to legal advice. However, to introduce the word "competent" creates a bit of a problem.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Filkin: I shall make no comment on that.
I shall give the Government's position on these issues, but I am happy to have further discussions without commitment if that would be useful. First, I shall set out why we cannot accept Opposition Amendments Nos. 117 to 119, which deal with legal advice, and why we hope that the Committee will accept Government Amendment No. 121A.
I understand concerns that asylum seekers in accommodation centres will not be able to have access to free, independent legal advice. People are worried that we will say, "There is advice in that town 20 miles away. It is available to you. Off you go and get it", and that accommodation centre residents will not be able to afford to do that, or will not be able to reach the town and remain within their reporting and residence restrictions. Effectively asylum seekers will be denied legal advice. They are worried that there will be insufficient legal advisers available to provide advice for all centre residents.
We do not believe that that is so. We are committed to ensuring that all asylum seekers have access to legal advice if they want it at all stages of the asylum process.

779
That applies equally to accommodation centre residents. We will ensure that there are sufficient advisers available for accommodation centre residents to receive that advice.
The advice will be provided and funded by the Legal Services Commission through on-site provision, local supply or a combination of both. The precise arrangements will depend on the location or each accommodation centre. The Legal Services Commission will enter into specific contracts with quality assured suppliers. That is being planned centrally by the commission, which has been involved in discussions with the Home Office on this issue over several months.
The Committee is aware that the Legal Services Commission is already under a duty to facilitate the provision of legal advice and representation by virtue of Section 4 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Furthermore, the commission is under a duty, within the resources available and the priorities set by the Lord Chancellor, to ensure that individuals have access to services that effectively meet their needs. Issues involving life or liberty, including asylum, are given top priority for funding in accordance with the Lord Chancellor's direction on priorities issued under Section 6(1) of the Access to Justice Act and are also prioritised under the funding code issued under Section 8 of that Act and approved by Parliament.
Therefore, there is already an obligation on the Legal Services Commission to provide advice for asylum seekers. To meet concerns that such advice may be available but inaccessible, Government Amendment No. 121 A provides a power for the Home Office to provide facilities for accommodation centre residents to receive legal advice. We are taking this power to make clear the Home Office's express intention to facilitate the provision of legal advice at accommodation centres. Noble Lords may ask why our amendment does not insert a reference to legal advice facilities in Clause 26(1). That is a legal technicality. Clause 26(1) deals with facilities that we will provide to residents and effectively gives the Home Office a power to fund those facilities. We are not taking a power to fund legal advice because, as we have explained, a power already rests with the Lord Chancellor and he has taken on responsibility for the provision of advice.
Therefore, the government amendment provides a power for the Home Office to fund facilities only. It would not be appropriate for us to take a power to fund that which we did not intend to use. A further reason for not creating a duplicate power to fund in Clause 26 is that there is a power in Clause 97, which means that it will be open for the Home Office to grant fund voluntary organisations to provide advice to those in accommodation centres with a right of appeal.
Noble Lords may ask why the Government cannot accept. Amendment 117, which is a power to provide,
"access to competent legal advice".
780
That could be construed as a power to provide legal advice. That is why we prefer the formulation in the government amendment which makes it clear that the Home Office will provide the facilities, while the Legal Services Commission provides the advice.
The Legal Services Commission is obliged to meet local needs and will do so by providing legal advice to asylum seekers in accommodation centres at all stages of the asylum process. It is committed to ensuring that that is done either by legal advisers based permanently on site or by means of visiting local advisers. The Home Office is committed to facilitating that by ensuring that all necessary facilities are made available.
We cannot accept Amendment No. 119 as it is unnecessary and duplicates existing provision. It will be unnecessary for us to fund accommodation centre residents' expenses for travelling to see their lawyer because legal advice will be provided on site. In the event that an asylum seeker needs to make an exceptional journey to see a legal adviser because the local supplier cannot visit the centre, as may happen from time to time, the Legal Services Commission can provide help with the costs of that travel. Under the terms of legal aid, the solicitor or other adviser who is handling the case can obtain reimbursement for the cost of an asylum seeker's travel to the legal adviser for the purpose of instructing the adviser. That assistance would of course be subject to the asylum seeker qualifying for legal aid in the usual way.
This approach is consistent with that currently taken by NASS, where NASS is expressly prohibited by Section 96(1)(c)—
Lord Clinton-Davis: I know that my noble friend is affected by time and other considerations, but it is impossible to understand his gabble. We are discussing a very important issue, so can he take it rather more slowly?
Lord Filkin: There we go! I have been accused of speaking slowly and of speaking quickly but never of gabble. I shall not repeat what I said because it will be set out clearly in Hansard and we shall all have the opportunity to study it. However, I shall continue at a more leisured pace.
The approach is consistent with that currently taken by NASS, where NASS is expressly prohibited by Section 96(1)(c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 from funding asylum seekers' legal expenses and does not fund the costs of travelling to visit a lawyer. Asylum seekers must therefore look to the Legal Services Commission for help with legal costs. At the appeal stage, they may also avail themselves of advice which the Home Office grant funds the Refugee Legal Centre, the Immigration Advisory Service arid the Northern Ireland Law Centre to provide.
As we already have a legal aid system, the Government do not consider that separate arrangements are required for asylum seekers. We cannot agree that the Home Office should have a duty to fund provision which will be unnecessary in an

781
accommodation centre in most circumstances and is already available free of charge via the Legal Services Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked what facilities would be available for legal advisers. We cannot give precise details at this stage, but we intend to provide proper and decent facilities that are adequate for the purpose. We envisage at least consultation rooms and office facilities for visiting lawyers. Where they are based permanently on site, they would have all that they need to function there.
I was also asked about the provision of other advice and support. We are happy to undertake to consider that. We would not want to stop NGOs and other advice givers being on site at centres and having access to residents. Indeed, we would want to encourage that as we believe it often assists the process.
I recognise that I have covered a great deal of dense ground and I have even been slightly fast in doing so. I shall study with interest what has been said by Members of the Committee and I am sure that they will return the compliment. With that, I invite the noble Earl to agree to withdraw his amendment and hope that the Committee will accept government Amendment No. 121A.
Lord Kingsland: Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord one of the flaws in the argument so well developed by him. The Government cannot require the Legal Services Commission to furnish legal advice. The Home Office cannot do that, nor can the Lord Chancellor. It is a matter, in the last resort, for the discretion of the Legal Services Commission. It may find that a particular asylum seeker at a particular accommodation centre does not meet the criteria for making a financial grant. What will the Government do in those circumstances?
Lord Dholakia: Perhaps I, too, may put a further question to the Minister. The point at issue is that in the amendment we are talking about,
"access to competent legal advice".
I do not want to impinge on the integrity of the legal advice being provided, nor for that matter the integrity of the Legal Services Commission, but my experience and that in particular of the voluntary agencies in the field of making representation is that the matters are difficult and complex. They depend on the amount of legal casework that their solicitors are able to take.
Rather than depending on the legal services, whether there is power to give advice or not, we are talking about experienced solicitors and advisers being available. On the basis of what the Minister has said, I doubt that. That is why it is important for the Minister to take into account the reason why we suggest "competent legal advice" and why it should be available other than from the Legal Services Commission.
Lord Filkin: Both noble Lords asked good and interesting questions. The noble Lord, Lord
782
Kingsland, asked what the Home Office would do if the Legal Services Commission did not consider an asylum seeker to be eligible for legal aid. I shall reflect on the question, but my initial reaction is that it would do nothing. I believe that the Home Office would not put itself in the place of the Legal Services Commission and seek to provide a legal aid service duplicating that which is the responsibility of the LSC.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. As I understand the Government, one of the fundamental objectives of the legislation is to expedite asylum procedures. The crucial ingredient in meeting that objective is ensuring that the asylum seeker understands exactly what his legal position is. Understanding his legal position will help the Government to expedite the procedures, thus meeting their own legislative objective.
If the Legal Services Commission is unprepared to finance an asylum seeker in a particular case, surely it is in the interests of the Government to step in and provide the necessary money. That will fulfil the purpose of the legislation.
Lord Filkin: The matter is clearly well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I repeat my offer to consider it, but today I will not go further than the position I have advanced.
With regard to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about trying to ensure that it is competent legal advice, it is the LSC's intention to ensure that legal advice is made available at accommodation centres from quality-assured suppliers. Specific contracts will be entered into for that purpose. The process is being planned centrally by the LSC, which for several months has been involved in discussions with the Home Office on this issue.
I offer that as a reasonable response and suggest that this is an opportunity for us to reflect on the matter in the coming months. I accept that we have not gone as far as Members of the Committee want without necessarily making a commitment that we can go any further.
Earl Russell: The debate has shown the Chamber at its best. It is not as a mere figure of speech that I want to thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the Minister have found a way forward; that we must all talk further among ourselves about the issue.
I shall respond to one or two of the points made. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked about "competent legal advice". I see what is worrying him, but I meant the word "competent" in a rather more technical sense. I meant competent in the field of asylum law and not just immigration law in general. I hope that with that response the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will think that it was not altogether a fruitless suggestion.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, about the independence of legal advice is crucial, as is his point about the quality of the initial decision-making. That underlies the whole of any attempts to

783
reform the asylum system. The poor quality of initial decision-making makes the whole thing go wrong and go on taking time, sometimes for ever and a day. I do not see how we can get that right without "competent" in the sense of qualified legal advice being available at the earliest stage. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about advice and help from within the community. That is an important point and I am grateful to him for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, raised the big problem about the impossibility of "requiring" the Legal Services Commission and about the Legal Services Commission being bound by criteria. Is it perhaps an answer to say that we ought to treat this as though it were a criminal rather than a civil matter? The penalty of being deported to a country where you may suffer death or torture is equivalent to a criminal penalty of considerable severity. The criteria for cases such as those for the Legal Services Commission are different from those for civil cases, in which one has to have a 50 per cent chance of success. Incidentally, in asylum law, judging a 50 per cent chance of success before a full hearing can be pretty difficult.
The law is still in the process of evolution. Very distinguished legal brains on the Bench have been working on it, which tends to make the law change from time to time. Thus it is difficult to apply those criteria. Would applying the criminal criteria go any way towards meeting the question, or if that is not exactly the way to approach it, is there a solution in that direction?
In the meantime, Amendment No. 121A is before us. It is a good amendment with the one reservation that I have already expressed. The other points can be discussed among ourselves over the summer. I thank all those who have spoken, in particular the Minister for his patience and consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 120:
Page 13, line 25, after "(1)(b)" insert "(provided that such amount shall not he less than the level of income support for the time being)"
The noble Earl said: This amendment would provide that the support given to asylum seekers should he set at a level not less than that of income support for the time being. It has been a matter of considerable concern among a good many of us that, in effect, the present level of support provided is only 70 per cent of income support. That is a pretty low figure.
Some noble Lords may have been present on Monday last when I asked a Question concerning what the Government regard as a minimum income necessary for subsistence. I do not think that I can pretend that I got an answer to the Question. Under the circumstances, I think that for the time being I am entitled to treat the level of income support as being that of the level of subsistence.
784
If I remember correctly the debates of 1999, the answer I shall receive from the Minister in a few moments is that this is not necessary because a large amount is provided in the equipment at the centres; that is, goods that other people have to buy. It is a fair point as far as it goes, hut what it leaves out is the fact that asylum seekers do not have access to the Social Fund.
I recall another point made extremely persuasively by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. She said that poverty becomes much more serious when it continues for a long time. That is because one does not face only the ordinary problems of day-to-day nourishment; there is the difficulty of all one's equipment wearing out. Shoes and overcoats need to be replaced. All this will happen over a period of six months, which incidentally is the length of time estimated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for the problem really to kick in. That is an interesting estimate.
If asylum seekers arrive here from, say, Sierra Leone and are sent to Lancashire, they will not have with them the kind of winter clothing needed in Lancashire, especially when one is at all high up. A large number of things must be bought in order to keep warm, for which no application may be put to the Social Fund because asylum seekers are not eligible for it. I should have thought that that would cancel out all the arguments just about to be made by the Minister with regard to basic facilities being provided within the centres.
The Home Secretary has put forward a further argument; that is, that he is afraid of what he terms "benefit shopping" among asylum seekers. With respect, the Home Secretary is not a social security specialist. He appears not to know that our benefits are below the average level for the European Union. The idea that we offer particularly generous benefits dates from a long time ago. It has not been true at any time that I have been in this House. Last night I checked the Eurostat figures in the Library and found that within the European Union we are ranked eighth out of 15 for benefits. That is not disgraceful. Of course there are several ways of measuring the figures and if the Minister wishes to bandy statistics with me, he is welcome to do so. However, I doubt whether this is the time of night for such an exercise.
Anyone who comes to this country for the sake of benefit shopping would do so in ignorance. If the Minister can produce any cases of people doing so, then it will just go to sustain a point that I have been making for a long time; namely, that we cannot deter people from seeking asylum in this country by making the regime experienced by asylum seekers more harsh. That is because there is no provision for publishing the details of our social security provision in the press in Freetown, Sierra Leone or in the backstreets of Kandahar. People in those cities simply do not get to hear about them.
I think that it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that asylum seekers should be provided with a level of income equivalent to income support for the time

785
being. It is an amendment that I first moved in the Social Security Act 1989. I have been trying for a long time. I fear that I may have to try for a little longer, but I shall keep at it. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I rise to add a brief comment. I cannot say that this debate has conjured in my mind an image of Aeneas carrying his aged father out of the flames, but it has brought to mind those gaunt, forbidding buildings which one can still come across on country roads. They were provided as a result of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 to cater for those who somehow had to be helped. But the principle behind the Act was that the lives of those people should be less eligible than those of any other members of the community.
I believe that that is something which lies behind the inadequate provision made for asylum seekers. By fixing the level of support at 70 per cent of income support, then by definition those people must be regarded as less eligible. Again and again the Minister has tried to persuade the Committee that accommodation centres will be desirable places and will provide better for asylum seekers than will any other form of accommodation.
I believe that the matter of financial support is deeply serious. If we want this to be a country where asylum seekers are treated in a civilised manner, we should not set their income at a level that makes them in every way less eligible than is the lot of other people—in the sense of the 19th century legislation to which I have referred.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has pointed out most eloquently the needs of people who arrive from very different climates and their lack of access to the Social Fund. I warmly support the amendment.
Lord Filkin: I was beginning to be encouraged by the economy with which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, advanced his own cause, indicated mine and gave a resolution of the two. On that basis we would make considerable progress.
He is substantially right in his conjecture as to what I shall say. Nevertheless, let me explain why I cannot accept Amendment No. 120. It would mean that the cash support that we provide to accommodation centre residents would have to be the same as the equivalent income support allowance. Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 established the principle of treating asylum support separately from the mainstream benefits system. Providing asylum seekers with cash to exactly the same value as income support would undermine that principle.
Concerns have been expressed about the value of NASS support. It is not correct to say that NASS support is worth only 70 per cent of income support. Taken as a package, NASS accommodation and support is broadly equivalent to what an asylum seeker would receive if he or she qualified for income support. The reason for this is, as the Committee knows, that NASS accommodation is fully furnished and includes
786
all utility bills—heating, lighting and hot water— kitchen utensils and equipment, crockery, cutlery, towels and bedding. These items would not normally be provided to a person in receipt of income support and housing benefit.
We intend to take the same approach for accommodation centres, where of course utility bills will be paid centrally and items such as bed linen will be provided by the accommodation centre itself. It would therefore be unfair to provide accommodation centre residents with full income support because that would mean that the value of their support would be greater than that of a person settled in dispersed accommodation.
Our original intention was to provide accommodation centre residents with the majority of their support in kind with only a small cash allowance for incidental expenses. We set out this policy in the White Paper. However, as I indicated yesterday, we have reviewed this policy in the light of the response to the White Paper and what we know of European accommodation centres. We have decided that it is important to allow asylum seekers to cook for themselves, to provide a degree of autonomy over their day-to-day lives and to avoid encouraging institutionalisation. We shall therefore pay asylum seekers a subsistence allowance, in cash, to enable them to purchase food and other goods.
We are still considering precisely how much this cash allowance should be, but we intend that it should be in the region of full NASS subsistence support and certainly substantially more than the pocket money we originally planned. We will consider carefully the case for any variations in support between NASS and accommodation centres and will ensure that any variations are justified. It is important that the value of support in the two systems is broadly comparable.
For the reasons that I have given, I hope that noble Lords will understand why we cannot accept an amendment that would require us to pay accommodation centre residents full income support levels. Not only would they receive more than their counterparts supported by NASS but, because of the value of the in-kind support which centre residents will receive, they would be receiving total support worth more than the income support provided to people settled here. While my reply may not have surprised the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford for his support. The Church is still the only institution represented in every parish in the country. It is therefore a valuable witness to the level of poverty and does a great deal of good which is very much appreciated.
The Minister's calculations about the equivalence of the NASS package to income support seem to have been, at some stage in their life, somewhere near the Treasury. I remember what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, had to say about the Treasury before the dinner adjournment. I agree with her. I also agree with

787
what my colleague Susan Kramer had to say about the Treasury—that is, that no self-respecting business would allow its finance department so much power.
It is not only the Social Fund which is missing from this package but the whole range of access to passported benefits. I had hoped to table an amendment on this but I gather that it is still floating around the e-ether and has not yet reached me. The Minister can expect to see it on Report. I do not believe that the Minister is right about the package.
He is of course right about self-catering, which I welcomed yesterday. But, if one thinks about the problem that I raised then of buying tropical produce in Worcestershire, it is, if one can do it at all, likely to be rather expensive. If they are able to take advantage of the self-catering which is intended, many people will be buying things which are a good deal more expensive than in their country of origin—and if they cannot do that, what is the point of self-catering? So there will be a cost.
As to the amount of cash to be provided, in Standing Committee in the other place on 9th May, Angela Eagle said at col. 174 that the Government were thinking about a range of £5 to £14 but that no final decisions have yet been made. Not even a student is expected to undertake self-catering for that kind of cost. Nor, indeed, as these people will be placed in remote places, are they likely to be able to afford the journey on that amount.
When we had a debate on poverty in February 2000, I remember the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans drawing attention to someone who, with £60 a week of benefit, was spending a tenth of her benefit simply on going to the benefit office to claim it. That is a factor of putting accommodation centres in remote locations, which is likely to mean that almost the whole of the cash, if provided at that level, will be used to subsidise rural bus services. I have no objection to subsidising rural bus services, but I do not believe that we should rely on a supply of cheap asylum seekers to do it. There are better ways of doing that job.
The Minister is right to speculate that I intend to withdraw this amendment at this time of the day. However, it is a matter about which he can expect to hear more before the Bill is over. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 121:
Page 13, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: This amendment deletes subsection (2)(b) of Clause 26, in response to concerns raised in the other place.
Subsection (2)(b) would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the manager of an accommodation centre to determine the amount of money to be provided to a centre resident. We included it in the Bill because we believed that the flexibility to allow local decisions would be helpful. However, concerns were expressed about placing decisions
788
relating to the amount of money that asylum seekers receive into the hands of someone who is not a public servant. There were fears that that position might be abused, that arbitrary decisions might be made or that centre managers might have incentives to minimise the amount of cash handed out. We have listened to the concerns raised.
Because a manager would have been able to take decisions only in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, there were safeguards. However, we have reviewed the position and have concluded that it is not necessary to be able to take local decisions about the money that we give to centre residents. In practice, all decisions will be taken by the Secretary of State. Clause 26(2)(b) is therefore unnecessary, and we have decided to delete it. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Without wasting words, I warmly welcome this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 121A:
Page 13, line 28, at end insert—
"() The Secretary of State may arrange for the provision of facilities in an accommodation centre for the use of a person in providing legal advice to a resident of the centre."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Conditions of residence]:
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 123:
Page 14, line 13, at end insert "or under paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to that Act (control pending deportation)."
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 124, both of which are minor, technical amendments. Amendment No. 123 corrects an oversight by inserting a reference to paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 into Clause 27(7). It ensures consistency with Clause 21 and makes clear that any accommodation centre residence conditions imposed under Clause 27 of this Bill are additional to any residence restrictions imposed under paragraph 21 of Schedule 2 and paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act.
Amendment No. 124 deletes what is now an unnecessary subsection. The purpose of subsection (8) of Clause 27 is already provided for by Clause 23(3), which was introduced at Committee stage in the other place. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 124:
Page 14, line 14, leave out subsection (8).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

789
Clause 28 [Financial contribution by resident]:
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 125:
Page 14, line 34, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to delete subsection (3) of Clause 28. The clause authorises the Secretary of State to draw on the assets of the asylum seeker to meet any charges that may be incurred in the centre. Subsection (3) authorises the Secretary of State to draw on assets outside the United Kingdom. Since the asylum seeker is in this country presumably because he cannot remain in his native country in safety, and since his assets are presumed to be in his native country, does not this require an impossibility? I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are grateful to the noble Earl for moving this amendment, if only because it will enable us to consider a minor drafting error that can be corrected in the next print of the Bill. Subsection (3) of Clause 28 should—and, of course, will—refer to "assets" in subsection (2), not subsection (3). We will ensure that that error is rectified.
Leaving aside the error, we believe that subsection (3) is necessary. We cannot accept its wholesale deletion. When correctly drafted, it will make clear that the reference to "assets" in subsection (2) in the clause includes assets outside the United Kingdom. Subsection (2) will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling him to recover some, or all, of the value of support that has been paid to an accommodation centre resident if that resident has asked for support and at the time of asking for support he had assets that were not realisable and if those assets have subsequently become realisable.
We believe that the approach is entirely fair and that it is completely reasonable to include it in our definition of "assets"; that is, assets outside the United Kingdom. The point to bear in mind—and this goes to the heart of the noble Earl's point—is that we would only take account of assets outside the United Kingdom if those assets have become realisable. We believe that it is quite proper that an asylum seeker with, say, property in his home country that he cannot sell at the time that he applies for asylum support but which he subsequently sells or is able to sell should make a contribution to his support in the United Kingdom.
There is no question of us taking account of assets abroad if the money could not be said to be reasonably available to the accommodation centre resident. In our view, the provisions for accommodation centres are entirely consistent with those for people currently supported by NASS under Part VI of the 1999 Act. The equivalent provision is set out in Regulation 17 of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000.
There is, I believe, a point here that the noble Earl has missed; namely, that an asylum seeker resident in an accommodation centre could have assets not perhaps in his country of origin but in another county. It may not necessarily be the case that assets in the home country are inaccessible to him. Subsection (3)
790
requires those assets to be realisable. If they are not realisable, they cannot be accessed and, indeed, cannot be taken into account. We believe that we have got this right and that it is a reasonable provision. Of course, its application will depend on all the circumstances involved in the case. With those words of reassurance—and they are intended as such—I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that the principal asset that an asylum seeker may have left behind in his country of origin may be the house in which he was living. Although it would be theoretically possible in many cases for him to instruct agents to sell the house, the normal course of action would be to allow other members of the family to live in it so that he would have a home to return to should the situation subsequently change; in other words, he would at least have somewhere to go.
The Minister is proposing that such an asylum seeker should be forced to sell that accommodation. Therefore, if the dictatorship, or whatever, in his home country is overthrown and he is able to return after, say, 10 or 15 years, he would have nowhere to live. Does the noble Lord think that it is wise to impose such a solution on asylum seekers?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Before the Minister responds, perhaps I may put a question to him that arises from the language that he used in his response. I do not believe that the Minister was suggesting that the word "realisable" and the phrase "reasonably available" are equivalent to each other, but I wonder whether the phrase "reasonably available" includes references to exchange control. One can conceive of circumstances under these provisions where the person would be required to sell his house and then, having sold it and transformed it into cash, would not actually be able to remove the money from the country of origin.
Therefore, in addition to the correction to the drafting of subsection (3) at the next printing of the Bill, it seems that a certain amount of tidying up of this particular provision will he needed before the Bill becomes law.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Noble Lords have made fair and reasonable points. However, I return to the point that the assets must be realisable. Moreover, they will he considered on a case by case basis. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, makes a very reasonable point. If the assets are not realisable, they cannot be taken into account. I think that there will be a test of reasonableness in all of this. While the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right that property may well be an asylum seeker's major asset, there may well be other assets such as—I do not know—insurance policies, national savings certificates, pension schemes, premium bonds, stocks, shares and so on. Any of those may be assets that are accessible and available. As I said, it will be done very much on a case by case basis.

791
As it is, NASS currently takes account of cash, savings, investments and certain types of property which belong to an applicant or may have belonged to an asylum seeker or his or her dependants. So all of that is already provided for in the current regulations. They have not caused great difficulty in their application, or at least we are not aware of them causing great difficulty. So this is continuing an existing provision.
Lord Greaves: The Minister clearly said that this provision is similar to that which applies to people currently obtaining NASS support. In the past two years, since NASS started operating, in how many cases has this provision been used? Of the 44,000 people that NASS has dispersed and the others that it has supported, how many have paid over money?
Lord Kingsland: As I understand it, the effect of the clause is to make the exercise by the Secretary of State an ex post one. In other words, someone will enter the accommodation centre, receive the support that everyone else receives, but, at a later stage, as a result of research into their finances, the Secretary of State will seek to claw back that money. That will be the subject matter of the proposed regulations.
Before the Minister embarks on that course, he might like to ask the Home Office to reflect on the cost-benefit of the exercise. If the Government want to extract these sums from individuals owning property abroad, there will have to be, first, a fair amount of research abroad; and, secondly, perhaps a heavy investment in the actual recovery process. I can see the force of injecting into the Bill a disincentive system in relation to someone wrongfully claiming support. Conversely, I think that cost is an appropriate issue for the Home Office to address.
Lord Berkeley: We have to remember that many of those claiming asylum and using the Sangatte centre are alleged to have paid between £5,000 and £10,000 to get there. I do not know how they got that money or whether they paid it to the mafia or someone else, but it is possible that some of them have other assets. I think that this type of situation will be rare, and that it will be even rarer that, as other noble Lords have said, those assets will be realisable from the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, if someone has raised £10,000 to come to the United Kingdom as an economic migrant and is claiming asylum, and if it can be demonstrated that he has realisable assets, I do not know why he should not be made to pay for his accommodation while his application is being processed.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I respond first to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I know one person personally who happens to have come not from Sangatte but ultimately from Kosovo via an expensive lorry journey across Europe beginning in the Valley of Death in Blace. That person had absolutely nothing left after that. That is, I think, a rather commoner case than the one that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, envisages.
792
As for the Minister's reply, not for the first time I remind the Home Office that it is not a Foreign Office. In assessing the realisability of assets in another country the Home Office is literally outside its element. This is the office which believed in 1996 that opposition groups were allowed to flourish freely in Zaire and that in Turkey efforts were being made to encourage the better expression of the Kurdish cultural identity. I do not think that the Home Office's opinion that an asset is realisable is necessarily sound. The point that my noble friend Lord Avebury made about the house being very likely to be occupied by relatives is a serious one. The risk to the relatives is also serious in that case. In fact, it might be the first effect of putting such a provision into effect to bring another asylum seeker to our shores in great haste. I doubt whether that is what the Home Secretary intends.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, about exchange controls is also one of considerable force. The sort of countries that produce large numbers of asylum seekers tend not to be the sort of countries that have particularly sound currencies. So once the asset is realised, it is likely to produce when it is brought over here a sum a great deal less than the Home Office intended, in which case the point of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, about the cost of realising the asset is of considerable force.
The case of the asylum seeker with large numbers of assets in another country is not likely to be a sufficiently common one to justify this provision on its own. When people such as Saddam Hussein and General Mobutu seek asylum in the United Kingdom I shall take that point seriously. At present I do not feel the need to.
The only asset that most asylum seekers will have is probably a small amount of family jewellery and ornament about their person. Those will often be family heirlooms and a precious reminder of a sense of identity which has been deeply challenged. I am reminded of the story of a couple in desperate poverty. They were equally desperately in love. Her one great asset was a wonderfully beautiful head of hair. His one asset was an inherited gold watch for which he had no watch chain. Come Christmas morning they discovered that she had cut off her hair and sold it to a wigmaker to buy a chain for his watch and that he had sold his watch in order to buy a gold chain o put round her hair. That really is the course of true love but I do not want it to be the course of British law, l shall not take the matter further tonight; we may hear more of it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 126:
After Clause 29, insert the following new clause—
"ADVISORY GROUPS

(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a group (to be known as an Accommodation Centre Advisory Group) for each accommodation centre.

793

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) confer functions on Advisory Groups;

(b) make provision about the constitution and proceedings of Advisory Groups.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) must, in particular, provide for members of an accommodation centre's Advisory Group—

(a) to visit the centre;

(b) to hear complaints made by residents of the centre;

(c) to report to the Secretary of State.

(4) The manager of an accommodation centre must permit a member of the centre's Advisory Group on request—

(a) to visit the centre at any time;

(b) to visit any resident of the centre at any time, provided that the resident consents.

(5) A member of an Advisory Group shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment (which may include provision about retirement, resignation or dismissal).

(6) The Secretary of State may—

(a) defray expenses of members of an Advisory Group;

(b) make facilities available to members of an Advisory Group."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 127 to 131 not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 132:
Before Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
"THE MONITOR OF ACCOMMODATION CENTRES

(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person as Monitor of Accommodation Centres.

(2) The Monitor shall monitor the operation of this Part of this Act and shall, in particular, consider—

(a) the quality and effectiveness of accommodation and other facilities provided in accommodation centres,

(b) the nature and enforcement of conditions of residence, and

(c) the treatment of residents.

(3) In exercising his functions the Monitor shall consult—

(a) the Secretary of State, and

(b) such other persons as he considers appropriate.

(4) The Monitor shall report to the Secretary of State about the matters considered by the Monitor in the course of the exercise of his functions—

(a) at least once in each calendar year, and

(b) on such occasions as the Secretary of State may request.

(5) Where the Secretary of State receives a report under subsection (4)(a) he shall lay a copy before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable.

(6) The Monitor shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment (which may include provision about retirement, resignation or dismissal).

(7) The Secretary of State may—

(a) pay fees and allowances to the Monitor;

(b) defray expenses of the Monitor;

(c) make staff and other facilities available to the Monitor.

(8) The Secretary of State may appoint more than one person to act jointly as Monitor (in which case they shall divide or share functions in accordance with the terms of their appointment and, subject to that, by agreement between them).

(9) A person who is employed within a government department may not be appointed as Monitor of Accommodation Centres."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 not moved.]
Clauses 30 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 ["Preseribed": orders and regulations]:
Lord Filkinmoved Amendments Nos. 134A and 135:
Page 18, line 27, at end insert—
"() section (Length of stay: family with children),"
Page 18, line 31, at end insert—
"() section (Advisory Groups),"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 136 and 137 not moved.]
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 36 agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 138:
Before Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
"INDEPENDENT DOCUMENTATION CENTRE

(1) The Secretary of State shall establish by order a documentation centre to provide country of origin information for use in the determination of asylum applications.

(2) The order providing for the establishment of the documentation centre shall provide that responsibility for the functioning of the documentation centre will rest with a person or persons who is or are independent of the Secretary of State.

(3) The Secretary of State may provide financial support to an organisation in the United Kingdom to enable that organisation to assist in the functioning of the documentation centre.

(4) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to create an independent documentation centre, which would conduct country risk assessments with the speed and confidence necessary to allow a junior official to decide that a claim was wholly unfounded, and to do so with the conviction required to withstand judicial review.
To make the process set out by the Bill work, we must have a system of country risk assessments that carries weight and which will stand the full test of judicial challenge. We can do that by having a documentation centre that is independent of the Home Office responsible for producing country risk assessments, as the Refugee Council proposes. It would carry credibility because it would not be influenced by a desire to achieve a particular result in appeals.
When I raised this matter on Second Reading I was both encouraged and intrigued by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on what he acknowledged was an important matter. He stated:
"We have agreed to set up an advisory committee. On Report the Home Secretary said that such a committee would have to be open and transparent and prepared to have consultations with the Government and the two main Opposition parties as to its makeup. That work will commence as soon as possible. That is a clear commitment".—[Official Report, 24/6/02; col. 1174]
I am encouraged because the Minister stated that the Government have given a clear commitment in this regard. However, I am also intrigued because he stated that the Government have agreed to set up an advisory

795
committee and that the work will commence "as soon as possible". That was not the impression conveyed by the Home Secretary in another place on Report on 11th June at col. 798 of Hansard, when he acknowledged the concerns that have been expressed about whether the assessment of countries is sufficiently clear or rapid. He rebutted the suggestion that the assessment of countries is not sufficiently clear or rapid. He also said that, if it were not, then,
"we need an advisory committee to assist us. Such a committee would have to be open and transparent and prepared to have consultations with the Government and the two main Opposition parties on its make-up. It would have to help us with the process without removing the existing formulations, which draw down all the known available evidence".— [Official Report, Commons, 11/6/02; cols. 798–799.]
That makes it appear that the Home Secretary is saying that there is nothing wrong with the system but, if there were, we might do something about it. That is rather different from the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, at Second Reading. Therefore, with great encouragement from what the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said, I can only assume that the Home Secretary now accepts that the assessment of countries is not currently sufficiently clear or rapid after all.
As we have been assured by the Minister that work on the advisory committee will commence as soon as possible, several questions arise. When will that work commence, or is it already taking place? If it has not started, will it do so before we reach Report stage in the autumn? Shall we be given details of the Government's plans by then so that they can form part of an amendment which I may table for discussion on Report? As, according to the Minister, the committee would have to be prepared to have consultations with the two main opposition parties on the committee's make-up, what procedures are the Government putting in place to achieve that? I look forward to hearing the Minister's plans and perhaps discussing the matter with the Government over the summer. Finally, when do the Government expect the advisory committee to be operational?
The Minister will recall that when the subject matter of my amendment was discussed in another place on 11th June my right honourable friend Mr Letwin welcomed the Home Secretary's idea of an advisory committee but made it clear that we do not believe that it goes far enough. That is reported at col. 804 of Commons Hansard. We do not accept that the present system of country risk assessment is merely in need of oversight by an advisory committee. The oversight is welcome, but the present system of assessment is woefully and intrinsically deficient.
The important issue is that if the Government want Clause 82(2) and subsections (1) and (3) of Clause 101 to have any chance of sustaining themselves under judicial review they will need to move to a genuinely independent country risk assessment at the very least.
If the Government are not able to provide assurances that their plans for an advisory committee will achieve the same objectives as my amendment and that they will set up the advisory committee swiftly with the assistance of the views expressed by Members
796
of this House in debates on the Bill throughout Committee, then we may have to return to the matter on Report to press the Government rather hard. Certainly, having had the encouragement of what the Minister said at Second Reading, I hope that he will be able to give even more encouraging information tonight. I beg to move.
Lord Dholakia: I support the amendment. It had our support in the Commons and we are delighted to support it in this Chamber. This is probably one of the most important amendments. It is designed to bring a fresh approach in the determination of asylum applications.
First, perhaps I may explain why. I had the privilege of visiting the headquarters in London where adjudicators deal with important aspects of individuals' applications. Much of the source material is provided by the Immigration Service and often adjudicators establish their own information system to supplement what is available.
I have sat on some of the adjudications in the past and I have no doubt that adjudicators perform a very delicate task in sifting information provided by government sources and information available to them through the work of some of the valuable international agencies, such as the UNHCR, Amnesty International and so on.
Often, much depends on the accurate analysis of such information because, for many, a wrong decision resulting in deportation could lead to death. I have often seen evidence which does not tally with what is known about a particular country. It is often the diligence of the adjudicator that makes a difference between life and death. We must build on that. The Government have nothing to fear. In fact, I do not believe that our High Commissions or, for that matter, our embassies have the same depth of knowledge as the international agencies, which work at grass-roots level and have first-hand information which is required by the adjudicators about the country of origin.
I pay tribute to Amnesty International, Save the Children, Oxfam and many other organisations which have made a great difference to the status of refugees in the way in which their applications are processed. It is vital that such a centre is independent of the Government. There are a number of reasons for that. First, most importantly it establishes an element of fairness. Secondly, it builds the confidence of the applicant in the system; and, thirdly, it assists adjudicators to reach a decision based on up-to-date information about the country of origin.
The estimate by the Government shows a likely large increase in the removal of rejected applications. That has been estimated by government sources to be up to 30,000 per annum. In the absence of an independent documentation centre, many of the decisions could be reached on the basis of unsatisfactory information. The larger the number of removals, the greater the danger that some genuine asylum seekers may face a wrong decision. To realise that, one has to consider the work of the Medical

797
Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. In no way are we denying the right of the Government to remove those who do not qualify, but seek simply to assist them to reach the correct decision.
There is a general acceptance by many people working in the field of immigration that that is the right approach. There is no need for further research. All such research would confirm is the weakness of the present system and the need for an improved approach. Today we have the opportunity to set up an independent documentation centre and we should proceed with that. We should ensure that it has the funding to make it possible. I support the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: This is an important amendment, which I support. It builds on the Canadian model. In that country an independent documentation centre has been functioning satisfactorily for a number of years. I believe that the amendment would be strongly supported by Professor Goodwin-Gill, the professor of international refugee law at Oxford University.
If accepted, the amendment would end the paradoxical and unsatisfactory situation which has cropped up from time to time over the past 10 years in which the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been giving out completely different and conflicting opinions about the situation in individual countries. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, gave the example of Turkey and one other example.
An independent centre of this kind would help greatly to improve the quality of first decisions in asylum cases, thus leading to fewer appeals and fewer judicial reviews. I hope that this will be pursued.
Lord Avebury: Most practitioners who have considered the country assessments from the Home Office, which are available on its website, will have noticed inaccuracies, omissions and delays in putting the information on to the site. The Home Office country assessments are meant to be amended every six months. Sometimes they are not. Sometimes, the situation in countries of origin can move rapidly. I shall give one example.
In Zimbabwe we pressed the Government to take note of the fact that the killings, arrests, torture and other violations of human rights of members of the opposition, and in particular of the main opposition party, were reaching a crescendo which justified exceptional measures not to send people back until a complete evaluation of their position had been made by the Secretary of State. For weeks that was resisted, until finally, just after Christmas, it was decided that we were right and that the removals should be suspended.
If the Home Office had been monitoring the situation as closely as other people had been, it would have agreed with us and perhaps some people who subsequently found themselves in great trouble with
798
the regime in Harare would not have been sent back. Therefore, the independence of the proposed centre is important.
Any independent agency worth its salt would make certain that the information it provided to adjudicators was bang up-to-date. A situation can change drastically for the worse. People who were reasonably safe in a country until maybe a few weeks ago may suddenly find themselves at risk. If the information available to adjudicators is not bang up-to-date they may be completely unaware of changes in situations. Certainly that may be so if they had to rely on the six-monthly periodic reports of the Home Office, which frequently, in the experience of practitioners, are not complete. Therefore, they do not give an accurate picture of what is happening in those countries.
Earl Russell: I add to that briefly. I mentioned to the Minister the two pamphlets by Alasdair Mackenzie— No Reason At All and Still No Reason At All. In the second of those he pointed out that the Home Office was still returning asylum seekers to Kosovo after the NATO bombing had begun. Being not up-to-date cannot go much further than that.
Lord Filkin: I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this important debate. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, seeks to drive a wedge between the Home Secretary and myself. I assure her that she will not succeed in that. I find that I agree with the Home Secretary on almost all things.
As the Committee knows, country of origin information was established in 1997 to provide asylum decision-makers with accurate and balanced country information as the background against which individual asylum claims can be considered and assessed. It has been indicated that that is of considerable importance in terms of fairness, speed and trying to make sure that original decisions are well founded and therefore do not require to go to other and more complex stages.
The assessments do not contain Home Office opinion or policy. They do not interpret information. They are compiled from a wide variety of independent, reliable and well-recognised sources.
Although they are the primary source of information available to caseworkers, the Home Office assessments are not the only source. Caseworkers have access at all times to senior caseworkers with country knowledge and to the CIPU, who produce country assessments. Applicants are entitled to put any other evidence they think is relevant before the adjudicator or tribunal. The CIPU reports are not binding.
A number of criticisms have been made of CIPU reports. It is not appropriate to respond to them here and now. The current country reports are held in high regard. UNHCR country background reports often extensively quote from them. All other western countries use them as source material in their asylum procedures. That is not to argue that they are

799
perfect—that would he foolish—but it would not be right to claim that they are grossly flawed or fundamentally inaccurate. It is not a case for saying that we should not seek to make the system better.
Last year IND commissioned a research project to evaluate the content and use of the country information produced by CIPU. That work will assist in identifying the scope for instigating more structured systems for quality-assuring CIPU produces. The research project's methodology involved interviews and surveys of internal and external stakeholders as well as identifying the approach taken in other countries. We have recently received the results of that research, which broadly validate CIPU's work.
Previous Ministers have undertaken to examine the suggestion that an independent documentation funded by, but independent of, government should be established to undertake preparation of country assessments. Probably the only example of that is in Canada. We had intended to do that in the light of research findings, but bearing in mind that an independent centre would be expensive.
My noble friend Lord Rooker was recently sent a copy of a paper by Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, the president of the Refugee Legal Centre, which discussed the case for an independent documentation centre. It also introduced the option to establish an advisory board with appropriate representation from the different constituencies and published guidelines on the production of assessments.
We had already thought that a more cost-effective alternative might be to establish an independent panel of external people eminent in this field to provide scrutiny and oversight of the quality and content of the bi-annual country assessments and equally of the important bulletin updates that supplement them when time and circumstances move rapidly.
The evidence presented in the research project's report suggests that many of the problems which currently arise in the use of country of origin information during the asylum determination process would not necessarily be resolved by the establishment of an independent documentation system.
The research project's findings make clear that while the IND's country assessments are effective tools which contribute significantly to the asylum decision-making process, considerable value could be added to the quality of country information by establishing a user panel for those who utilise country of origin information, and an expert panel of topic and country specialists.
This work is already being taken forward: an IND working party is being established to take forward the research project's recommendations towards improving the quality and effectiveness of the country assessments and other recommendations, including ensuring that the draft assessments are reviewed by expert advisers.
800
An IND users' group has been set up to identify more specifically the information needed to assist in determining asylum applications. Initial discussions have highlighted the usefulness of greater knowledge concerning the availability of medical care.
We believe that the most constructive and cost-effective way forward will be to establish an expert advisory panel, which will assist in and inform the continuing process of improving the quality, impartiality and objectivity of the CIPU country assessments.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the situation in Zimbabwe. He was right in signalling that the normal period is six months, but, as I indicated, the bulletins are an equally important part of updating in rapidly moving situations. It is crucial that they are brought out rapidly in such circumstances. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded me of Alasdair Mackenzie's pamphlets.
In terms of implementation, first, let me repeat what was said. We shall be having consultation with opposition parties, both about what is proposed and about its implementation. I firmly intend that the consultation should take place well before the Report stage, so that Members opposite are aware of our thinking and have an opportunity at least to comment on it, both in terms of the printed proposals and in terms of their implementation.
Officials are currently considering potential membership from a range of experts from the voluntary sector, those engaged in research and those who are knowledgeable about the experiences of asylum seekers in their countries of origin. There will be consultation, as one would expect, as to their acceptability. It is important that we have the meetings with opposition parties relatively soon, so that noble Lords are aware of the broad thrust of our approach before we get into too much of the detail.
In the light of my remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will be minded to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I welcome his offer of consultation with Members from these Benches and from the Liberal Democrat Benches on the proposals and their implementation in terms of the advisory group. It seems that there will be quite a variety of changes—user panels, expert panels and goodness knows what. I certainly welcome the Minister's remark that the consultation should take place "relatively soon".
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia, Lord Hylton, and Lord Avebury, for their support on this matter. I was struck by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. He made the point that the situation changes rapidly in these countries and that the biannual report—the six-monthly change in the assessment—is not realistic. It does not catch up with the real world and the real situation faced by people who believe that they have to leave their countries and come here. That point must be strongly borne in mind in terms of the tests as to whether the Government's

801
proposals and their implementation will properly meet the needs of the system. At the moment, I have the residual feeling that the Minister's helpful description of the current system and of how the Government might try to adapt it to make it slightly better, might be like Emmental cheese. It might be a case of trying to stuff up the holes rather than churning a completely new cheese which might be more acceptable—I do not want to be rude to those who make Emmental, although it is not one of my favourites.
Although I welcome the Minister's remarks and look forward to consultation, we shall look carefully at those proposals to make sure that they meet all our concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Asylum-seeker: form of support]:
10 p.m.
Lord Hyltonmoved Amendment No. 139:
Page 19, line 23, at end insert—
"() In section 96(1)(c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33), for "other than legal expenses or" there is substituted "including any travel expenses incurred to obtain legal advice, but not"."
The noble Lord said: This modest amendment attempts to improve the Bill across the board. During earlier discussions in Committee there was universal agreement from all sides of the Chamber on the importance of independent legal advice for securing high quality first decisions in asylum cases. I ask the Government, therefore, to understand the situation of people claiming refugee status who have been dispersed to towns well outside London and the South-East where experienced asylum and immigration advisers are few or non-existent. The same may also apply to residents of future accommodation centres. Such people may have to travel long distances to secure the advice they need. They are likely to be dependent on less than 100 per cent income support and may have great difficulty in finding their own travel expenses. We know that there are some 76,000 applicants already supported by NASS.
Secondly, there will be others who have spent more than six months in this country and who may have succeeded in obtaining low-paid work. They, too, especially if they are supporting dependants, may have difficulty in affording to travel perhaps from Lancashire or north-east England to London.
The purpose of this modest amendment is to make it possible, although not mandatory, for the Secretary of State to reimburse genuine travel expenses. The Committee will appreciate that in almost all cases it will be much cheaper for the applicant to travel to the adviser rather than vice versa.
I table the amendment in the interests of getting good quality first decisions and proper advice on appeals. This is in the interest of fairness, justice and the proper discharge of this country's international obligations. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves: I support the amendment. I understand that it applies to asylum seekers
802
accommodated under the existing arrangements of dispersal rather than at accommodation centres. A small minority of people are seriously disadvantaged by finding themselves at the opposite end of the country from those who are providing them with legal advice and assistance.
That occurs legitimately when people are housed in one area and, for good reasons, are moved to another place perhaps through circumstances relating to their community. That has occurred to my knowledge in the past two years. A person living in Lancashire may have a solicitor in London who is providing good advice which he does not want to lose. He may have a good legal adviser in Manchester but, for whatever reason, that person moves to Nottingham or Birmingham. There is no doubt that that causes difficulties.
Lord Filkin: I understand the concerns of the noble Lord in proposing the amendment. For reasons I shall explain the Government believe that it is not necessary.
In England and Wales the Legal Services Commission already provides a means for an asylum seeker who is eligible for legal aid to obtain help with the cost of travel to obtain legal advice. The solicitor who is handling the case is able to obtain reimbursement for the cost of the asylum seeker's travel to the solicitor for the purpose of instructing the solicitor. He may also be reimbursed by the commission for his own travel costs if it is necessary for him to travel to see an asylum seeker in connection with an asylum claim. In Scotland, that is not the case, but solicitors may be reimbursed if it is necessary for them to travel to see an asylum seeker. Legal aid in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and it would be inappropriate to place additional burdens on Scottish Ministers without proper consultation.
This is the best way of ensuring that, where necessary, such costs are met. It avoids the difficulties of obliging asylum seekers to apply to the Home Office for a ticket in advance or for reimbursement afterwards and thereby risking inconvenience, or worse, if they have to wait longer than they had expected for their request to be dealt with. In the light of what I have said, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: The point about Scotland is well made and well taken. However, if the Minister were to approach my right honourable friend Mr Wallace, who is Minister for Justice in Scotland, he might find that the procedure by Sewel Motion, which has been used before, was not altogether beyond my right honourable friend's imagination. The fact that the matter requires independent action by the Scottish Parliament does not prove that the Scottish Parliament might not be prepared—if suitably approached—to undertake such action on its own behalf.
According to information reaching the Immigration Advisory Service, the Refugee Council and many other concerned people, the fact that the Legal Services Commission has the power to meet such

803
claims does not mean that they are being met in anything like adequate quantities. That is something which I do not think the Minister realises. We hear constantly about the kind of cases to which my noble friend Lord Greaves referred. In such cases, justice is not done. There are prolonged appeals, judicial reviews and all the types of delay that most irritate the Home Secretary.
The Minister has not yet taken on board the importance of the problem of initial decision making. There are, for example, demands for inappropriate standards of proof. There are particular problems with that in cases relating to claims of torture. The medical evidence is heard, and then it is decided that it does not provide proof that the injuries were inflicted by torture. It is of the nature of medical evidence that it can describe injuries but cannot prove who inflicted them or from what motive they were inflicted. That is an inappropriate standard of proof. The presence of a competent lawyer early on could put it right.
I recall accompanying the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on a deputation to the Home Office about the case of somebody who had scars that had been inflicted by heavy beating. The Home Office insisted that the wounds were self-inflicted. The scars were on his back.
If lawyers were present at an earlier stage, we could save a great deal of the Home Office's time and everyone else's by getting such matters settled earlier. I beg the Minister—if he cannot direct the Legal Services Commission—to set up another fund, independent of the commission, with the collaboration of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who, after all, lives not far from here. The Minister can go and talk to him. One way or another, it must be done, or the whole thing will remain as much of a mess as it has been all the time that I have been associated with it.
Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Earl for his comments. I am fully seized of the importance of getting initial decision making of the highest possible quality. That was made clear in our discussions yesterday. I see the relevance of the points made to that objective.
Between now and Report, I will discuss the issue with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. As for Mr Wallace, I enjoyed working with him recently in Luxembourg. I am reluctant, for obvious reasons, to infringe on the role of the Scottish Parliament, but I shall ensure that he is aware of the debate and the issues.
Lord Avebury: When the Minister has discussions with the Lord Chancellor, will he also put it to him that it is equally necessary for people to have access to competent medical and other advice, as well as legal advice? I do not know whether the Legal Services Commission is empowered in cases of torture or alleged torture, such as my noble friend Lord Russell
804
described, to pay for someone's transport costs to visit a doctor or other medical expert so that that information can be put together with the legal advice.
Lord Hylton: I am grateful to those noble Lords who have helpfully spoken in support of my amendment. I am equally grateful to the Minister for the discussions that he says he will have. They will be parallel to those with the Legal Services Commission, which are already on offer, concerning accommodation centres. This may well be a matter to which we have to return on Report, but meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 139A not moved.]
Lord Filkinmoved Amendment No. 140:
Page 19, line 38, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: The amendment would change the parliamentary procedure for making orders under Clause 37 of the Bill from the negative resolution procedure to the draft affirmative resolution procedure. It will ensure that before any order aimed at ending cash only support for asylum seekers, whether in all cases or in specified circumstances, can be made and put into effect, it will have to be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament for approval.
That change fulfils the assurance given on Report in the other place that a suitably worded amendment to achieve the same effect as an amendment proposed by the honourable member for Walthamstow would be tabled when the Bill came before this House.
I hope that the proposed amendment will do much to assuage the concerns expressed about the powers that the Government are taking in Clause 37. It means that the Secretary of State can exercise those powers only when and if he has obtained the approval of both Houses to the terms of any order that he wishes to make. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 37, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dubs: My purpose in opposing the Motion is to seek more information from my noble friend. Although I welcomed Amendment No. 140, which means that the Secretary of State will need an affirmative resolution, he is still taking powers to limit entitlement to social security for asylum seekers in certain circumstances. The present position—before the Bill is enacted—is that asylum seekers can be dispersed and receive support plus accommodation but if they choose not to be dispersed and instead live with friends and family they receive support only. It is the second option of receiving support only I hat will be removed by the clause if the Secretary of State decides to give effect to it.
That is a retrograde step. Some asylum seekers have friends and family and find it much more satisfactory—as we all would—to stay with them

805
rather than be dispersed when those are the only people they know in this country. Incidentally, if the Government seek to deny the option, then either asylum seekers will have to stay with their friends and family in penury, receiving no support at all, or they will have to move into accommodation on dispersal, which in turn will be more costly for the Government.
This is not a satisfactory situation. It could result in the separation of families, it could result in destitution and it could have an adverse effect on refugee community organisations which provide support for members of their communities who arrive in this country as asylum seekers. They would have to provide much more support for those asylum seekers who chose to stay with their family and friends but who no longer were in receipt of any government assistance. I hope that the Government will think again because I do not believe that this is a helpful way forward.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Greaves: On behalf of these Benches I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in his proposal that Clause 37 should not stand part of the Bill.
The clause sets out a drastic step in view of the existing situation in terms of NASS support for asylum seekers. No doubt the Minister will have the exact figures, but a large proportion of asylum seekers presently take the option of support only and then find their own accommodation. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's justification for removing that option.
At the moment many asylum seekers take the support-only option because if they are dispersed, they may be sent to the north of England, to Scotland or to the West Country, while generally their friends and family members live in the South East. Usually asylum seekers take the option of living with their relatives and friends, some of whom may be settled refugees from the same part of the world. There is a strong argument for the advantages of those arrangements in terms of the welfare of asylum seekers themselves. Rather than being placed in a terraced house in Nelson, Lancashire, or a tower block in Liverpool, living with people they have never met before, they live instead with people they know who can provide them with moral, welfare and psychological support. That is a valid option.
I should like to ask the Minister the following questions: if this proposal had been enacted over the past two years, what proportion of those who presently accept support-only assistance from NASS do the Government estimate would have opted for full assistance, which would cost more than the existing arrangements? What proportion do the Government estimate will opt for accepting no assistance whatever and for living as best they can off the resources of other people? Unless the Government have made those assessments, then they do not understand the implications of their policy.
Earl Russell: I have promised the Minister that I shall not say any more about the denial of support tonight and I shall not do so. However, I will say this. If you have seen practically every relative shot by Serbs, then you do tend to cling rather desperately to any surviving relatives that you may have in this country. That is an emotion that I think it would be unwise to deny.
Lord Hylton: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for proposing that this clause should not stand part. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out that many current asylum seekers receive cash-only support. There is good evidence to show that something in the order of 40 per cent of the 76,000 asylum seekers currently supported by NASS take that option. That represents a large number of people.
I also understand that in May in another place, Ministers stated that it would be a long time before Clause 37 would come into effect. How long is that long time likely to be? It is important that we have some idea of the timeframe and the conditions that will have to be satisfied before the clause will take effect.
Lord Avebury: The Explanatory Notes are silent on this clause. They give no indication of the motivation behind it. I understand that the Government's official position is that the support only decisions have yet to be made. There is no timescale involved but they want the power in Clause 37 should it prove necessary, in undefined circumstances, to invoke it.
A leaked memorandum from Downing Street was published in the Guardian last June indicating that the Government intend to remove support only some time this coming autumn. If that is the case and the Government have already made the decision, they had better come clean now. If they do not and what was in the leaked memo is put into effect this autumn, Parliament will have a serious grievance against the Government for withholding material facts from the House when they came to the decision to allow this clause to remain part of the Bill.
Lord Filkin: The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right, at least in the respect that this concerns the creation of a power to remove or restrict an asylum seeker's ability to choose to receive essential living needs support without accommodation.
Under current arrangements, asylum seekers who do not wish to take NASS accommodation are able to claim support to cover essential living needs and to live with family or friends. NASS has no control over where they live and few means of checking whether they are living at the address they state. This makes it difficult to maintain contact, which is an important part of the new, more managed asylum process.
It has proved to be the case that very large numbers of those who take up living needs only support remain in London and the South East, often in overcrowded and unsatisfactory accommodation in areas where large numbers of asylum seekers are placing great pressure on local services. This is very problematic and

807
does nothing to help alleviate the pressure on services in these areas which the introduction of the dispersal scheme was designed to help.
As we move to a more managed asylum process— and this undoubtedly will be a progressive rather than a rapid process—with improved contact throughout the process and the introduction of accommodation centres, it is important that asylum seekers are not able to evade this more managed environment by choosing essential needs only support. The ability to restrict such support, at least in principle, is therefore an important feature of the new asylum process.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the proportion of people receiving cash only support out of the total on NASS support. The latest figure to March 2002 is that 30,000 are receiving subsistence only support out of a total of 74,000. We seem to have similar figures on that.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, understands that, because of the time of night and the hypothetical nature of his question about the proportion who would opt for NASS accommodation if it was the only option available—I think that was the question—there is no realistic answer.
Lord Greaves: I do not understand at all. If the Government are bringing in a new policy designed for certain objectives, they ought to have an assessment of what the effect of that policy will be in relation to those objectives. If they do not, they will be floundering.
Why should the provision of support of any kind be automatically tied to the Government's desire to keep more control over where people live while they are claiming asylum? Does not the fact that people can opt out of support and live where they want nullify the objective of doing so? If it is to be made a condition of seeking asylum that people live in a certain place, surely that can be made a condition regardless of whether people are receiving support?
Lord Filkin: I agree with the noble Lord. Were the Government on the point of implementing such a power, one would expect a careful assessment of its implementation process, costs, timetable and burden. In that respect, the noble Lord is right. I perhaps should have prefaced my remarks by saying that we have no plans to introduce this measure in the near future. I have no knowledge of any proposal for implementation in the autumn, and no timetable has been drawn up to that effect. I can therefore give a clear assurance in that regard.
With regard to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about the importance of maintaining contact, in essence, the state provides, as I believe it should, substantial support in aggregate, if not on an individual basis, to asylum seekers who are destitute. The current cost of that provision is approximately £1 billion per year. That does not mean that needs are not being met from that cost, but it is a substantial sum. The Government's view is that if people wish to be supported, it is perfectly reasonable that the Government should be entitled to know where
808
people are and to exercise some discretion about the form in which such assistance will be offered. I do not wish to prolong the debate. Broadly, that is the Government's position on that matter.
Earl Russell: The Minister has not yet taken on board the force of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about the dependence of refugees on members of their own community. That removes a great deal of the burden from many of the institutions of state, notably, social services. The budgets of social services departments are not in a particularly comfortable state. I am sure that the Minister will have heard some of the recent complaints about care homes; it is a constant refrain.
By depriving refugees of the support of their own communities, the Minister is pickling a rod for his own back. He may consider the case of the Somali who was sent to Brighton, where not a single person spoke his language. That created a very considerable burden. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, looks surprised. It is an NACAB story, and it is in the habit of getting such matters right.
I also believe that the Minister should not blame the burdens on the South East, which I agree have been considerable, simply on the fact of people being allowed to live where they like. That was the result of two consecutive matters: first, the withdrawal of benefits by the 1996 Act; secondly, shortly afterwards, the judgment of Mr Justice Collins that asylum seekers were entitled to support under the provisions of the National Assistance Act 1948. That placed a burden on local authorities, which admittedly was a great deal too heavy for them, and they had a legitimate grievance. However, their grievance was not the presence of the asylum seekers but the Government's failure to shoulder a burden that should have been their own.
Lord Hylton: In his reply, the Minister mentioned some 30,000 people whom he felt may be attempting to evade the forthcoming managed system. We agree that the way to prevent such evasion is to have a comprehensive network of reporting centres and to make use of the recently introduced application registration card, rather than to take away cash-only support from that category of people.
Lord Filkin: I do not want needlessly to prolong the debate at this time of day, particularly as the Government have no immediate plans for implementation under this clause. I certainly did not intend to suggest that there were in London 30,000 people seeking to avoid their reporting obligations. I was merely marking the reality of the situation that the concentration of very large numbers of support-only asylum seekers in London creates challenges and burdens for local government and for society in some of those areas.
However, be that as it may, there is no immediate plan to implement this proposal. I am certain that the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and other noble Lords about the cost effectiveness of

809
moving towards implementation of this, as well as the other humanitarian points that have been raised, will be considered by the Government before we decide to move forward on implementation.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Clause 38[Destitute asylum-seeker].
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 140A:
Page 20, line 21, leave out from second "the" to ", or" in line 22 and insert "claimant receives notice of the Secretary of State's decision"
The noble Earl said: I shall move this amendment, but I shall not move Amendments Nos. 141 and 141B which are grouped with it. Amendment No. 140A would make provision for the termination of support to run from when the asylum seeker is notified of the failure of his claim—that is, when he receives the notification—not from when the Secretary of State is thought to have despatched it. It is all too common now for people whose claims have been refused to discover the fact not through a letter from Lunar House, still less from the Secretary of State; but from a letter from NASS saying, "Since the rejection of your claim, your support has been terminated". So they bother to let NASS know but they do not bother to inform the claimant. That is not the way that it ought to be. It creates a shock, a sudden collapse of support, which can be very serious in its consequences.
I have referred the Minister previously to Alasdair Mackenzie. He quotes one case of a Home Office letter of refusal that reached the applicant 10½ months after the date on its letter-head. That is the sort of example that makes me suggest that the clock should run from the time of the applicant's receipt of the letter and not from the date that appears on the top of the letter. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can understand why the noble Earl has moved the amendment. It would certainly be unfair to stop supporting an asylum seeker whose claim had been determined in circumstances where, through no fault of his own, he was unaware that a decision on his claim had been reached.
The purpose of Section 94(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which this clause seeks to amend, is to ensure that asylum seekers whose claims have been determined are given a period of grace to make other arrangements for support when their entitlement to support under Part VI of that Act ends.
As we understand it, the noble Earl's proposed amendment seems to be aimed at ensuring that the start of the so-called "grace period", during which an asylum seeker can still receive support under Section 95 of the 1999 Act once he has received a decision by the Secretary of State on his asylum claim, begins when he actually receives the decision notice—I believe that that understanding is shared—not when it is sent out by the Secretary of State. However, that is already the intention and effect of Section 94(3).
810
We do not argue that the posting of a decision notice constitutes notification; nor are we clear what is wrong with the present arrangements. Service of a decision notice is either carried out in person or by post using the Recorded Delivery mail where a person is required to sign for the letter received. I should have thought that that was entirely adequate in all the circumstances.
I do not see how we can go any further; otherwise, it would mean us serving around 100,000 notices personally each year. Of course, the reputation of the Home Office in this field is legendary. But even that might just be a touch beyond us. The resource implications are frightening. If the noble Earl pauses to think about it, and takes in exactly what I have said in my response. I am sure that he will find it within himself to agree that this is an effective, pragmatic and fair way to deal with such matters. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw amendment. I should add that I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving notice of the fact that he does not intend to move the other two amendments in this group; namely, Amendments Nos. 141A and 141B.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am very glad to hear of the humane and sensible practice that the Minister described as being in operation. What occurs to me, however, is that if that system is in operation, what do the Government have to lose by accepting the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell? I may have missed the point, but the noble Earl seems to be advancing an argument that really makes itself. If there is to be a deleterious consequence flowing from late reaction to a determination, that consequence should at least flow from the date of notification rather than the date of posting of the notification.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for his support. I reassure the Minister that I was not intending to press the amendment at this time of night. However, I might perhaps draw his attention to Section 94(3) of the 1999 Act to which he refers. It states:
"For the purposes of this part, a claim for asylum is determined at the end of such period beginning … on the day on which the Secretary of State notifies the claimant of his decision of the claim".
I think that, in normal English, that means the day on the head of the Secretary of State's letter.
Whatever ought to happen, it is clear that the system is not working at the moment. Perhaps the Minister can familiarise himself with the correspondence that I have been having in the past few weeks with his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, about malfunctions in the issue of the form NASS 35, which is the NASS sign-off to say how much benefit the applicant has had from NASS which is used by Social Security as a means of triggering the claim. It does not start to pay until it has the NASS 35. This form very often fails to get issued. If the Minister wants further examples of that, I am sure that Mr John Wheatley of

811
the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux will be very happy to supply it to him in considerable detail.
So before I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, may I just ask the Minister not to assume that everything is all right as it is now?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that we all appreciate that we do not live in a world of absolute perfection. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, gave helpful support to the noble Earl, I should like to try to put this point on the record so that it is understood. The status quo is precisely what the noble Earl is seeking to achieve; there is no difference. In our view, the amendment is entirely unnecessary. A person is "notified" when he or she receives the notification. That is what the words mean. So it is the moment that the notification is received that they are "notified", not when the notification is posted, which is the point on which the noble Earl relied in his argument, in which he was supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I hope that that clarification, on the record, will enable the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment with considerable satisfaction. It has enabled us to spell out precisely what is meant by the law.
Earl Russell: The Minister describes utopia very well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 141:
Page 20, line 24, leave out "finally determined" and insert "disposed of"
The noble Lord said: This technical amendment corrects a drafting error. Section 94(4) of the 1999 Act contains the definition of when an appeal is considered to have been "disposed of". The amendment will ensure that this very worthwhile and wholly sensible definition applies. In the new Section 94(3) inserted by Clause 38(4), there was an error in that we were referring to "finally determined". We have taken great pains to ensure that this amendment wholly corrects that error and puts it right. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: If it is not asking too much of the Minister, will he explain what is the difference between "finally determined" and "disposed of"?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am a history graduate, not an English graduate. However, as I hear the words, I suppose that they mean pretty much the same thing. It is our intention to ensure clarity. We consider that the term "disposed or is more correct. I have no doubt that if the noble Lord refers to Fowler's Modern English Usage, he will find that that is the case.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I am grateful for that attempt at an explanation. During the previous Parliament I wrote to the Home Office 40 times more
812
often than I had done before due to the reluctance of the Home Office to communicate with my constituents. I remember case after case where the final determination of an appeal never reached the constituent. I can also think of cases where, although the appeal had been disposed of, the Home Office was blissfully ignorant of that. In neither case did it appear to me that the word "finality" had any rationale in terms of the course of events.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I hope that I may in 30 seconds suggest an answer which the Minister might give. Let us suppose that an appeal is withdrawn It is finally disposed of but it is not determined as it has not been the subject of adjudication. Might that possibly be the answer?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That seems most sensible. I am always in the hands of lawyers in your Lordships' House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 141A and 141B not moved.]
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Section 38: supplemental]:
Baroness Greengrossmoved Amendment No. 141C:
Page 21, line 34, at end insert—
"() The following shall be inserted into section 97(4) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (support-supplemental)—
"(c) must provide an asylum seeker who is over the age of 60 with regular additional cash payments equivalent in proportion to the pensioner premiums provided to other pensioners in the United Kingdom.""
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 141C is a probing amendment to test the principle on which the Government have decided on the level of support for older asylum seekers. Perhaps it is art oversight or I have misunderstood the Bill's provisions, but older asylum seekers appear to be treated in the same way as younger people.
I apologise to the Committee for not having been able to take part in the Bill's Second Reading as fully as I would have liked. I am, however, a member of Sub-Committee F of the European Union Select Committee which is currently considering these very issues as part of its ongoing inquiry into a common EU policy on illegal immigration.
Put simply, my amendment would give extra financial support to older asylum seekers, which the Refugee Council and Oxfam recommend in their recently published excellent report on poverty and asylum. It provides a sad picture of the poverty suffered by many older asylum seekers at a level not experienced by older UK residents who benefit over and above income support.
The logic for this is taken from the Government's rules on support for our own citizens. As the Committee will know, our own older people now receive a much more generous level of support than people aged under 60. They always received a premium on supplementary benefit and income support. Now the premium on the normal income support level of £53·95 per week has risen to £44·20 per week, making

813
a total of £98·15 for a single person aged over 60. That is a substantial premium for those on what is currently called the minimum income guarantee.
That higher level of support is partly to reflect the extra needs of and costs for our older people. Other Members of the Committee have mentioned the need for clothes in cold weather, for example. Does the Minister think that older asylum seekers do not have those extra needs?
My amendment does not in fact suggest that older asylum seekers should get the same pensioner premium as our own citizens: £44·20 per week. Rather, I suggest that they should get the same proportion extra—it is almost double—as our own citizens receive. That would mean that older asylum seekers would receive an additional £30 or so on top of the flat rate weekly amount of £37·77 which asylum seekers will receive.
In 2001, around 700 asylum seekers aged over 60 sought asylum in this country. We are not talking about great numbers. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we on these Benches warmly support the amendment. I shall make two points in support of it. First, many asylum seekers concerned come from communities that have a much stronger tradition of family support for the old than we have in this country. For those people, being dispersed away from those communities will be a correspondingly greater wrench than it would be for many British people in the same situation. Secondly, the Minister argued earlier this evening that the package of support available for asylum seekers is broadly equivalent to income support. If the amendment is not agreed to, that argument of the Minister's must be untenable.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Government certainly understand the concerns put forward by the noble Baroness, who has a long record of work in arguing cases such as this. Of course, I would also
814
expect the generosity of spirit shown by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in expressing his support. However, the Government cannot accept the amendment.
It is worth reminding the Committee that the NASS dispersal scheme was set up to be separate from the main benefits system. It is important that that distinction is maintained. Support provided to those with asylum seeker status is different and separate from that provided to other residents. It is not intended exactly to replicate the social security system but to provide a means of short-term support aimed at providing, as necessary, a roof over the heads of destitute asylum seekers and the basic wherewithal to meet their essential living needs. Accordingly, the Government cannot accept that supplementary payments are necessary for asylum seekers who are over 60 years old.
We understand the argument but we do not believe that it is an acceptable approach. We have set out our rationale for the current scheme. It has been argued in this Chamber this evening and explained with great clarity. While we understand the points made, I am afraid that we do not find the amendment acceptable. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Greengross: I thank the Minister for that reply but I am obviously disappointed. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support. I hope that perhaps at a later stage the Government will reconsider the matter. It is important that the needs of older asylum seekers are considered very carefully. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia
  Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia
  Palestinian Authority: EU Funds
  Palestinian Authority: EU Funds
  Tanzania
  Tanzania
  Chagos Archipelago
  Chagos Archipelago
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Ministry of Defence Expenditure Plans
  Ministry of Defence Expenditure Plans
  National Declaration of Ireland
  National Declaration of Ireland
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Regional and Minority Languages
  Regional and Minority Languages
  Pensions: Emigrants Returning from Canada
  Pensions: Emigrants Returning from Canada
  Sterile Seed Technology
  Sterile Seed Technology
  Apprenticeships
  Apprenticeships
  Greater London: School Playing Fields
  Greater London: School Playing Fields
  Sale of Illegal Meat
  Sale of Illegal Meat
  Animal Feed Imports
  Animal Feed Imports
  Medical Negligence Claims
  Medical Negligence Claims
  Local Authorities; Comprehensive Performance Assessment Framework
  Local Authorities; Comprehensive Performance Assessment Framework
  Cancer Research
  Cancer Research
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Human Organs and Tissue
  Human Organs and Tissue
  NHS and the Private Sector
  NHS and the Private Sector
  Lottery Fund Grant Aid
  Lottery Fund Grant Aid
  Downing Street Notepaper
  Downing Street Notepaper
  Cabinet Meetings
  Cabinet Meetings
  Appellate Committee of the House of Lords
  Appellate Committee of the House of Lords
  Convention on the Future of Europe: Standing Committee
  Convention on the Future of Europe: Standing Committee