Sitting of 11 June 2002

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

    Postal Services
    Mr. James Gray: If she will make a statement on the reform of postal services in Scotland. [57379]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Mrs. Anne McGuire): The operation of postal services in Scotland is a matter for the board of Consignia, subject to the conditions determined by the postal regulator, Postcomm.
    Mr. Gray: Perhaps I can be the first to welcome the Under-Secretary to her new post among the matriarchy on the Government Front Bench. She represents the town of Stirling, as her constituency name indicates, but she also represents my home town of Dunblane; it is a shame that the constituency name does not show that. I am sure that she will do a fine job in her new post.
    Since the Labour party came to power, a total of 135 post offices have closed across Scotland. If the Government continue to do what they have done up until recently—paying pensions directly into people's bank accounts—that rate of closure will continue apace. Before the Under-Secretary says that that is not part of her plans, will she explain why the Ministry of Defence has recently written to all MOD pensioners in Scotland to tell them that their pensions will be paid compulsorily into bank accounts and that they may not draw them from post offices? Does she not fear that that will lead to a further loss of post offices across Scotland?
    Mrs. McGuire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I was worried that when I rose to speak today the House would empty, given that I normally move the Adjournment.
    I crave the indulgence of the House for a second to put on record my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for the generosity of his comments during the transfer of his portfolio, particularly when he mentioned making room for younger Members. I was mightily impressed by that.
    704
    I thank the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) for his comments, which are particularly welcome because of his strong family connections with the ecclesiastical city, not town, as he said, of Dunblane—he will be in trouble when he goes home. I have known the hon. Gentleman for some time, and we attended the same university, but in spite of the fact that I kent his faither, so to speak, I have to say that his question is disingenuous. He talks to us about post office closures, but we were the first party specifically to protect rural post offices until 2006. He comments on the number of closures over the last few months, but that number has fallen, whereas under the Conservative Government some 3,500 post offices closed across the UK. I do not think that the Conservatives have a leg to stand on.
    The hon. Gentleman is aware that there are ongoing discussions about the collection of pensions and the move towards direct payment of pensions through post offices. That proposal will enhance the services of post offices and enhance the services given to customers.
    Mr. Russell Brown: I welcome my hon. Friend to her new post.
    The burning issue at this time is the universal service, especially in rural areas. While Postcomm's backtracking must be welcomed, I regret to say that I am not convinced that it will be sufficient to ensure that we have a continued universal service delivery right into the heart of rural areas. Will my hon. Friend assure me that if it looks as though that is not to continue, she and those at the sharp end will step in to ensure that we continue to receive the service to which we have all grown used, need and deserve?
    Mrs. McGuire: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I welcome the change from Postcomm and a great deal of credit for that has to go to hon. Members across the House, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, who met Postcomm and the trade unions.
    I share the philosophy of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) about the importance of the universal delivery and I was pleased that, for the first time ever, the Government enshrined within legislation that there will be a universal delivery across the UK at an affordable tariff.
    Consignia's licence specifically states that it has to honour that universal service delivery. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Secretary for State and I will ensure that rural communities, and all communities across Scotland, continue to receive a universal service. Rowland Hill would have been proud of us.
    John Thurso: I, too, congratulate the Minister, and I welcome her to her post on behalf of my party. I also associate myself with her remarks concerning her predecessor.
    In respect of the universal service obligation, notwithstanding the welcome reversal by Consignia, is not she aware that great concern was caused in rural communities by the threat of the withdrawal of that service in certain areas? Will she ensure, as far as possible, that the current level of services enjoyed in remote areas is maintained, and at an affordable cost, and that the

    705
    Postcomm privatisation proposals do not lead to an inexorable abandonment of those services in those important communities?
    Mrs. McGuire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous comments.
    Postwatch has identified some of the exclusions that are currently in place. To avoid spreading panic across rural Scotland, let me identify clearly what those exclusions relate to, which is normally relative inaccessibility by road—for example, difficulties with transport; non-existence of daily ferry services; and second home owners requesting a non-delivery. I am sure that many people have holiday homes in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world and that many addresses are often unoccupied. The exclusions relate only to specific circumstances.
    The Government are committed to the universal service obligation, which has been written into Consignia's licence and confirmed in legislation this year. We are committed to honouring it and ensuring that individuals and communities throughout the country get the daily delivery wherever possible. I take on board the hon. Gentleman's comment about ensuring that rural communities feel secure in the knowledge that they will continue to get that daily service.
    Tony Worthington: As one who shared a Capstan Full Strength office with her father for several years, I join in the expressions of pleasure at my hon. Friend's appointment.
    The performance and innovation unit's report published some time ago contained some good ideas on how extra business could be brought to the Post Office. The idea of its acting as a kind of general practitioner, offering advice and services, was particularly good. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking to do all that she can to promote those ideas, because they could be very valuable but do not seem to have been put into effect so far?
    Mrs. McGuire: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. In the interests of health, I should say that Capstan Full Strength do not do one any good, and my father paid a penalty for smoking them over a long period. I know that he is sitting on a cloud somewhere laughing at that comment.
    On the one-stop shop, there have been pilots in Leicestershire and Rutland, which are currently being evaluated. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it would have been foolish to push ahead with that development before seeing how it operated. We hope that the results will be out soon and we can start to make progress and ensure that the Post Office offers an enhanced service for both rural and urban communities throughout Scotland.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: I, too, congratulate the new Minister on her elevation, and I hope that she will add to the honourable tradition of Members for Stirling in ministerial office. She talked about rural communities feeling secure about their postal services. Perhaps she has not yet had time to read of the petition signed by 500 residents of Newton Stewart expressing concern about their postal services. Has she made any assessment of the effect of closing post offices in rural communities? Does it accord with the remarks of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee
    706
    that there would be "severe adverse consequences"? Will the Government's half-baked reforms and the consequent suppression of competition continue to centralise postal services in Scotland?
    Mrs. McGuire: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. I trust that he is talking about Lord Ewing when he refers to predecessors in the Scotland Office. I assure him that I am not seeking to emulate the fate of my immediate predecessor in the constituency.
    It is incumbent on Members of Parliament, regardless of their political persuasion, not to scaremonger about what is happening to the rural post office network, which has been protected by the Government up to 2006. We see a lot of crocodile tears from the Opposition. For 18 years, they walked away from rural communities when shops and banks withdrew from them, and it was this Government who piled in with support to protect rural post offices.

    Oil and Gas Taxation
    Mr. Alex Salmond: What consultations she had with ministerial colleagues on the Budget changes to North sea oil and gas taxation. [57380]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I have regular discussions with my ministerial colleagues on a wide range of matters, including fiscal matters, affecting Scottish interests. Budget decisions are of course a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Salmond: I add my congratulations to the Under-Secretary on reaching her new position, and I also congratulate Ireland on reaching the next stage of the World cup finals.
    Is it not true that the Secretary of State was not consulted on tax changes in respect of the North sea, and nor was Pilot, the industry consultation body? Is it not clear that even if a fraction of the 50,000 job losses estimated by the industry are indeed lost, the constituency of every Member in the Chamber will be affected? We now know that the Clair field will offer no fabrication aspect for Scottish yards, and the loss of 800 BP contractor jobs was announced last week. With that in mind, does the Secretary of State accept that oil workers are very anxious about their current job prospects? I know that she is a Labour politician and has to defend the proposals, but she is also—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question is far too long.
    Mr. Salmond: Representations to the Chancellor—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is time to sit down.
    Mrs. Liddell: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will take note of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The decisions that the Chancellor has taken in relation to North sea fiscal policy should not have come as any great surprise. In 1998, when the oil and gas industry taskforce was being established, the Chancellor undertook a review of the North sea fiscal regime, and pointed out that he was considering petroleum revenue tax and a

    707
    supplement on corporation tax. When the oil price dropped to $10 a barrel, the Chancellor made it clear that for the duration of the Parliament he would not take any action in respect of the North sea fiscal regime, but would keep the matter under review.
    As part of that review, the Treasury was represented on the oil and gas industry taskforce and on Pilot, which I chaired for about two years, by no less a figure than Sir Steve Robson. At that time, very few Treasury officials were ranked higher than him. It was the discussions within Pilot that led us to reach a decision on the North sea fiscal regime, which is designed to help companies that are investing in the North sea.
    Predictably, the hon. Gentleman tells only half the story. We have introduced first-year allowances for the North sea of 100 per cent., which means that for those—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Connarty.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: I was enjoying that answer because it was so comprehensive.
    Jim Sheridan: It was better than the question.
    Mr. Connarty: Yes, it certainly was.
    As secretary of the offshore oil and gas industry all-party group, I should point out to my right hon. Friend that the industry is concerned about the structure of the tax. We do not know whether the 10 per cent. increase will be permanent, or vary if the price of oil falls to the low levels of the previous Parliament. However, in general—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a supplementary question, and the Secretary of State will try to answer it.
    Mrs. Liddell: This is a complicated issue and I apologise for spending time on it. Naturally, the industry does not like paying additional taxation, but it has a much higher rate of return—some 34.3 per cent., compared with 11.2 per cent.—than all other non-financial companies. The Chancellor made it clear in the Budget statement that he is trying to bring about stability in the North sea fiscal regime. Indeed, the taxation changes are designed to ensure that companies that invest in the North sea pay less tax, and that those that do not do so pay more. As Secretary of State for Scotland, I find that very attractive. I find equally attractive the fact that the money is being used to ensure better health care in Scotland—something that my party has argued for, and delivered, for some time.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I add my congratulations to the Under-Secretary, and my commiserations to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I was glad that I was able to congratulate him on his forthcoming wedding anniversary in good time. I also welcome the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to what is possibly one of his last appearances at Question Time before he moves to Holyrood.
    The Secretary of State suggested that she was aware that the taxation of oil companies was likely to go up in the Budget. What representations did she make to the
    708
    Chancellor on behalf of the 18,000 people who might lose their jobs in Scotland because of the effect of the tax changes?
    Mrs. Liddell: One of my hon. Friends says from a sedentary position that the Tories just make numbers up, and that is what the hon. Lady is doing and what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has just done. The taxation regime is balanced. It includes the 10 per cent. supplementary charge on corporation tax that takes into account the profitability of the UK continental shelf companies. It includes a first-year allowance of 100 per cent., which means that marginal fields will pay less tax, and it also commits to setting a date for the abolition of royalties.
    It is a sensible procedure, aimed—I remind the hon. Lady—at securing resources for increased expenditure on health and education in Scotland. That is what the Scottish people want, and it is fair that profitable oil companies should make their contribution to the health and well-being of the people of Scotland in return for the exploration and exploitation of a natural resource.
    Mrs. Lait: The 18,000 people who may lose their jobs will not necessarily find that their health improves. Will the right hon. Lady leave behind her previous role as energy Minister and concentrate on her role as Secretary of State for Scotland? In all her answers, she has not made it clear whether she represented the views of Scotland to the Chancellor or, as usual, she was the Cabinet's voice in Scotland. Will she clarify that point?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am Scotland's voice in the United Kingdom Cabinet, which has more Scots in it than the Scottish National party has sitting on the Benches. The Budget is in the best interests of Scotland, because Scotland's health record is one of the worst in Europe. We have to improve the health of the people of Scotland as well as improve the economy, and that is the reasoning behind the Chancellor's sensible Budget.
    We discussed with the oil industry over three or four years the difficulties that the industry is facing because of the maturity of the UK continental shelf. That is something that the previous Conservative Government never took it into their head to do. We have brought unemployment in Scotland down to its lowest level for a generation. More people are now in employment than have been for 40 years and that is a record of which I am proud and, I believe, the people of Scotland are proud.
    Mr. David Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the record profits made by multinational oil corporations such as Shell and BP? Is not the Chancellor right to tax them appropriately? However, does my right hon. Friend share the disappointment felt in the highlands, and in Scotland as a whole, about the loss of the BP Clair platform to Norway? Will she join my campaign to investigate the details of the Norwegian bid?
    Mrs. Liddell: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's campaign to secure the Clair jacket, for Nigg in particular. The decision was a commercial one, but I hope that greater concentration will now be put on getting subcontract work from the Clair jacket to ensure continuation of supply employment in Scotland.

    709
    My hon. Friend is right about the taxation. I was not surprised to hear the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) advocate from the Opposition Front Bench that taxation should not be increased to provide better health care in Scotland, but I was very surprised to hear the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan do so. His colleagues in the Scottish Parliament—which he is soon to rejoin, we hear—say that they want increased public expenditure in Scotland. He says that he does not want—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The views of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) are nothing to do with the right hon. Lady. She is here to answer for the Executive, and she should do so.

    Devolution
    Angus Robertson: What representations she has made to each Government Department concerning their provision of information on Council of the European Union meetings to the Scottish Parliament and Executive. [57381]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The provision of information to the Scottish Parliament is a matter for the Scottish Executive, who are involved in all relevant discussions in relation to European matters.
    Angus Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. At a time when the Government are stressing the importance of accountability, democracy and subsidiarity in European Union matters, does she agree that Scotland has a democratic deficit in that area, especially when one considers the conclusions of the report by the European Scrutiny Committee that was published this morning? The report states:
    "It is a matter of concern that not all information about EU discussions relevant to the devolved administrations and legislatures has been forwarded to them by UK Departments."
    Does the Secretary of State agree that that is not acceptable and that it should change? What will she do about it?
    Mrs. Liddell: The Government will respond to the report in due course. However, I attended the meeting this morning of the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe, with the Deputy First Minister. I have received no representations from the Scottish Executive regarding any unhappiness about the availability of information on European Councils. The hon. Gentleman seeks always to push Scotland to the periphery of Europe. It is my job, and the Government's job, to ensure that Scotland remains in the mainstream in Europe.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Devolution
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues have been raised since 30 April under the Scotland Act 1998. [57404]
    Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised in the last month under the Scotland Act 1998. [57405]
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What devolution issues have been raised since 30 April under the Scotland Act 1998 relating to human rights. [57406]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Since 30 April, 33 devolution issue cases have been intimated to me. They have involved a variety of matters, mostly concerning the right to a fair trial under the European convention on human rights.
    Miss McIntosh: I congratulate the Minister on retaining her post. As a result, we can continue to hold her to account at these monthly Question Times. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the shadow leader of the House, is present, and I am sure that he will support me in asking whether she has made progress with the modernisation plans that would allow an extension of this Question Time. At present, we have the minimal period of five minutes. An extension would help to make the Minister totally accountable to the House.
    The Advocate-General: I am delighted that there is still support for further time to question me. That sits rather uneasily with those Opposition Members who feel that there is no role for the Advocate-General. However, the determination of the length of Question Time is a matter for the House, not for me.
    Annabelle Ewing: What has been, or is likely to be, the Advocate-General's involvement in the ongoing saga of the Megrahi case? Yesterday, Nelson Mandela, the former President of South Africa, called for the matter to be referred to the Privy Council. Does the Advocate-General have no role in the matter, or is her role secret?
    The Advocate-General: My role is not a secret at all. The Scotland Act 1998 makes it plain that I have no role in connection with prosecution matters, which are entirely for the Lord Advocate. As the hon. Lady knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has other relationships to deal with. If further legal proceedings were begun, it is possible that a devolution issue might arise. If so, that would be intimated to me in the normal course of events, under the rules of the Scotland Act.
    Mr. Dalyell: Given that President Mandela asked that there should be an appeal, will my hon. Friend the Minister use her good offices with the Crown Office to accede to the request from Mr. Eddie McKechnie, Megrahi's lawyer, that a moratorium be placed on the handing over of crucial artefacts? What is the hurry about handing them over, after 13 years? What does the Crown Office have to hide in the matter?
    The Advocate-General: The Lord Advocate, and through him the Crown Office, are responsible to the Scottish Parliament and to the courts. There is no role for me in relation to the way in which the Lord Advocate

    711
    exercises discretion. If my hon. Friend wishes to make representations to the Lord Advocate, that option is open to him.
    Mr. Eric Joyce: With regard to devolution issues, have any cases been referred to my hon. and learned Friend that allege delay in criminal proceedings? Will she relate that to possible breaches of the ECHR?
    The Advocate-General: I have indeed had many intimations about delay in criminal proceedings as alleged contraventions of the ECHR. The number of such cases runs into the hundreds, about 50 per cent. of which raise those issues. Because of the number of cases intimated to me, for a number of days recently I was involved in a test case, at which I appeared personally to deal with those legal issues. The Appeal Court has given a decision in that case, and the representations that I made were successful. However, a further appeal to the Privy Council is to be mounted, and I shall be dealing with that in due course.

    Value for Money
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: What measures she is taking to improve value for money in her Department. [57407]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): As the first Advocate-General for Scotland, I have been keen to ensure the most efficient use of public money, and I think that this has been achieved. My office provides a range of legal services to Government Departments, including litigation, advisory work, preparation of legislation and formal Law Officer opinions, and it does all that with 19 lawyers plus support staff. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that my officials and I give very good value for money.
    Mr. Carmichael: Would the Advocate-General care to comment on reports that came to my office recently that she had a full set of session cases transported from Edinburgh to London simply for the purpose of a photo opportunity and that it was then repacked and sent back to Edinburgh? Is that the case and, if so, does she consider that to be value for money?
    The Advocate-General: It certainly was not a photo opportunity involving me. I have no knowledge of that. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Legal Advice
    Ms Meg Munn: What steps the Department is taking to extend legal advice for the socially excluded. [57408]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): Lack of access to reliable legal advice can be a major factor in creating and maintaining social exclusion. Community legal service partnerships are therefore being established in order to plan and co-ordinate local legal services more effectively. The work of the community legal service partnerships is making a real difference to communities across England and Wales, particularly to those living in some of the most deprived areas.
    Ms Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and welcome the Government's approach. Does she agree that it is vital that legal advice is available to people such as my constituent from Gleadless, who came to my surgery on Saturday, so that she can challenge the loan company which says that she now owes £22,000 on a loan of £7,000 taken out 11 years ago?
    Ms Winterton: My hon. Friend is quite right that the spiral of financial difficulties in which people sometimes find themselves could be avoided if they had proper debt counselling at an early stage, particularly to stop them falling into the hands of loan sharks, as her constituent obviously has done. The community legal service in Sheffield has received Government money to improve access to advice and information, particularly aimed at socially excluded communities and individuals. That includes making sure that people know exactly where they can obtain advice about the kind of debt problems that my hon. Friend has highlighted. I hope that that will improve the situation in her area.
    Mr. David Heath: Will the hon. Lady send a warm welcome to the Department to her fellow Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)?
    Mr. Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend may well have done that already.
    Mr. Heath: Indeed.
    Does the increase in the number of people seeking the help of law centres and citizens advice bureaux suggest that there are still extensive barriers to people who require legal representation? Whatever the criticism—possibly justifiable—of the so-called fat cat lawyers in the City, many high street solicitors are seeking to extend a range of services to clients on modest incomes. Should we not consider how to ensure that the smaller lawyers' firms can continue practising in our smaller towns?
    Ms Winterton: I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman's welcome to my hon. Friend. He is right that it is important to keep smaller firms involved within the community legal service partnerships, and there have been some good examples of that. In terms of ensuring proper access, we have almost achieved 100 per cent. coverage of legal service partnerships throughout the country, which is way ahead of schedule. That is an important means of ensuring that people have access to legal advice, particularly those who may have been excluded in the past. I certainly agree that it is important to ensure that private sector solicitors are involved in those partnerships with us.
    Paul Clark: I note what my hon. Friend said about access to the right information, which is fundamentally important in ensuring that people who seek help receive reliable information. May I draw her attention to the work of the Medway community legal services partnership, which has developed in a number of ways? I draw her attention especially to the document in my hand—the referral handbook—which is useful to us all, not only Members of Parliament, but other bodies who help people seeking advice, such as the person to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) referred. The document has been developed by the Medway CLS to identify the available services and the clientele that they might serve. It shows where legal services are available through the CLS and where the quality mark exists. Will my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary look at the document as an example of best practice?
    Ms Winterton: I know that my hon. Friend has been extremely supportive of his local CLS partnership. It is important that Members of Parliament show such support, as it often helps to make the partnerships successful. The booklet to which he refers is an excellent example of good practice by a partnership. I certainly agree that it is important that we ensure that other partnerships are aware of such good practice. One of the ways that my Department is considering assisting that process is by funding innovative projects throughout the country, especially through the partnership innovation bids. My hon. Friend might like to draw the attention of his partnership to that fund.

    Data Protection Act
    Mr. Graham Brady: What representations the Lord Chancellor has received on the impact of the Data Protection Act 1998 on hospital chaplaincy. [57409]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): Five hon. Members have written on behalf of constituents about the effect of the Data Protection Act 1998 on hospital chaplains. The hospital chaplaincies council of the Church of England will shortly meet officials in my Department.
    Mr. Brady: I welcome the Minister to her new position. Does she agree that hospital chaplaincy provides a vital service to many thousands of people who are in severe need of help and support? Does she share my concern that an over-zealous interpretation of the Data Protection Act is standing in the way of the work of hospital chaplains? Will she undertake to consider whether changes to the legislation are necessary in order to allow chaplaincies to carry out their functions properly?
    Yvette Cooper: I agree that hospital chaplains can provide a vital service of spiritual support and care to many people in hospitals who want it. It is important that patients who want that support should be able to get it.
    The Data Protection Act does not prevent hospitals from passing on information about a patient's religion, but it states that they can do so only with the patient's consent or, if the patient is unable to give that consent, if it is in their vital interest. Consent is an important principle and
    714
    we need to take it seriously in those circumstances. It is possible for hospitals to seek consent when they collect information, and the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we need to ensure that the practical issues are properly addressed, so that hospital chaplains can give the care that people so often want. That is why the issue has been raised with the patient information advisory group. I understand that it will be advising the Department of Health on a new code of practice for the NHS on consent and confidentiality. The points that the hon. Gentleman has made on behalf of his constituents will certainly be taken into account.
    Mr. William Cash: May I welcome the Minister to her new responsibilities? I got on extremely well with her predecessor and I trust that we shall be able to maintain that, even with all the necessary opposition that we shall bring to bear on her Department.
    Will the hon. Lady tell the House what action she will take in the light of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that Church ministries and their pastors in hospitals are unable to function properly because of the Data Protection Act 1998? Hospital patients often need their advice urgently and emotionally. The measure is an example of the triumph of technicality over compassion. Does the Minister agree that the Act in its present form, and in relation to this case, denies our citizens and constituents their fundamental and human rights, and that that cannot simply be dismissed as over-interpretation of the Act? May we please have clear guidelines, issued by her Department—not just consultation—so that the law will protect people, rather than detract from their quality of life?
    Yvette Cooper: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcoming words. I, too, look forward to working with him. To understand what issues he was interested in and might be keen to raise, I inquired what parliamentary questions he had tabled previously. I drew a blank, however, as he has not asked any written parliamentary questions of the Lord Chancellor's Department since 1997, although he has asked many questions of the Foreign Office.
    On the hon. Gentleman's question, I take very seriously the points raised, as I have made clear, and the need to ensure that hospital chaplains provide the service that patients want. Equally, however, it is important that we recognise the principle of consent. It is possible for hospitals to collect information and, at the same time, to ask for consent. It is also important to address the practical issues, to make sure that the rules are implemented properly. That is why the Department of Health is drawing up a new code of practice for the NHS, and why the Department of Health's patient empowerment team is working with the multi-faith joint national working group on new guidance for hospital chaplains. We take these issues seriously. It is also important, however, that we recognise and respect the important principles behind the Data Protection Act.

    Enduring Powers of Attorney
    Andrew Selous: If he will make a statement about the fees for enduring powers of attorney. [57410]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): In its report on the Public Trust Office, the Public Accounts Committee was highly critical of fees paid by some clients subsidising different services used by others, and of the pattern of cost recovery. Fees for Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985 cases were changed on 17 April 2002. The new fees mean that EPA clients no longer receive subsidy from users of other services provided by the Public Guardianship Office, and that fees are set to recover costs. Improved remissions guidelines make sure that less well-off EPA clients pay less than before the fees were changed, or pay nothing at all.
    Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will she give an undertaking to the House to publish a yearly total of the number of EPA registrations, to enable us to see whether the recent trebling of the registration fee is acting as a disincentive to vulnerable people?
    Ms Winterton: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, so far, the number of registrations has not altered since the fees were changed. About 11,000 EPAs were registered last year, and, so far, the figures seem to be similar. I shall investigate whether the figures can be published. I am not sure whether they are published in the annual report, and I shall consider whether we can do that.
    Mr. John Burnett: On 3 April this year, in reply to my written question, the Minister made it clear that
    "No date has yet been set for the introduction of changes to the fees charged by the Public Guardianship Office"—[Official Report, 3 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 1036W.]
    It has become clear that that reply was not correct. The House therefore deserves an explanation for the misleading reply, and I wait to hear the Minister's explanation.
    Ms Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I became aware of the situation, and he is right that by the time the written answer to which he refers appeared in Hansard, it was out of date. I discovered only yesterday what had happened, and I take this opportunity—I spoke to the hon. Gentleman earlier about this—to say that I am extremely sorry for unintentionally misleading the House. I know that my noble and learned Friend Baroness Scotland has acknowledged the error in another place. Although my written answer was formulated in good faith, I hope that hon. Members will accept that I am sorry for the error, and I welcome the opportunity today to correct the matter for the parliamentary record.

    Courthouse (Colchester)
    Bob Russell: When work will start on a new courthouse in Colchester. [57411]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): I understand that work on building the new courthouse in Colchester is planned to start in early 2005.
    Bob Russell: Will the Minister confirm that the additional delay in building the new courthouse has been
    716
    caused by the nonsense of putting all the court services in Essex in the same private finance initiative basket, and by problems elsewhere in Essex?
    Yvette Cooper: The magistrates courts committee has to decide about the programme of work and investment in courts in Colchester and the surrounding area. The hon. Gentleman will know that Thurrock borough council has appealed against the MCC decision to close the Grays courthouse. That decision and an appeal against it need to be considered. Ministers have to take account of all the factors raised by both the council and the MCC. However, it is important that the programme of work continues and, as I said, we expect work on the new courthouse to start in 2005.

  PRIVY COUNCIL
  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRIVY COUNCIL

    European Union
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will bring forward proposals for improving the procedures for discussing EU legislation and for considering EU expenditure in the House. [57423]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The House has already implemented almost all the Modernisation Committee's recommendations of the last Parliament on this issue and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will consider carefully today's report from the European Scrutiny Committee. It and its sister Committee in the other place play an important role in examining EU legislation and expenditure.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Does it not worry the Minister that the European Union, to which we send more than £1 million every hour, has become such an uncontrolled centre of graft and corruption? The most recent examples of that are the awarding of grants for more than twice the number of sheep and goats that actually exist in Italy, and a massive grant to a gentleman from Essex, although not from Southend, to help to provide prostitutes in Hungary with guidance—money that he has spent on buying a new house and two new cars.
    In case the Minister thinks that the answer might be the Court of Auditors, does he accept that the court finds those practices just as disgusting as I and most hon. Members do, and has declined to approve the EU's accounts for six years? Is there not a case for someone to supervise expenditure?
    Mr. Bradshaw: The whole House will agree that the common agricultural policy needs radical reform. However, if the hon. Gentleman is alleging criminal activity, he should report that to the police. As I said, we in this House and Members of the other place have two effective Committees. I have served on one of them, and they do an excellent job of scrutinising the expenditure and decision making in Brussels that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post. Does he think that there is further room for exploring how we can subject the decisions of the European Central Bank to greater scrutiny, especially as we hope that those might have more direct relevance to the economy of the United Kingdom in a year's time? Has he received specific advice from Mr. Rupert Murdoch about how we might examine legislation on European matters?
    Mr. Bradshaw: In the few days that I have been in my present job, I have not had time to receive such advice. I agree, however, that the European Central Bank has much to learn from the workings of our central bank, which have been extremely successful.
    Michael Fabricant: I, too, welcome the Minister to his new position. He was doing a good job in his previous post and I cannot understand why he was moved.
    How can the Minister say that there will be fiscal controls over expenditure in the EU, when his former colleague, the Minister for Europe, told me in parliamentary written answers that the Government have conducted no analysis whatever of the total costs or total benefits of this country belonging to the EU, and have no intention of doing so in the future?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I cannot speak for my colleague in the Foreign Office, but colleagues of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) will have an opportunity to scrutinise my right hon. Friend on this very subject when he appears before the House of Lords European Union Select Committee on 9 July.

    People's Peers
    Paul Flynn: What assessment he has made of the selection process for people's peers; and what plans he has to amend the forthcoming roadshow. [57424]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The Appointments Commission has brought new transparency to the selection of independent peers. As part of that process of transparency, there was a presentation in a number of cities before the first round of appointments. I am not aware of any plans that the commission may have for a forthcoming roadshow. The whole point of the Appointments Commission is to be an independent body, and Ministers are not involved in the way in which it conducts its business.
    Paul Flynn: The reason offered last time for the selection of seven knights and three professors was that if a waitress or a bus conductor had been selected, they would not have had the confidence to address the House of Lords. One in three of the new peers have spoken only once, in their maiden speech. As a former bus conductor married to a former waitress, may I assure the House that people from humble professions are likely to speak more often than the professors and the knights, and possibly to greater effect?
    Mr. Cook: I wholly endorse what my hon. Friend says about what he calls humble professions, and I fully agree
    718
    that the evidence in this Chamber is that the Members from those professions speak at great length and at as much length as any other Member. However, I am not sure that my hon. Friend does justice to those who were appointed. They did, after all, include the chief executive of Centre Point, a former chief executive of Childline and a trustee of Oxfam, and those personalities would not necessarily have been appointed under the previous arrangement. The Government deserve credit for having given up the right of patronage so that independent peers could be appointed, and for ensuring that they are appointed independently of Government.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that he and the Government will not seek to replicate that system of appointment if and when the second Chamber is revised and reformed? Is he aware of the grilling that was given to the Chairman of the Appointments Commission on 24 January by the Public Administration Committee, during which he admitted not only that a number of those appointed as so-called people's peers had never spoken, but that some of them never even turned up?
    Andrew Mackinlay: Yes!
    Mr. Cook: I notice that my hon. Friend supports that point.
    On the question of the future after reform, the Appointments Commission will have to be placed on a statutory basis as part of any law reforming the second Chamber, and it will be for the House to resolve, in the course of that, what basis it wants the Commission to have. I say to the House, however, that Members appointed under this system have played a full part in debates on immigration, child poverty and equal opportunity in public services such as education. Their contribution to the House is as good as the average contribution of the Cross Benchers in the second Chamber.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Leader of the House, when he leaves the Chamber, ask his assistants to dig out the Hansard record of the first Prime Minister's Question Time after the general election? He will see there that I drew the Prime Minister's attention to the fact that Sir Herman Ouseley was part of the selection process for the chairman of that wonderful, independent and transparent selection panel, but he was also an applicant, and by enormous coincidence he was selected out of the 3,000 people who applied to be a people's peer.
    The House, the press and everyone else, including, I suspect, the Prime Minister, would be acutely embarrassed by a wholly irregular, wholly non-transparent and, I dare say, rather corrupt system of selecting Members of Parliament. No one should come here and make the nonsensical suggestion that the selection process was a good thing; it was rotten to the core, and we ought to be prepared to say in this House that we will never repeat that rotten scenario.
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend was never one to mince his words, and he has spoken with the candour that earned him a place in this Chamber. He expresses a view for which I have much sympathy—we require root and

    719
    branch reform of the second Chamber. The Government have acted to make sure that Parliament is in the driving seat and can decide the route of that reform.
    I point out to my hon. Friend that Sir Herman Ouseley was very active in race relations, he has strong expertise and he is part of the process by which we have ensured that, in our appointments to the House of Lords, there is a higher proportion of ethnic minorities than we have ever yet secured in this, the first Chamber of Parliament. Sir Herman Ouseley has certainly earned his place by his contribution to race relations.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Is it not a fact that the scheme was sold to the country on the basis that ordinary people from everyday walks of life would be elevated, independently, to the upper House? Is it not also a fact that the sort of people who have been put there as people's peers under the scheme are simply those who would normally be put there under the usual category of Labour party cronies?
    Mr. Cook: I have no evidence that the chief executive of Centre Point or the former chief executive of Childline are, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, Labour cronies. They earned their appointment by their contribution to British society and to the voluntary service; I should have thought that he would respect that.
    The House has to make up its mind. If we want an independent process of appointment, we cannot then invite the Government to be responsible for those who are appointed. We decided that an Appointments Commission should handle the matter independently. It has done so and I have no grounds for criticising it, but there is no point in blaming the Government for what emerges from an independent process.
    David Winnick: May I make a constructive suggestion? In view of the newspaper stories, accurate or otherwise, that Mick Jagger may be knighted, might it be possible to make Mr. Jagger one of the people's peers—if only for his outstanding performances, which are an encouragement to all of us of a certain age?
    Mr. Cook: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his constructive suggestion, which I suspect has done nothing to dampen speculation—for which there is, as far as I am aware, no basis—that Mick Jagger is about to be knighted and may be put in the House of Lords.

    Electronic Equipment (Standing Committees)
    Mr. Michael Jack: What proposals he will make to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the matter of the use of electronic equipment in Standing Committees of the House. [57425]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): The Modernisation Committee currently has a heavy programme, but I am aware of concerns about the use of electronic equipment in Standing Committees and will keep them in mind for the future, while bearing in mind also the clearly expressed views of the Chairmen's Panel.
    Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for bearing the matter in mind for future work by the
    720
    Modernisation Committee. Currently, the rules are unclear about what electronic equipment may or may not be brought into a Standing Committee. On the other hand, Ministers mention websites and refer hon. Members to them, even though the rules mean that there is no way that we can use modern electronic equipment to communicate with the outside world from a Committee Room. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to sort the matter out. The House has invested heavily in information technology, and we should be able to use portable computers in Committee to help us to hold the Executive to account.
    Mr. Cook: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. He has raised the issue before during oral questions, and it is one that the Modernisation Committee must address when it has time. However, I put it to him that there is not only one simple conclusion or one simple set of arguments. The members of the Chairmen's Panel have considered the issue on several occasions and they are reluctant to admit portable laptops and other electronic equipment to Committee proceedings, for the simple reason that once they have been introduced it is not possible to he sure that they are being used to further an interest in those proceedings, rather than an interest in other things going on in the world, such as English football and the World cup.
    Kevin Brennan: I hesitate to mention the word e-mail because I know that it is not popular these days, but should we not try to emulate bodies such as the National Assembly for Wales—
    Mr. Eric Forth: No.
    Kevin Brennan: In the Assembly and the other new devolved bodies, that sort of technology is freely available to Members in meetings, so that they can check statistics and facts and communicate with the outside world. Incidentally, both the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and I attended the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill this morning; no one there was seeking England football team results, but a number of text messages relating to the Ireland football team were passed around.
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend's last sentence confirms the point that I made earlier. I am all in favour of our using e-mail when it can speed up a process, and I hope that the forthcoming report of the Procedure Committee will open the way to our using e-mail in the tabling of questions. That will enable those hon. Members who wish to use modern communications to do so, and leave the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and others who do not wish to do so entirely free to use a pencil and yellow paper.

    Oral Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: If he will bring forward proposals to improve the effectiveness of the system of oral parliamentary questions. [57426]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The Procedure Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into parliamentary questions. I am sure that the House looks forward with interest to its recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already made it clear to that Committee that he would like to make oral questions more topical.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the more the House does to make Question Time a more effective way of scrutinising Government, the better for democracy and the reputation of the House? Does he also agree that one of the problems with the system of oral questions is that the notice requirement makes it difficult to raise topical issues, and it is difficult to deal with issues in depth? May I invite him and our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to make representations to that effect to the Modernisation Committee, so that it can make proposals for change as soon as possible?
    Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is right; there is a widespread feeling in the House that we could make oral questions a lot more topical and relevant. A number of useful and interesting ideas are being discussed, as he
    722
    said, including shortening the tabling period; electronic tabling, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said; adopting topical questions, as has been done in the House of Lords; and having fewer questions, so that those which we discuss can be discussed in much greater depth.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As the Minister indicated, the Procedure Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, is likely to produce a report on parliamentary questions in the next fortnight, and some of its recommendations will be constructive, radical and almost revolutionary. Will the Minister, following discussion with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, assure the House and me that the report will be debated at an early date, perhaps with a report of the Modernisation Committee, which is also relatively imminent?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his excellent chairmanship of the Procedure Committee, to whose recommendations we very much look forward. I am glad to hear that they may be radical and revolutionary—not always labels with which the hon. Gentleman likes to be associated. I am sure that the whole House would like his Committee's recommendations to be debated as soon as possible.

Fisher Foods
3.31 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement yesterday that Fisher Foods was closing immediately.
Three hundred and fifty-one redundancies will take place at once, and there will be a knock-on effect because a cold store next door to the factory will lose 84 employees, and it has been estimated that, for every job lost in the plant, four other jobs will be affected. That will have a profound impact on contractors and hauliers and, indeed, the agricultural sector in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). There may be as many as 1,500 job losses, which would double unemployment in our constituencies.
The Albert Fisher Group, the parent company, went into receivership a fortnight ago, and KPMG allowed just two weeks—an incredibly short time—for a buyer to be found for the business. We have a loyal group of staff, some of them third-generation employees, who are gutted because they have been treated with contempt by a heartless and arrogant receiver.
The company started business in 1965, and is a key, flagship local employer. It processes 84,000 tonnes of product; indeed, one in four packs of vegetables, including peas, rice, potatoes, carrots and beans, sold in our supermarkets are processed and manufactured by Fisher Foods. Since Albert Fisher took over the business from AGA in 1996, £30 million has been invested in a new packing plant and equipment. The infrastructure is superb, unique and among the best in Europe. Last year, £3.2 million was invested in a new pea-packing line. It would be a tragedy if that state-of-the-art business was closed and, even at this late stage, I hope that there is a chance of a management buy-out. I shall certainly ask to see the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to discuss with her any help that her Department can give by providing advice and expertise on MBOs.
There is a particular problem with peas. The firm's contracts with local growers for 24,000 tonnes of peas on 15,000 acres will be cancelled. The UK now has capacity for processing only 4,000 tonnes of peas, so 20,000 tonnes of peas will end up in the ground, which is another disaster. The contractors will not be paid on completion of their contract and will not be able to pay the farmers from whom they have rented land, which will have a profound impact on agriculture in my constituency and surrounding constituencies.
The problem is both immediate and urgent—obviously, it is a bleak, grim and depressing day for west Norfolk—and I very much hope that you will allow an emergency debate on it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said and I must give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, and I cannot, therefore, submit the application to the House.

Points of Order
3.35 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are the guardian of this House and its Members. In that capacity, you must surely be aware of the distressing stories and rumours that are circulating about a rather sinister form of information that may well be held by Departments on Members of this House. In light of this matter, can you advise me as to what action you may be able to take in your role as guardian of Members of this House with regard to information on hon. Members being held in Departments and possibly being used in some as yet unspecified way by Ministers and Departments in the context of Members of Parliament doing their job in questioning them and holding them to account? May we please have your guidance on this very worrying matter?
Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that these are not just rumours. As a result of the revelations secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), I have the actual Department for Work and Pensions document that is involved. It seems to be in direct conflict with your statement of 28 November last year and contrasts with the assurances given to me by a Minister in Westminster Hall on 21 March. Will you consider that matter in particular?
It seems that secret dossiers are being held on Members of this House and the other place, and especially on those Members who are considered to be "not friendly". Presumably, that will apply to some troublemakers on the Government Benches as well as on the Opposition Benches. Is it not in direct conflict with your advice and the code of ministerial conduct that civil servants—not special advisers or political advisers, but civil servants—have been asked to prepare the dossiers? Is it not totally inappropriate that all hon. Members are not being treated equally as true representatives of our electorate and that civil servants are discriminating between different Members?
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have read the article in this morning's edition of The Independent, to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has also referred. One of the serious allegations is that not only are files being kept, but Ministers are giving different answers to different Members. I hope that you would deplore such a practice, and confirm that any written answer should be a correct factual answer and should not be different for different hon. Members in different parts of the House.
Mr. Speaker: I shall reply to the shadow Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has put his concerns on record. I have to inform him that the Chair has no responsibility on these matters, but, of course, I expect Ministers to give proper replies to all hon. Members.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When hon. Members table a question, we have to abide by the rules of order governing the form and content of questions. We are not allowed to present an argument when tabling a question, and the

725
question must be devoid of spin. What confidence can hon. Members have that the answers that they get will be equally devoid of spin? Is it not time that we had rules of order on the form and content of ministerial replies?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me; Ministers are responsible for their replies.
Mr. Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. You will, of course, be aware of the provisions of the resolution of the House made in the 1996–97 Session, which, among other things, states:
"it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity."
I find myself in a difficult situation, because I know that when she was Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), whom I see in her place—I have discussed this matter with her—completely inadvertently and entirely unintentionally gave the House inaccurate information in the Adjournment debate on the Throckmorton asylum centre that you granted me on 23 May. She said:
"At peak capacity in 1976, 1,500 people were based there, so there is evidence to show that that number of people"—
that is, the number of asylum seekers—
"can be absorbed into the local area and accommodated there."
She went on to say:
"We are only expecting 1,000 people if it is a site of 750 people plus the 250 in local jobs."—[Official Report, 23 May 2002; Vol. 386, c. 498.]
That information took me by surprise, but I made researches during the recess. I wrote to the hon. Lady on 28 May—I wish that she were still a Minister, because she was a very fine one. In the letter, I said:
"I have now spoken to Group Captain Richard Hampton who was the Commander of the RAF unit at the airfield until 6 months before its final closure. He was head of the Aircraft Department and worked with the Royal Radar Establishment and has an intimate knowledge of what happened at the airfield.
In fact, contrary to what you said in the debate, there were only some 500 people working on the airfield and only a dozen or so of them lived there overnight because of the unsuitability of the area for residential accommodation.
Most of the people who worked at the airfield lived on the Abbey Estate in Pershore, which was built specifically to accommodate RAF airfield personnel and was transferred to the local council for housing after the RAF left the airfield in 1976."
I concluded:
"The important point about this is that to put 750 asylum seekers and 200–300 staff on the airfield would represent a doubling of the peak activity of the airfield in 1976."
726
The curious difficulty that arises is that the Minister who, entirely unintentionally, gave the House that information is no longer a Minister, so she is not in a position to correct the record herself. What advice would you give me, Mr. Speaker, in these unusual circumstances?
Angela Eagle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is obviously a matter of great regret to me that one of the last things that I said from the Front Bench was inaccurate, as the hon. Gentleman says, and I apologise to the House for that. At the end of the Adjournment debate, when I stated what I thought was a fact, the looks of astonishment on the faces around me gave me some clue that I might not be on safe ground. I subsequently had my office researchers begin to check whether my statement was accurate, but unfortunately an event that I had not anticipated supervened to prevent me from putting the record straight from the Front Bench. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to do so, and I pass on my regrets to the House for misleading it.
Mr. Speaker: It looks as though the record has been put straight. If I let this matter go on any longer, it will take longer than the Adjournment debate.
Mr. Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I express my gratitude to the hon. Lady for her statement?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recall that there was a time, perhaps long ago, when, whichever party was in power, there was a custom—not a rule, but a custom—regarding Members asking written questions. If there was any difficulty about answering them, and the civil servants had to puzzle out why they were being asked, the Member concerned would ring the Minister's private office to explain the background. That saved a great deal of civil service time and led to better answers.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the Father of the House.
Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to return to your earlier ruling in response to my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House that it is not a matter for the Chair that the Government keep secret records on Members of Parliament. If it is not a matter for the Chair, what advice can you give to Members about how they can get access to that secret information that the Government keep on us and are using against us?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should go to the Minister concerned.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).
3.44 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move,
That the Order of 24th April (Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill (Programme)) (as amended by the Order of 9th May (Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill (Programme) (No. 2))) be varied as follows—
Consideration and Third Reading
(1) Paragraphs (5) to (7) of the Order of 24th April shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be concluded in two days.
(3) The proceedings on consideration shall be taken on each of the days as shown in the first column in the following Table and shall be taken in the order shown and each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

New Clauses and new Schedules relating to accommodation centres; amendments relating to Clauses 14 to 36.

7.00 p.m.

New Clauses and new Schedules relating to appeals; amendments relating to Clause 65, Schedule 3, Clauses 66 to 84, Schedule 4, Clauses 85 to 96 and Schedules 5 and 6.

10.00 p.m.

Second day

Remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; amendments relating to Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 13, Schedule 2 and Clauses 37 to 64.

7.00 p.m.

Amendments relating to Clauses 97 to 132, Schedule 7 and Clauses 133 to 135: remaining proceedings.

9.00 p.m.

(4) The proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second day.
(5) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
Before I come to the programme motion, I put on record my appreciation of the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) led for the Government in the Committee that considered the Bill. I greatly appreciate what she did throughout the past year and thank her for her tremendous support.
We have a two-day debate before us and I hope that we shall take as little time as possible over the programme motion so that we can debate the issues that the timetable tackles. I hope that I can help to achieve that by setting an example. I want to draw some matters to the attention of those who are not familiar with what happened to the timings for this important and complicated measure.
728
On Second Reading, the Opposition appealed for extra time in Committee, and I said that I was willing to consider the matter with the Whips. I did that, and because of representations from Opposition Members in Committee that deferred three sessions of the 32 and a half hours allocated for our proceedings, we agreed that there should be an extra day. That was welcomed by hon. Members of all parties. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said:
"I am grateful for the Minister's explanation and for the generous time available to scrutinise the Bill. The official Opposition have no objection and concur with the Government's proposal."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 30 April 2002; c. 105.]
I was grateful for that comment because it clarified that the additional day allowed the Committee to consider many, if not all the major issues that were before us at the time.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey said in her summing up that we would table further amendments to deal with what is known as benefit shopping and the outcome of the Roth judgment. Everyone knew that further amendments had to be considered in the light of that. Two weeks ago, I said that there would be a further substantive amendment on the appeals process. Today, I am moving a programme motion that provides, not for the original one day that was allocated for Report and Third Reading, but for the two days that I personally requested so that the additional amendments could be properly scrutinised.
With the additional day in Committee, the two extra days for Report and Third Reading are proper and adequate. The timetable motion shares the time available between consideration of accommodation centres and of appeals in a way that enables hon. Members to have their voices heard and their anxieties raised and considered.
Simon Hughes: When did Government policy on appeals change? Why did they table at the last minute their substantive amendment, which removes significant appeal rights from asylum seekers, but not from anyone else?
Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman, who was in his place for a large part of the Second Reading debate, will recall that I indicated that the Government would present the results of their further consideration of the appeals process to hon. Members. I regret that, through legal advice, I was unable to table the substantive amendment before the conclusion of our proceedings in Committee. Those proceedings were adjusted at the hon. Gentleman's specific request and I am therefore sure that he will understand that I have tried to deal with concerns by extending the debate on Report and Third Reading from one to two days and ensuring that the changes were tabled with sufficient notice for Opposition Members to understand and consider the proposals. I have tried to avoid detrimental consequences.
In the light of the information that I have given and the consideration that has been offered to the Opposition through sharing time for the different elements of the debate today and tomorrow, I simply move that we approve the timetable motion and agree to consider the issues as quickly as possible.
3.49 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed motion, in line 3, leave out from 'be' to end and add
'supplemented as follows—

Re-committal
(1) The Bill shall be re-committed to a Standing Committee.
(2) The proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 4th July.'
The Home Secretary is, of course, right that the new clauses and amendments that the Government have tabled in the last 24 hours or so were widely signalled. The fact is, however, that they are also of great importance, and they are numerous—I believe that there are about 90 on the amendment paper.
It is no surprise to any of us that the Home Secretary has also been ingenious in the construction of the new clauses—in particular, new clauses 14 and 15. In them, he has yoked together two parallel sets of propositions. We strongly agree with one, but are in deep disagreement with the other, as I suspect he surmises. He has, by these means, presented us with the most interesting—and, from his point of view, delicious—opportunity to choose between voting for the Government to achieve what we have to achieve to make sense of what we have been saying for the last eight months, and voting against them to defeat measures that we find repulsive.
We cannot choose to do what we seek to do, which is to propose and agree with those parts with which we agree, and to disagree with and dispose of those parts with which we disagree. The parliamentary process is designed to enable people to take the positions that they actually wish to take, rather than those that the ingenuity of the Government—and their draftsmen—force upon them. The point of the Standing Committee is to tease out these differences in a slightly more dispassionate atmosphere, and to provide opportunities for the Government and the Opposition to put forward different formulations.
If necessary, if the Bill is not re-committed to Committee, we could ask our noble Friends in the other place to do that work for us. Indeed, Ministers might argue that, as there is no earthly chance of our winning a vote in Committee in this place, we might as well get on with the job and allow the other place—where there is a chance of the Government being overturned and of the amendments being amended—to do its work. On that thesis—although I am sure that it is not one with which you would have any sympathy, Mr. Speaker—we could dispense with the Standing Committee in this House altogether and, while we were at it, more or less dispense with the workings of this House between one election and the next, and leave it to the other place, where there is some possibility of the Government being defeated, to handle all legislation.
Mr. Tom Levitt: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously proposing that?
Mr. Letwin: No, I am not.
I cannot accept the proposition that the mere fact that we are likely to be defeated in Committee means that we should not even discuss these issues there. We have not had the chance to do so, because as the spokesman for the
730
Liberal Democrats has made all too plain, these new clauses and amendments were simply not before us when the Committee was sitting.
Simon Hughes: And they change Government policy.
Mr. Letwin: I do not know what was Government policy but I know that the parliamentary draftsman had not the foggiest clue about how to draft such new clauses at that stage. Indeed, looking at the drafting, I am not sure that he had a clear idea of what to do when he did draft them, but we shall come to that anon.
These are immensely important matters that will affect the lives and livelihoods of living individuals. It is right that the Opposition parties should have a chance to agree, disagree and vote on the parts of these clauses that we respectively agree and disagree with. It is wrong that we should be forced into a straitjacket. The only proper course of action, therefore, is to take these particular clauses—I ask no more than that—back to a Committee of the House to reconsider them, to tease out the implications and try to come up with a differentiation between the parts with which we agree and those with which we do not. Should that fail, we shall, alas, be setting ourselves up for yet another encounter between this House and another place, which I, for one, would regret.
Mr. John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend reflect on this point? The nature of what is before us is so serious for those who are affected that, in a sense, the more that the House agrees, the more important it is for those areas on which there is disagreement to be considered with great care. We are to discuss the freedom of people and their lives in a way that is rarely used in the House, but would not it have been better for the Government to have shown themselves to be generous in such a matter to ensure that those who are affected have a respect for the law of Britain, even if that law, in the end, excludes them?
Mr. Letwin: I am bound, as so often, to agree with my right hon. Friend. The fact is that the new clauses, in particular new clauses 14 and 15, contain provisions that will not only deeply affect the lives and the sense of fair play of certain individuals, but that are at the very least highly tendentious in respect of their compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998.
It is not at all clear that the Law Lords in the other place will take the view that the provisions, or some of them, are compatible with the Human Rights Act. Indeed, equivalent warnings that we gave on a particular aspect of the Proceeds of Crime Bill have proved to be justified, which is another reason, another great cause, to debate these matters properly—in detail in Committee.
3.56 pm
Simon Hughes: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment. As the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and his hon. Friends know, we came to the view independently that the process of the Bill requires us to return to consideration in Committee if we are to do the job properly. That is why my hon. Friends and I put our names to the amendment.

731
I follow the Home Secretary's example, first, in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), who did an exceptionally good job at the Home Office. She was always courteous and always competent, and she always tried to give information. We did not always agree, but that was not to be expected. I must say that we were surprised that she was not kept in office, and I hope that it is not long before she returns.
Secondly, I congratulate the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, the new Minister of State; we look forward to working with her in her important responsibility. Again, we may not always agree, but we hope to disagree honestly and straightforwardly, and we shall seek to do the best for our fellow citizens and for the country.
Mr. Letwin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to echo his comments and add the hope that the brief sojourn on the Back Benches experienced by a current Home Office Minister is parallelled in the example of the hon. Member for Wallasey?
Simon Hughes: Unity for a moment, before we disagree.
The Home Secretary was right, of course, to say that there have been lots of debates between the parties about the timetable for this significant Bill, and there is no dissent from the fact that it is hugely important. The Bill reflects an issue that is being considered in probably every European Union country. It is on the agenda for next week's Seville summit and it impacts on the European convention on human rights and other international conventions such as the refugee convention, the convention on the rights of the child.
Everybody understood that we needed to do the job well, and the Home Secretary and his colleagues know that, at the outset, we sought more time in Committee. There was negotiation, but the period was not as long as we would have wished. We went through proceedings in Committee entirely properly, and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), will agree, I hope, that there was no time wasting on any side.
We did our job competently, we tried to get through as much business as possible and, including the additional time that Ministers and Whips negotiated and the change to the order of consideration that accommodated the Home Secretary's quite proper wish to introduce the changes to appeals that he had flagged up and which were considered last, we had an extra day in Committee.
I hope that these figures are accurate; I did the tally this morning. At the conclusion of the Committee stage, 17 clauses, three schedules, 13 new clauses and 53 amendments had not been debated. More importantly, and hence the reason for the amendment to return the Bill to Committee, the Order Paper contains 160 non-Government amendments, 35 Government amendments and two Government new clauses for consideration today and 49 Government amendments, six Government new clauses and two Government new schedules for consideration tomorrow.
Mike Gapes: As Parliamentary Private Secretary, I sat through the whole of the Committee. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we made considerably
732
better progress when the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) was present than when he was there? Will he also confirm that if we added up the number of speeches made, he spoke more than everybody else in the Opposition put together?
Simon Hughes: I am not going to get involved in that debate. Some of the voices that were expected to come from the Labour party in support of immigrants and asylum seekers were rarely heard.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Including that of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes).
Simon Hughes: Certainly including the hon. Gentleman's. It was left significantly to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins)—to whom I pay tribute—and his colleagues, and to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam, to put the case that, until this Government took office, Labour Members would regularly have put. That was a great disappointment to me and a greater disappointment to many outside who thought better of the Labour party and are increasingly greatly disappointed.
Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on which previous Labour Government or Labour party would have allowed these debates to be held with so little dissent on the issues for which the Labour party historically had great concern?
Simon Hughes: The House will draw its own conclusion. There are very honourable exceptions on the Labour Benches, and there is still hope outside that this House will not go down the road that the Labour party, in some of the proposals, is suggesting. Paradoxically, as the hon. Member for West Dorset said, it may be left to the House of Lords to prevent the worse excesses of the Labour Government. We will do our bit today and tomorrow, and we will not waste time. We will force votes where necessary, but if we do not win the day this week we hope sincerely that we will win the day in the House of Lords in a few weeks' time.
Mr. Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Simon Hughes: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues cannot have it both ways. They cannot complain that time is being taken up, yet seek to intervene to make partisan points.
The most significant reason for sending the Bill back to Committee is, as the Home Secretary accepted implicitly in what he said to me earlier, the fact that major matters appeared on the Order Paper last week—the last opportunity for tabling new clauses and amendments. Those matters include major amendments that, for example, change the rules for appeals and the penalties for people involved in immigration.
Constitutionally, it has not been possible for my party, the Conservative party or any other party to table amendments to new clauses and new schedules—we have not had time. As the hon. Member for West Dorset said, variations of new clauses, such as new clauses 14 and 15, cannot be debated. Parliament is therefore unable to do the job on Report that it ought to do.

733
This is a matter of huge concern outside the House and involves important questions of civil liberties. Given that we had no Special Standing Committee and took no evidence before having a guillotined Committee stage, it is a pity that the Government cannot see the merit in returning to Committee and doing the job properly. For every day that we do not do our job properly, others may have to pick up the pieces. When the lives and liberties of some of the most needy in the world are at stake, I would have hoped that we could do better.
4.5 pm
Annabelle Ewing: I shall be brief, as many of us are keen to get on to the main debate. I support the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). The number of significant Government amendments that have been tabled at the 11th hour is astonishing. The proposed programme will give us no proper opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of matters such as the effective removal of the right of appeal for many asylum seekers.
The late tabling of Government amendments will also mean that we will have no opportunity to debate some extremely important constitutional matters raised by the Scottish National party-Plaid Cymru group concerning the scope of matters devolved to the Scots Parliament. The Scotland Act 1998 devolved children's education to the Scots Parliament, but the restriction of discussion will result in Westminster clawing back devolved powers without any proper debate in the House. I understand that the issue was also not debated in Committee. That is surely unacceptable in this so-called mother of democracies.
The proposed programme will also mean, in the light of the late tabling of Government amendments, that we cannot discuss the important constitutional matter of the new oath of loyalty to the United Kingdom. I raised on Second Reading the constitutional question of how a new applicant seeking to reside in Scotland could be required to pledge an oath of loyalty to the United Kingdom, when the official Opposition in the Scots Parliament would not be prepared to take such an oath. The constitutional implications have not been discussed in the House, and the programme will probably mean that they will not be ventilated at all. The people of Scotland will find that very curious indeed.
For those reasons, if the amendment is pressed to a vote, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru will support it.
4.8 pm
Tony Baldry: The first couple of amendments that we will consider in the main discussion relate to accommodation centres. Currently, they affect only Opposition Members, because no centre is proposed in a Labour-held constituency. I have a duty both to represent the concerns of my constituents about accommodation centres and to provide leadership for them on the question. My constituents, along with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), have sought to channel their concerns into petitions to Parliament and
734
proper use of the democratic process, which is why I have been very keen on a public inquiry into the proposals for a centre in my constituency.
I am glad to say that, in the nearly 20 years for which I have represented Banbury, there has not been a single vote cast for a single National Front or British National party candidate at any local or national election. [Interruption.] I cannot hear the cheap jibe that the Home Secretary is making. This is an important point and I would have hoped that the Labour party would wish, as strongly as we do, not to see any support given to the tendencies that have been represented by the National Front and the BNP in this country. [Interruption.] If the Home Secretary wishes to intervene, I will gladly give way. Apparently, he does not. If the Home Secretary and the Government rush through legislation such as this, allowing just three hours in which to debate accommodation centres, three new clauses and some 30 amendments—the equivalent of about three minutes per amendment on average—it will be much harder for me to look my constituents in the eye and say, "These matters can be properly and fairly debated and resolved in the House of Commons."
Using a huge majority to drive through this legislation at such speed and with minimal scrutiny does little for those who wish to ensure that Parliament is seen as the forum in which such matters are resolved. I can only hope that the other place will take note of how little time we have been given properly to debate and decide certain matters before us today, and that it will make use of its ability to exercise proper scrutiny.
4.11 pm
Mr. John Gummer: From a sedentary position, the Home Secretary made a jibe that suggested that the people of Suffolk, Coastal need not worry about the Bill. However, given that it experiences considerable pressure through the arrival of asylum seekers, and given that Felixstowe is one of the largest ports in Britain, we should—like those who live in other constituencies—be concerned about the Bill. Of course, he made the jibe not because he knows about the constituency, but because it was suggested—yet again by a Conservative Member, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal—that the Bill deals with matters of great concern to people's lives and liberty.
However seriously we regard these issues, and however great our concern about the difficulties that the arrival of large numbers of asylum seekers can cause our constituents, it is important that asylum seekers are treated properly by a nation that has a reputation for always doing so. Although I have always taken what might be described as a liberal view, I feel very strongly that, in dealing with serious issues that affect our constituents, we must adopt measures that are in common with those in the rest of Europe. I beg the Home Secretary not to take these issues lightly and grin and giggle; they matter to individual people, whom we care about.
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who often gave way in similar circumstances when we were in opposition. I made a sedentary remark that related to his own intervention on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—which bordered on an accusation that Labour Members

735
were in dereliction of their duty to defend asylum seekers—and in doing so I referred to pressures. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the comments of the leader of his own party in The Sunday Times of 21 April. In referring to his vision of hell, he said:
"Brave new world, local council estate, acres of concrete, women raped regularly, single mothers, asylum seekers."
We on the Labour Benches need no lectures on whom we should represent and how we should speak.
Mr. Gummer: This is neither the time nor the place to argue about such issues in full, but I should point out that in 20 or more years in this House I do not remember ever regarding asylum seekers and immigration as subjects about which it is suitable to giggle—whether from a sedentary position or otherwise.
4.13 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: In the light of the Home Secretary's regrettable intervention, I want to add one brief comment. I was very grateful for his letter, in which he praised me for the anti-racist nature of the campaign that I fought against the establishment of an asylum accommodation centre in Throckmorton. Indeed, my campaign was based entirely on an anti-racist premise. I want also to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry): proper time in which to discuss these matters would help us to continue the debate in an anti-racist way.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 330.

Division No. 259]

[4.14 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Cash, William

Allan, Richard

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Amess, David

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Chidgey, David

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Chope, Christopher

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Clappison, James

Bacon, Richard

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Baker, Norman

Collins, Tim

Baldry, Tony

Conway, Derek

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Barker, Gregory

Cotter, Brian

Baron, John

Cran, James

Barrett, John

Curry, Rt Hon David

Beggs, Roy

Davey Edward (Kingston)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Blunt, Crispin

Djanogly, Jonathan

Boswell, Tim

Doughty, Sue

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

Brady, Graham

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

Brake Tom

Evans, Nigel

Brazier, Julian

Ewing, Annabelle

Breed, Colin

Fabricant, Michael

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Fallon, Michael

Bruce, Malcolm

Field, Mark (Cities of London)

Burnett, John

Flight, Howard

Burns, Simon

Flook, Adrian

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Burnside, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Burstow, Paul

Fox, Dr Liam

Cable, Dr Vincent

Francois, Mark

Cameron, David

Garnier, Edward

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Gibb, Nick

Gidley, Sandra

Carrnichael, Alistair

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

736

Goodman, Paul

Price, Adam

Gray, James

Prisk, Mark

Grayling, Chris

Randall, John

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Greenway, John

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Grieve, Dominic

Rendel, David

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Robathan, Andrew

Hammond, Philip

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Hancock, Mike

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

Harvey, Nick

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Hawkins, Nick

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hayes, John

Ruffley, David

Heald, Oliver

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Heath, David

Sanders, Adrian

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hendry, Charles

Selous, Andrew

Hermon, Lady

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Hoban, Mark

Simmonds, Mark

Holmes, Paul

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Horam, John

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

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Soames, Nicholas

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Spicer, Sir Michael

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Spring, Richard

Jenkin, Bernard

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Steen, Anthony

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Streeter, Gary

Keetch, Paul

Stunell, Andrew

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

Swayne, Desmond

Swire, Hugo

Key, Robert

Syms, Robert

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Kirkwood, Archy

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Lamb, Norman

Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Lansley, Andrew

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Laws, David

Thurso, John

Letwin, Olive

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Liddell—Grainger, Ian

Tredinnick, David

Lidington, David

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Tyler, Paul

Loughton, Tim

Viggers, Peter

Luff, Peter

Walter, Robert

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Waterson, Nigel

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Watkinson, Angela

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Webb, Steve

McLoughlin, Patrick

Weir, Michael

Malins, Humfrey

Whittingdale, John

Maples, John

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Wiggin, Bill

Mercer, Patrick

Willetts, David

Moore, Michael

Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

Moss, Malcolm

Willis, Phil

Murrison, Dr Andrew

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Norman, Archie

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Oaten, Mark

Yeo, Tim

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Younger—Ross, Richard

Page, Richard

Paice, James

Tellers for the Ayes:

Paterson, Owen

Mr. David Wilshire and

Pickles, Eric

Dr. Julian Lewis.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Austin, John

Ainger, Nick

Bailey, Adrian

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Baird, Vera

Alexander, Douglas

Banks, Tony

Allen, Graham

Barnes, Harry

Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

Battle, John

Beard, Nigel

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Begg, Miss Anne

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Benn, Hilary

Atkins, Charlotte

Bennett, Andrew

737

Benton, Joe

Drew, David

Berry, Roger

Drown, Ms Julia

Best, Harold

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Belts, Clive

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Blackman, Liz

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Edwards, Huw

Blizzard, Bob

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Ennis, Jeff

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Farrelly, Paul

Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

Fisher, Mark

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Bradshaw, Ben

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Brennan, Kevin

Flint, Caroline

Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

Flynn, Paul

Follett, Barbara

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Browne, Desmond

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Bryant, Chris

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Buck, Ms Karen

Foulkes, George

Burden, Richard

Francis, Dr Hywel

Burnham, Andy

Galloway, George

Cairns, David

Gapes, Mike

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Gardiner, Barry

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gerrard, Neil

Caplin, Ivor

Gibson, Dr Ian

Casale, Roger

Gilroy, Linda

Caton, Martin

Goggins, Paul

Cawsey, Ian

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Challen Colin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hain, Rt Hon Peter

Chaytor, David

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clapham, Michael

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hanson, David

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Healey, John

Clelland, David

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Clwyd, Ann

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Coaker, Vernon

Hendrick, Mark

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hepburn, Stephen

Cohen, Harry

Heppell, John

Coleman, Iain

Hesford, Stephen

Connarty, Michael

Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Heyes, David

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Hill, Keith

Cooper, Yvette

Hinchliffe, David

Corston, Jean

Hodge, Margaret

Cousins, Jim

Hoey, Kate

Cox, Tom

Hood, Jimmy

Cranston, Ross

Hope, Phil

Crausby, David

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cruddas, Jon

Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Howells, Dr Kim

Cummings, John

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Hutton, Rt Hon John

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Dalyell, Tam

Illsley, Eric

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Irranca—Davies, Huw

David, Wayne

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

Davidson, Ian

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jamieson, David

Dawson, Hilton

Jenkins, Brian

Dean, Mrs Janet

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Denham, Rt Hon John

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Dismore, Andrew

Dobbin, Jim

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Donohoe, Brian H

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Doran, Frank

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dowd, Jim

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

738

Joyce, Eric

Plaskitt, James

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pollard, Kerry

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Pond, Chris

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Pope, Greg

Kelly, Ruth

Pound, Stephen

Khabra, Piara S

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Kidney, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Primarolo, Dawn

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Prosser, Gwyn

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Purchase, Ken

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Purnell, James

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Quinn, Lawrie

Lazarowicz, Mark

Rammell, Bill

Lepper, David

Rapson, Syd

Leslie, Christopher

Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

Levitt, Tom

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Linton, Martin

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lloyd, Tony

Rooney, Terry

Love, Andrew

Ross, Ernie

Lucas, Ian

Roy, Frank

Luke, Iain

Ruddock, Joan

Lyons, John

Ryan, Joan

McCabe, Stephen

Salter, Martin

McCafferty, Chris

Savidge, Malcolm

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

Sawford, Phil

McDonagh, Siobhain

Sedgemore, Brian

MacDonakd, Calum

Shaw, Jonathan

McFall, John

Sheridan, Jim

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Shipley, Ms Debra

McIsaac, Shona

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McKechin, Ann

Singh, Marsha

McKenna, Rosemary

Skinner, Dennis

Mackinlay, Andrew

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McNamara, Kevin

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McNulty, Tony

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

MacShane, Denis

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McWalter, Tony

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Mahmood, Khalid

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Soley, Clive

Mallaber, Judy

Southworth, Helen

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Squire, Rachel

Mann, John

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Marris, Rob

Steinberg, Gerry

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Stevenson, George

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Martlew, Eric

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Stinchcombe, Paul

Merron, Gillian

Stoate, Dr Howard

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Miliband, David

Stringer, Graham

Miller, Andrew

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Moffatt, Laura

Tami, Mark

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

Moran, Margaret

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Morgan, Julie

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mountford, Kali

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Mudie, George

Tipping, Paddy

Mullin, Chris

Todd, Mark

Munn, Ms Meg

Trickett, Jon

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Truswell, Paul

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

O'Hara, Edward

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

O'Neill, Martin

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Organ, Diana

Tynan, Bill

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Vaz, Keith

Palmer, Dr Nick

Vis, Dr Rudi

Perham, Linda

Walley, Ms Joan

Picking, Anne

Ward, Ms Claire

Pickthall, Colin

Wareing, Robert N

739

Watts, David

Worthington, Tony

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Wray, James

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Wright, David (Telford)

Winnick, David

Wyatt, Derek

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Wood, Mike

Tellers for the Noes:

Woodward, Shaun

Mr. Fraser Kemp and

Woolas, Phil

Mr. Ian Pearson.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Mr. Speaker: I call on Mr. Blunkett to move new clause 1.

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
    New Clause 1

      ACCOMMODATION CENTRES: DECISIONS AND APPEALS
      'Where an asylum seeker is resident in an accommodation centre under this Part, an initial decision on his claim shall be made at the accommodation centre by the Secretary of State, and any appeal to an adjudicator shall be made by the adjudicator at the accommodation centre.'.—[Mr. Letwin.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.29 pm
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: I should love to hear the arguments that the Home Secretary would make for my new clause, but I fear that he will not have that pleasure.
      I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 164, in clause 15, page 9, line 5, after "accommodation", insert—
      'for no more than six months (subject to the provisions in subsection ( ) below)'.
      No. 2, in page 9, line 6, after "centre", insert—
      'for a maximum period of 10 weeks'.
      No. 31, in page 9, line 10, at end insert—
      '( ) A person may only be accommodated in an accommodation centre for a maximum total of six months, except in exceptional circumstances when the Secretary of State may arrange for an extension of at most a further three months in total.'.
      Mr. Letwin: As the Home Secretary knows, the Conservative party has welcomed the idea of accommodation centres, not least because the Conservative party originally made the suggestion. Indeed, it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) who earned such opprobrium from Labour Members for making that suggestion. She taught us the need to think hard about how the accommodation centres should be constructed.
      We are thus in agreement with the Government on the fundamental principle that there should be accommodation centres as a way of beginning to bring again some order to the chaos of our asylum system. However, the world is unfortunately a more complicated place than administrators would like it to be. It is not the case that adopting the right idea in general will deliver the right results in general. If the right idea is adopted but the details are wrong, the results will be wrong. Alas, the accommodation centres as proposed by the Government—so far—are not structured in a way that leads us to believe they will achieve the admirable results that both the Home Secretary and I want to see: the rapid processing of claims by asylum seekers so that those who are refugees, who

      741
      have in many cases fled from appalling persecution, quickly find a home in this country, and those who are misusing the asylum system as a way around the immigration rules are speedily dispatched from this country.
      In order to achieve those admirable results, the accommodation centres need to be structured in a way that gives real hope that the processing can be quick. That is why I am moving new clause 1, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and especially amendment No. 2, also tabled in our names. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will be willing to allow us to vote separately on the new clause and amendment No. 2, as each is, in our view, of sufficient importance to deserve a separate vote.
      New clause 1 has a simple purpose: to ensure that both the initial decision and the adjudication of any appeal are made in the accommodation centre itself. In a moment, the Home Secretary may—I hope that he will—explain to the House why, to date, the Home Office has resisted that suggestion. Perhaps there is some reason—some rational grounds—for that resistance, but I have to say that we have not yet heard those rational grounds.
      I know that it is unfamiliar for those who are, in effect, judges to be told where to sit. I know that the Home Secretary—like previous Home Secretaries—has sometimes had some difficulty in dealing with the judiciary and with the Lord Chancellor's Department, and indeed with adjudicators, but I maintain my faith that if the Home Secretary and the Home Office work hard enough the adjudicators could be persuaded that it would be appropriate for them to sit in the accommodation centres.
      Why would that be an advantage? At present we face an enormous paper chase. The Home Secretary will be much more vividly aware than I, considering the matter from a distance, can possibly be of the colossal amount of bureaucratic effort currently going into sending pieces of paper around the countryside in order that appeals can be heard at places that are often extremely distant from where the decisions were originally made and where the asylum seekers in question are resident. If the accommodation centre is to have its purpose fulfilled, it needs to be a place where that paper chase does not occur. Only if the adjudicator is on site will the paper chase be abolished.
      Mr. Keith Vaz: Is not the answer to the problem posed by the hon. Gentleman more efficient administration at the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department? In other words, if the paper chase that he describes is dealt with, it does not really matter where the adjudicators sit—the administrative problems would be solved.
      Mr. Letwin: In principle, the hon. Gentleman is right, but the problem is that human beings are involved and they tend to behave in ways that we are all familiar with in our own case.
      Let me try to illustrate for the hon. Gentleman the two pictures that I have in my mind. One—we shall come to the other as we proceed through the amendments and new clauses today—is of a smallish place in which asylum seekers largely from one location, and, I hope, in
      742
      many cases, entirely from one location, are grouped. For example, let us consider a small centre, probably in a city, inhabited by asylum seekers from Somalia. It is occupied by decision makers equipped with an independent country risk assessment in which they can have real faith. They get to know about the intricacies of Somalia. No Member of the House could be expected to know much about Somalia unless they had visited it, read about it, and talked to people who really understand its current politics, tribal make-up and so forth. Similarly, decision makers cannot be expected to know those things unless they are dealing with those matters. An adjudicator on site, next door, who also understands the circumstances of that country, can make a judgment quickly about whether the applicant, given the information presented, is likely to be a refugee.
      Those are genuinely difficult human decisions to make. If they are made on the basis of remote location and paper, no matter how hard the bureaucrats in the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the court service work—I understand that they will strive hard—it is extraordinarily difficult for someone dealing with a range of different places and cases at a remote location to avoid sending back some of the papers for further verification and inquiry. Paper moves back and forth because human beings find it difficult to operate under circumstances in which they are dealing with a wide array of matters and are widely dispersed. We will not process these claims in a rational amount of time until we acknowledge that.
      I do not have to speculate about whether I or the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is in the right, as the Home Office has admitted that I am. It says that it will take about six months to process claims in the accommodation centres. That is why we wish to press amendment No. 2, which limits the processing to 10 weeks. I do not accept that 10 weeks is a proper time—it seems well beyond the proper time—but I think that it is a proper limit, because there will be exceptional cases that have to take longer than the main run. I think that I am right to say—my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald will correct me if I am wrong—that when she first put forward the idea of accommodation centres, she expressed the hope that claims might be processed in six weeks. I share that hope.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): You are living in fairyland.
      Mr. Letwin: The Home Secretary—this is an interesting remark—says from a sedentary position, and I am sure that he does so sincerely, that we are living in fairyland if we hope for that. I fear, however, that that remark tells us everything we need to know about what has happened. The Home Secretary and his Ministers have been captured by a corporate culture within the bureaucracy, which has come to believe that 18 months is the norm, six months is a heroic achievement, and six weeks is fairyland. While that culture obtains, we will never have an orderly and effective asylum system in this country.
      Mr. Blunkett: I do believe that six weeks, as the limit not the norm, is fairyland. In 1997, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, inherited a time span of 20 months from entry into the country to final conclusion of appeal. That was under a

      743
      Government in which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) served as a Home Office Minister. With respect to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—with whom I have a lot of sympathy on his first proposition, to which I shall refer later—reducing the period from 20 months to six weeks is fairyland.
      Mr. Letwin: I want to make three responses to the Home Secretary's remarks. First, I do not think that the proper limit can be six weeks—amendment No. 2 suggests a limit of 10 weeks, as I accept that there will be exceptional cases. Indeed, if the Home Secretary were to propose a mechanism for extreme exceptional circumstance, to be subject to a further extension, we would consider it. To establish a norm of six weeks, we need a general limit that is slightly longer. Were the Home Secretary to imagine that six weeks will be the norm in practice without setting a limit and by merely expressing a hope that everything will be achieved in six months, he will indeed be living in fairyland, because it will not happen.
      Secondly, if the system is operated in its current form, three years from now I will have the great electoral advantage of being able to explain that the Home Secretary has failed to address the chaos of the system because he has not dealt with many applicants. If there are 3,000 people and a six-month processing period, it does not take more than simple arithmetic to demonstrate that the system will deal with only 6,000 applicants out of, perhaps, 100,000, including dependants. A six-month processing period will not solve the problem. The Home Secretary has as much incentive as I do—perhaps even more—to find a way to turn six weeks as a norm into something that is far from fairyland. I accept that six weeks would not be the absolute limit, but unless he turns it into a norm, we will not bring order out of chaos.
      Thirdly, it is no part of my purpose to claim that previous systems or Governments were perfect. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor was not and the same is true of him so far. We all share the blame for the fact that the system is in chaos. We need to discuss how to put it right. However, if it is still in chaos in three years' time, it will not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to claim that it is someone else's responsibility. I think he recognises that it will be his responsibility. I assure him that he will not fulfil that responsibility with a six-month processing period. I am delighted to hear that he might be sympathetic to the idea of having adjudicators on site because that is the single biggest step, although not the only one, that he could take towards achieving something like a six-week processing period. If we could reach agreement on that, it would be a major step forward.
      I do not want to tarry much further because there is no point spinning out speeches once the point is made. However, one other matter is relevant. We propose that the centres are short-term items, through which people pass at great speed. They should be on a small scale and situated in the centre of cities. That model would avoid the problems created if they are structured as envisaged in the Bill. Our proposal would not require the measures that the Home Secretary is taking, which have proved so difficult for him to defend to his party. It is to the advantage of the Labour party itself that he should seek a model that conforms to our image of the centres. That is the way to avoid the problems. No one would worry about
      744
      where a few children in a small centre were educated for six weeks. It is because human beings are to be in vast camps for six months that all the problems arise.
      I use the term "vast camps" advisedly. It is not that I think the Home Secretary intends to create inhumane places. I am sure he will try be as nice as possible when he structures the centres, but he must think about how they will look and feel. Let him reflect on what happened at Yarl's Wood and on the security costs of vast accommodation centres when claims take months to process. Those are real and practical considerations. Let us have in our minds a different model of small, quick, specialised, one-stop shops, because on that basis we can make real progress.
      Simon Hughes: Although the debate will be relatively short, it is important because it deals with the sort of accommodation centres that we should have. There are grounds for consensus if the Government can be persuaded to move closer to the position advocated by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. It is interesting that all parties agree that it is worth trialling accommodation centres. The idea has been put forward, in different guises, by different people. Everybody agrees that we are talking only about trialling them; they are not meant suddenly to take all asylum seekers, because most of them will be dispersed through the current system.
      This debate is about how big the centres will be and how long people will stay in them. It is about what will happen when people arrive at the centres and, in particular, whether adjudication should occur on-site. I take the view, and previous speeches by the Home Secretary are as good a basis for it as any, that people should spend no longer than six months in an accommodation centre. I think the Home Secretary used the phrase "God forbid" about the idea that anybody should be in a centre for more than six months. We want to tie him down to that objective, and we think that amendment No. 31 is a reasonable means of doing so. It provides that the six-month limit would apply other than in exceptional circumstances, when the Home Secretary would be able to grant a three-month extension.
      4.45 pm
      We tried to respond to the debates in Committee, in which the Government understandably said they did not want legal action to be taken simply because a person's stay in a centre slipped over the limit by a day or a week. We hope that the second stage of looking after people and determining their needs could be achieved in six months in normal cases and in nine months in exceptional ones. After all, it is contemplated that there will be only a handful of places. According to the Government, if 3,000 asylum seekers are to be accommodated, there will be only three or four centres, and if the centres were of the size suggested by Opposition Members, there would be at most 12 of them. I hope, therefore, that the House will be sympathetic to the idea of a maximum stay in a centre of six months, even with a three-month extension in exceptional cases.
      Mr. Humfrey Malins: There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he accept that there is an interesting parallel in criminal law with custody time

      745
      limits? Those are absolutely fixed and rigidly adhered to, but they can be extended in particular cases by special permission from the judge.
      Simon Hughes: Not only that, but along with some of my Scottish colleagues behind me, I am aware also that Scotland has a much more rigorous tradition of fixed time limits, and cases must be dealt with within 110 days.
      Where there is a will, there is a way. People will go into a reception centre for a week or two when they first arrive, and then there will be a second phase of assessment. Again, we must not forget that the centres are to be trialled, so this is a matter of preparing for them. If we build into the process enough staff and facilities, surely it will be possible to deal with cases within a certain time. We are starting from scratch; we do not have to plan around any historical difficulties. I hope, therefore, that amendments Nos. 164 and 31 will find favour with the House.
      We dissent from the Conservatives' view that the process can be completed in 10 weeks. That is near to being impossible, and I would rather start by setting a possible target. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who has legal experience, and others have made perfectly practical points. We have to be realistic because we are trying to find a working model, and I do not think that 10 weeks will be long enough. Whether or not the adjudication is done on-site, it is unlikely to be possible to do paperwork and translation, to check facts and to get evidence in one place. I flag up the fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when the time comes we will seek to persuade you to allow us to vote on amendment No. 164 or amendment No. 31, according to the convenience of the House.
      I turn now to new clause 1. I listened to the debate in Committee, and I listened to the hon. Member for West Dorset today. I have been persuaded that it would be possible, on a trial basis, to bring the adjudicator to the asylum seekers rather than take the asylum seekers to the adjudicator. I say that because a maximum of 12 and a minimum of four places around the country would be involved, because there would be a regular flow of casework and decisions, and because there will inevitably be a regular flow of people who want to exercise their right of appeal from the initial decision, which may be no, and go to adjudication, which might result in a yes.
      Although I am sure that most hon. Members remember this, I remind the House that a significant number of cases succeed on appeal. If 20 per cent. succeed in round one, the initial decision, one in five cases—a further fifth—succeed on appeal. If one is going to win in round two, it is important that round two happens soon after round one so that one does not have to endure the trauma of thinking that one's case has failed. It is also important that someone who is not a civil servant or a member of the Government or the Executive should make the decision, which will hold for a long time. An independent adjudicator, who is nothing to do with the Executive and who is seen to be independent, should come. So long as the process is clearly arranged so that the people whose cases are to be determined understand that the people who are to adjudicate are independent and not part of the decision-making process, and so long as the tribunal or
      746
      court, as one might call it, comes to the place where the people whose cases are to be determined are, it is worth trying.
      There are many points on which we might disagree more fundamentally, but I hope that the House agrees that the proposal is worth trying. I hope, too, that the Home Secretary will agree that a six-month maximum, with an extra three-month period if that is really needed, comprise a reasonable middle way that can be adopted for the first accommodation centres. In that way, we might get a principle on which we all agree working in practice.
      I end with a warning: if we take the wrong road, if we create accommodation centres that are far too big, if we put them in the wrong place, if we do not provide facilities in them, the centres will not succeed. They will be unpopular, unsuccessful and inhumane. We have a duty to try to get the system right. Not all the wisdom is found on the Government Benches or in Government offices; it lies in the experience of those throughout the country who know what they are talking about and who want to share it so that the House can reach the right decisions.
      Mr. Blunkett: I will attempt to be brief, but I want—and I think the House expects it of me—to use this initial debate to set out our position in the general debate on accommodation centres, so that hon. Members know where the Government stand and what we will ask them to vote on at 7 o'clock.
      First, let me say in response to the opening remarks made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) that there is not as much distance between us as might first appear. I accept that there should be a presumption that adjudicators should be on site, rather than that those on site should go to the adjudicators. I am prepared to consider how the House of Lords think such a provision might be phrased on the face of the Bill, and to talk to the Lord Chancellor and the chief adjudicator about the best way to organise it.
      The arguments that the hon. Gentleman put today and that have been rehearsed previously lead us to a desire to ensure that we do not have to take asylum seekers out of a centre when it is not necessary to do so. One of the clear justifications for having accommodation centres and trialling them is the ability to create a fast-track, simple, administratively manageable process that cuts through the sheer mind-blowing bureaucracy that has bedevilled the immigration and nationality directorate since its inception. If we can do that, the morale of those working in the service at every level, including the adjudicators, will be improved. Furthermore, those who want their case to be dealt with speedily and expeditiously, and Members of Parliament who have to deal with enormous case loads because they have substantial dispersal centres in their constituency—I am one of those Members—would experience great relief. It is therefore in everyone's best interests to get the system right.
      The first thing to do may well be to pick up the suggestion that one centre trials the programme, but I accept that, given scepticism about the process of dealing with nationality and asylum, Members want a provision to be included in the Bill. I hope that that helps the House and assists the main Opposition on what they feel they need to press to a vote, given the time pressures of debate for three quarters of an hour, followed by a vote.
      Mr. Vaz: I, too, am persuaded by the comments of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey

      747
      (Simon Hughes). It is not a matter of where the adjudicators sit; what matters is the quality of justice and the administrative support that is given. The Home Secretary may recall that when visitor appeals were first introduced, Labour Members suggested that adjudicators should travel to Mumbai and New Delhi to deal with those cases much more swiftly. I welcome what he has said and hope that we can pursue the matter.
      Mr. Blunkett: I am not giving way on the amendment as tabled because there will be cases in which it is appropriate for someone to be transported to another place for adjudication if that makes the process easier.
      That brings me to the substantive issue on which so much else rests. If I am right, the disquiet of people who are concerned about families in particular and the nature of services, including education, to be provided on the premises is based primarily on the length of time that people are likely to be in an accommodation centre. That has to be the case, I suggest to the House and colleagues whose views I respect and understand, because there are many disruptions to the lives of children and families as they go through the existing process, including dispersal.
      It is worth rehearsing the argument that the dispersal system was put in place because enormous pressures on London and the south-east resulted in great difficulty in providing services and disruption to social cohesion and community well-being. My predecessor therefore established a dispersal system which has been gradually improved, but still leaves a great deal to be desired. There were pressures in certain parts of the country, often in areas with the highest proportion of empty accommodation and where services were more readily available—for instance, there were places in schools which had not been taken up locally—so we ended up with major clusters of dispersal.
      It is worth reminding ourselves that we are talking about asylum seekers who are seeking leave to remain or refugee status, not immigration per se. The way in which articles are written, interviews undertaken and speeches made—I exonerate entirely Front Benchers from the two main parties and, indeed, my colleagues—shows that some people, either by misunderstanding or mischief, have mixed the concept of immigration and the social, economic and cultural value that immigrants bring to our community, with the issue of dealing with those who enter the country on the premise that they risk life and limb if they remain at home or, in other words, are seeking refugee status.
      I make that point because we are debating how long someone should be in an accommodation centre on a trial basis before going through the whole process if they press their claim to final appeal; there is layer on layer of appeals, as we debated on Second Reading and have discussed elsewhere.
      Simon Hughes: As the Home Secretary knows, I share his view on that. I also share his view that there has been witting or unwitting confusion by commentators, which is unhelpful. May I repeat a practical suggestion that I made in Committee? When we have dealt with the Bill in the House, we should try to separate the provisions on asylum from those on immigration, as different rights and processes are involved. This major Bill would be much clearer if one part dealt with one issue and another dealt with the other.
      5 pm
      Mr. Blunkett: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that it was important to include the issues in the same Bill, just as I put the proposition that it was crucial that they were dealt with in the same White Paper. That is the case for reasons that most people accepted on 7 February as being part of an attempt to achieve a coherent nationality, immigration and asylum policy, instead of merely an asylum policy, which is what people have often accused Governments of different persuasions of having.
      We are all desperately trying to move towards such a policy. Those who attempt to inflame the debate outside—some of them know better and should be devoting their charitable work to children and families who are at risk in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere—do not do anyone a service when they denigrate the efforts of some of us to put on to this country's agenda a positive migration policy that welcomes people from throughout the world.
      That involves welcoming people who are making a contribution to our communities, doubling the number who can receive work permits, establishing new migration routes and ensuring with the UN that we can provide gateways for refugees so that they can apply for asylum from outside the country instead of having to seek entry clandestinely in order to make an asylum claim.
      If we can have a debate of the sort that we had on Second Reading and in Committee, between people with a genuine intention to see off racism and prejudice and put in place a trusted system that builds confidence in our communities and deals with those who flee from persecution, we will be doing everyone a favour.
      It is in that spirit that I want to address the issue of time limits. I have already made it clear that we do not believe that a 10-week provision is feasible. I believe that a six-week provision is fairyland. The shadow Home Secretary was right to say that the history of the issue under discussion is bedevilled by good intentions that are followed by complete failure. Having praised the enormous efforts of the immigration staff and people working for the support service for having reduced from 20 months to the current average of 11 months the process of taking people from induction to final appeal, it is unusual for a Home Secretary to say that there is so much further to go that it is breathtaking that people have put up with the system for so long.
      It is true that that process is better than those in other European countries. Our removal record is better, but it is still abysmal. Everyone who has ever dealt with a constituency case on asylum—for reasons that I have given, two thirds of my constituency cases relate to asylum in one form or another—knows that we have to get to grips with the matter once and for all. I have responsibility for policy and my officials have responsibility for administration and competent delivery. However, in the end, I accept that, as the shadow Home Secretary rightly said, I will carry the can if I am still in the job. Indeed, I suppose that I will also carry the can if I am put out of the job, so one way or the other, I will carry it.
      Let me explain what I hope we will be able to do. If we can achieve adjudication on site after immediate induction, we will be seeking to break the current cycle in which people come into the country, make themselves available and are usually put into temporary

      749
      accommodation, where, regrettably, they usually live for some time while dispersal arrangements are made. It is unusual, but not impossible, for the children of families who are seeking asylum to be found an educational place, but it is difficult to envisage that happening in the first week or two. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) saying on Second Reading that the process takes time, so the issue is about time. Other hon. Members, including the two previous speakers, have pointed out that we are talking not about the principle of trialling accommodation centres, but about how long people will stay inside them.
      Under the current system, when people are dispersed, the relevant authorities find them the services that they need. They find accommodation, often by working with the voluntary sector, and a GP, and also a school if they have children. It therefore takes time to complete the second round of assessment following the dispersal, having already utilised temporary accommodation. If we could cut that out, and move people from induction straight into accommodation, we would be able to provide those services almost immediately, providing an initial assessment of people's needs, including, in the case of those with children, the needs of the child.
      I guarantee that we will consider how best to ensure that children's educational needs, having been assessed when they first enter, can he renewed at a certain point in their stay in the accommodation centre, which most hon. Members believe should be as short as possible and should not be more than six months, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said. There will, of course, be exceptions. People extend the appeals process in all sorts of ingenious ways, helped by ingenious lawyers. That is their right. They try to extend the process for as long as possible, having not succeeded initially.
      Let me pause for a moment to give a picture of the length of time for which people will be in accommodation centres. Over the past two months, we have got the initial decision down to less than eight weeks for 70 per cent. of applicants. That is still not good enough; it is still not reaching the target for a year, but it is getting there very rapidly. Given that I have been quite robust about the nature of bureaucracy in the system, I pay tribute to those in the immigration and nationality directorate who have worked really hard to make that possible.
      We know that by granting either exceptional leave or refugee status we can get a quarter of those who initially apply through the system very quickly indeed. We are therefore left with those who go into the adjudication system and beyond. I believe that within the six-month period we should be able to, and in fact must, get through the adjudication system and at least the early part of the new revised second appeal procedure, which was discussed in Committee and will undoubtedly he debated in another place at great length if we do not get to it tonight.
      We are therefore talking about the small number who reach the six-month point. I am prepared to provide for that in the Bill where it occurs in relation to families. It is not a major problem for singles, who are often single young men. Occupying them, however, is a problem. Anyone who walks about the centre of Sheffield, Birmingham or townships around the country this summer will soon find that out. Young men from Kosovo,
      750
      Romania or Poland—you name it—will be hanging about. I would rather that they were occupied properly. There is still much to be done on providing and facilitating volunteering. I should like them to be occupied meaningfully in accommodation centres. All those who go in will have a language facility for their own mother tongue and the ability to start learning English, which, if they do not stay, will be of help to them when they return.
      Ultimately, of course, the majority do not stay, so here is the nub of the question. What favour will we have done to families and children, when we come to remove them, if we have put their integration into neighbourhood schools at the top of the agenda? It is virtually impossible to drag a family away from a neighbourhood school.
      On removal policies, I inherited the most enormous target that hon. Members on both sides of the House pleaded with me not to fulfil—when it happened to affect people in their own constituencies. Local papers run local campaigns to stop people being removed. But if the Government do not have a removal policy, we have no borders and no asylum or immigration policy. We might as well just say, "Invite everyone in." That is pretty near to what one or two people have written—until, of course, those whom they represent lose their jobs or are unable to maintain the minimum wage because they are undercut by the flow of people.
      On a lighter note, the blessed name of Nicholas Ridley comes to mind. When he was Secretary of State for Transport, he devised the most brilliant solution for traffic jams: he suggested doing away with traffic lights. Market forces would have come into play, and no one would have been able to get the car out of the drive, let alone down the road. People would have had to leave their cars at home, and traffic jams would have been a thing of the past. The same circumstances would apply to mass immigration to Britain if we had no border controls and no semblance of an asylum policy. The real world tells me that we must take cognisance of what happens in practice when we try to effect our end-to-end policy, including removals.
      In the House of Lords, I hope that we can include the educational interests of the child in the Bill so that the children of families who have been in an accommodation centre for six months can be assessed by the education service before the time has elapsed. Unless the family wishes to stay, it will be presumed that they will move out of the centre. I pick up the Liberal Democrat suggestion that there will be a maximum of a further 12 weeks for people to remain. It is right to provide for that, not least because it puts the onus on the immigration service to get its act together and ensure that people's cases are heard.
      Given that the majority do not qualify for refugee status, it would help us to be able to remove them to removal centres, which also detain. An article in a newspaper this morning wrongly used the term "detention centre" for accommodation centres. It would be helpful if those who did not qualify for refugee status could be put in a removal centre and removed.
      We are establishing new economic migration gateways and offering people alternative routes into the country. I therefore hope that vast numbers of people will not claim asylum when they are not at risk of life and limb but try to come here legitimately and openly as economic migrants. Agreement across Europe, which I shall endeavour to

      751
      kickstart properly on Thursday in Luxembourg, will facilitate that. We will thus lessen the pressure on the system, including dispersal, which will continue for some years if the trial centres are a success. We must get dispersal right. We must provide support for schools, housing and GP practices that have to take the challenge of large numbers. I am deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for being present.
      I understand why hon. Members say that we should not put accommodation centres outside urban areas, but we cannot have an asylum and immigration policy that provides that only deprived, inner-city areas take those who are transient because they are seeking the right to remain in the country. We cannot have that; it is not right in principle or morally or for race and community relations.
      Sir Michael Spicer: Why does every organisation across the political spectrum, except the Government, oppose large accommodation units in rural areas?
      Mr. Blunkett: I am not sure that that applies to everyone of every political persuasion. It does not apply to people in my constituency. They already welcome transient people and will do that for the foreseeable future, through, for example, 130 units of accommodation, usually for approximately 250 people, but without facilities such as on-site language provision in the mother tongue or adult education. The children are found places in schools that are not oversubscribed. In my city, that applies to schools that are not in the south-west of Sheffield; schools in that area are massively oversubscribed because they have the best educational outcomes.
      5.15 pm
      Of course, when people find that they are under pressure in an area, as happens in many parts of London, they go private in large numbers. I am not just talking about Kensington and Chelsea, where more than 50 per cent. of residents send their children to private schools. In Hackney, one of the most deprived boroughs in the country, 16 per cent. of residents send their children to private school at secondary level. So, there are opt-out facilities for some, but not for others.
      I am not advocating that all accommodation centres should be in rural areas. I am simply saying that there should not be a presumption, such as the one put forward earlier. I am not seeking to pick on the shadow Home Secretary—as hon. Members know, I like him, and we are getting on far too well for that—but he did mention that it would be a good idea if the accommodation centres were in urban areas. I am merely saying, for balance, that there is a case for having a rational distribution.
      I also accept the rational approaches that have been made to us by the Refugee Council, for which I have the most enormous respect, regarding experimentation with smaller centres. I only have so many resources, I have to achieve economies of scale, and I have the ability to put the centres in place and to see whether they work, but I am not dogmatic about their size or their location. We are also about to embark on evaluating the private and voluntary sector proposals. If people can come forward
      752
      with alternative sites, I ask them please to do so. I do not think that we have handled the detailed consultation and the initial proposals as well as we might have done, and I think that my hon. Friends who have also been dealing with this matter accept that as well.
      So, here we are this afternoon, with all the hype outside, and with general agreement that we should have a trial, and that the people in accommodation centres should be there as briefly as possible. There is also general agreement that it is not evil or discriminatory to educate children in an accommodation centre, where they will receive mother tongue and English support as well as a broader education, inspected by Ofsted and supported by the local education authority, without placing an undue burden on local schools, and that they should be there for as short a time as possible—with a maximum of six months for families in terms of their educational interests being assessed. That seems to be a reasonable compromise, and I am prepared for us to encapsulate it in an appropriate amendment in the House of Lords.
      Mr. Iain Coleman: May I push my right hon. Friend a little on that point? I do not think that anyone on this side of the Chamber who has major concerns regarding the proposal to take children out of mainstream education is saying that that proposal is intrinsically evil. Bearing in mind the number of children involved, which would, as I understand it, be between 100 and 120 in any one accommodation centre, I think that my right hon. Friend is being slightly disingenuous—unwittingly, I am sure—when he says that those children could place a huge burden on local schools. In my local education authority area, more than 10 per cent. of primary school children and more than 8 per cent. of secondary school children are asylum seekers or refugees. The people who run the local education authority—the people at the coal face—have expressed sincerely and genuinely their belief that they are not being overburdened. So, how could such a tiny number of children—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is now growing into a speech.
      Mr. Blunkett: I shall return to my initial distinction. The facts that are put to Members need to be investigated. I am happy to do so in terms of determining whether we are talking about those who are in transit as seekers of the right to remain as refugees, or those who are seeking asylum, plus those who have gained refugee status, plus those who have come in through other migration routes. I accept that that can often be a major plus to a locality and to a school—I have said so already.
      The issue is which school or schools close to an accommodation centre could take 120 children, bearing it in mind that we have accepted that, with few exceptions, people are in principle in favour of trialling the accommodation centres.
      Ms Karen Buck: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Blunkett: Let me finish. I received some acclaim from my hon. Friends behind me for which I am eternally grateful, as the Home Secretary does not often get it, when

      753
      I said that the centres should not simply be in the most deprived areas of the country. However, places available and deprivation regrettably go together, because parental preference often leads, from those who are on the edge—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the Home Secretary a certain discretion, but he is gently wandering over amendments that we have yet to discuss. I would be grateful, as would the House, if he confined his remarks to the amendments that we are dealing with.
      Mr. Blunkett: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think I have made the point.
      Lynne Jones: A moment ago, my right hon. Friend said that people are in favour in principle of accommodation centres. Can he give me the name of any organisation or group of people that is in favour of centres that accommodate 750 people?
      Mr. Blunkett: People's contributions to the debate have varied. In fact, the organisations that made representations often made different ones. When the Immigration Advisory Service and Refugee Action responded to the White Paper, they were quite willing, so long as there was no lengthy stay in accommodation centres, for them to have different volumes. The Refugee Council did not like the idea of 750 places. I have agreed that we shall experiment with a smaller centre, and we shall work with the Refugee Council on achieving that.
      There is an argument about size as well as duration of stay and what should go on in the centres, but the case that I am making is that those matters can be resolved through trialling and a bit of give and take. Broader services, including education, provided on the premises, so long as too long a stay is not involved, can be a plus, not a minus, for those who would otherwise be in transit from one place to another as they pursue their claim, as they are supported through the National Asylum Support Service system and as they eventually reach the point when integration becomes a reality for some and we need to support them better, but also when for the majority—more than 50 per cent.—removal has to be the final conclusion.
      In that spirit—within the overall context of the White Paper, with a drive for new routes for immigration and with a welcome for the diversity and the culture that it brings in respect of entirely new views here and, I hope, across Europe on the value of inward migration and an understanding of the worldwide movement that is taking place—I ask the House to reject the amendments and to accept the assurances that I am giving after listening and responding to Members on both sides who have put a rational case.
      Tony Baldry: I support my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, particularly on amendment No. 2. The Home Secretary must know that not a single organisation concerned with the welfare of asylum seekers supports the combination of an accommodation centre for up to 750 people and a remote rural location, and he will recall that
      754
      on 3 May a number of organisations ranging from the Refugee Council to Amnesty International wrote to him to express their concern about that combination.
      Sir Michael Spicer: To add to that list, the Transport and General Workers Union has come out today in support of that position.
      Tony Baldry: Yes. We probably all heard Bill Morris on the "Today" programme saying that the policy—the combination of scale and location—was fundamentally flawed. The Government's White Paper, published in February, said that asylum accommodation centres would be judged on other things, including reduced decision times and tighter management of the interview and decision-making process.
      The Home Secretary said this afternoon that he was content that people should stay up to six months in accommodation centres. We know from answers given in Committee that up to 80 per cent. of asylum seekers are single young men. We are told that accommodation centres will contain up to 750 people. If the accommodation centres reflect the asylum-seeking population as a whole, at any one time up to 600 single young men will be in such centres; the impression is given that they will be there for six months.
      I would like to invite every hon. Member of this House to come and visit the site chosen for the accommodation centre in my constituency. The Home Secretary was candid enough to say that he thought that the consultation up to now had not been as good as it might have been. I say to him that there has not been any consultation up to now. There has been minimal consultation between the Government office for the south-east and the local planning authority on simple planning grounds, but there has not been any consultation with local people.
      It is a pity that no Minister has come to visit the proposed site. I wish I could say that the most exciting thing that can happen in the neighbourhood is seeing the traffic lights change. The only problem is that there are no traffic lights. The proposed site is between two villages. There is a pub in one of them, and a village shop in one of them. The nearest town is five miles away. There is no cinema in the town, and no college of further education. Facilities are fairly limited. What will these young men do for up to six months in that centre? They are going to get bored out of their minds. The Home Secretary made some comments earlier about people getting bored in the summer; six months is a very long time.
      We were told in Committee that only 8 per cent. of applications actually succeed. That means that a large majority of applications to remain as refugees under the UN convention fail. If people are to remain in remote rural accommodation for up to six months, I predict that a number will just drift away to where communities of their own nationalities live. That will not be to the benefit of the Home Secretary, who wishes to see these accommodation centres succeed.
      If we are to have accommodation centres, we require a much greater sense of applications being dealt with as expeditiously as possible. If the impression is simply given that large numbers of people are to be housed in remote locations for up to six months, asylum seekers will find that incredibly frustrating. There is a likelihood that

      755
      we will start to see a significant number of those asylum seekers, particularly those who predict that their claims may fail, simply fading away because they know that their chances of being deported, even if they are discovered, are fairly remote.
      The Home Secretary is determined to have these large accommodation centres in remote rural locations, and no hon. Member need doubt the remoteness of the locations selected. We all know why that is; as he acknowledged this afternoon, the Home Secretary was tight for funds and had to make a deal with the Treasury. The only way in which he could do that was by using existing MOD or other Government land, some way away from London and the south-east. If he wants this to succeed, there needs to be a much greater sense that applications will be dealt with expeditiously, as opposed to the impression of drift that he gave this afternoon.
      The idea of 750 people, 600 of whom are single young men, being bored and frustrated in remote rural locations for up to six months suggests that this is a trial destined for failure.
      5.30 pm
      Simon Hughes: This has been an extremely constructive and conciliatory debate on a controversial subject, and I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that, as he calls the shots by virtue of his office. Let me say to him mischievously that he may have led us into trespassing on the next group of amendments, and indeed the two groups following that, but I understand the reasons: clearly, what he said on the issue of size will determine the views that we take on other matters. I hope that he will offer a similar response when we discuss location, for example.
      If I interpret the Home Secretary correctly, he has accepted the Conservative proposal on the siting of the adjudication process, which is welcome, as well as accepting in principle, if not in the absolute detail of the wording, the Liberal Democrat proposal for a six-month provision with a three-month extra opportunity in suitable cases. I understand that that is in relation to families only. I appreciate that that is a priority, and it deals with the issue of children. The Home Secretary and I are more closely associated with each other in our ideas on that than we are with some others of our colleagues in our respective parties.
      There remains a big issue in relation to single male asylum seekers. I have experience in my constituency of a centre in which 750 of them were housed for a long time, and I do not think that an indefinite period is an adequate outcome for any centre. I hope that we will discuss that constructively again, and I will be happy to take part in any such discussions. We welcome the Home Secretary's openness to consultation, and we will not press amendments Nos. 164 or 31 to a vote.
      Mr. Letwin: I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the Home Secretary for making significant constructive moves towards achieving consensus. I accept entirely that it will be better to see what the Government can come up with in the House of Lords on the question of adjudicators than to press the motion to a vote. I hope, however, that we will have an opportunity—at 7 o'clock, I think—to vote on amendment No. 2, because I persist in believing that the six-month period, although it might seem rational
      756
      to those immured in the current culture, is likely to generate all sorts of problems. I want to insist on the 10-week limit.
      It is no part of my intention to suggest that the centres should all be located in areas of deprivation. In fact, there is a strong case for their not being located there, for just the same reason as there is a strong case for their not being located in remote rural areas. In each case there are particular difficulties, for both the inhabitants and the local populace. That is why we should try to use the 80 per cent. or so of the country, by habitation, that is neither very deprived nor very remote and rural.
      I persist in believing, with the Refugee Council, Amnesty International and others, that city and suburban sites would be better. What really distresses me is that the Home Secretary is not even talking about trialling that proposition. A small number of trials in this domain will not satisfy the urgent requirement for order in a chaotic system, but if we are to have trials—as opposed to a fully fledged, fully working system—they should at least encompass all possibilities, so that we can revisit the argument two or three years from now on the basis of full information. I hope that the Home Secretary will make a concession on that point in due course, but in the meantime I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 3

      VISITING COMMITTEE
      '(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a committee (to be known as the Visiting Committee) for each accommodation centre.
      (2) The Secretary of State shall prescribe the functions of the Visiting Committee by making regulations under this Part.
      (3) Those regulations must include provision—

      (a) as to the making of visits to the centre by members of the Visiting Committee;

      (b) for the hearing of complaints made by persons detained by the Visiting Committee to the Secretary of State;

      (c) requiring the making of reports by the Visiting Committee to the Secretary of State;

      (d) that every member of the Visiting Committee for an accommodation centre may at any time enter the centre and have free access to every part of it and to every person residing there.

      (4) Accommodation centres created under this Part may also be inspected by HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Social Services Inspectorate, whenever they think it appropriate.'.—[Mr. Malins.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Malins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 30, in clause 14, page 9, line 2, at end insert—
      '( ) For a period of no less than ten years from the commencement of this Act all such accommodation centres shall be publicly owned and their management and employees directly employed by the Home Office or relevant local authority.'.
      No. 3, in clause 26, page 12, line 36, leave out—
      'The Secretary of State may'
      and insert—
      'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to'.

      757
      No. 40, in page 12, line 36, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
      No. 166, in page 13, line 6, at end insert—
      '( ) independent legal advice and representation'.
      No. 167, in page 13, line 7, leave out paragraphs (i) and (j).
      No. 4, in page 13, line 11, at end insert—
      '(k) such legal representation and advice as is reasonably required by an asylum applicant in connection with an application for asylum or any appeal resulting therefrom'.
      No. 168, in page 13, line 11, at end insert—
      '(1A) The Secretary of State may arrange for the following to be provided to a resident of an accommodation centre—

      (a) anything which the Secretary of State thinks ought to be provided for the purpose of providing a resident with proper occupation and for the purpose of maintaining good order,

      (b) anything which the Secretary of State thinks ought to be provided for a person because of his exceptional circumstances.'.

      No. 42, in page 13, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).
      No. 43, in clause 27, page 13, line 28, at end insert—
      'which shall not be more than 15 hours per day'.
      No. 133, in page 13, line 34, leave out "any dependant" and insert "a spouse".
      No. 136, in page 13, line 35, leave out—
      'and any dependant of his'.
      No. 137, in page 13, line 39, leave out—
      'resident and any dependant of his'
      and insert "dependant".
      No. 138, in page 13, line 40, leave out—
      'resident and any dependant of his'
      and insert "dependant".
      No. 44, in page 14, line 1, leave out subsection (7).
      No. 131, in page 14, line 10, at end insert—
      '(10) a resident who is required to leave the centre under subsections (4) or (5) may appeal to an adjudicator under Part 5 of this Act.'.
      Mr. Malins: We move on to a group of amendments relating to the operation of, and conditions and facilities—other than education—at, accommodation centres. I feel sure that new clause 3 will find favour on both sides of the House, for two reasons. First, it would not cost the Government any money; and, secondly, although I cannot be sure, I think that it was my idea.
      The House will be interested to know that not one of the amendments that we tabled in Committee was accepted by the Government, save for the triumph achieved by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) —she is in her place—who discovered that a particular clause referred to a seventh subsection of the previous clause, even though it had only six subsections. In that regard, she achieved a notable scalp.
      Amendment No. 3 would impose a duty on the Government to provide services at accommodation centres, amendment No. 4 would impose a duty on them to provide legal advice, and amendment No. 133 and
      758
      subsequent amendments deal with dependants. I hope that they and new clause 3 will find favour with the Government.
      The establishment of visiting committees is surely a non-controversial issue. Over the years, many of us have been struck by the high quality of the various visiting bodies and committees involved with prisons. I discovered as much in my career as a lawyer, and on my more recent travels as a member of the Home Affairs Committee I have seen the excellent work that visiting committees undertake at prisons. They talk to inmates, hear grievances and make positive suggestions; they are an important safety valve.
      Of course, such committees operate in the asylum world to equally good effect. Two months ago, I visited Oakington, as several hon. Members have doubtless done. It is a very well run and orderly establishment; indeed, it struck me in many ways as a contented establishment, in terms both of its staff and of those who stay there. One reason for that is the presence of an active visiting committee. I met Penny Lambert, the chairman of the visiting committee, and several of her colleagues. They are very involved with Oakington. They have made several helpful suggestions to the staff about how life there could be improved, and they have heard from residents at Oakington. They have contributed a great deal to making it a better place, simply through their presence and sympathy, and the safety valve that they offer. I know that there is a difference between a detention centre such as Oakington and an accommodation centre, but I see no reason why something that works well for Oakington could not be set up for the accommodation centres.
      We are broadly supportive of the accommodation centre concept. We understand from the Bill that the Government propose to put several important facilities and services in the centres, and we think that that is right. In one or two respects, the Government perhaps do not go far enough. In our opinion, the Government should be delighted to accept new clause 3, which sets up a visiting committee for each accommodation centre, because it has no implications for the Treasury. Nobody has to ask the Treasury for money, because our communities contain well motivated, good people with an interest in various institutions—asylum institutions, prisons and the like—who would be only too keen to start up visiting committees. The longer people will stay at the accommodation centres, the more compelling becomes the argument for the visiting committees, although people stay only briefly at Oakington and the visiting committee works well there. I am sure that the Government will not oppose new clause 3.
      The hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) was the Minister in Committee, and I pay personal tribute to her for her kindness throughout our debates and for her dedication and commitment. She is a loss to the Government, although we welcome her replacement, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), to the high post that she has achieved. The hon. Lady and I have had happy dealings before on the Home Affairs Committee. I hope that the atmosphere prevalent in Committee will be replicated today, and it is on that basis that I invite the House to support new clause 3.

      759
      Amendment No. 3 was discussed in Committee. It relates to the services that the Home Secretary is to provide at accommodation centres. In Committee, many of us were slightly alarmed that the first line of clause 26, as it is now, provides that the Secretary of State
      "may arrange for the following to be provided to a resident of an accommodation centre".
      The amendment would change those words to read:
      "It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to arrange"
      We had a long debate on the issue in Committee. However well intentioned this Home Secretary and Government are, the fact is that the Bill would allow them to choose not to provide the services in question. If the Home Secretary is determined to provide various services, we see no reason why he should not have the duty to do so imposed on him. After all, the facilities, assistance and services provided for in clause 26 will be vital to the well-being of the asylum seekers during their stay. The people who will stay at the accommodation centres may have had terrible journeys and a grim time. They ate vulnerable people, and some of them are shattered. Often they need a lot of care and attention when they go to the centres, and many are very young.
      I see no reason why the Government should not accept that they have a duty to provide the various services needed at accommodation centres. If the Government insist that the clause should use only the word "may", I believe that that will be because they want to reserve the right not to provide the services if they do not want to. I therefore hope that the amendment will be accepted.
      5.45 pm
      Amendment No. 4 deals with legal advice, another matter debated in Standing Committee. Many of us believe, along with respected non-governmental organisations in the field, that it is essential that top-class legal advice be provided, on the spot and from the very beginning. One reason why Oakington works well is that great numbers of lawyers from various bodies are available there. For example, the Immigration Advisory Service alone has 54 caseworkers on site. When asylum seekers arrive at Oakington, they are provided, within minutes, with the best skilled legal advice possible. They do not have to travel 20 or 30 miles to a nearby town to find a solicitor, because the legal advice that they need is on hand.
      So far, the Government have stubbornly refused to include legal services among the facilities that they must provide at accommodation centres. They say, "Of course we will provide legal services there", but why does that requirement not appear in the Bill? Early legal advice is vital, and makes for efficiency.
      The Standing Committee was told by the former Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey, that there was
      "no doubt whatever that legal services will be freely available in accommodation centres as required."
      If so, why does the Bill not make that a requirement? The hon. Lady also said:
      "In the trials, we would certainly want to develop co-located services or access to services".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 9 May 2002; c. 171.]
      Those phrases bear consideration. I assume that the rather weak phrase
      "we would certainly want to develop"
      760
      is another way of saying, "We are going to do it." In addition, I have always been confused by the word "co-located". Does it mean "on the site"? I hope so, but if it means "next door", or "down the road", the Government should say so. However, I do not know what the development of co-located services or of access to services will mean in practice.
      Moreover, the phrase "access to services" is meaningless if people at accommodation centres are told that the nearest legal services to which they have access are a number of miles away, and that they can make their own way there if they want to. The Government's response on the issue was not very satisfactory.
      The Minister who dealt with this matter in Standing Committee did not want the requirement to provide access to legal services to be included in the Bill because, as she told the Committee, the vast majority of legal services are funded not by the Home Office but by the Legal Services Commission, which already has adequate powers. That makes me scratch my head, as I am not sure what it means in practice. I think that she meant that the Legal Services Commission has some money and some powers, and that it is for the commission to decide whether to make legal advice available in the centres. That is not at all satisfactory.
      The Minister also referred to another aspect that is very troubling. I only spotted these words again this morning, at an appallingly early hour, when I was looking at today's amendments. The hon. Lady referred to moves to shift funding of NGOs from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor's Department to ensure that there was no perceived conflict of interest about the Home Office running a system and funding advice to people in it. However, there has been no perceived conflict of interest for many years with the principal organisation providing legal advice and assistance—the Immigration Advisory Service—which has been funded by the Home Office since its inception. I pay tribute to the previous Conservative Government for the level of funding that they provided to the IAS. I also pay sincere tribute to this Government for the level of funding that they have provided to the Immigration Advisory Service. How else could the IAS have its lawyers all around the country in different bases and at Oakington, were it not for Government funding?
      During the time that I spent as chairman of the trustees of the Immigration Advisory Service, not once did the then Government ever seek to influence the service in one way or another. Conservative and Labour Governments have always given the IAS the grant and said, "Get on with the job." We have the best system in Europe when it comes to Governments who make immigration and asylum laws and also fund organisations to act against them, without interference. I pay tribute to them for that.
      The Government need not trouble themselves about a perceived conflict of interest, but they should trouble themselves about there being a duty on them to provide legal advice on site. I am aided in my argument by all the respective NGOs. The Law Society also believes that asylum seekers should have access to good quality legal advice and representation at all stages of the system. Good quality independent legal advice at the earliest stage saves time and expense. Frontloading the services results in minimising delay and costs.

      761
      The Law Society has carefully considered the Government's comment that access to legal advice and representation is not included in the list of facilities to be provided at accommodation centres, as such services are largely funded by the Legal Services Commission. However, the Law Society says that access to legal advice and representation is of such fundamental importance to the applicant and for the proper and efficient running of the asylum system that it should be included in the Bill.
      If the Government remain concerned about funding issues, legal services could be included in the Bill, in the same way as facilities for health and religious observance are provided for in clause 26(1)(g) and (h)—that is, by referring to facilities relating to or facilities for legal services. That would ensure that the Bill provides for access to legal services while still dealing with the Government's concerns about funding, whether those concerns are real or not. I hope that the Government will think again about this important issue.
      This part of the Bill relates to the conditions of residents at accommodation centres. A glance at clause 27 reveals that it remains similar, if not identical, to the one that caused all Opposition Members some concern in Committee. Amendments Nos. 133, 136, 137 and 138 would remove, from time to time, the word "dependant" from clause 27. This is the mischief about which I am complaining. Clause 27(4) states:
      "If a resident of an accommodation centre breaches a condition imposed under this section, the Secretary of State may—
      (a) require the resident and any dependant of his to leave the centre".
      It was hard in Committee to make the Government clarify exactly what conditions could be broken that would give rise to the draconian step of requiring a resident to leave the centre, but many of us felt distinctly uneasy at the prospect of not only the offender but everybody linked to that person, such as a spouse or dependant—who may not have behaved remotely badly—being required to leave the centre.
      Subsection (5) states that if a dependant of a resident breaches a condition, the Secretary of State may require the resident and any dependant to leave the centre or authorise the manager of the centre to require the resident and any dependant to leave the centre. Therefore, if someone who is dependent on someone else breaks a condition of residence, not only is the dependant chucked out but so is the resident because of the sins or faults of another.
      We need reassurance that someone will not be thrown out of an accommodation centre for breaking a minor condition. The only parallel that I can think of is in bail hostels, where minor infringements are often overlooked. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point. I should also like some understanding from the Government about our unease at the prospect that people will, in effect, be treated harshly because of the sins of others. This issue needs a sensitive touch—a light touch—and a realistic approach.
      I have outlined my amendments in this group. I commend them strongly, with some hope that the Government will accept them. There cannot be a reason for not accepting the appointment of a visiting committee. There are awfully good reasons, at this stage of the Bill's
      762
      progress, for the Government to accept this proposal and agree that it is their duty to provide various services and to have the provision of legal advice inserted in the Bill.
      Mr. Richard Allan: I shall speak briefly to the amendments in this group that outline some of the Liberal Democrats' remaining concerns about accommodation centres. I am conscious that important groups of amendments remain to be debated, so I will not detain the House for long.
      Liberal Democrat Members support new clause 3. We believe that a visiting committee would be a helpful addition for the accountability of the new accommodation centres. In amendment No. 30 we express our view that, for the first 10 years at least, there should be a commitment on the part of the Government that the accommodation centres remain in public ownership. We went through this in Committee, where the then Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) was open about the fact that the Government were considering a number of options.
      6 pm
      In principle, we have general concerns about the use of the private sector for prisons and facilities that deprive an individual of liberty. As the new accommodation centres will receive a great deal of public scrutiny, it is important that there are clear lines of accountability from the centre to Ministers. Obviously, one hopes that nothing will go wrong in any of the centres, but if it does, people will not be satisfied if it is suggested that the fault lay with a particular contracting company. The amendment relates to the establishment of clear lines of accountability and in our view that means retaining the centres in public ownership—at least initially.
      Annabelle Ewing: The hon. Gentleman mentioned, as an aside, that he had concerns about the use of the private sector for prisons and the like. Perhaps he is not aware that his colleagues in the Scots Parliament who sit in coalition with Labour are pursuing a private prison route.
      Mr. Allan: I certainly am aware of that. In the wonderful federation that is my party, the Scottish party makes its own decisions which reflect its political circumstances. I know that the Minister for Justice has been faced with some difficult decisions as regards prison accommodation in Scotland.
      Amendments Nos. 40, 166, 167 and 168 attempt to tease out how the facilities will be provided. We want to consider two forms specifically. The first is what must be provided—like the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) we have included legal advice. We, too, feel strongly that access to good legal advice speeds up the asylum determination process and is not something that the Government, or anyone, should fear—it can facilitate the process and ensure that there are fewer legal errors that could lead to an appeal. The amendment would distinguish between facilities that "shall" or "may" be provided.
      Amendment No. 42 relates to our concern about how cash is given to asylum seekers. We understand that the Secretary of State will make regulations governing the handling of cash. It is important for an individual's

      763
      dignity that they have some cash and some purchasing power—whether the amount is large or small. That is significant even when the basics of life are provided.
      We are concerned that currently there is dual provision. The Secretary of State may by regulation determine the amount of cash given to an individual, but the accommodation centre manager may also have that power. The amendment would limit that power to the Secretary of State alone.
      Amendment No. 43 would establish the extent to which the powers to require an individual physically to he present at the accommodation centre might be widened to create, in effect, a form of detention. The amendment would limit to 15 the number of hours that an individual was required to be present. We seek an assurance from the Minister that there is no intention that people should remain in the centre for 24 hours, for example—that would clearly move us into the realm of detention.
      Amendment No. 44 revisits a subject that we considered in Committee, but about which we are still uncomfortable—the relationship between behaviour in an accommodation centre and the actual asylum claim, which can be a matter of life or death for an individual. W e understand that the Government may require an individual to be present in an accommodation centre as part of the terms of their immigration status—they would be allowed into the country on condition that they resided at tile centre.
      Under clause 27, the Government would take powers, in effect, to evict an individual from an accommodation centre because of their behaviour, and such eviction—as we heard from the hon. Member for Woking—would also apply to their dependants. There is a lack of clarity in the provision, in that a condition of immigration law may require a person to remain at the centre, yet their behaviour might lead to their removal. That could give rise to conflict, especially if the individual was pursuing an asylum claim, as they might find that they were in breach of their immigration conditions, thus prejudicing their claim. If an individual has done something wrong, sanctions need to be taken, but if those sanctions force an individual to breach their immigration conditions because they are required to leave the accommodation specified under those conditions, that is a matter for concern.
      I shall not speak further at this stage, save to point out that there are some important amendments in a later group.
      Sir Michael Spicer: As we have already heard, no one likes the Bill's provisions for accommodation centres— neither the Refugee Council, nor the Transport arid General Workers Union. The Government seem to be the only people who are pressing them.
      One of the reasons for that dislike is the cavalier way in which the Government are discussing the resources required and the provision of facilities. Amendment No. 3 is much more important than meets the eye because it would put a duty on the Government to be much more specific.
      There have been several examples of the Government's cavalier approach to the assessment of facilities at a proposed accommodation unit adjoining my constituency. I recently asked the Secretary of State for Health what
      764
      assessment he had made of the additional funding required for health services if a centre was built in that part of south Worcestershire. The answer was:
      "As yet, no assessment has been made in respect of any additional health or social care needs."—[Official Report, 24 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 356W.]
      Such vagueness about the provision of facilities is serious and it goes right across the board—deep into the Home Office.
      Earlier today, the former Under-Secretary at the Home Office, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), made a dignified apology about misinformation on figures that she had given the House. We are not dealing with size at present but it is obviously relevant to the provision of facilities; it is certainly relevant to information.
      On this occasion, I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, who was incompletely briefed on the matter. However, I am seriously worried about the poor information from the Home Office on the provision of facilities. That is why it is so important that the Government accept amendment No. 3.
      The planning inquiry constitutes a specific reason for the Government to be less muddled about the facts and information they give about the provision of facilities and services in respect of their proposals. I understand that there will be a proper planning system, so if the Government continue to be muddled and misinformed when they provide information to the planning inspectors, it will be serious for two reasons. First, the result could be a judicial review—but that is for the Government to worry about. Secondly, however, the acceptability of the planning system could be undermined.
      If people think that the planning arrangements are a fix, with the Government providing false information about the facilities and the local requirements for the fulfilment of the policy, that could have a serious effect on the credibility of the planning procedure. Above all, the process must be fair. I tell my constituents not only that the planning procedure is a good thing but that it will make a fair judgment as to whether the proposals are right.
      If the Government continue to give false, bad or muddled information about facilities, the results for the planning procedure could be serious, so I hope that they will consider amendment No. 3 carefully. It imposes a duty on them to provide proper, clear information about facilities.
      Tony Baldry: I shall be brief. No one could argue with the proposals for visiting committees, but such committees would, in essence, be concerned with the welfare of asylum seekers. As the accommodation centres will be sited in remote, rural areas, will the Government consider setting up liaison committees?
      When I was first elected, there was a big United States Air Force base in my constituency where about 750 young men were stationed. Even with 750 disciplined service men, it was necessary to set up an ad hoc liaison committee, organised and operated by the district council, which provided the secretariat. Representatives of the parish council could hold regular meetings with the personnel who ran the base.
      It would be extremely helpful if Ministers suggested to local communities that they were prepared to establish similar committees, where representatives of the parishes

      765
      surrounding the accommodation centres could hold regular meetings with the management of the centres to raise matters of concern to the local community. Local people could then have confidence that their concerns would be addressed in a timely, proper and systematic way. That would ensure that they were not frustrated and that they could express concerns and grievances. [Interruption.] I hope that Ministers will be kind enough to give the House their attention because if they want these experiments to work, they must be aware of the concerns of communities about the siting of accommodation centres.
      Such concerns must be addressed, but given that none of the centres will be sited in the constituencies of Labour Members, no Labour Member will be able to express those concerns in the Division Lobby. As no Minister has taken the trouble to visit one of the sites or visit or talk to representatives of local communities, the least that they could do is give the House their attention for the very short period that the Government have deigned to give Members to discuss their concerns this evening.
      Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Tony Baldry: I will in a moment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) raised the issue of resources, and was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer). I reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said, and I want to ask a further question. The Bill makes it clear, in many instances, that if people misbehave in accommodation centres they will be expelled. What will happen to them? Where will they go? Moreover, what local police resources will be used in relation to such people? If someone decides not to return to the Bicester accommodation centre, will Thames Valley police be notified? If they are notified, will they be expected to find and apprehend those individuals? If so, what assessment, if any, has the Home Office made—after all, the matter is one for that Department—of the effect on the resources of Thames Valley police?
      My information is that, as yet, not only has the Home Office not consulted other Departments or organisations such as the health service or education or social services in Oxfordshire, but there has been little if any consultation with Thames Valley police on the likely impact that the accommodation centre will have on their resources.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Tony Baldry: I will in a moment. If Ministers cannot even liaise with and consult organisations within their own Department, what hope is there for a sensible assessment of the demands on other areas of Government activity?
      Mr. David Cameron: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Tony Baldry: I should give way to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) first.
      Mr. Dawson: I am most grateful. Does the hon. Gentleman realise how tedious it is to hear the nimby
      766
      argument paraded over and over again? His party is supposed to support accommodation centres. I, with great qualms, support them. I would support the principle of accommodation centres coming to my constituency, and he should do so in relation to his.
      Tony Baldry: My constituents—and other constituents—find it deeply patronising that their concerns are described as nimbyist or, as some have described them, racist. They find that deeply offensive, as they are raising serious concerns. More than 10,000 of my constituents have petitioned the House sensibly and rationally to ask for a public inquiry into this matter. Why do they want that at the end of the planning process? They want it so that their concerns can be rationally and sensibly examined by an independent inspector. That is all that they ask for, sensibly and reasonably.
      The argument made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre would be much stronger if he could find a single organisation concerned with refugees and asylum seekers that supports his argument. But every organisation from Amnesty International to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux to the British Medical Association to the British Red Cross to the Refugee Council opposes the combination of size and location.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Tony Baldry: Not again. If the hon. Gentleman cannot get his mind around the policy concerns of such organisations, he is clearly not bothering to read the post that he receives each morning.
      The House needs to discuss other important groups of amendments. Ministers need to pay attention to how to meet the concerns of local residents. In addition to visiting committees, therefore, I hope that they will also consider the establishment of liaison committees and listen carefully to what has been said about the provision of services. When consultation takes place with local authorities, and if there is a public inquiry, can we have full, coherent and candid answers about what demands accommodation centres will place on local providers of local services?
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for trying to be as brief as possible, as I know that there is a desire to move on to other groups of amendments.
      With regard to new clause 3, I hope that it will provide reassurance if I say that we have already been thinking about the type of committee envisaged. With regard to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) about a possible liaison committee, we can take into account all sorts of models, and that type of committee is not necessarily ruled out. Clearly, it is important for the public and asylum seekers to have confidence in the policies and the way in which we carry them out. An independent body of the type envisaged by the new clause is one approach. I hope that that will provide reassurance, and that new clause 3 will not be pressed to a vote.
      With regard to amendment No. 30, we do not believe that it is sensible to rule out the option of contracting out the running of accommodation centres. Successful

      767
      examples of such contracts exist, arid contracting out is a familiar method of running some National Asylum Support Service accommodation and removal centres.
      Annabelle Ewing: The Minister mentioned that there were examples of successful contracting out. Can she list them?
      Ms Winterton: I am prepared to write to the hon. Lady with other examples.
      The important thing is public accountability, on which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) is right to focus. We want to ensure that the public and asylum seekers have confidence in the system. We also believe that the private running of an accommodation centre—to standards set by the Home Office—can deliver what we want; it can deliver public accountability. Whichever method is adopted, we want appropriate partnerships and liaison to be established with a range of bodies such as local, health and education authorities, charities and non-governmental organisations. They all have a role to play in that ongoing process. The whole point of a trial is to identify what works best. We therefore want the flexibility to do that within the trial period.
      We cannot accept the Conservative amendment No. 3, which would place a duty on us to provide all the facilities listed in clause 26 to residents of accommodation centre,. That also applies to the similar Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 40, 167 and 168. If we are to have a genuine trial, we should not have a fixed concept about what might work. We have already said that we are prepared to consider a different configuration of accommodation centres in response to concerns about 750 beds. A smaller centre may affect the types of services that it is practical or necessary for the Home Office to provide. We believe that it is prudent to be prepared for all eventualities. We would not want the Bill to place an obligation on the Home Office to arrange to provide something that it would not always necessarily be sensible for us to provide. I hope that hon. Members accept that that is why we do not want to be constrained by the amendments.
      Amendments Nos. 4 and 166, taken with amendments Nos. 3 and 40, would place a duty on us to provide leg 11 advice and representation to accommodation centre residents. As hon. Members said, we had a substantial debate on that in Committee and explained why it is unnecessary to take the power to provide legal advice to accommodation centre residents. Powers already exist in the Access to Justice Act 1999 to provide legal help via the Community Legal Service. They place a requirement on the Legal Services Commission to meet local needs. Powers in clause 93 enable the Home Office to fund organisations that provide advice to asylum appellants.
      A duty to provide legal advice and representation to accommodation centre residents is a different matter. Let me re-emphasise that we are committed to providing access to free, independent, quality legal advice to residents of accommodation centres. That advice will be provided and funded by the Legal Services Commission through on-site provision, local supply or a combination of the two. The precise arrangements, however, will depend on the location of each accommodation centre, but all centres will provide facilities for use by solicitors and advice agencies. It would be distinctly odd to place a duty
      768
      on the Secretary of State to provide legal advice to those in accommodation centres when other immigration legislation contains no equivalent duty for the generality of asylum seekers, even those who are detained at Oakington, for example.
      Mr. Vaz: There is obviously a difference between a power and a duty. Is my hon. Friend saying that she is satisfied that current legislation means that appropriate legal advice will be provided at each centre?
      Ms Winterton: Yes, I am, arid I hope that my comments have reassured hon. Members.
      Amendment No. 42 would delete subsection (2)(b) of clause 26, which enables us to make regulations requiring the manager of an accommodation centre to determine the amount of money to be provided to an accommodation centre resident. Hon. Members expressed their fears about that in Committee. I hope that I reassure them when I say that their fears are unfounded. If we contract out the operation of accommodation centres, there will be no question of a private sector manager making arbitrary decisions on the amount of cash paid to asylum seekers. Equally, there will be no question of a civil servant manager or a manager from the not-for-profit sector making arbitrary decisions. Clause 26(2)(b) enables a centre manager only to determine the amount of money in accordance with the regulations. The regulations will provide the safeguard because we will ensure that they do not give the centre manager the discretion to make arbitrary decisions.
      We also believe that amendment No. 43 is unnecessary. As we explained in Committee, administrative law requires the Secretary of State and the centre manager to act reasonably. That is implicit and enforceable. They will be able to impose residence conditions only in accordance with regulations subject to the draft affirmative procedure. On the length of time that people are required to be present in the accommodation centre in any 24-hour period, we said in Committee that we envisaged the 12 hours specified in the Opposition amendment tabled then to be at the upper end of the scale.
      As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the atmosphere in the centres is the key. We will provide a range of activities to enable asylum seekers to spend their time in the centres productively. There will be incentives to remain on site as well as requirements to be there. If we get it right, we hope that asylum seekers will recognise that what we are asking of them and what we are offering them is in their best interests.
      We also cannot accept amendments Nos. 133, 136 and 137. The whole asylum support regime is structured to enable us to treat asylum seekers and their dependants as a group. That is what the National Asylum Support Service currently does. Again, it would be distinctly odd for us to take a different approach in accommodation centres. I understand that hon. Members might think it unfair to evict the dependants of an asylum seeker from an accommodation centre because of a breach of conditions committed by the principal applicant, or vice versa. However, that is what happens under the Asylum Support Regulations 2000.
      The consequences of a breach of conditions for the family as a whole will be made clear to asylum seekers at the outset and they will be briefed about their

      769
      obligations. We do not think it unreasonable that the actions of one member of a family should have consequences for the rest of the group. That is what happens already and it would be odd if the regulations on accommodation centres were different.
      Mr. Peter Luff: On that point, will the hon. Lady give an assurance that a light touch will be used? It is possible that an asylum seeker will be in a remote rural location far from the accommodation centre and physically unable to return to it because of a lack of public transport, which would be no fault of theirs. Will sympathetic discretion be used such circumstances?
      Ms Winterton: Of course discretion will be used in all such circumstances. Such decisions would not be taken lightly.
      I hope that hon. Members agree that amendment No. 131 is unnecessary. I understand entirely the concern to ensure that asylum seekers have a right of appeal against any decision to withdraw support by requiring someone to leave a centre. We agree with that. As we explained in Committee, a right of appeal already exists by virtue of clause 45, which inserts new section 103 into the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It gives a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator against any decision to stop providing support under clause 15 or section 95 of the 1999 Act, or both.
      Mr. Malin: I am grateful to the Minister for her kind response on visiting committees. That is most encouraging. I shall not seek to press my other amendments to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 8

      COMPENSATION FOR DEPRECIATION OF PROPERTY VALUE
      'Compensation shall be paid to owners and landlords of dwelling houses for any depreciation in the value of such property caused by the establishment under section 14 of accommodation centres, in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973:.—[Tony Baldry.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Tony Baldry: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 28. in clause 14, page 8, line 42, after "persons", insert—
      'in locations suitable to the cultural and other needs of those to be accommodated.'.
      No. 6, in page 9, line 2, at end insert—
      '(3) No accommodation centre established under this section shall hold more than 200 persons.'.
      No. 1, in page 9, line 2, at end insert—
      '(4) An accommodation centre shall only be established after the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposed location is suitable to the needs of the persons to be accommodated therein'.
      770
      No. 29, in page 9, line 2, at end insert—
      '( ) Each accommodation centre shall hold a maximum of 250 people at any one time, except where expressly agreed between the Secretary of State and the relevant local authority.'.
      Tony Baldry: I hope to have the support of my hon. Friends so that I can press the new clause to a Division. I also hope that it will be possible to have a separate vote on amendments Nos. 6 and 1. I know that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench would welcome that.
      I note that amendment No. 6 was tabled by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who intervened on me earlier to accuse my constituents of being nimbyist. The amendment stipulates that no accommodation centre should hold more than 200 persons. I hope that when we vote on it, the hon. Gentleman will have the courage to support his decision to table it.
      On Second Reading and in Committee, Ministers made it clear on numerous occasions that accommodation centres are an experiment. Indeed, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) said:
      "As we have no experience of running such centres, we have no hard and fast view about different scales.
      Ahead of a trial, I have no idea about the answers. The Bill will give us the power to trial … The trial will allow us to find out what works, and we can proceed from that point."—[Official Report, Sianding Committee E, 7 May 2002; c. 74–75.]
      That was a fair acknowledgement by the Minister conducting the Bill through Committee that the Government are engaged in an experiment. There is no precedent for such an experiment in this country; indeed, there is no precedent anywhere in Europe. Although there are accommodation centres for asylum seekers elsewhere in Europe, none has anything like as many as 750 people living in it at any one time, as Ministers acknowledged in Committee.
      630 pm
      Mike Gapes: I have been listening at length to the hon. Gentleman's speeches, and they all come down to one point. He seems to think that urban areas, where services and facilities are already under pressure, and boroughs such as mine, which has more than 5,000 refugees, rather than the 750 that he is talking about, should continue to bear all the costs and pressures or the asylum system. As an MP representing an urban constituency, I think that his whole approach is one of nimbyism.
      Tony Baldry: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in his place when an earlier intervention on that point was made. If that is his reaction to my remarks, he clearly has not been listening to them. Furthermore, such interventions display considerable intolerance on the part of Labour Members. My first contribution to these proceedings lasted no longer than six minutes, but the hon. Gentleman seeks to give the impression that Conservative Members have been speaking at great length. I speak as a Member of Parliament who faces the prospect of an accommodation centre being sited in his constituency, and I believe that all my comments have been sensible and proportionate.
      If the hon. Gentleman thinks that being concerned about a liaison committee or interested in the centre's impact on the resources of the local police and health

      771
      service signifies nimbyism, he is not serving his own community very well. If he and his colleagues had been reading their post, they would know that eves y organisation from Amnesty International to the British Red Cross is opposed to the proposals. The comments made by the general secretary of the TGWU on the "Today" programme this morning, in which he said that the proposal is fundamentally flawed, clearly fell on deaf ears.
      I am conscious that there is not much time for this debate, so I hope that I can continue without further such interventions from Labour Members, who seem to feel that any sensible, constructive opposition or comment on the Bill can simply be dismissed as nimbyism. The experiment by the Government is having an impact on my constituents. That impact is not hypothetical or possible; it is immediate. In the days following the Government s announcement that the outskirts of Bicester may be the site of an accommodation centre for asylum seekers, I was visited in my surgery by constituents who had seen the sale of their home fall through.
      Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Tony Baldry: No, there is very little time and I want to make several comments.
      These were people coming up to the exchange of contracts who now found their property unsaleable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because the prospective purchasers had withdrawn. That situation is not hypothetical, but real.
      Mr. Luff: Labour Members are demonstrating rather appalling intolerance and an ignorance of reality. As my hon. Friend knows, in my constituency, where there is a foot and mouth disease burial site 300 yd from the proposed site of an accommodation centre for asylum centres, every one of the small number of houses affected is completely unsaleable. They are all on the market mid there are no takers for any of them. Some of those people desperately need to get on with their lives, and they cannot do so because of the Government. Would not it be right for the Government to buy those properties and then sell them when the market recovers?
      Tony Baldry: Yes.
      Dr. Brian Iddon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Tony Baldry: No. I want to make my speech.
      The state has decided, for whatever reason, that it wants to take action because it believes that there will be a greater good for the state as a whole, but in doing so it is having a direct impact on the lives of individuals and on the value of their property. In those circumstances, it must be right, in natural justice and in equity, for the state to compensate those individuals.
      When the M40 was built through my constituency, those affected by motorway noise were granted compensation. When, as a consequence of the change of flight paths from USAF Upper Heyford, aircraft noise increased substantially over a number of villages in my constituency, and it could be demonstrated that the value of people's properties had fallen as a consequence, the Ministry of Defence gave an ex gratia payment based on
      772
      the change in the value of the property. There was a clear recognition that, in the interests of national security and of the state, it was sensible to change the flight paths, but as a consequence of that action by the state, a number of individuals suffered and it was right and proper that the state compensated them.
      That depreciation in property value was not fictional, notional or imagined; any loss had to be determined and quantified by professional chartered surveyors acting on behalf of the claimants and by surveyors acting for the MOD. However, when a loss could be shown and agreed, compensation was made. I am not going as far as that in my new clause. The Land Compensation Act 1973 does not go so far as to say that there should be total compensation for any depreciation in the value of a property; it says that if the state decides to carry out certain works, householders should be compensated for the impact of those works on their property.
      Glenda Jackson: I offer what I hope will be comfort to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. He is rightly concerned with their anxiety that the value of their property will plummet if 750 asylum seekers are sited nearby. May I reassure them? London and the south-east, which carries by far the largest number of asylum seekers and refugees in the country, is an area in which property prices have risen to astronomical heights, and they continue to rise. It could well be that the siting of an accommodation centre on the outskirts of Bicester will be followed by a property boom.
      Tony Baldry: Such a fatuous comment will be met by my constituents with the reaction that it deserves. I extend to the hon. Lady a genuine invitation to my next constituency surgery so that she can put that point to them. I hope that she will have the courage to do so. It is easy to make cheap points in the House of Commons, but it will be different when she has to look families in the face and tell them that property prices in her constituency are going up, so the house sale for which they had been hoping for months and which has just fallen through is just tough luck. I hope that she will come to my constituency—she will be very welcome.
      Glenda Jackson: I am grateful, and I shall of course accept the hon. Gentleman's kind invitation—if he will accept an invitation from me to visit one of my advice surgeries and meet some of my constituents who are unable to find not only somewhere to buy, but somewhere to rent in this city, because property prices continue to rise.
      Tony Baldry: Of course I am happy—[Interruption] Of course I am happy to come to the hon Lady's constituency—indeed, I visited it on several occasions when I was a Minister for housing. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but let me remind the House that we are dealing with a serious matter that should be debated in an orderly manner.
      Tony Baldry: The hon. Lady's second point was something of a non sequitur, but as she has mentioned it, I shall ask her and the Minister a question arising from a point that was not made clear during the consultation with

      773
      local authorities. About 10 per cent. of asylum seekers have valid claims; therefore, on a six-month basis, about 75 individuals or families from a centre will be found to have a claim to remain in the UK. Is it the Government's intention that the local authority in which the centre is sited will have responsibility to accommodate those people? So far, the Government have given no explanation of such matters to local authorities or local people.
      To return to my central point, if there is no loss, there cannot be compensation. Compensation is possible only if there is a demonstrable statutory loss. I see no reason why the Government should resist the amendment, which is on all fours with existing legislation and precedents relating to compensation. It would be extremely perverse if compensation were possible in relation to every other Government activity, but, simply because accommodation centres are an experiment or trial, the Government were unwilling to grant compensation to householders who suffer real, not hypothetical, loss.
      The fact that the centres are to be established as a trial or experiment is all the more reason why there should be written into the Bill a statutory system whereby people may be granted compensation. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Government acknowledge that where the state intervenes for the benefit of the state but individuals lose as a consequence, it is right in natural justice and equity that those individuals are compensated.
      Mr. Dawson: That was the most appalling speech that I have heard in my five years as a Member of Parliament. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) asked whether I would go through the Lobby in support of amendment No. 6. I assure him that specially trained and built for speed and strength wild horses could not drag me through the Lobby to support the Tories against the Labour Government. Monkeys, if they sit at typewriters long enough, might eventually come up with a work—
      Mr. Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When an hon. Member has put his name to an amendment, is he not under some obligation to vote in accordance with that fact?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Dawson: I am happy to answer that point. The hon. Member for Banbury destroyed the argument by the way in which he introduced it into his speech.
      Although I have some sympathy with the proposal that accommodation centres should be as small as is feasible, and a great deal of sympathy with the notion that people should remain in them for as short a time as possible, it is vital that the House recognises the position described by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), wherein certain communities are under enormous pressure. There is therefore a great responsibility on every Member of Parliament to acknowledge that asylum seekers and people who want to come to this country should be made welcome. They are people of skill, intelligence and resilience whom we should welcome into our communities.
      774
      Rather than stand here and, as has already been done many times this afternoon, spout reasons why accommodation centres should not be established in various parts of the country, I say that they should be established throughout the country. I would welcome an accommodation centre in my constituency, and I think that my constituents would welcome it too.
      Mr. Malins: I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 6 and 1. I judge that my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) and for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who have been in their places for the whole debate, have throughout spoken on behalf of their constituents with great realism, sense, sensitivity and humanity. I am proud to be associated with each of them, with what they have said and with their approach to the problems.
      The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made accusations against my hon. Friends' attitudes to the size and location of accommodation centres. How wrong he is to do so. What does he say to the 10 respected organisations—international names; I will not run through them, but he knows who they are—that wrote to the Home Secretary on 3 May outlining concerns identical to those expressed by my hon. Friends? Does he say that those organisations are wrong? With all their experience, they wrote:
      "we are greatly concerned at both the locations of the eight potential sites for Accommodation Centres to house asylum seekers and the proposal that the four confirmed sites should house up to 750 people each."
      Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Malins: I will give way to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), because I know that he has been desperate to intervene.
      Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman not being a little disingenuous and deliberately confusing the issue of organisations that have legitimate concerns, shared by many of us, about the way in which asylum seekers are treated with the attitude taken by his hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), which is basically one of total opposition to the presence of any asylum seekers anywhere near any of his constituents?
      Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend's attitude is nothing of the sort. He has advanced good, sound arguments. If the hon. Member for Islington, North is saying that he has legitimate concerns about size and location, let us see whether he follows us into the Lobby in a few minutes' time. Despite his comments, I doubt that he will be able to do so.
      Mr. Luff: May I make it absolutely clear that my constituents would welcome the opportunity to share with the rest of the country the burden of asylum seekers? The problem is the manner in which the Government propose to do it. The diocese of Worcester, whose bishops are no supporters of the Conservative party, has said that it opposes the Government' proposals because the Churches cannot make their distinctive contribution to

      775
      making people welcome because of the concentration of numbers. We could more effectively make smaller groups of asylum seekers welcome in Worcester.
      Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend makes his point well. I shall be grateful for an opportunity to divide the House on amendment No. 6, when the time comes. That amendment relates entirely to accommodation centres not holding more than 200 persons.
      I need not go through the arguments. One of the tragedies of this place—frankly, it is a disgrace—is that at ten minutes to 7 tonight there will not be a chance for us to get on to vital debates on other matters. That saddens me—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary may say that from a sedentary position, but dozens of Labour and Conservative Back Benchers want to speak on those important issues. Suffice it to say that in Committee I inferred from the words of a number of Labour Back Benchers that they had great sympathy for my proposal that no accommodation centre should hold more than 200 or 250 people. I am looking at the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).
      Mr. Neil Gerrard: Do not put words in my mouth.
      Mr. Malins: I remember what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee, and I look forward to his joining us in the Lobby shortly.
      Mr. Gerrard: I wish to move an amendment, in a group of amendments that we will not reach, which would make significant changes to the Bill. If we had spent less time on futile debate, we would have reached it.
      Mr. Malins: I am sorry that we will not reach those amendments because the hon. Gentleman has a seriously good reputation in the field of asylum and refugees.
      Amendment No. 1 proposes that an accommodation centre should
      "only be established after the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposed location is suitable to the needs of the persons to he accommodated therein".
      I shall say little else, except to repeat the words of respected non-governmental organisations, which said in their letter of 3 May that situating centres
      "away from urban areas is likely to lead to isolation and potential institutionalisation."
      They went on to say:
      "There are…financial and social benefits from siting smaller Accommodation Centres in urban areas rather than as proposed."
      They also said that
      "smaller Centres in urban areas … are likely to blend more easily into the existing environment with consequent reduced tension among the resident population".
      It is vital that the Home Secretary listens not just to experts outside the House but to the members of the Opposition who are urging him to establish small centres in suitable areas and, equally importantly, many Labour supporters who, if they had a chance, would vote with us tonight.
      Mr. Allan: I shall briefly introduce amendments Nos. 28 and 29, which were tabled by my hon. Friends
      776
      and me and echo the concerns of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). We take seriously the concerns of people outside the House, who believe that smaller accommodation centres in appropriate locations would be more fitting—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary is right to say "Sheffield, Hallam" from a sedentary position; a good accommodation centre was set up during the Kosovan airlift at Folkwood school in a suburb of my constituency, allowing individuals access to the facilities of the city. The arrangement worked well, and local people felt so too.
      We are trying to be constructive. Appropriate accommodation centres can work, but we do not want the Government to go ahead with larger centres in inappropriate locations, only for Opposition Members to return to the House in two or three years' time to say "Told you so". I would rather not go through that painful experience; the centres should be sited appropriately from the outset. I hope that we will be able to have a separate vote on amendment No. 28, which refers to the appropriateness of the location. I, too, regret the fact that we have not had time to debate more groups of amendments.
      The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): We all accept that, as Members of Parliament, we are obliged to represent the views of our constituents in the House, but it is a great pity that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) spoke three times at length on the same issue—he does not want an accommodation centre in his constituency—which regrettably means that we have not reached the next group of amendments on which many Members wished to speak.
      Mr. Malins: Does the Minister accept that it is not three modest contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that have cost us the later debates but the Government's insistence, day after day, on driving matters through the House without giving us a proper chance to debate them?
      Beverley Hughes: I do not accept that for a moment. Opposition Members spent an hour debating the format of our proceedings and on three occasions the hon. Member for Banbury put his point of view.
      Annabelle Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
      Beverley Hughes: No, I shall make progress.
      The hon. Gentleman repeated the same points over and over, at the expense not of Ministers but of other Members.
      I must tell the hon. Member for Banbury that new clause 8 is unacceptable not only because it cuts across part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 and is unworkable but because it challenges some of the most fundamental principles of planning law. Part 1 requires compensation to be paid where physical factors arising from the use of public works cause depreciation in land value. Those factors are noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting and so on. I do not believe, and I do not think that anyone could possibly believe, that any of those factors will arise from the building of accommodation centres anywhere.

      777
      Part 1 is a remedy for people who suffer nuisance from a public development but cannot pursue a claim in the courts, as promoters of a scheme have statutory immunity from prosecution. To give compensation for depreciation caused by the mere existence of a normal development would cut across the principles of planning law. We therefore do not accept the intention behind the new clause, and even if we did, we would have to rewrite part 1 to deliver it.
      On the hon. Gentleman's points about consultation and involvement, my predecessor Lord Rooker agreed to visit sites before changes in ministerial responsibility were made.
      Tony Baldry: That is news to me.
      Beverley Hughes: It may be news to the Opposition, but it is true. I have made arrangements through my private office to implement my noble Friend's decision, and shall go to the hon. Gentleman's constituency in the next two or three weeks and talk to people there and in other locations.
      Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is very brave.
      Beverley Hughes: If I can face up to the Prison Officers Association, I can certainly face up to the hon. Member for Banbury and his constituents.
      Amendments Nos. 1 and 28 are a Trojan horse for the Opposition's argument that all accommodation centres should be in urban areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that we do not accept that premise. The National Asylum Support Service currently disperses asylum seekers to cluster areas. The top 10 locations—those receiving the highest numbers of asylum seekers—are Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield, Bradford, Nottingham, Leeds and Wolverhampton. We are not prepared to accept the premise that places with the most experience of accepting asylum seekers should continue to be the only ones that do so. Having said that, this is a trial and if the accommodation centres work as we expect, we will be willing to explore a variety of locations; indeed, we will want to do so.
      The other amendments deal with size. We have partly covered that issue and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Second Reading that we would proceed with a smaller accommodation centre. In terms of including a limit in the Bill—
      It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day] put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 408.

      Division No. 260]

      [7 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Barker, Gregory

      Amess, David

      Baron, John

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Beggs, Roy

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Bacon, Richard

      Blunt, Crispin

      Baldry, Tony

      Boswell, Tim

      778

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Liddell—Grainger, Ian

      Brady, Graham

      Lidington, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Burns, Simon

      Loughton, Tim

      Burnside, David

      Luff, Peter

      Burt, Alistair

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Butterfill, John

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Cameron, David

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cash, William

      Malins, Humfrey

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Maples, John

      Mates, Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Clappison, James

      Mercer, Patrick

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Collins, Tim

      Moss, Malcolm

      Conway, Derek

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Norman, Archie

      Cran, James

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Paice, James

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Paterson, Owen

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Pickles, Eric

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Prisk, Mark

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Randall, John

      Evans, Nigel

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Fallen, Michael

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Flight, Howard

      Ruffley, David

      Flook, Adrian

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Selous, Andrew

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Francois, Mark

      Simmonds, Mark

      Garnier, Edward

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Gibb, Nick

      Soames, Nicholas

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Goodman, Paul

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Spring, Richard

      Gray, James

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Grayling, Chris

      Steen, Anthony

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Streeter, Gary

      Greenway, John

      Swire, Hugo

      Grieve, Dominic

      Syms, Robert

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hammond, Philip

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hayes, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Heald, Oliver

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Viggers, Peter

      Hendry, Charles

      Walter, Robert

      Hermon, Lady

      Waterson, Nigel

      Hoban, Mark

      Watkinson, Angela

      Horam, John

      Whittingdale, John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Willetts, David

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Wilshire, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Key, Robert

      Yeo, Tim

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lansley, Andrew

      Dr. Julian Lewis and

      Leigh, Edward

      Mr. Desmond Swayne.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Alexander, Douglas

      Bailey, Adrian

      Allan, Richard

      Baird, Vera

      Allen, Graham

      Baker, Norman

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Banks, Tony

      Barnes, Harry

      779

      Barron, Kevin

      Cox, Tom

      Battle, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Beard, Nigel

      Crausby, David

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cruddas, Jon

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cummings, John

      Bell, Stuart

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Benn, Hilary

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Benton, Joe

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Berry, Roger

      Dalyell, Tam

      Best, Harold

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Betts, Clive

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Blackman, Liz

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      David, Wayne

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davidson, Ian

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Dean, Mis Janet

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dismore, Andrew

      Brake, Tom

      Dobbin, Jim

      Breed, Colin

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Brennan, Kevin

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Doran, Frank

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Doughty, Sue

      Dowd, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Drew, David

      Browne, Desmond

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bryant, Chris

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Edwards, Huw

      Burden, Richard

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Burgon, Colin

      Ennis, Jeff

      Burnett, John

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Burnham, Andy

      Farrelly, Paul

      Burstow, Paul

      Fisher, Mark

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Cairns, David

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Flint, Caroline

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Follett, Barbara

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Casale, Roger

      Foulkes, George

      Caton, Martin

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Cawsey, Ian

      Galloway, George

      Challen, Colin

      Gapes, Mike

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Chaytor, David

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Chidgey, David

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clapham, Michael

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Grogan, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hancock, Mike

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hanson, David

      Cooper, Yvette

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Corston, Jean

      Harvey, Nick

      Cotter, Brian

      Havard, Dai

      Cousins, Jim

      Healey, John

      780

      Heath, David

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McDonagh, Stobhain

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hendrick, Mark

      McDonnell, John

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McFall, John

      Heppell, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hesford, Stephen

      McIsaac, Shona

      Heyes, David

      McKechin, Ann

      Hill, Keith

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hodge, Margaret

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hoey, Kate

      McNulty, Tony

      Holmes, Paul

      MacShane, Denis

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hope, Phil

      McWalter, Tony

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Mann, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Marris, Rob

      Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Martlew, Eric

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Meale, Alan

      Jamieson, David

      Merron, Gillian

      Jenkins, Brian

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Miliband, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Moore, Michael

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Moran, Margaret

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Morgan, Julie

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Mountford, Kali

      Joyce, Eric

      Mudie, George

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Mullin, Chris

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Keetch, Paul

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Kelly, Ruth

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Kemp, Fraser

      Oaten, Mark

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

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Khabra, Piara S

      O'Neill, Martin

      Kidney, David

      Organ, Diana

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Owen, Albert

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Pearson, Ian

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Perham, Linda

      Lamb, Norman

      Picking, Anne

      Lammy, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Pike, Peter

      Laws, David

      Plaskitt, James

      Lazarowtez, Mark

      Pollard, Kerry

      Lepper, David

      Pond, Chris

      Leslie, Christopher

      Pope, Greg

      Levitt, Tom

      Pound, Stephen

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Linton, Martin

      Price, Adam

      Lloyd, Tony

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Love, Andrew

      Pugh, Dr John

      Lucas, Ian

      Purchase, Ken

      Luke, Iain

      Purnell, James

      Lyons, John

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      McCabe, Stephen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      McCafferty, Chris

      Rammell, Bill

      781

      Rapson, Syd

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Tami, Mark

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rendel, David

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigbn)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Todd, Mark

      Rooney, Terry

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Ross, Ernie

      Touhig, Don

      Roy, Frank

      Trickett, Jon

      Ruane, Chris

      Truswell, Paul

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Ryan, Joan

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Salmond, Alex

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Salter, Martin

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Tyler, Paul

      Sawford, Phil

      Tynan, Bill

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Vaz, Keith

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sheridan Jim

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Wareing, Robert N

      watts, David

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Webb, Steve

      Singh, Marsha

      Weir, Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Willis, Phil

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wilson, Brian

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

      Winntek, David

      Soley, Clive

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Southworth, Helen

      Wishart, Pete

      Squire, Rachel

      Wood, Mike

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Woodward, Shaun

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Worthington, Tony

      Stevenson, George

      Wray, James

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Younger—Ross, Richard

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Stringer, Graham

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mr. Phil Woolas.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    Clause 14

      ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRES
      Amendment proposed: No. 28, in page 8, line 42, after "persons", insert—
      'in locations suitable to the cultural and other needs of those to be accommodated.'.—[Simon Hughes.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 345.

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Grayling, Chris

      Allan, Richard

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Amess, David

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Greenway, John

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Grieve, Dominic

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Bacon, Richard

      Hammond, Philip

      Baker, Norman

      Hancock, Mike

      Baldry, Tony

      Harvey, Nick

      Barker, Gregory

      Hawkins, Nick

      Baron, John

      Hayes, John

      Barrett, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Beggs, Roy

      Heath, David

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hendry, Charles

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hoban, Mark

      Blunt, Crispin

      Holmes, Paul

      Boswell, Tim

      Horam, John

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Brady, Graham

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Brake, Tom

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Breed, Colin

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Burnett, John

      Keetch, Paul

      Burns, Simon

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

      Burnside, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Key, Robert

      Burt, Alistair

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Butterfill, John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Cameron, David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Lamb, Norman

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Laws, David

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Leigh, Edward

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Chidgey, David

      Liddell— Grainger, Ian

      Chope, Christopher

      Lidington, David

      Clappison, James

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Collins, Tim

      Loughton, Tim

      Conway, Derek

      Luff, Peter

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Cotter, Brian

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Cran, James

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Maples, John

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Doughty, Sue

      Mates, Michael

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Moore, Michael

      Evans, Nigel

      Moss, Malcolm

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Fabricant, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Fallon, Michael

      Oaten, Mark

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Flight, Howard

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Flook, Adrian

      Paice, James

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Paterson, Owen

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Pickles, Eric

      Francois, Mark

      Price, Adam

      Garnier, Edward

      Prisk, Mark

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Gibb, Nick

      Randall, John

      Gidley, Sandra

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Goodman, Paul

      Rendel, David

      Gray James

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      783

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigbn)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Ruffley, David

      Tredinnick, David

      Salmond, Alex

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tyler, Paul

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Viggers, Peter

      Selous, Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Waterson, Nigel

      Simmonds, Mark

      Watkinson, Angela

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

      Webb, Steve

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Weir, Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Whittingdale, John

      Wiggin, Bill

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Willetts, David

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Spring, Richard

      Willis, Phil

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wilshire, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Streeter, Gary

      Wintertori, Nicholas (Macclestield)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wishart, Pete

      Swayne, Desmond

      Yeo, Tim

      Swire, Hugo

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Syms, Robert

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Bob Russell and

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Alexander, Douglas

      Casale, Roger

      Allen, Graham

      Caton, Martin

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Challen, Colin

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Chaytor, David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Baird, Vera

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Banks, Tony

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Barnes, Harry

      Barron, Kevin

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Battle, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Beard, Nigel

      Clelland, David

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Clwyd, Ann

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bell, Stuart

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Benn, Hilary

      Cohen, Harry

      Bennett, Andrew

      Coleman, Iain

      Benton, Joe

      Connarty, Michael

      Berry, Roger

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Best, Harold

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Belts, Clive

      Cooper, Yvette

      Blackman, Liz

      Corston, Jean

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cousins, Jim

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cox, Tom

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Cranston, Ross

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Crausby, David

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cummings, John

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Browne, Desmond

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bryant, Chris

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Burden, Richard

      David, Wayne

      Burgon, Colin

      Davidson, Ian

      Burnham, Andy

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Cairns, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Denham Rt Hon John

      784

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dismore, Andrew

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Drew, David

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Joyce, Eric

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Edwards, Huw

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kelly, Ruth

      Farrelly, Paul

      Kemp, Fraser

      Fisher, Mark

      Khabra, Piara S

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kidney, David

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Flint, Caroline

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Flynn, Paul

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Follett, Barbara

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lammy, David

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Foulkes, George

      Lepper, David

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Leslie, Christopher

      Galloway, George

      Levitt, Tom

      Gapes, Mike

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Gerrard, Neil

      Linton, Martin

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lloyd, Tony

      Godsiff, Roger

      Love, Andrew

      Goggins, Paul

      Lucas, Ian

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Luke, Iain

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Lyons, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Grogan, John

      McCafferty, Chris

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McFall, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hanson, David

      McIsaac, Shona

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McKechia Ann

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Havard, Dai

      McNulty, Tony

      Healey, John

      MacShane, Denis

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Heppell, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hermon, Lady

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mann, John

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Marris, Rob

      Heyes, David

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hill, Keith

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Hodge, Margaret

      Martlew, Eric

      Hoey, Kate

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hood, Jimmy

      Meale, Alan

      Hope, Phil

      Merron, Gillian

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Miliband, David

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Miller, Andrew

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Moran, Margaret

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Morgan, Julie

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Irranca—Davies, Huw

      Mountford, Kali

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Mudie, George

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jamieson, David

      Munn, Ms Meg

      785

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Soley, Clive

      O'Hara, Edward

      Southworth, Helen

      O'Neill, Martin

      Squire, Rachel

      Organ, Diana

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Owen, Albert

      Stevenson, George

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Pearson, Ian

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Perham, Linda

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Picking, Anne

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pickthall, Colin

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Pike, Peter

      Stringer, Graham

      Plaskitt, James

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pollard, Kerry

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pond, Chris

      Tami, Mark

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pound, Stephen

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Tipping, Paddy

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Todd, Mark

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Touhig, Don

      Purchase, Ken

      Trickett, Jon

      Purnell, James

      Truswell, Paul

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Quinn Lawrie

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Rammell, Bill

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rapson, Syd

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Tynan, Bill

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Vaz, Keith

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wareing, Robert N

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Watts, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Rooney, Terry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ross, Ernie

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Roy, Frank

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Ryan, Joan

      Wilson, Brian

      Salter, Martin

      Winnick, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wood, Mike

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Woodward, Shaun

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Worthington, Tony

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wray, James

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Singh, Marsha

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Mr. Phil Woolas.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 9, line 2, at end insert—
      '(3) No accommodation centre established under this section shall hold more than 200 persons.'.—[Mr. Malins.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 338.

      Division No. 262]

      [7.27 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Allan, Richard

      Bacon, Richard

      Amess, David

      Baker, Norman

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Barker, Gregory

      786

      Baron, John

      Hoban, Mark

      Barrett, John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Beggs, Roy

      Holmes, Paul

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Horam, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Brady, Graham

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Brake, Tom

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Brazier, Julian

      Keetch, Paul

      Breed, Colin

      Key, Robert

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Burnett, John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burns, Simon

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Burnside, David

      Lamb, Norman

      Burstow, Paul

      Lansley, Andrew

      Burt, Alistair

      Laws, David

      Butterfill, John

      Letwin, Oliver

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Liddell—Grainger, Ian

      Cameron, David

      Lidington, David

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Loughton, Tim

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Luff, Peter

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Chidgey, David

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Chope, Christopher

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Clappison, James

      Malins, Humfrey

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Maples, John

      Collins, Tim

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Conway, Derek

      Mates, Michael

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Cotter, Brian

      Mercer, Patrick

      Cran, James

      Moore, Michael

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Doughty, Sue

      Norman, Archie

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      Oaten, Mark

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Evans, Nigel

      Peace, James

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Paterson, Owen

      Fabricant, Michael

      Pickles, Eric

      Fallen, Michael

      Price, Adam

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      Prisk, Mark

      Flight, Howard

      Pugh, Dr John

      Flook, Adrian

      Randall, John

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Francois, Mark

      Rendel, David

      Garnier, Edward

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Gibb, Nick

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Gidley, Sandra

      Ruffley, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Goodman, Paul

      Salmond, Alex

      Gray, James

      Sanders, Adrian

      Grayling, Chris

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Selous, Andrew

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Greenway, John

      Simmonds, Mark

      Grieve, Dominic

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

      Summer, Rt Hon John

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hammond, Philip

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hancock, Mike

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Harvey, Nick

      Spring, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hayes, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Heald, Oliver

      Streeter, Gary

      Heath, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hendry, Charles

      Swire, Hugo

      787

      Syms, Robert

      Weir, Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Whittingdale, John

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Willetts, David

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Willis, Phil

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Wilshire, David

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Tredinnick, David

      Wishart, Pete

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Yeo, Tim

      Tyler, Paul

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Viggers, Peter

      Younger—Ross, Richard

      Walter, Robert

      Waterson, Nigel

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Watkinson, Angela

      Dr. Julian Lewis and

      Webb, Steve

      Mr. Laurence Robertson.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Clelland, David

      Clwyd, Ann

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cohen, Harry

      Bailey, Adrian

      Coleman, Iain

      Baird, Vera

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Banks, Tony

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cooper, Yvette

      Barron, Kevin

      Corston, Jean

      Battle, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Beard, Nigel

      Cox, Tom

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cranston, Ross

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Crausby, David

      Bell, Stuart

      Cruddas, Jon

      Benn, Hilary

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Benton, Joe

      Cummings, John

      Berry, Roger

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Best, Harold

      Belts, Clive

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Blackman, Liz

      Dalyell, Tam

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      David, Wayne

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Davidson, Ian

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dawson, Hilton

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Dismore, Andrew

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Browne, Desmond

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Bryant, Chris

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Doran, Frank

      Burden, Richard

      Dowd, Jim

      Burgon, Colin

      Drew, David

      Burnham, Andy

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Cairns, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Edwards, Huw

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Caplin, Ivor

      Ennis, Jeff

      Casale, Roger

      Farrelly, Paul

      Caton, Martin

      Fisher, Mark

      Cawsey, Ian

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Challen, Colin

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Flint, Caroline

      Chaytor, David

      Flynn, Paul

      Clapham, Michael

      Follett, Barbara

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      788

      Foulkes, George

      Lepper, David

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Leslie, Christopher

      Galloway, George

      Levitt, Tom

      Gapes, Mike

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Linton, Martin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lloyd, Tony

      Gilroy, Linda

      Love, Andrew

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lucas, Ian

      Goggins, Paul

      Luke, Iain

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Lyons, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Grogan, John

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McFall, John

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hanson, David

      McKechin, Ann

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McNulty, Tony

      Havard, Dai

      MacShane, Denis

      Healey, John

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McWalter, Tony

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mallaber, Judy

      Heppell, John

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hermon, Lady

      Mann, John

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marris, Rob

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heyes, David

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hill, Keith

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hinchliffe, David

      Martlew, Eric

      Hodge, Margaret

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hoey, Kate

      Meale, Alan

      Hood, Jimmy

      Merron, Gillian

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hope, Phil

      Miliband, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Miller, Andrew

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Moran, Margaret

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Morgan, Julie

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mountford, Kali

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Mullin, Chris

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jamieson, David

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Hara, Edward

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Organ, Diana

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Owen, Albert

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Perham, Linda

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Picking, Anne

      Joyce, Eric

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pike, Peter

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Plaskitt, James

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pond, Chris

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pope, Greg

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pound, Stephen

      Kidney, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lammy, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Purchase, Ken

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Purnell, James

      789

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Stringer, Graham

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Rammell, Bill

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Rapson, Syd

      Tami, Mark

      Raynstord, Rt Hon Nick

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Todd, Mark

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Trickett, Jon

      Rooney, Terry

      Truswell, Paul

      Ross, Ernie

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Roy, Frank

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Ruane, Chris

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Ryan, Joan

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Salter, Martin

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Tynan, Bill

      Sawford, Phil

      Vaz, Keith

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wareing, Robert N

      Singh, Marsha

      Watts, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wilson, Brian

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Soley, Clive

      Wood, Mike

      Southworth, Helen

      Woodward, Shaun

      Squire, Rachel

      Worthington, Tony

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wray, James

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stevenson, George

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mr. Phil Woolas.

      Question accordingly negatived.

      Clause 15
      SUPPORT FOR DESTITUTE ASYLUM-SEEKER
      Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 9, line 6, after 'centre', insert—
      'for a maximum period of 10 weeks'.—[Mr. Letwin.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 401.

      Division No. 263]

      [7.40 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Burns, Simon

      Amess, David

      Burnside, David

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Butterfill, John

      Bacon, Richard

      Cameron, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Barker, Gregory

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Baron, John

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Beggs, Roy

      Chope, Christopher

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clappison, James

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Collins, Tim

      Blunt, Crispin

      Conway, Derek

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Cran, James

      Brady, Graham

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Brazier, Julian

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

      790

      Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fabricant, Michael

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Fallon, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Field, Mark (Cities of London)

      O'Brien, Stephen Eddisbury)

      Flight, Howard

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Flook, Adrian

      Paice, James

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Paterson, Owen

      Francois, Mark

      Pickles, Eric

      Garnier, Edward

      Prisk, Mark

      Gibb, Nick

      Randall, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Goodman, Paul

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

      Gray, James

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Grayling, Chris

      Ruffley, David

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Greenway, John

      Selous, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Simmonds, Mark

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hammond, Philip

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hayes, John

      Spring, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Steen, Anthony

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Streeter, Gary

      Hendry, Charles

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hoban, Mark

      Swire, Hugo

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Syms, Robert

      Horam, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Viggers, Peter

      Key, Robert

      Walter, Robert

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Waterson, Nigel

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Watkinson, Angela

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Whittingdale, John

      Lansley, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Letwin, Oliver

      Wiggin, Bill

      Liddell—Grainger, Ian

      Willetts, David

      Lidington, David

      Wilshire, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Luff, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Yeo, Tim

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Maples, John

      Dr. Julian Lewis and

      Mates, Michael

      Mr. Laurence Robertson.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Benn, Hilary

      Ainger, Nick

      Bennett, Andrew

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Benton, Joe

      Alexander, Douglas

      Berry, Roger

      Allan, Richard

      Best, Harold

      Allen, Graham

      Betts, Clive

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Blackman, Liz

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Bailey, Adrian

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Baird, Vera

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Baker, Norman

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Banks, Tony

      Brake, Tom

      Barnes, Harry

      Breed, Colin

      Barrett, John

      Brennan, Kevin

      Barron, Kevin

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Battle, John

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Beard, Nigel

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Browne, Desmond

      Beith, Rt Hon AJ

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Bell, Stuart

      Bryant, Chris

      791

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Farrelly, Paul

      Burden, Richard

      Fisher, Mark

      Burgon, Colin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burnett, John

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

      Burnham, Andy

      Flint, Caroline

      Burstow, Paul

      Flynn, Paul

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Follett, Barbara

      Cairns, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Galloway, George

      Casale, Roger

      Gapes, Mike

      Caton, Martin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cawsey, Ian

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Challen, Colin

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Chaytor, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      Chidgey, David

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clapham, Michael

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Goggins, Paul

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clelland, David

      Grogan, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hancock, Mike

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hanson, David

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Cooper, Yvette

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Corston, Jean

      Harvey, Nick

      Cotter, Brian

      Havard, Dai

      Cousins, Jim

      Healey, John

      Cox, Tom

      Heath, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Crausby, David

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cummings, John

      Heppell, John

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Hermon, Lady

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Heyes, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hill, Keith

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Hinchliffe, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hoey, Kate

      David, Wayne

      Holmes, Paul

      Davidson, Ian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Dawson, Hilton

      Hope, Phil

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Dobbin, Jim

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

      Doran, Frank

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Doughty, Sue

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Dowd, Jim

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Drew, David

      Irranca—Davies, Huw

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jamieson, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Jenkins, Brian

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      792

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Mountford, Kali

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Mudie, George

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Joyce, Eric

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Oaten, Mark

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Keetch, Paul

      O'Neill, Martin

      Kemp, Fraser

      Organ, Diana

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

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Owen, Albert

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Khabra, Piara S

      Pearson, Ian

      Kidney, David

      Perham, Linda

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Picking, Anne

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Pickthall, Colin

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Pike, Peter

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Plaskitt, James

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Pollard, Kerry

      Lamb, Norman

      Pond, Chris

      Lammy, David

      Pope, Greg

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Pound, Stephen

      Laws, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lepper, David

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Leslie, Christopher

      Price, Adam

      Levitt, Tom

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Pugh, Dr John

      Linton, Martin

      Purchase, Ken

      Lloyd, Tony

      Purnell, James

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Love, Andrew

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lucas, Ian

      Rammell, Bill

      Luke, Iain

      Rapson, Syd

      Lyons, John

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      McCabe, Stephen

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Rendel, David

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      McFall, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McKechin, Ann

      Rooney, Terry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Ross, Ernie

      McNulty, Tony

      Roy, Frank

      MacShane, Denis

      Ruane, Chris

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McWalter, Tony

      Ryan, Joan

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Salmond, Alex

      Mallaber, Judy

      Salter, Martin

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mann, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Marris, Rob

      Sawford, Phil

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Martlew, Eric

      Singh, Marsha

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Miliband, David

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

      Moore, Michael

      Soley, Clive

      Moran, Margaret

      Southworth, Helen

      Morgan, Julie

      Squire, Rachel

      793

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Tynan, Bill

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stevenson, George

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Watts, David

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Webb, Steve

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Weir, Michael

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stringer, Graham

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Tami, Mark

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Taylor, Pit Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Willis, Phil

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wilson, Brian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wishart, Pete

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Wood, Mike

      Tipping, Paddy

      Woodward, Shaun

      Todd, Mark

      Woolas, Phil

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Worthington, Tony

      Touhig, Don

      Wray, James

      Trickett, Jon

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Truswell, Paul

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Younger—Ross, Richard

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Mr. Ivor Caplin and

      Tyler, Paul

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 16

      ASYLUM-SEEKER: DEFINITION
      Amendment made: No. 214, in page 9, line 30, at end insert—
      '( ) he is hte United Kingdom,'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

    Clause 17

      DESTITUTION: DEFINITION
      Amendments made: No. 252, in page 10, line 6, at end insert "both".
      No. 253, in page 10, line 10, at end insert "both".— [Beverley Hughes.]

    Clause 21

      PERSON SUBJECT TO UNITED KINGDOM ENTRANCE CONTROL
      Amendment made: No. 256, in page 11, line 30, leave out from "centre" to "he" in line 32 and insert—
      'by virtue of section 23 or 27'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

    Clause 31

      EDUCATION: GENERAL
      Amendments made: No. 259, in page 16, line 38, after "school", insert—
      '(for which purpose a reference to the appropriate authority shall be taken as a reference ot the person (or persons) responsible for the provision of education at the accommodation centre)'.
      No. 260, in page 16, line 38, after "school,", insert—
      '( ) section 3294 of the Education Act 1996 (c.56) (review or assessment of educational needs at request of responsible body) shall have effect as if—

      (i) an accommodation centre were a relevant school for the purposes of that section,

      (ii) a child for whom education is provided at an accommodation centre under section 26(1)(f) were a registered pupil at the centre, and

      (iii) a reference in section 329A to the responsible person in relation to an accommodation centre were a reference to any person providing education at the centre under section 26(1)(f),'.—[Beverley Hughes.]

    Clause 33

      "PRESCRIBED": ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
      Amendments made: No. 215, in page 17, line 41, at end insert—
      '( ) include consequential, transitional or incidental provision.'.
      No. 257, in page 18, line 9, leave out "and".
      No. 258, in page 18, line 10, at end insert—
      ', and
      ( ) section 35.'.—[Beverley Hughes.]
      Mr. Gerrard: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that we were unable to reach the amendments in my name, starting with amendment No. 83, before 7 o'clock. Although Members of this House might understand why that happened, it will be difficult for people outside this place to understand why we have failed to debate what is perhaps the issue of most interest to those looking at the Bill. Is it possible for you to try to avoid this in future, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I appreciate that you do not control the timetable motion, but when it is obvious that there are matters of interest to be debated, could you discuss the matter with the parties involved so that we can reach important amendments?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is not a role for the Chair in this regard. These matters are decided either through the usual channels or by a motion before the House that is discussed and agreed, as happened this afternoon. While I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, who was not able to bring his amendments before the House, I am afraid that it was out of my hands.

    New Clause 14

      APPEAL FROM WITHIN UNITED KINGDOM: UNFOUNDED HUMAN RIGHTS OR ASYLUM CLAIM
      '(1) This section applies to au appeal under section 66(1) against an immigration decision on an application which is made wholly or partly on either or both of the grounds specified in section 77(4)(a) and (b).

      (2) A person who is in the United Kingdom may not bring an appeal to which this section applies in reliance on section 77(4) if the Secretary of State certifies that the application mentioned in subsection (1) above is clearly unfounded in so far as made on the grounds specified in section 77(4)(a) or (b) (or both).

      795

      (3) A person who is in the United Kingdom may not bring an appeal to which this section applies in reliance on section 77(4) if the Secretary of State certifies that—

      (a) it is proposed to remove the person to a country of which he is not a national or citizen, and

      (b) there is no reason to believe that the person's rights under the Human Rights Convention will be breached in that country.

      (4) In determining whether a person in relation to whom a certificate has been issued under subsection (3) may be removed from the United Kingdom, the country specified in the certificate is to be regarded as—

      (a) a place where a person's life and liberty is not threatened by reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and

      (b) a place from which a person will not be sent to another country otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention.

      (5) Where a person in relation to whom a certificate is issued under this section subsequently brings an appeal under section 66(1) while outside the United Kingdom, the appeal shall be considered as if he had not been removed from the United Kingdom.'.—[Mr. Blunkett.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Blunkett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 15—Appeal from within United Kingdom: unfounded human rights or asylum claim: transitional provision.
      Government amendments Nos. 224 to 227.
      Amendment No. 13, in clause 80, page 44, line 19, leave out Clause 80.
      Government amendment No. 228.
      Amendment No. 7, in page 44, line 21, leave out—
      'the Secretary of State or an immigration officer'
      and insert "an adjudicator".
      Amendment No. 14, in page 44, line 21, leave out—
      'Secretary of State or an immigration officer'
      and insert—
      'adjudicator or an Immigration Appeal Tribunal'.
      Amendment No. 8, in page 44, line 26, leave out—
      'the Secretary of State or the immigration officer'
      and insert "an adjudicator".
      Amendment No. 15, in page 44, line 26, leave out—
      'Secretary of State or the immigration officer'
      and insert—
      'adjudicator or the Immigration Appeal Tribunal'.
      Government amendment No. 229.
      Amendment No. 9, in page 44, line 29, leave out—
      'the Secretary of State or the immigration officer'
      and insert "an adjudicator".
      Amendment No. 16, in page 44, line 29, leave out—
      'Secretary of State or the immigration officer'
      and insert—
      'the adjudicator or the Immigration Appeal Tribunal'.
      Government amendments Nos. 230 and 231.
      Amendment No. 155, in page 44, line 32, leave out—
      'the Secretary of State or an immigration officer'
      and insert "an adjudicator".
      Amendment No. 170, in page 44, line 34, leave out "or matter".
      Amendment No. 171, in page 44, line 37, leave out "should" and insert "could reasonably".
      Amendment No. 172, in page 44, line 40, leave out—
      'would have been permitted or required to raise'
      and insert "could reasonably have raised".
      Amendment No. 173, in page 44, line 43, leave out "or matter".
      Amendment No. 156, in page 44, line 44, leave out—
      'the Secretary of State or an immigration officer'
      and insert "an adjudicator".
      Amendment No. 174, in page 45, line 1, leave out "or matter".
      Government amendment No. 232.
      Amendment No. 175, in page 45, line 3, leave out "or matter".
      Amendment No. 157, in page 45, line 4, leave out—
      'the Secretary of State or an immigration officer'
      and insert "an adjudicator".
      Amendment No. 176, in page 45, line 5, leave out "should" and insert "could reasonably".
      Amendment No. 177, in page 45, line 5, leave out "or matter".
      Amendment No. 178, in page 45, line 7, leave out from "section" to end of line 8.
      Amendment No. 158, in page 45, line 9, leave out—
      'the Secretary of State or an immigration officer'
      and insert "adjudicator".
      Amendment No. 179, in page 45, line 10, leave out "or matter".
      Amendment No. 159, in page 45, line 12, leave out—
      'the Secretary of State or an immigration officer'
      and insert "adjudicator".
      Amendment No. 180, in page 45, line 15, leave out "or matter".
      Amendment No. 181, in page 45, line 18, leave out subsection (6).
      Government amendments Nos. 233 to 236, 245, 246, 244, 247, 242 and 243.
      Mr. Blunkett: We should pause for a moment to determine what it is we are trying to achieve, not only with the changes in the Bill, but in terms of the appeals system. We are trying to ensure, first, that those who have a legitimate claim that their life, liberty and well-being are being threatened are able to make such a claim in this country and have that considered, as we said earlier this evening, speedily and fairly.
      At the moment, the volume of claims in this country by those who are subsequently not allowed to remain—because, through the adjudication and appeals system, their claim is turned down—is so substantial that it clogs up the legitimate system for dealing with first decisions and appeals, which, frankly, is grinding to a standstill.

      797
      The amount of resource that has been allocated to the system, including support, and the prolonged nature of the way in which the appeals system works means that there is a danger that those who have a legitimate right to be here under the asylum system, as opposed to another form of migration policy, are in danger of being overlooked. We need to concentrate on the objective, which is, rightly, to provide for those who are genuinely at risk.
      There is all-party support for this. On Second Reading, the shadow Home Secretary put it very well, when he said that he shared the objective of ensuring
      "the rapid, effective admission of refugees fleeing dreadful persecution and the equally rapid and effective removal of those seeking to use this as opposed to other, legitimate means to enter the country, getting round rather than facing the immigration rules."
      I agree with that, as I think most people would. We need a system that works on that basis.
      Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend is correct to say that there is agreement on the objective, but he referred to the prolonged nature of the appeals system. In order to deal with that prolonged nature, surely it is necessary to have a robust analysis of the reasons for it. Has that been done?
      Mr. Blunkett: Yes, it has. Many of the issues relating to the length of the procedure were outlined in the White Paper on 7 February, which is why we proposed an end-to-end review, starting with the question of induction and reporting, through to the existing dispersal of the new accommodation centres and to the removal provision, as well as a reassessment of the whole appeals process.
      On Second Reading, I said that we were not satisfied that we had yet made sufficient progress in relation to the nature of appeals. The multiple opportunities for judicial review that exist—I remember spelling them out on Second Reading—lead to layer upon layer of delay. It is a question not only of the application of the resource that should be going into an assessment of the appeals that are made by those who have escaped from death and torture; there is also a diversion of expertise because it is not simply the resource that has to be applied.
      We are doubling the number of people going through the adjudication system and we have massively increased the number of adjudicators in the last year alone. We have increased the staff of the immigration and nationality directorate by about 4,500 over the last two years and we are dealing with the largest number of new applicants currently in Europe, including Germany.
      8 pm
      It is not that we should not be taking, processing or granting the right to be here for those who have a legitimate claim. It is right for us to take a substantial number of those entering Europe, but we must be able to deal with claims fairly and properly. The shadow Home Secretary had a good point on Second Reading when he related this to Europewide objectives. He said:
      "It would be practical and useful to have a general agreement across Europe that when asylum applicants come from a safe country…they should return to the safe country from which they started their travels to have their application processed there."—[Official Report, 24 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 359–64.].
      798
      On Thursday in Luxembourg, at the Justice and Home Affairs Council, and at the Seville Council the week after, we will promote the idea of rapid improvement and change so that we can get a grip Europewide, collaboratively rather than competitively, on what needs to be done. We need to deal with asylum shopping, which is causing real difficulty, and on which we appear to be the last stop.
      Mr. Gregory Barker: Under the Home Secretary's criteria, do safe countries include all the applicant countries to the European Union?
      Mr. Blunkett: No, there is no list at present, because we need to be clear that anyone who is to be returned under the category of a clearly unfounded claim would not have been at risk in any of the countries that they passed through to get here. We are talking about two categories: clearly unfounded, when people produce no evidence of having been at risk or that the country from which they came was unsafe for them; and the category of those who—there has been considerable debate about this in this country for some time—have not made a claim in any of the countries through which they have passed, where their asylum claim would have been quite legitimate and would have been heard in the same way, although not under precisely the same rules and processes, as in this country.
      It is crucial that we are able to deal with those two categories sensibly and sensitively, We need to ensure that people whose claim is certified as clearly unfounded or those who have come through European countries where they would not have been at risk but where they failed to make a claim—so it could be presumed that they were heading for Britain for reasons other than that their life and well-being were at risk—are not returned through the undue use of Executive power. That is why it will be open to them to make an appeal against that certification under judicial review. Obviously, judicial review will establish a set of criteria in relation to the countries in Europe through which such people have passed, to determine whether those countries can be regarded as safe under the terms of the European convention on human rights and whether it is therefore appropriate to return people to them.
      If, when we get these changes into statute, certain countries have been allowed into the European Union and have been seen to be providing all the necessary safeguards, it will be ridiculous if the regulations continue to debar us from doing an automatic return to them. Because it would be wrong to have a white list, safe countries must be determined on the evidence provided and in a way that ensures that safeguards are in place.
      There is a wider issue—obviously, the Opposition will raise this, and I would have to be very silly not to pick it up, because there is a clear theme running here—concerning whether the assessment of countries is sufficiently clear or rapid. If it is not—which we do not accept—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

      799
      available evidence. It is important to put that on the table immediately, because no one should get the impression that we are going to put people at risk.
      Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary has anticipated that we strongly oppose the new clauses and will seek to divide the House on them later. I do not understand how the Labour party has completely changed its policy over the past few years. In the run-up to the 1997 election, the Home Secretary's predecessor said that removing people before they appeal undermines justice. What has changed? His own figures—validly applauded by himself—show that the rate of making decisions is getting faster, appeals are being held in record numbers and the removal rate of failed applicants has increased. If the system is improving, which we welcome, why is there suddenly a need to do things that many people in the House and elsewhere find thoroughly obnoxious and morally reprehensible?
      Mr. Blunkett: It would be obnoxious and reprehensible if we were to return people to regimes that put them at risk or if we did not give them a clear opportunity to make a claim in a legitimate European country, because they wanted to come to Britain. We have to ask why people want to come to Britain. Is it to escape death or torture or because of particular benefits to be found here; or should they be claiming through the new economic migration routes, because they want to work here? Given the number of people who fail to make a valid claim right through the appeals process, there are clearly many who want to work here and are not coming to escape death or torture. That is a simple fact.
      The electorate do not fully understand why people who have crowded through the rest of Europe have not chosen to exercise a claim there, even though their reason for being there was escape. Asylum is not a matter of whether people would rather be here. It is fair dos if people really want to be here because they have learned our language over the internet or have friends or family here. Those people should apply through the other routes, many of which we are just opening up in new ways. That is a different matter from facing death or torture.
      We need sensible ways of dealing with the matter, especially if we are to open new routes through the United Nations, so that people can claim out of country rather than clandestinely making it through the tunnel or on the ferries or coming through airports with false documentation, which is what many do. Many others make an in-country claim after having been here for a substantial time, sometimes on human rights grounds, having made no such claim at the time of arrival but having decided that it will help them stay. We all know that to be true, because we all see it all the time in our constituency surgeries.
      The answer to the hon. Gentleman's direct question is that unfounded claims massively clog up our ability to use the extra staff and resources that we have provided fairly and properly, thereby negating the investment that we have put in. People out there think that we are crackers, and if they think that, they will not warm to the other things that we are saying about tackling prejudice and racism. We need to build trust in the system, so that people welcome warmly those whom they know to have been facing death or persecution.
      I am trying to develop a system that does not involve a white list, but which has some common sense built in and which includes proper safeguards for those who
      800
      genuinely face persecution. That is why there is the right to review and to challenge the decision taken on whether a person's life and liberty is threatened by reason of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether certification should therefore have been made. If those points prove true and the life or well-being of the person concerned is threatened because of that, they would not of course be returned, and their appeal would be heard in this country. The same is true of all who present some founded claim the moment that they arrive, or who have some legitimate proof that they were at threat or that their country of origin had presented a threat in recent times.
      I accept that we were fairly slow on the uptake in respect of Zimbabwe, but we did not put people's lives at risk. We halted the returns and listened to what was being said, including by my own party and the Opposition parties. I mention my party because I was touched by the deep concern expressed earlier today by members of the Conservative party for my well-being within my own ranks. It was clear that I had their support in taking into account Labour party views, and that certainly made me feel much better.
      The second criterion is that we will not send someone back to a place from which they will be sent to another country, other than in accordance with the refugee convention. In other words, we will not return people in circumstances in which they will not enjoy the protection of the 1951 convention. Those safeguards are built in; we are simply trying to turn away people who have no right to be here, and to send them back even in cases where we will grant them an out-of-country appeal.
      Simon Hughes rose—
      Mr. Michael Weir rose—
      Mr. Blunkett: To varying degrees, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Finland have policies that allow out-of-country appeals to be heard. They are not countries that anyone would describe as illiberal, albeit that the changes are being introduced in Denmark are draconian. However, I am talking about the situation before the recent parliamentary debate and the legislation that was passed by the Danish Assembly.
      Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary knows that we support the introduction of resettlement programmes and other routes into the country for people who are genuine economic migrants. We welcome that initiative and have said as much publicly and privately. However, does he accept the view of British courts that out-of-country appeals are in many cases almost valueless? The reality is that many people do not appeal, and in effect the system is making it impossible for many to do so. The system appears intentionally to be driving down appeals. The Home Secretary and I seemed to agree in an earlier debate that between 40 and 50 per cent. of all claims in the past 10 years were accepted under one heading or another. It is surely wrong, therefore, for significant numbers—at least one in five—to be forced out of the country before their cases, which might eventually be accepted, can be determined here.
      Mr. Blunkett: That would be true if they were at risk in the country to which they return, but I am desperately

      801
      keen to ensure that they are not so at risk. If they have a personal reason for wanting to pursue the appeal, we should facilitate their doing so. It is a lot easier to do so now than it was even five years ago, thanks to the internet and other communication methods, as well as to more traditional ways. Incidentally, it is not uncommon for paper appeals to be heard in circumstances where a person cannot attend an appeal in this country or in other European countries. Lawyers are familiar with such situations.
      A person may well not appeal in a country that operates an out-of-country appeal because they recognise that they have no ground for an appeal and that it will prove unsuccessful. So long as legal support, asylum support and accommodation is available, and so long as another appeal is available somewhere along the line, people are inclined to use it. Indeed, the fact is that many lawyers are inclined to encourage them to do so. That is why our process is so prolonged. As I have said, that distracts from those who have a legitimate right to have their appeal thoroughly aired.
      8.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and I had not a disagreement but a useful exchange on Second Reading about the percentage who stay. I agreed that if we added in the cases of exceptional and indefinite leave to remain, his figures were correct, so we eventually concluded that we were both right. Indeed, I remember the exchange well. However, the trouble is that exceptional leave had to be used in cases where everyone accepted that the country in question was not safe to return to. In Afghanistan—I mention it purely as an example—a great deal of heartache arid human and military resources, have been expended to re-establish safety and civilisation and to put Afghans back in charge of their country. However, what is to say that such people will still not attempt to come to this country? Some 9,600 have done so in the past year. Exceptional leave to remain was granted, even if the claim was not accepted, because we did not wish to return people.
      Of course, the point is rapidly coming where we can encourage and support people in returning to Afghanistan—with the help, I hope, of the rest of Europe. We can then ask whether it is legitimate to suggest that they remain at risk from the Taliban, given that the Taliban no longer run the country. Such simple questions must be asked and answered, so that people who are genuinely fleeing persecution can be helped. I do not want to over-egg the point, and I know that many hon. Members will want to intervene, not least to clarify certain matters. However, in terms of returning people to European countries from whence they came, proper certification, judicial review and establishing which countries can legitimately be regarded as safe constitute a reasonable set of presumptions through which to get the matter right.
      Mr. Weir: I understand the Secretary of State's argument, but his concentrating on countries rather than individual cases gives me cause for concern. A particular country could be safe by and large, but it might not be so for certain individuals. A current example is India. By and
      802
      large, someone returning to India may be relatively safe, but that is not necessarily true if they originate from Kashmir, for example. In concentrating on the country rather than the individual, the danger is that injustice might be done.
      Mr. Blunkett: If a person can provide any evidence whatsoever that clearly shows a founded fear—within the terms that I have described, and with which we are all familiar—their claim would still be heard. They would not simply be returned. However, India is not a good example. We are discussing not countries that are threatening each other with military conflict, but people who are persecuted and threatened with death or torture by a particular state or—under the wider definition of the 1951 convention—other organised groups that put them at risk.
      Fiona Mactaggart: I appreciate that a person could make an appeal from overseas that deals with the merits of the case, but I am concerned about judicial oversight of the process of certification. Many people find judicial review an expensive, alien and complicated process, to which they do not necessarily have easy access. Is there not a way to ensure some oversight of the certification process? I have a lot of confidence in the Secretary of State, but not in every possible holder of that office. I am concerned that the certification process could be misused in such a way that someone who is genuinely in fear of persecution might not have their right to asylum protected.
      Mr. Blunkett: Given the long-standing and deep interest that my hon. Friend has in those issues and her knowledge of them, I take seriously what she says. We would all wish to ensure that the initial decision—the certification—is carried oui by professionals trained for the job, and that the possibility of review is readily available. I envisage that on issues relating to the nature of the risk in a particular country, we will wish to facilitate a rapid testing of the initial decision. We will also wish to be able to test the situation further, following any changes in that country. We are keen to establish a pattern that will be checked by the judiciary on certification to provide us with a base on which to make common-sense decisions. People will then know that the system is fair and credible.
      The same is true of returning people to other European countries. In the end, a sensible bilateral agreement with those countries, as part of a longer-term revision of the Dublin agreement, must be the way forward. I will take every step possible, after next Sunday's concluding election in France, to do that. The interim Interior Minister has shown a willingness to achieve that aim and our position will be strengthened by the vote tonight. The interim Minister accepts entirely the rule of law and has written to me to indicate that he accepts the spirit of the new clauses and the way we are proceeding. Some tough negotiations will be necessary, but to have the ability to return people to France—we have been able to return almost 6,000 people who came for other purposes but did not claim asylum—makes sense.
      We return almost 6,000 people a year, as I have said before—including during the question and answer session on the White Paper—but we do not return those who mention the words "asylum claim" when they hit our turf, even though they might have just come from France or

      803
      Belgium and did not claim asylum there. We are trying to get the position right in the way that the Danes and the Germans have managed to get it right. Other countries are also keen to achieve that. The problem needs to be seen in the context of bilateral and multilateral agreements across Europe, with us taking a lead rationally and sensibly, instead of clamping down unacceptably as Denmark has, which has led to great disquiet and social uncohesion—if there is such a word.
      Lynne Jones: Will one of the proposals that my right hon. Friend puts to the new French Government be an agreement that UK immigration officers should visit places such as Sangatte and interview those people who are attempting to reach this country as asylum seekers, so that their claims can be assessed there?
      Mr. Blunkett: As part of bilateral and multilateral Europewide agreements, I would not rule out the use of our immigration officers and support staff working on other national territories, but I do not wish to be tempted into discussing what might be agreed for Sangatte, because that might start some hares running that I could do without. I have not even started negotiating on Sangatte, despite the Catholic weekly magazine and the interview with the interim Social Affairs Minister that led the Leader of the Opposition to write an intemperate article in the Daily Mail that presumed I had already given all my cards away. In fact, I am trying my best to strengthen my hand tonight with a few aces and I hope that the Opposition parties will assist me in doing so.
      In the end, we want Sangatte closed under proper procedures that do not result in people on the streets of Calais and surrounding areas. We do not want people trying to get here in, on or under trains, or by other routes across the channel. We want people to come here fairly, under Europewide agreements that allow us to assess and return them if that is the sensible approach. That is what I will suggest on Thursday in Luxembourg, and in that spirit I ask the House to support the new clauses and the associated amendments.
      Mr. Letwin: I welcome what has been a slow but steady acclimatisation on the part of the Home Secretary to the merits of the argument that we began making about eight months ago—that the resuscitation of the bilateral agreement and, as far as possible, multilateral agreements that work is key to resolving the chaos of the asylum system. He has even moved a little further today than in the past few weeks, and that is very welcome. We want to strengthen his hand, and he is right to say that some parts of new clauses 14 and 15—the meat before us tonight—will have that effect, or at least seek to achieve it.
      New clause 14(3) and (4) have that intention and are welcome. New clause 15(2), (4) and (5) also seek to achieve that effect. If I have understood the articulation of those subsections correctly, they relate precisely to the case in which a person comes to the UK having most immediately been in a country other than their country of origin. In the example of France, the provisions would allow the Home Secretary, if he is equipped with the appropriate bilateral or multilateral agreement, to remove the person back to that safe country without the possibility of appeal. That is clearly an appropriate legislative underpinning for the resuscitation of the 24-hour rule that
      804
      obtained in the bilateral agreement while it was in force, and we support it as a necessary consequence of our long-term argument in favour of the resumption of such an agreement. On that point, we are not one iota apart from the Home Secretary.
      As I mentioned when we debated the initial question of the recommittal of the new clause to Committee, the problem that we face is that the Home Secretary has ingeniously allied the subsections that I just mentioned to other subsections—new clause 14(2) and new clause 15(1) and (3). Those subsections are about something different. They have the intention that the Home Secretary—which in this case means a rather junior official acting on behalf of the Home Secretary—should be able to make the judgment that a particular application is "unfounded". It is extraordinarily difficult to know how the official in question will make the decision that a claim is unfounded. By its very character, the decision is difficult to make.
      In his remarks on this group, the Home Secretary mentioned frequently the example of a case in which the person presents no evidence at all. In such a case, I accept that it is relatively easy to decide that a claim is unfounded. When people who wander in and claim asylum are asked for evidence that they are subject to persecution and are unable to say anything at all, in any language, that might suggest that they have ever been or would ever be subject to persecution, I am bound by logic to accept that their claims would be, in any ordinary sense, unfounded.
      8.30 pm
      However, the number of such claims is, of course, minimal. Most of the people whom we are discussing in connection with the subsections will have said something in defence of their claims. They may not have said very much, or been very articulate, and they may have spoken about countries that, on the whole, are not very dangerous. Yet they undoubtedly will have said something, and the subsections to which I referred will call on junior officials to make the judgment that their claims are utterly unfounded, when such judgments might otherwise have fallen to an adjudicator on appeal.
      The Home Secretary sought to counter what he suspected would be one limb of my argument when he spoke about the advisory committee that he wants to establish. That committee will decide whether the country in question might be dangerous.
      I welcome the Home Secretary's idea of an advisory committee, although it does not go far enough. I do not accept that the present system of country risk assessment is merely in need of oversight by an advisory committee. That oversight is welcome, but the present system of country assessment is woefully and intrinsically deficient. I do not believe it likely that any Government agency will ever be able to conduct country risk assessments with the speed and confidence necessary to allow a junior official to decide that a claim is wholly unfounded, and to do so with the conviction required to sustain judicial review, among other things.
      If the Home Secretary wants new clause 14(2) or new clause 15(1) and (3) to have any chance of sustaining themselves under judicial review, he will need to move to genuinely independent country risk assessment, at the very least. Even with that, there is a real question about

      805
      whether it is proper for a junior official to decide whether a claim is unfounded, and to force the person involved back to the country from which he or she came—if, indeed, that is possible. That person would then have to conduct an appeal from that country. If the junior official makes an error, I have the gravest reservations about whether the case could be brought to a just conclusion.
      The Opposition face a great difficulty, therefore. We want to back the Home Secretary in some subsections of the new clauses. Those provisions are necessary and safe, and there is no question that returning a person to France, Denmark or any EU country, for example, is anything but a perfectly legitimate act for the British state. It runs no risk of compromising that person's life or liberty. However, by the same token, we want to resist new clause 14(2) and new clause 15(1) and (3). The Home Secretary has so designed the new clauses as to ensure that we cannot achieve both desires simultaneously.
      I suspect that the matter will be pressed to a Division by Liberal Democrat Members. If so, we will vote with the Government and against the Liberal Democrats, although we will have to hold our noses over the subsections of which we disapprove. We will seek to engage the interest of our noble Friends in another place to disentangle new clause 14(2) and new clause 15(1) and (3) from those other provisions with which we agree.
      I fear that that will lead, yet again, to debate and discussion taking place between Members of the two Houses. That is not, I think, one of the Home Secretary's favourite occupations, but I see no other way to make progress. I am determined that we should give the Home Secretary the support that he deserves in regard to those provisions that are right and which make it possible to imagine that bilateral agreements will come hack into play. However, I intend to preserve our determination to avoid, if we can, compromising improperly the safety of individuals through those subsections that pose a threat to their safety.
      Mr. Gerrard: I shall make a brief contribution to the debate. I understand the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the way in which the process is sometimes dragged out deliberately by advisers and lawyers who know from the start that victory in a case is unlikely. Those of us who deal with asylum cases will be familiar with those instances in which atrocious advice is deliberately given with no other aim than to drag the process out. We all see such cases, and I understand my right hon. Friend's concern about them.
      A proposal similar to the one in the new clause was contained in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. I remember the debates on that legislation, in which we discussed proposals from the then Home Secretary that would have allowed people with manifestly unfounded cases to be sent back to the countries from which they had arrived. The proposals then allowed those people to mount appeals from those countries.
      In the 1996 debates, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the shadow Home Secretary. His view as to whether the proposed course of action was right was rather different then. Some of the concerns raised about the proposals in the 1996 Act are being raised again about the provisions in the new clauses.
      806
      We can tell people removed to a third country that they have a right of appeal from that country, but we cannot guarantee that that person will be allowed to stay in that third country until an appeal is heard. It is quite possible that they will be sent on somewhere else, or back to where they came from. We have no control over such people once they have been removed from the UK.
      Experience with other appeals, such as family visit appeals, that are held on paper as opposed to being held in person, shows that adjudicators trying to judge the credibility of a person's story are more likely to respond positively when they can hear that person speak. That can be of critical importance when adjudicators come to decide whether an appeal should be allowed.
      I should like some clarification because, from my reading of the new clause, it seems to deal only with removals to a safe third country as it refers to a country of which a person
      "is not a national or citizen".
      Mr. Letwin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will receive the clarification that he seeks. I did not read the new clause that way, as he will have noticed. So far as I can see, subsection (2) applies specifically to the opposite case: to someone who is not being returned to a country of which that person is not a national—not another safe country—but to the country of which that person is or may be a national—an unsafe country, potentially.
      Mr. Gerrard: That is an important point, and I want to be clear about it. Subsection (3) is quite clear, but some of the briefings and reports sent to us by outside organisations suggest that someone could be summarily removed back to their country of origin. I would be seriously concerned if that were the impact of subsection (2).
      Much of the debate so far has focused on sending people back to France, Germany or Denmark, where they might have been able to claim asylum but did not, as opposed to sending them back directly to their country of origin. That is an important issue, and I would like the meaning of subsection (2) to be made absolutely clear. Does it mean that people can be summarily returned to their country of origin? If that is a possibility, it puts a very different perspective on the new clause.
      We have already referred to who will make the decisions on certification and how those might be challenged. If decisions on certification are to be made by a caseworker at a port of entry, perhaps very quickly, and even though, on paper, a judicial review might be possible, it might be difficult for someone to take that route if they have been unable to obtain easy access to legal advice, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).
      Oakington has been described as a place that would be used for cases that appeared to be unfounded. A pattern seems to be emerging that the people sent to Oakington are from certain countries origin. One wonders whether that is the criterion, rather than what the individual said when arriving at the port of entry. We will get close, if we are not careful, to a white list in another form if countries of origin become one of the main deciding factors in whether a case is manifestly unfounded.
      One of my greatest concerns is that this could be a critical decision affecting the individual, particularly if it involves summary return to the country of origin. It is

      807
      essential, therefore, to get the initial decision right. Comments made by the hon Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) rang some bells. It is easy to talk as if there are only two classes of asylum claimants—those who will be given asylum because their cases are evidently well founded, and those, at the other extreme, whose cases do not have a shred of credibility. The reality, however, is that among the many thousands of people who claim asylum each year is a whole spectrum of cases, from one extreme to the other. We are trying to draw lines in that spectrum. Inevitably, with regard to which cases are certified and which are not, people will be bunched around that line. There will be very fine divisions between claims being certified or not. It concerns me that very small differences between individuals might lead them to be dealt with in significantly different ways in respect of whether they have a right of appeal.
      Mr. Patrick Hall: My hon. Friend is making some useful points about the principles of out-of-country appeals. Does he share my concerns about the practicalities of a person who is removed from the country without having completed or begun an appeal here doing so from another country? What are the resource implications? What support would there be? Would it be through a British overseas post, which, as we know from dealing with ordinary matters are already under pressure, or would it be down to the individual to write, presumably in English, to the authorities in this country? Has my hon. Friend given some thought to the practicalities, never mind the principles, of the issue?
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Gerrard: That is an important point. Nothing in the Bill gives us an answer to that question. Let us assume that a person could act in various ways—they could pursue their appeal by writing, using the internet or visiting a British post overseas. That, of course, gives rise to other practical questions. How does that person obtain representation at their appeal? It would probably not be much good for them to try to use a lawyer in another country who was not familiar with British law, but how would they make contact with a lawyer in this country? How would they brief the lawyer, and where would they find the resources to conduct an appeal?
      Such situations are different from other appeals conducted from overseas. For example, in family visitor appeals there will inevitably be sponsors in the UK who can help with some of the problems of finding representation in this country.
      Mr. Letwin: Is there not another and more fundamental difference? If a person is sent back to the country of origin—if that is indeed the purport of subsection (2) of new clause 14—will it not immediately be evident either that the decision that the claim was unfounded was true and that the person has no basis for appeal because they are happily situated back in their own country, or, unhappily for economic reasons only; or that the claim was not unfounded and the person is in the most dire straits? In that case, how on earth can they conduct an appeal if they are being chopped up by some appalling regime to which they have been sent back by mistake?
      808
      I cannot see—can the hon. Gentleman?—how an in-country appeal can resolve any problem that might arise under subsection (2).
      Mr. Gerrard: The hon. Gentleman is right. If a mistake is made, it is difficult to see how the consequences can be other than extremely serious for the person returned on the basis of an unfounded claim.
      Mr. Blunkett: We must not misunderstand each other. My hon. Friend has been putting his case extremely carefully and credibly, but we must not misunderstand what the shadow Home Secretary has just said. I spelled out the unacceptable risks, on which we are all agreed, and we are not intent on sending people back to countries that would chop someone up, in the words of the hon. Gentleman—or anything like it. We know of no country that has it in for one person alone, as regards taking away their rights and exposing them to the danger of death or torture as individuals, as opposed to the groups to which they belong, the religion they hold, the politics they espouse or any of the other things that I read out. I was specific about that because it is in those terms that we are talking about returning people.
      Mr. Gerrard: I completely accept my right hon. Friend's point, but I question whether the proposed system will deliver what he says and whether there might not be a risk of serious problems for some individuals whose claim has been certified as unfounded.
      Fiona Mactaggart: It may help my hon. Friend if I give an example of a case where such risks might occur in a country that is usually safe for most people. In parts of some countries, female genital mutilation is practised on young women and there is no adequate protection for them. That happens in countries to which we might consider returning people. I am not clear that the procedures would offer adequate protection that such practices could never happen.
      Mr. Gerrard: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. Such issues have always given rise to difficulty—whether only part of a country is safe and whether the person being returned actually ends up in the part of the country that is supposed to be safe.
      My final point relates to new clause 15. My understanding is that it would apply to cases that were already in the system. An appeal might already be in progress under the existing system, but under the new clause the process could be stopped before the appeal was heard, the case could be certified as unfounded and the person could be removed. Retrospective legislation of any sort always concerns me. If that is the effect of new clause 15, I would be extremely worried.
      Simon Hughes: I indicated earlier that my hon. Friends and I would divide the House at the end of this debate on the two Government new clauses. It might be helpful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I also indicate that we will seek to divide the House on our amendment No. 13. Of the many amendments in this group that Mr. Speaker has selected, it addresses one of the other issues that, in our view, goes most to the heart of what is wrong with many of these sets of proposals.

      809
      We may debate this later in the day when some of the heat and noise has gone out of the earlier exchanges—both those that happened and those that were expected to happen but did not—on education. We regret the failure to allow the time for such debate. In my view, we shall not have the time, with an hour and 10 minutes left, to complete the business schedule for today by any means. There are four groups of amendments on appeals—this is the first, and there are three remaining. We may not get beyond this debate by 10 o'clock, and that will be the end of it.
      In this context, we are discussing the protection by law of some of the most vulnerable people who ever come to Britain to seek protection. It is unacceptable that Parliament should have to debate proposals put down on Friday afternoon, and published for the first time and available to colleagues for the first time yesterday morning, which nobody has been able to amend, even though we are meant to be able to amend new clauses and schedules on Report. It would not be acceptable even if they were relatively unimportant new clauses and new schedules. It is fundamentally unacceptable when they relate to the right of the courts to oversee the actions of the Executive and the process of appeals, and when they relate to this entirely new proposal, which, as I indicated to colleagues, the Labour party opposed five years ago—that an immigrant or asylum seeker may have to go abroad to pursue their case, but anybody else can have their case dealt with here.
      It is fundamentally wrong as a matter of principle that if one comes here seeking shelter, one should not have the same appeal rights as someone who has gone through the employment appeal tribunal on an employment matter, through the social security appeal tribunal against a decision of the Executive on social security, or through the tax appeal system, for example. On behalf of my colleagues, I want to register our dissatisfaction with the process as well as the substance.
      I shall give one example only of why what the Government are doing is fundamentally wrong. It relates to the intervention of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), in terms of the kind of issue that it raises. A well known case called Islam and Shah went to the House of Lords in 1999; it got there after an application for judicial review. It went through the process in the following way. Originally, the case had been put to the adjudicator and lost by the individual applicant. She was refused leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. She applied for and obtained judicial review of the tribunal's refusal. The Home Office then appealed to the Court of Appeal and won. She then appealed to the House of Lords and won. It was not on an insignificant issue but on a hugely important issue relating to the rights of women in Pakistan. In many ways, that country might be regarded as one where proper process, in many years, might be acceptable, but the House of Lords was very clear that its decision was merited by a hugely important matter.
      Let me set out what the Lords decided as regards whether someone could seek asylum on the basis of being a refugee as a result of belonging to a particular social group, which in some parts of the world could be women, people of a particular age, or people of a particular
      810
      sexuality. For example, homosexuality is unacceptable in Nigeria and the safety of a homosexual who wants to return there might be at risk in some parts of the country.
      The House of Lords said:
      "a 'particular social group' consisted of a group of persons who share a common, immutable characteristic that either was beyond the power of an individual to change or was so fundamental to the individual's identity or conscience that it ought not to be required to be changed. The existence of such a group did not, however, depend on an element of cohesiveness or co-operation or interdependence amongst the members of the group. Thus, as gender was an immutable characteristic that was beyond the power of the individual to change and as discrimination against women was prevalent in Pakistan in violation of fundamental rights and freedoms, women in Pakistan constituted a 'particular social group', within the terms of Art 1A(2) of the 1951"
      convention on refugees.
      The ruling continued:
      "Accordingly, as the appellants were members of a particular social group in Pakistan and as the Pakistani authorities were unable or unwilling to protect them against gender-related persecution, it would be contrary to the UK's obligations under the 1951 Convention for"
      that person
      "to be required to leave the UK and"
      her
      "appeal would have to be reconsidered by the Tribunal."
      That woman came to this country and a couple of years ago the highest court in the land decided to uphold her case. However, it was upheld only because she had the right to have an Executive decision heard by our independent judiciary.
      It is important not only to separate the powers of the Executive and the judiciary, but to understand that we often win the argument only because we have had the debate, like we did today. The hon. Member for Slough and others know that from their work before they came here. We do not stand a chance of winning a case if the only alternative is to have the papers looked at by someone in authority, with no chance of anyone putting the argument, which is what the Government propose.
      Many of the greatest decisions in favour of liberty have been taken by courts in this land, the United States and elsewhere only because there has been debate and a court has been persuaded. The Government, to their shame, are suggesting that a group of people—not you or me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but people who have been subjected to the most awful circumstances before they arrive here—are deprived of that right. That must be wrong.
      Mr. Barker: The hon. Gentleman's points are serious and important. I endorse what he says about the appalling lack of time available to scrutinise all the amendments properly. However, for the sake of clarity, is he saying that under the terms of the group criteria, the British Government should offer asylum to the entire female population of Pakistan? I may be wrong, but is that the essence of his argument?
      Simon Hughes: The trouble with the debate is that we have such limited time in which to discuss the issues, and the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises is precisely what we should be considering. I have with me a sheaf of papers from Amnesty International, which knows what it is talking about, the Immigration Law Practitioners

      811
      Association, the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre. They all say, first, that we have not had time to consider people's concerns properly, and, secondly, that the proposal is profoundly wrong.
      9 pm
      The answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question is no—the only asylum issues that are dealt with here concern those who get here to put their case. That is one of the flaws of the system, and it is one reason why the Secretary of State rightly says that we must try to have a saner system that does not require people illegally to board a channel tunnel train and put themselves and others at risk. However, if a Pakistani woman were here and there was evidence that she came from a part of Pakistan where she would be at risk, she would be entitled to asylum. The refugee convention, drafted by British lawyers after the war, was introduced specifically to ensure, among other things, that people in need could put their case when they found somewhere safe away from their own country.
      The great bulk of refugees do not come to Britain. It is not as if all the world's refugees were coming here. That is another fallacy perpetuated by tabloid newspapers. Most refugees are in places such as Pakistan and the central African states. Europe has a very small proportion of the world's refugees, and of that proportion we have a very small number. There may have been between 70,000 and 80,000 applicants, but they constitute a relatively small proportion of those coming to Europe. The numbers go up and down, and although at the moment the United Kingdom and Germany have the highest numbers, that has not always been the case.
      Crucially, between 40 and 50 per cent. of those who have come here in the past 10 years have had their claim upheld. It is not as if all those people were putting dud cases. Of course there are economic migrants who try to claim asylum—I know them and I have dealt with them, as we all have. However, between 40 and 50 per cent. are not like that.
      I want to give the House a few more figures, which are not an invention but come from a written answer given by Ministers. On 19 April, at column 1259W, Ministers gave figures for the outcome of asylum appeals at judicial review for the last two years for which figures are available. In 2000, 365 judicial review applications were allowed out of a total of 755 made. By my calculation, that means that almost half of them succeeded. In 2001, 260 applications were allowed out of 390 made, which is well over half. The total for the two years is 625 applications allowed out of 1,145. Those are not my figures; they were given by the Government in a parliamentary answer. They show how important judicial review is.
      There are many proposals in this group of new clauses and amendments, and I shall state briefly—I hope that it will take no longer than 10 minutes—why I hope that colleagues from all parties will support us. I understand and respect the difficulty experienced by Conservative Front Benchers, but I hope that Conservative Back Benchers and Labour friends and colleagues will support us in saying that the Bill is not acceptable.
      I understand the pressure on Governments to try to hay.: a co-ordinated European policy, and I welcome that effort. However, that does not mean that we have to misrepresent
      812
      the position and take measures that are unnecessary and positively harmful. I quote to the Home Secretary a letter of 15 May 2002 from the then Minister of State, Lord Rooker, which sets out how the Government are succeeding on asylum:
      "The rate of making decisions is faster; appeals are being heard in record numbers…and the rate of removal of failed applicants has increased."
      Last month, then, the Government were saying, "We are doing better."
      We know that on the very day the letter, headed "asylum constituency casework", was sent to colleagues, the Prime Minister was meeting Ministers to discuss what action was required to reduce the number of unfounded asylum applications. One idea put to that ministerial group by civil servants was that it might be worth considering taking Department for International Development aid away from poor countries where large numbers of asylum seekers originate. I do not pretend that the Government adopted that suggestion, but it is the sort of idea that is being put to Ministers as part of the process.
      Some of us, including the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, served on the Standing Committee on the Bill. During the Committee stage, the Government said that they would table some amendments—and they did. However, more announcements were made on 30 May, after the Committee had finished. It was announced that, in addition to the tightening up, the appeal on the papers alone and the removal of judicial review—all of which were introduced by the Government to their own Bill only after Second Reading—asylum appeals would have to be made outside the United Kingdom.
      Let me explain why such a system is unacceptable, even if one or two other countries use it. First, all the evidence is that a person in France—to take the easiest case—will not have the same access to lawyers and advisers who can help in the British appeals system as a person here would have. In reality, such people's ability to lodge and argue an appeal does not work in the same way as it would if they were here. It is paradoxical that people who try to enter this country as immigrants and are turned down in, say, Tanzania or Lagos have their appeal heard here, but people who are here will now have to have their appeal heard here when they are somewhere else. That is simply illogical.
      Worse than that, it is suggested that such people can go to one of two places. They can return to the country from which they came. Let us be realistic. The person from Kosovo who came to my constituency advice surgery three years ago, before there was peace in the Balkans, was hardly going to go back to Kosovo. A person who came here more recently from Afghanistan is hardly going to go back there. The fact that we are holding meetings with the Government of Afghanistan does not reassure people that the country is now entirely safe. I hope and pray that it will be safe, and it may well become so, but it will not become safe in a week, or a month, or even three months—life is not like that. The fears that drove people to leave will not suddenly be alleviated.
      The Government offer those people an alternative, which is to go back to the last safe country they were in. I understand the logic of that, but it is actually a form of pass the parcel—passing the responsibility. It says that

      813
      such people are not our business—pass them to France. I went to Sangatte and talked to the people in the camp, and I honestly believe that many of them did not know how they got there. They came across Europe in a lorry, not knowing whether they crossed over the Romanian frontier, the Polish frontier, or the German frontier first. They do not know their point of entry into the EU—they did not go through passport control. What was the first safe country? What do the French do—send them to Germany? What do the Germans do—send them to Austria?
      That is a nonsensical system, it is nonsensical that we are playing into that system, and it is an unacceptable system for us to adopt. The proposals are not merely dangerous to the interests of the applicant; they are bad policy if what we want is a coherent system for dealing with asylum and immigration.
      Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Simon Hughes: No. I have told the hon. Gentleman that he does not nonnally make helpful interventions. He has made one unhelpful intervention today and I am certainly not going to give him the chance to make another.
      The second argument that the Government might advance is that we need to pass the Bill as an emergency measure. We heard that argument last autumn and winter in respect of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, and we accepted that there was an emergency. However, the Bill before us now is not an emergency measure. There is no justification for not carrying out proper scrutiny or for making bad decisions.
      I hope that hon. Members have had a chance to read the representations from bodies such zas Amnesty International which make it clear that the Bill embodies unacceptable decisions and proposals. I shall quote only Amnesty International, which says:
      "The provisions set out in Part 5 of the…Bill represent a profound attack on the right of appeal of asylum seekers. Amnesty International believes that, given the well-documented flaws in our asylum determination procedures, adequate appeal rights are an essential safeguard against erroneous decisions. Home Office statistics indicate a steady increase in the proportion of successful appeals, with the most recent figures showing a success rate of nearly one in four."
      If, under criminal law, one in four innocent British people were convicted, there would be an outcry, yet the Government are willing to put before Parliament a provision that will reduce the percentage of appellants who put their case fairly and succeed. That is not right and cannot be justified on the grounds of an emergency; there is no reason for treating the Bill in the same way as the anti-terrorism legislation that we passed last year.
      It is now Government policy that the Government decide which claims are unfounded. That is unacceptable; it cannot be right that the Executive, who make the first decision, then decide whether or not there is a case further up the appeal ladder. The whole idea is that somebody else reviews the initial decision, not the Secretary of State. May I tell the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who has just assumed responsibility for this, that the initial decision is often overturned—something which
      814
      might have been considered unfounded has been shown not to be so? I therefore agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).
      The difference between the proposals and the old white list, which the Labour Government, to their credit, abolished, is not clear. Under that system, someone would be treated as safe or unsafe depending on which country they came from. There has been no confirmation that clearly unfounded claims will not be similarly categorised Dow. It is not as if the matter has not been considered before, as it has been discussed by parliamentary Committees, particularly in the other place, which have said that the proposal to change the law is bad news. The } louse of Lords European Union Committee, after taking evidence, produced a report on minimum standards in asylum procedures. It said:
      "Whether so-called fast-track or accelerated procedures are in practice efficient has been questioned. The evidence we received, especially that from the appellate authorities, suggested that they were not. Witnesses pointed out the adverse effects, in terms of diverting resources, delaying other proceedings and placing burdens on the judicial process. We can see no benefit in the retention of such procedures and we have doubts whether an accelerated procedure has a place in the Directive. All cases, including manifestly unfounded ones, should be dealt with on their merits speedily within an efficient 'regular' procedure. That would also apply to manifestly well-founded cases.
      The general principle stated in Article 33(1) that appeals shall have suspensive effect is one of the major procedural safeguards established by the Directive."
      I repeat for the benefit of colleagues that one of the best protections for appellants is protection against getting thrown out of the country before their appeal is heard. May I tell Ministers that if, by any chance, the provision gets through the House of Lords, and the courts when it is tested there—I hope that, if it succeeds here, it will fail in the Lords; but if it does not, I hope that it fails in the courts—the Government will have to deal with the consequences? Instead of people being able to go for judicial review, they will come to Members of Parliament. Calls will regularly be made to the Home Office duty officers who, if they do not decide to detain someone before they get on the plane, will call on Ministers to intervene; injunctions will be served on the Government; and people will be taken off planes because they are about to be sent back to unsafe countries.
      That is undesirable for the Government, given the image of Britain as a supposed safe haven. However, they may have decided that it is all about playing and looking tough; they may want to sound tough before the Seville and Luxembourg summits so that other European countries can follow us. The Government tried such an approach on terrorism. They derogated from the European convention on human rights and said that that was justified and that all other European countries would follow them. Nobody has followed. No other European Union country has done the same thing or decided that the events of 11 September justify such derogation. The Government should not believe that adopting macho postures to the detriment of many vulnerable individuals is an appropriate response.
      9.15 pm
      I apologise not only for taking relatively more time than I did earlier, but for being absolutely unable to do justice in such a short contribution to the significant number of

      815
      points that have been made by those who know what they are talking about in relation to immigration and asylum and who have made the strongest representations about why judicial review is not a hindrance but a help, about why Governments should not seek to reduce such review, and about an approach whose basis is not argument about the facts, but a consideration of whether a reasonable decision was taken by the Executive authority. Those people have made the case for why it is important that people should be allowed to put their case clearly.
      As far as I have been able to gather, all those who have been consulted have concluded that the people who work in the system as practitioners believe that a reduction of rights is not what is needed. They do not want an approach in which cases are decided only on the basis of the papers involved and in which people's rights to judicial review are taken away. They do not want the Lord Chancellor to be given power to take away rights, or provisions such as those before us which add to the right to penalise those who represent the applicant by awarding costs against them. There is no equivalent right to penalise the Home Office, which is often the cause of delay. The treatment is absolutely unequal. People tell me that as many delays are caused by the Home Office as by applicants' representatives; and such delays frequently arise.
      People also believe that they cannot trust adjudicators any more. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) gave the example of an accommodation centre for Somali citizens with an adjudicator who is well versed in affairs in Somalia. Such a person would be perfectly able to tell whether good cases were being made or whether somebody was trying to play along with the court and delay matters unnecessarily. We are talking about the Government not trusting the independent authorities to make independent decisions with which they are comfortable.
      The provisions are not an acceptable series of interventions. If the people making the representations believe there is a need for more resources, mote adjudicators, more people in the Immigration Appeal Tribunal or more civil servants working in the system, let us remedy that failing. If Home Office bureaucracy is the failing, let us deal with it, but let us not visit the sins of the Home Office and our systems in recent years on the sons and daughters of people who come to this country because we have a reputation for being a defender of human rights.
      The reasons why people come here may vary and depend on where they come from, but those people should expect the same service and upholding of rights as the rest of us. It is a theological and a civic moral premise that the way in which we deal with the least of our brethren—those with least resources and ability to look after themselves—is the way in which we should be judged and expect to be dealt with ourselves.
      The new clauses are profoundly wrong, as are existing parts of the Bill. I hope that they will receive significant opposition in the Lobby.
      Mr. Cameron: I want briefly to speak to new clauses 14 and 15. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), although he tends to speak expansively on these subjects, so that, like many liberals down the ages, I feel that I am being pushed towards the guillotine.
      816
      I agree fundamentally with what my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said about our desire to unpack the new clauses, although I respect what the Home Secretary said about the oversight committee considering the assessment of countries. That will help, although we wish that it went further. I want to make two points and ask a question. Before I do so, I want to say how depressing it is to see such fundamental proposals coming before us with so little time for consideration.
      I did not serve on the Committee, so I come fresh to many parts of the Bill. There are just 12, or perhaps 24, hours to consider fundamental provisions that appear to take whole classes of people out of the ability to appeal and to represent huge attempts to limit the relevance of the Human Rights Act 1998 and other legislation. That is difficult to get to grips with. I have been relying on what the Minister for Social Exclusion said on "Question Time" on television to understand some of the beliefs that lie behind the provisions. If the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who is a great expert in this area, finds it hard to understand, what hope is there for the rest of us?
      On the first of my two points, the new clauses are not much use without bilateral agreements, especially with France. Will the Minister say more about the timetable for securing that bilateral agreement? It is no good being able to send people back to the safe country from which they came—in many cases, France—if that agreement is not in place. What plans do the Government have for bilateral agreements with other countries that asylum seekers are using as a jumping-off point?
      Secondly, the new clauses seem, in the most negative way, to invite judicial review. Subsection (3) of new clause 14 states:
      "A person who is in the United Kingdom may not bring an appeal to which this section applies…if the Secretary of State certifies that—…
      (b) there is no reason to believe that the person's rights under the Human Rights Convention will be breached in that country."
      That is almost begging the courts to take a different view from that of the Home Secretary. That is likely to lead to many judicial reviews. How much of the Bill will survive? How much time has been put into thinking about it in the Home Office? We certainly have little time to consider it now.
      My question is aimed at clarifying the drafting of subsection (5) of new clause 14 and subsection (6) of new clause 15, which deal with out-of-country appeals. They say that the appeal
      "shall be considered as if he"—
      that is, the asylum seeker—
      "had not been removed from the United Kingdom".
      Is there any intention behind using exactly those words? Someone who has come from France—say, from Sangatte—was in a safe country and should have applied for asylum in that safe country. If they should not have been here in the first place to apply for asylum, why should they have an out-of-country appeal? Do the words that I quoted mean that the person can claim legal aid and other rights?
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey explained the Shah case with his usual great power and vigour. The weakness of his argument is that saying that in every circumstance the right route for

      817
      asylum applications is appeal, further appeal and judicial review—a highly judicial process—means that we need to work out what element of asylum applications should be an administrative process and what element should be a judicial process. There may be a strong case for saying that women who come from Pakistan or certain other countries should be seen as asylum seekers because of the way in which women are treated in those countries, but the Government should make a proposal about that, which we can debate in the House. This is where the decision about the framework should be made—it should not always be made, as it is currently, through very long judicial proceedings. That is one of the reasons why the system is getting so clogged up and our constituents think that we are incapable of dealing with the problem.
      Simon Hughes: I accept the general proposition that many of us support the European Union's work towards a common basis of definition. As yet, France, Germany and the UK do not have the same definition of who qualifies for asylum. If we could reach that level, some of the difficulties would not exist and it would be much easier for the first decisions to be the right ones, so there would be far fewer appeals.
      Mr. Cameron: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but if we believe that the issue should be determined fundamentally in a judicial context, the courts can take a different view, despite a common agreement.
      I have already taken five minutes but I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the mysteriously worded subsection (5) of new clause 14.
      Angela Watkinson: I want to speak briefly about the refugee convention, which new, clause 14(4)(b) mentions. The provision relates to a person being removed from the United Kingdom to a place that is specified as safe,
      "from which a person will not be sent to another country otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention."
      Can we be confident that the convention is adequate to deal with the issue? I am not familiar with all its provisions. How binding is it? Is it the only agreement with other countries or have other arrangements been made under which we would be likely to send people to other countries to have their appeals heard? Is not independent country assessment required to enable us to produce a safe list on which we could all rely and thus know that people would not be sent on to a country that was unsafe for them?
      Mr. Malins: I want to speak briefly about the amendments that we have tabled in the group. I share the sadness of many hon. Members that, yet again, we shall not debate more than a small proportion of what we should discuss.
      I want to speak about amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 155, 156, 157, 158 and 159. I assure those who believe that that is a mouthful that they are short and almost identical. They relate to clause 80, which was clause 74, and is entitled "Earlier right of appeal". It troubled many members of the Committee that considered the Bill, including my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster
      818
      (Angela Watkinson) and for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Barker). I am pleased that they are in their places. It also troubled the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and one or two Labour Back-Bench Members. I recall contributions from the hon. Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz).
      The amendments would substitute "an adjudicator" for
      "the Secretary of State or an immigration officer"
      throughout clause 80. Why did the clause trouble us? For the first time, an essentially legal process could take place without the involvement of the judiciary. The provision relates to appeals under clause 66(1). Clause 66 is a general provision that determines what an immigration decision means. It defines several immigration decisions and refers to "an adjudicator". In simple terms, clause 80 provides:
      "An appeal…against an immigration decision…may not be brought…if the Secretary of State or an immigration officer certifies"
      that it cannot be brought. Let us analyse what that means in practice.
      The words are plain. The clause means that a junior caseworker can make a decision and certify that an appeal cannot be made against it. Such a decision could be wholly contrary to the interests of the applicant. How can it be the end of the story when a junior caseworker makes a decision, then a certification? The appellant would never see a judicial person.
      9.30 pm
      There is a point of principle involved here: the taking of powers out of the hands of the judges and putting them into the hands of the state is something to be avoided whenever possible. Quite a number of respected non-governmental organisations thought that clause 80 was unfair and wrong in principle. The debate that we had on, I think, 21 May illustrated just that. One or more of the NGOs have pointed out that the clause made the Secretary of State judge and jury in his own cause.
      I asked the Minister during that debate whether it could really be right that a junior caseworker could make a decision and then say, "I certify that this decision cannot be appealed against to any judicial person." I asked why an amendment could not be tabled allowing the same certification to be made by an adjudicator rather than the caseworker. The response that I received from the Minister was that if such an amendment were allowed, it would take up more of the adjudicator's time. That is exactly what it would do, but what is wrong with that? Adjudicators are meant to spend time deciding tricky legal issues, and more and more are being appointed. It is not on for the Minister simply to respond by saying that this would be administratively inconvenient.
      Let us look again at exactly what clause 80 is telling us. It says that a junior official, who is not qualified, can make a decision and then certify that that decision cannot be appealed against on the grounds there set out. That is what the clause says. That is the end of the story, so far as any judicial involvement is concerned. Is there anybody in the House of Commons who thinks that that approach is fair?
      Who are these junior caseworkers who will make the certifications? The clause also mentions the Secretary of State, and I would be happy if he made them personally,

      819
      but the task will be delegated. He will never know about them; nor will other Ministers. Dozens of certifications will be made by people who are not judges. Do they have to be qualified lawyers? No, they do not. Do they have to have had considerable training? No, they do not. What training have they had? Does anybody know? Does anybody in the Chamber tonight know exactly what legal or other training a junior caseworker has had? If so, will they intervene on me, and tell me whether they are entirely happy that those junior caseworkers are fully qualified to make a decision that could almost be a matter of life and death, so far as the applicant is concerned?
      Mr. Coleman: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and he has made a compelling case for opposing the clauses before us this evening. Bearing in mind all that he has said, and the strong case that he has made, will he tell the House why he and his hon. Friends will be voting with the Government this evening?
      Mr. Malins: The short answer to that is that, quite often in life, we look to the other place to make progress on our behalf. We often find clauses in a Bill, or clauses that are given to us rather later, with which we agree in part, but with which, in principle, we might have some problems, no problems or a lot of problems. Those mattes are not as simple as that, and the truth is that, on appeals, the Government are dealing with certain issues on which we offer some support and sympathy for their approach while on others we remain unhappy.
      The hon. Gentleman will share my unhappiness with the fact that the new clauses and some matters that we ai e discussing tonight landed on our desks yesterday afternoon. That is no way to do business. He is a man who approaches those topics with some knowledge and expertise, but here I am, trying to tell the Government in 10 minutes or so that I do not feel happy that vital decisions under clause 80 that will affect the welfare of someone who has a right of appeal may be taken by someone who simply is not qualified to make the decision. That troubles me immensely.
      I return to a point that was reinforced by much of what the hon. Member for Walthamstow said. Were we to keep our eye on the ball, we would consider whether existing procedures in this country work well and efficiently. It s no good legislating year after year—there have been four Bills in the past nine years. What use is legislation when the basic workings out there in our immigration and asylum system are not functioning properly? I could talk for 10 hours or 10 weeks and it would not make a ha'p'orth of difference to what happens outside. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary is being very kind to me. On that note, I ought to quit while the going is good, but I must say to the House that fundamental administrative points in our system need looking at.
      We need to watch out. It is unfortunate that a clause will allow a junior caseworker to make a decision and to certify it, saying, "You can't appeal against it, chum " How much better it would be if the powers to be given to the junior caseworker were given to an adjudicator. That would enable the principle that it is wrong to take powers from the judges and give them to the state to remain intact. I hope that, even now, the Government will take what I say seriously and consider taking steps, perhaps in the other place rather than under my amendment, to reassure not just me and my hon. Friends, but Members
      820
      across the House of Commons who felt such concern about the provision when it was debated what seems like 10 years ago, but was, I think, only about 10 days ago.
      Beverley Hughes: I shall try to respond to the points that hon. Members have made, but clearly we shall have further debates on new clauses 14 and 15. We have listened carefully to the comments and, I acknowledge, the genuine concerns that Members have raised tonight about parts of those provisions. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) began by claiming that it is difficult to judge whether a case is clearly unfounded and that the decision should not be taken by a junior official. I am concerned that that term has become common parlance among Opposition Members. In fact, those who make the decisions are experienced and concerned people. They want to make the right decision on the basis of the best available evidence. It does them a disservice to dismiss them as junior officials or junior caseworkers.
      Mr. Letwin: I want to emphasise that I accept absolutely that the people making the decisions, like other civil servants in the UK, are trying to do the best job they can and, no doubt, they acquire in the course of their work a certain amount of expertise and understanding. That is not being challenged. However, they do not carry the same weight as a judge, which is why we have a system of adjudication.
      Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) asked for clarification, and other lion. Members rehearsed the same question. In relation to clearly unfounded cases—mentioned in subsection (2) of new clause 14—return would be to a person's own country, or country of origin. In third-country cases, removal, by definition, would be not to that person's own country but to a third country.
      I emphasise—we ought to keep this at the forefront of our minds—that the certification that would be allowed under the clauses would be discretionary and that certification would not be made in relation to any country regarded as unsafe.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—
      Simon Hughes rose—
      Beverley Hughes: I was about to deal with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman rnade, but I shall take an intervention now.
      Simon Hughes: I know that the Minister has been in her job for only a week, but have, she and the Home Secretary decided how the definition of safe country will be arrived at? We used to have a white list. What will be the difference between the new way of defining a safe country and the old way?
      Beverley Hughes: My right hon. Friend made it clear that we will not have a list, but we are sympathetic to the points that are being made about the documentation, which is valid—many other countries draw on our process of assessment. We must ensure that the documentation used to assess the situation in countries is perceived as being robust and as independent as possible.

      821
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned social groups and women. As the Home Secretary said, social group is one of the factors that will be taken into account. Female genital mutilation was also mentioned; obviously such cases would not be regarded as being clearly unfounded. There is no argument about that.
      I regret the linkage that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made between this Bill—in terms of process and also in terms of substance—and anti-terrorism legislation. There is no link whatever in our minds.
      Notwithstanding the concerns to which I have listened, some of the issues that the clause is designed to deal with arise from the kind of cases that, if we are honest, we all deal with in our advice surgeries. We know from the stories that people bring to us, and from the accounts of their circumstances and where they come from, that their claims are unfounded. That raises the legitimate question as to whether, in those circumstances, that person should continue to be maintained here while appealing. It is a question not of denying the right of appeal, but of whether the person should remain here while the appeal goes through. The Home Secretary and I are not into macho posturing. We think that the new clauses raise important issues. There might be disagreement about the solutions proposed in them, but the issues need to be discussed.
      9.45 pm
      David Winnick: We know the background, with people with claims of little or no merit appealing time and again, but is my hon. Friend aware that some of us, including Opposition spokesmen, remain uneasy? I would be happier if there were a double check. Perhaps the matter will be raised in another place. We should not have only one official—junior or otherwise, but it certainly will not be a very senior official—deciding that the case is unfounded. The decision should certainly go to another official, higher up the chain. My unease may be totally unjustified, but I had better express my view now.
      Beverley Hughes: As the debate unfolds, various measures and solutions may be proposed that will provide some reassurance on the concerns that have been expressed, while still allowing us to make progress.
      I do not recognise the figures on judicial review given by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. I would be interested to know where he got them. My information is that, in the year up to March 2002, 3,200 cases were dealt with and 441 applications were granted, which is an average of 14 per cent. Perhaps that can be clarified in another place.
      Simon Hughes: Whatever arguments we may have, they should not be about the figures, which I took from a parliamentary answer on 19 April 2002, at column 1260W. They are ministerial figures given only six weeks ago to Members of Parliament.
      Beverley Hughes: I need to be clear about the time scale to which the figures relate and whether we are
      822
      talking about the same thing. Judicial review outcomes are clearly significant for this debate, and we need to get the figures absolutely right.
      The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) asked about new clause 14(5). Legal aid will be available if the appeal is from a third country, subject to the usual merit and eligibility tests. It is a drafting measure to ensure that the adjudicator considers whether the appellant is a refugee.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked about the bilateral agreement timetable. The Home Secretary said today that, as the French elections conclude, we should try to make progress on the matter. Towards the end of May, Mr. Sarkozy made a statement warmly welcoming the approach that we are taking and expressing a desire to work with us to establish a bilateral agreement. We can be optimistic about making progress on a reasonable time scale.
      The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) referred to independent country assessment. We are sympathetic to the need to strengthen the perception that assessment is robust and rigorous, and as independent as possible.
      Many of the provisions in the new clauses do not break new ground, either here in the UK or in Europe. The idea of having fast-track systems for manifestly or clearly unfounded claims is not uncommon in Europe, and indeed several countries do not have automatically suspensive appeals for such claims. That is the case in Denmark, Germany, France and Finland, for example. Obviously, an unfounded claim is not defined in legislation; none the less, case law exists and our courts are familiar with cases that fall into that category. I am not presenting those arguments to hon. Members as a validation of the principle of non-suspensive appeals; I am simply saying that the argument that the principle is far removed from reality is not itself valid.
      Annabelle Ewing: The Minister says that, putting to one side the debate about the validity of the provisions in principle, they are not far removed from existing legislative precedent. If so, why were they tabled at the eleventh hour?
      Beverley Hughes: As my right hon. Friend has made clear, we had to relate the provisions to our own legal system and obtain the legal advice necessary to ensure that what we tabled could withstand the robustness of our law.
      Mr. Barker: In the light of the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) about the availability of legal aid for appellants in foreign countries, have the Government assessed the additional legal cost of making such appeals from abroad? Given that foreign law firms will be used, an additional cost will presumably be incurred.
      Beverley Hughes: We will deal with such issues as we progress through the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) spoke softly and persuasively on clause 80. Although an extensive debate took place in Committee—I have read ii—I am afraid that he still does not fully appreciate the current position or the proposal. As we said in Committee,

      823
      clause 80 simply builds on existing legislation. Perhaps he does not realise that the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 introduced the one-stop procedure for appeals—a measure that enjoyed support on both sides of the House. It provides for each asylum seeker to have one, and only one, substantive appeal. During such an appeal, all other grounds that an applicant may have for wishing to remain in this country must be raised. To ensure that the system could work, sections 73 and 76 of the 1999 Act introduced certification in exactly the way referred to in clause 80. Section 73 applies if an appeal is dismissed and art applicant raises grounds that they knew about, and which they could, and should, have raised earlier.
      As I said, in 1999 agreement was reached in Standing Committee that the one-stop procedure was the right way forward. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that the form of certification arising from the 1999 Act has been shown to work. Since October 2000, some 700 applications have been certified—by the officials about whom he is rather disparaging—to effect removal. Only three applications for judicial review of those certifications have been made. Two were refused permission on the papers, one was refused after an oral hearing, and no substantive hearings have challenged those certifications. There can be no better evidence that the concerns expressed then and now are completely unfounded.
      Mr. Malins: When I told Ministers in Standing Committee that the procedure constituted a departure, the point was not denied. Indeed, the current scenario used not to exist. Under the terms of the clause, an appellant might never have seen an adjudicator—end of story.
      Beverley Hughes: That situation might, in theory, arise, but I shall go through the process with the hon. Gentleman and show how clause 80 will build on the current provision. A person submits a claim, having been served with notice on more than one occasion that all the reasons to support the claim must be included in it. A n initial decision is then made. Let us suppose that the claim is refused. That decision goes to appeal. It is only in circumstances in which an asylum seeker chooses at that point not to appeal or absconds, and then returns to try to make a fresh application, that it is possible to certify on grounds included in the 1999 Act that the person has already exhausted their access to a right of appeal.
      We do not oppose the Opposition amendments because they would take up adjudicators' time, although they would: we oppose them because they would start to unravel the one-stop appeal process and would, in effect, allow another consideration by an adjudicator of the case of someone who had already gone through the process once, and submitted a fresh application. If that case was not then certified by the Home Secretary or an official and went to an adjudicator, there would be another appeal, which would cut across the procedure that we have all agreed in principle—that there should be one, and only one, substantive appeal.
      I hope that on that basis the hon. Member for Woking can accept that we are not introducing new principles. We are building on what is already working well and what his party largely agreed when we discussed the process in proceedings on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. There are no new principles included in the new clauses and, therefore, we oppose the Opposition amendments They would start to chip away at a procedure to which we have all agreed.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 379, Noes 71.

      Division No. 264]

      [9.57 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Clelland, David

      Ainger, Nick

      Clwyd, Ann

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Alexander, Douglas

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Allen, Graham

      Cohen, Harry

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Corston, Jean

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cranston, Ross

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Crausby, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cruddas, Jon

      Baird, Vera

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Banks, Tony

      Cummings, John

      Barker, Gregory

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Barnes, Harry

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Barron, Kevin

      Dalyell, Tam

      Battle, John

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Beard, Nigel

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      David, Wayne

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davidson, Ian

      Beggs, Roy

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bell, Stuart

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Benn, Hilary

      Dawson, Hilton

      Benton, Joe

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Berry, Roger

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Bets, Clive

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Blackman, Liz

      Dismore Andrew

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dobbin, Jim

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Doran, Frank

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Dowd, Jim

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Drew, David

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Edwards, Huw

      Brazier, Julian

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brennan, Kevin

      Ennis, Jesff

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Fallon, Michael

      Farrelly, Paul

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fisher, Mark

      Browne, Desmond

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bryant, Chris

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Burden, Richard

      Flight, Howard

      Burgon, Colin

      Flint, Caroline

      Burnham, Andy

      Flook, Adrian

      Burnside, David

      Flynn, Paul

      Butterflll, John

      Follett, Barbara

      Cairns, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Cameron, David

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foulkes, George

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Francois, Mark

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gale, Roger

      Casale, Roger

      Gapes, Mike

      Caton, Martin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cawsey, Ian

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Challen, Colin

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Chaytor, David

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clapham, Michael

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Goggins, Paul

      Gray, James

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Grogan, John

      825

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Lloyd, Tony

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Loughton, Tim

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Lucas, Ian

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Luff, Peter

      Hammond, Philip

      Luke, Iain

      Hanson, David

      Lyons, John

      Haiman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McCabe, Stephen

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Caihcart)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Hayes, John

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Healey, John

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McFall, John

      Hendrick, Mark

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hendry, Charles

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McIsaac, Shona

      Heppell, John

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Hermon, Lady

      McKechin, Ann

      Hesford, Stephen

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Heyes, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Hill, Keith

      McNulty, Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

      MacShane, Denis

      Hoban, Mark

      McWalter, Tony

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hoey, Kate

      Malins, Humfrey

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hope, Phil

      Mann, John

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Marris, Rob

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Martlew, Eric

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Meale, Alan

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mercer, Patrick

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Merron, Gillian

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Irranca—Davies, Huw

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Miliband, David

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Miller, Andrew

      Jamieson, David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Moffatt, Laura

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Jones, Helen (Wairington N)

      Morgan, Julie

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Mountford, Kali

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Mullin, Chris

      Joyce, Eric

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Kelly, Ruth

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Kemp, Fraser

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Khabra, Piara S

      O'Hara, Edward

      Kidney, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Organ, Diana

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Owen, Albert

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Pearson, Ian

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Picking, Anne

      Lammy, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Pike, Peter

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Plaskitt, James

      Lepper, David

      Pollard, Kerry

      Leslie, Christopher

      Pond, Chris

      Letwin, Oliver

      Pope, Greg

      Levitt, Tom

      Pound, Stephen

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Liddell—Grainger, Ian

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lidington, David

      Prisk, Mark

      Linton, Martin

      Prosser, Gwyn

      826

      Purchase, Ken

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Purnell, James

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Swayne, Desmond

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Swire, Hugo

      Rammell, Bill

      Syms, Robert

      Rapson, Syd

      Tami, Mark

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Todd, Mark

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Touhig, Don

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Trickett, Jon

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Truswell, Paul

      Rooney, Terry

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Ross, Ernie

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Roy, Frank

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Ruane, Chris

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Ruffley, David

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Ryan, Joan

      Tynan, Bill

      Salter, Martin

      Vaz, Keith

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sawford, Phil

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Watkinson, Angela

      Sheridan, Jim

      Watts, David

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Whittingdale, John

      Singh, Marsha

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wiggin, Bill

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, GeraWine (Morecambe)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wilson, Brian

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macdesfield)

      Soley, Clive

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Southworth, Helen

      Woodward, Shaun

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Worthington, Tony

      Squire, Rachel

      Wray, James

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stevenson, George

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Angela Smith and

      Stringer, Graham

      Mr. Phil Woolas.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Allan, Richard

      Galloway, George

      Baker, Norman

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Barrett, John

      Gerrard, Neil

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Gidley, Sandra

      Best, Harold

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Brake, Tom

      Hancock, Mike

      Breed, Colin

      Harvey, Nick

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Heath, David

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Holmes, Paul

      Burnett, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Burstow, Paul

      Jones, Lynne (Selfy Oak)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Keetch, Paul

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

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Chidgey, David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Coleman, Iain

      Lamb, Norman

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Laws, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Cotter, Brian

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      McDonnell, John

      Doughty, Sue

      McNamara, Kevin

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      827

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Moore, Michael

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Mudie, George

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Oaten, Mark

      Tyler, Paul

      Pugh, Dr John

      Wareing, Robert N

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Webb, Steve

      Rendel, David

      Weir, Michael

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Willis, Phil

      Salmond, Alex

      Wishart, Pete

      Sanders, Adrian

      Younger—Ross, Richard

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

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

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stunell, Andrew

      Bob Russell and

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the remaining Questions required to be put at that how; pursuant to Order [this day].

    New Clause 15

      APPEAL FROM WITHIN UNITED KINGDOM: UNFOUNDED HUMAN RIGHTS OR ASYLUM CLAIM: TRANSITIONAL PROVISION
      '(1) A person who is in the United Kingdom may not bring an appeal under section 69 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c.33) (asylum) or raise a question which relates to the Human Rights Convention under section 77 of that Act (one—stop appeal.) if the Secretary of State certifies that the appeal or question, or a claim to which the appeal or question relates, is clearly unfounded.

      (2) A person who is in the United Kingdom may not bring an appeal under section 69 of that Act, or raise a question which relates to the Human Rights Convention under section 77 of that Act, if the Secretary of State certifies that—

      (a) it is proposed to remove the person to a country of whir h he is not a national or citizen, and

      (b) there is no reason to believe that the person's rights under the Human Rights Convention will be breached m that country.

      (3) A person who is in the United Kingdom may not bring an appeal under section 65 of that Act (human rights) or raise a question in reliance on section 65(3) if the Secretary of State certifies that the appeal or question, or a claim to which the appeal or question relates, is clearly unfounded.

      (4) A person who is in the United Kingdom may not bring an appeal under section 65 of that Act (human rights) if the Secretary of State certifies that—

      (a) it is proposed to remove the person to a country of whit h he is not a national or citizen, and

      (b) there is no reason to believe that the person's rights under the Human Rights Convention will be breached n that country.

      (5) In determining whether a person in relation to whom a certificate has been issued under subsection (2) or (4) may be removed from the United Kingdom, the country specified in the certificate is to be regarded as—

      (a) a place where a person's life and liberty is not threatened by reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and

      (b) a place from which a person will not be sent to another country otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention.

      (6) Where a person in relation to whom a certificate is issued under this section subsequently brings an appeal or raises a questirn under section 65, 69 or 77 of that Act while outside the United Kingdom, the appeal or question shall be considered as if Ire had not been removed from the United Kingdom.'. —[Beverley Hughes.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 359, Noes 76.

      Division No. 265]

      [10.12 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Nonvich S)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'tiy NE)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Allen, Graham

      Clelland, David

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Coaker, Vernon

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cohen, Harry

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Connarty, Michael

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Baird, Vera

      Cooper, Yvette

      Banks, Tony

      Corston, Jean

      Barron, Kevin

      Cousins, Jim

      Battle, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Beard, Nigel

      Crausby David

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cruddas, Jon

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cummings, John

      Beggs, Roy

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bell, Stuart

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Benn, Hilary

      Dalyell, Tam

      Benton, Joe

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Berry, Roger

      David, Wayne

      Belts, Clive

      Davidson, Ian

      Blackman, Liz

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Brazier, Julian

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dowd, Jim

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Drew, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Edwards;, Huw

      Browne, Desmond

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bryant, Chris

      Ennis, Jeff

      Burden, Richard

      Farrelly, Paul

      Burgon, Colin

      Fisher, Mark

      Burnham, Andy

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Burnside, David

      Flight, Howard

      Butterfill, John

      Flint, Caroline

      Cairns, David

      Flook, Adrian

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Follett, Barbara

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foulkes, George

      Casale, Roger

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Caton, Martin

      Francois,, Mark

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gapes, Mike

      Challen, Colin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Chaytor, David

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Goggins, Paul

      829

      Gray, James

      Lidington, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Linton, Martin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Lloyd, Tony

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Loughton, Tim

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Love, Andrew

      Grogan, John

      Lucas, Ian

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Luff, Peter

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Luke, Iain

      Hamilton, David (Midbthian)

      Lyons, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Hammond, Philip

      McCafferty, Chris

      Hanson, David

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hayes, John

      McFall, John

      Healey, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hendrick, Mark

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Hendry, Charles

      McKechin, Ann

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Heppell, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hesford, Stephen

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

      McNulty, Tony

      Heyes, David

      MacShane, Denis

      Hill, Keith

      McWalter, Tony

      Hinchlrffe, David

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hoban, Mark

      Malins, Humfrey

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hoey, Kate

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mann, John

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Marris, Rob

      Hope, Phil

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretfori)

      Meale, Alan

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Merron, Gillian

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Irranca—Davies, Huw

      Miliband, David

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Miller, Andrew

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Jamieson, David

      Moffatt, Laura

      Jenkins, Brian

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Morgan, Julie

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Mountford, Kali

      Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Joyce, Eric

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Kelly, Ruth

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Kemp, Fraser

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Khabra, Piara S

      O'Hara, Edward

      Kidney, David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Organ, Diana

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Owen, Albert

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Lammy, David

      Pearson, Ian

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Picking, Anne

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Pickthall, Colin

      Lepper, David

      Pike, Peter

      Leslie, Christopher

      Plaskitt, James

      Letwin, Oliver

      Pollard, Kerry

      Levitt, Tom

      Pond, Chris

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Pope, Greg

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Pound, Stephen

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Liddell—Grainger, Ian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      830

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Swayne, Desmond

      Purnell, James

      Swire, Hugo

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Syms, Robert

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tami, Mark

      Rammell, Bill

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Rapson, Syd

      Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Todd, Mark

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Touhig, Don

      Trickett, Jon

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Truswell, Paul

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Turner, Dennis (Wdvem'ton SE)

      Rixhe, Mrs Barbara

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Rooney, Terry

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Ross, Ernie

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Roy, Frank

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Ruane, Chris

      Tynan, Bill

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Vaz, Keith

      Ryan, Joan

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Watkinson, Angela

      Sheridan, Jim

      Watts, David

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Singh, Marsha

      Whitdngdale, John

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Soley, Clive

      Wilson, Brian

      Southworth, Helen

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macdesfield)

      Squire, Rachel

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Woodward, Shaun

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Worthington, Tony

      Stevenson, George

      Wray, James

      S'ewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stringer, Graham

      Angela Smith and

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mr. Phil Woolas.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Gidley, Sandra

      Allan, Richard

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Baker, Norman

      Hancock, Mike

      Barnes, Harry

      Harvey, Nick

      Barrett, John

      Heath, David

      Birth, Rt Hon A J

      Hermon, Lady

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Brake, Tom

      Holmes, Paul

      Breed, Colin

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Burnett, John

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Burstow, Paul

      Keetch, Paul

      Cable, Dr Vincent

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

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Lamb, Norman

      Chidgey, David

      Laws, David

      Coleman, Iain

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Cutter, Brian

      McDonnell, John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Doughty, Sue

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Moore, Michael

      Galloway, George

      Mudie, George

      Goorge, Andrew (St Ives)

      Oaten, Mark

      Gerrard, Neil

      Pugh, Dr John

      831

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Rendel, David

      Tyler, Paul

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Salmond, Alex

      Webb, Steve

      Sanders, Adrian

      Weir, Michael

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Willis, Phil

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wishart, Pete

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

      Younger—Ross, Richard

      Stunell, Andrew

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Tellers for the Noes: Bob Russell and Mrs. Annette L. Brooke.

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Question put, That Government amendments Nos. 219 to 226 be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 358, Noes 66.

      Division No. 266]

      [10.25 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Casale, Roger

      Ainger, Nick

      Caton, Martin

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Alexander, Douglas

      Challen, Colin

      Allen, Graham

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Chaytor, David

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Clapham, Michael

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Baird, Vera

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Banks, Tony

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clelland, David

      Battle, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Coaker, Vernon

      Coffey, Ms Ann>

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cohen, Harry

      Beggs, Roy

      Connarty, Michael

      Bell, Stuart

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Benn, Hilary

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Benton, Joe

      Cooper, Yvette

      Berry, Roger

      Corston, Jean

      Betts, Clive

      Cousins, Jim

      Blackman, Liz

      Cox, Tom

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cranston, Ross

      Blizzard, Bob

      Crausby, David

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Cruddas, Jon

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Cummings, John

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dalyell, Tam

      Brazier, Julian

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Brennan, Kevin

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      David, Wayne

      Browne, Desmond

      Davidson, Ian

      Bryant, Chris

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Burden, Richard

      Dawson, Hilton

      Burgon, Colin

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Burnham, Andy

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Burnside, David

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Dismore, Andrew

      Buttetfill, John

      Dobbin, Jim

      Cairns, David

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dowd, Jim

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Drew, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      832

      Edwards, Huw

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Kelly, Ruth

      Farrelly, Paul

      Kemp, Fraser

      Fisher, Mark

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Khabra, Piara S

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Kidney, David

      Flight, Howard

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Flint, Caroline

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Flook Adrian

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Flynn, Paul

      Follett, Barbara

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Foster, Ft Hon Derek

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lammy, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Foulkes, George

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Lepper, David

      Gapes, Mike

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gardiner, Barry

      Letwin, Oliver

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Levitt, Tom

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lewis, Turry (Worsley)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Liddell, Ftt Hon Mrs Helen

      Goggins, Paul

      Gray, James

      Liddell—Grainger, Ian

      Grieve, Dominic

      Lidington, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Lloyd, Tony

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Loughton, Tim

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Love, Andrew

      Grogan, John

      Lucas, Ian

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Luff, Peter

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Luke, Iain

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Lyons, John

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Hanson, David

      McCaffeily, Chris

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McDonagh, Sbbhain

      Hayes, John

      MacDonald, Calum

      Healey, John

      McFall, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hendrick, Mark

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Hendry, Charles

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Heppell, John

      MacKay Rt Hon Andrew

      Hesford, Stephen

      McKechin, Ann

      Heyes, David

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hill, Keith

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hinchliffe, David

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Hoban, Mark

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Hodge, Margaret

      McNulty Tony

      Hoey, Kate

      MacShane, Denis

      Hood, Jimmy

      McWater, Tony

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Mahmocid, Khalid

      Hope, Phil

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hopkins. Kelvin

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Mann, John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Marris, Rob

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Meale, Alan

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Mercer, Patrick

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Irranca—Davies, Huw

      Merron, Gillian

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Jamieson, David

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Jenkins, Brian

      Miliband, David

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Miller, Andrew

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Morgan, Julie

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Morley, Elliot

      Joyce, Eric

      Morris, Ftt Hon Estelle

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Mountford, Kali

      833

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Soley, Clive

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Southworth, Helen

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Squire, Rachel

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Stevenson, George

      O'Hara, Edward

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Organ, Diana

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Owen, Albert

      Stringer, Graham

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pearson, Ian

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Picking, Anne

      Swayne, Desmond

      Pickthall, Colin

      Swire, Hugo

      Pike, Peter

      Syms, Robert

      Plaskitt, James

      Tami, Mark

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pond, Chris

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pound, Stephen

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Todd, Mark

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Touhig, Don

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Trickett, Jon

      Purchase, Ken

      Truswell, Paul

      Purnell, James

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Rammell, Bill

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Rapson, Syd

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Tynan, Bill

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Vaz Keith

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Watts, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Whittingdale, John

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rooney, Terry

      Wiggin, Bill

      Ross, Ernie

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Roy, Frank

      Ruane, Chris

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Russell Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wilson, Brian

      Ryan, Joan

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macdesfeld)

      Sawford, Phil

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sheridan, Jim

      Worthington, Tony

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Wray, James

      Singh, Marsha

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Angela Smith and

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mr. Phil Woolas.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Allan, Richard

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Baker, Norman

      Barnes, Harry

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Barrett, John

      Chidgey, David

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Coleman, Iain

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Brake, Tom

      Cotter, Brian

      Breed, Colin

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Doughty, Sue

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Burnett, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burstow, Paul

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      834

      Gidley, Sandra

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Rendel, David

      Hancock, Mike

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Harvey, Nick

      Salmond, Alex

      Heath, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hermon, Lady

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

      Holmes, Paul

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Keetch, Paul

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

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

      Tyler, Paul

      Wareing, Robert N

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Webb, Steve

      Lamb, Norman

      Weir, Michael

      Laws, David

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Willis, Phil

      McDonnell, John

      Wishart, Pete

      McNamara, Kevin

      Younger—Ross, Richard

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Moore, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Oaten, Mark

      Bob Russell and

      Pugh, Dr John

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    Clause 80

      EARLIER RIGHT OF APPEAL
      Amendment proposed: No, 13, in page 44, line 19, leave out Clause 80.—[Simon Hughes.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 363.

      Division No. 267]

      [10.38 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

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

      Allan, Richard

      Baker, Norman

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Barrett, John

      Lamb, Norman

      Boith, Rt Hon A J

      Laws, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Brake, Tom

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Breed, Colin

      Moore, Michael

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Oaten, Mark

      Burnett, John

      Pugh, Dr John

      Burstow, Paul

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Rendel, David

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Salmond, Alex

      Chidgey, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Smith, Sir Robert (WA b'd'ns)

      Cotter, Brian

      Stunell, Andrew

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Doughty, Sue

      Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Tyler, Paul

      Gidley, Sandra

      Webb, Steve

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Weir, Michael

      Hancock, Mike

      Williams, Hywel (Caemarfon)

      Harvey, Nick

      Willis, Phil

      Heath, David

      Wishart, Pete

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Younger—Ross, Richard

      Holmes, Paul

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Bob Russell and

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke.

      835

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Ainger, Nick

      Cox, Tom

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cranston, Ross

      Alexander, Douglas

      Crausby, David

      Allen, Graham

      Cruddas, Jon

      Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Cummings, John

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bailey, Adrian

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Baird, Vera

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Banks, Tony

      David, Wayne

      Barron, Kevin

      Davidson, Ian

      Battle, John

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Beard, Nigel

      Dawson, Hilton

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Denham, Rt Hon John

      Beggs, Roy

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bell, Stuart

      Dismore, Andrew

      Benn, Hilary

      Dobbin, Jim

      Benton, Joe

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Berry, Roger

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Belts, Clive

      Dowd, Jim

      Blackman, Liz

      Drew, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Edwards, Huw

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Fisher, Mark

      Brazier, Julian

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brennan, Kevin

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Fint, Caroline

      Flook, Adrian

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Flynn, Paul

      Browne, Desmond

      Follett, Barbara

      Bryant, Chris

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Burgon, Colin

      Foulkes, George

      Burnham, Andy

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      Burnside, David

      Gapes, Mike

      Butterfill, John

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cairns, David

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caplin, Ivor

      Goggins, Paul

      Casate, Roger

      Goodman, Paul

      Caton, Martin

      Gray, James

      Cawsey, Ian

      Grieve, Dominic

      Challen, Colin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirrai S)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Chaytor, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clapham, Michael

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Penttands)

      Hain, Rt Hon Peter

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hamnan, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clelland, David

      Hayes, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Healey, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hendrick, Mark

      Connarty, Michael

      Hendry, Charles

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Heppell, John

      Cooper, Yvette

      Herrnon, Lady

      Corston, Jean

      Hesford, Stephen

      836

      Heyes, David

      MacShane, Denis

      Hill, Keith

      McWalter, Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hoban, Mark

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Hoey, Kate

      Mann, John

      Hood, Jirnmy

      Marris, Rob

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Marsden Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hope, Phil

      Martlew, Eric

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Meale, Alan

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mercer, Patrick

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hutton, Rt Hon John

      Miliband, David

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Miller, Andrew

      Irranca—Davies, Huw

      Mitchell, Andrew (Button Coldfield)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Jamieson, David

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Jenkins, Brian

      Morgan, Julie

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Mortey, Ellliot

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Mountford, Kali

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Joyce, Eric

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Murrison, Dr Andrew

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Naysmrth, Dr Doug

      Kelly, Ruth

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Kemp, Fraser

      O'Hara, Edward

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Khabra, Piara S

      Organ, Diana

      Kidney, David

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Owen, Albert

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Pearson Ian

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Picking, Anne

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Pickthall, Colin

      Lammy, David

      Pike, Peter

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Plaskitt, James

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Pond, Chris

      Lepper, David

      Pope, Greg

      Leslie, Christopher

      Pound, Stephen

      Levitt, Tom

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Purchase, Ken

      Liddell—Grainger, Ian

      Purnell, James

      Lidington, David

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Linton, Martin

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lloyd, Tony

      Rammell, Bill

      Love, Andrew

      Rapson, Syd

      Lucas, Ian

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Luff, Peter

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Luke, Iain

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lyons, John

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      McCabe, Stephen

      McCafferty, Chris

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McFall, John

      Rooney, Terry

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ross, Ernie

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Roy, Frank

      McIsaac, Shona

      Ruane, Chris

      MacKay Rt Hon Andrew

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McKechin, Ann

      Ryan, Joan

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Mackinlaiy, Andrew

      Sawford Phil

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McNutty, Tony

      Sheridan, Jim

      837

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Truswell, Paul

      Skinner, Dennis

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfas S)

      Tynan, Bill

      Soley, Clive

      Vaz, Keith

      Southworth, Helen

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Spber, Sir Michael

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Squire, Rachel

      Wareing, Robert N

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Watkinson, Angela

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Watts, David

      Stevenson, George

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Whittingdale, John

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wiggin, Bill

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Stringer, Graham

      Wilshire, David

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Wilson Brian

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Swire, Hugo

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Syms, Robert

      Woodward, Shaun

      Tami, Mark

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wray, James

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Touhig, Don

      Angela Smith and

      Trickett, Jon

      Mr. Phil Woolas.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 228, in page 44, line 20, after "decision", insert "("the new decision")".
      No. 229, in page 44, line 27, leave out—
      'the person is seeking to appeal'
      and insert—
      'the new decision responds to a request or application which the person made'.
      No. 230, in page 44, line 30, leave out "has" and insert "had".
      No. 231, in page 44, line 30, leave out "seeking to appeal" and insert—
      'making the request or application'.
      No. 232, in page 45, line 3, leave out subsection (4).
      No. 233, in page 45, line 20, at end insert—
      'or since a requirement under section 98 was imposed'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

    Clause 81

      NATIONAL SECURITY, &C.
      Amendments made: No. 234, in page 45, line 35, at end insert—
      '(2A) An appeal under section 66(1) against an immigration decision may not be brought or continued if the Secretary of State certifies that the decision is or was taken wholly or partly in reliance on information which in his opinion should not be made public—

      (a) in the interests of national security,

      (b) in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or

      (c) for another reason of a political kind.'.

      No. 235, in page 45, line 36, leave out "subsection (1)(a) and (b)" and insert—
      'subsections (1)(a) and (b) and (2A)'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

    Clause 82

      OTHER GROUNDS OF PUBLIC GOOD
      Amendment made: No. 236, in page 46, line 10, at end insert—
      '( ) Subsection (2) does not prevent the bringing of an appeal against an immigration decision of the kind referred to in section 66(2)(a) on the grounds referred to in section 68(1)(g).'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

    Clause 85

      APPEAL TO TRIBUNAL
      Amendment made: No. 237, in page 46, line 33, at end insert—
      '(4) The Lord Chancellor may by order repeal subsections (2) arid (3).'—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

    Clause 94

      REGULATIONS, &C.
      Amendment made: No. 238, in page 50, line 31, at end insert—
      '( ) An order under section 85(4)—

      (a) must be made by statutory instrument,

      (b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament,

      (c) may include consequential or transitional provision, and

      (d) may include savings.'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

    Schedule 6

      IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM APPEALS: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 245, in page 85, line 23, leave out "81(1)" and insert "81".
      No. 246, in page 85, line 26, leave out "81(1)" and insert "81".
      No. 244, in page 85, line 39, at end insert—
      '(3) A person may bring or continue an appeal under this section while he is in the United Kingdom only if he would be able to bring or continue the appeal while he was in the United Kingdom if it were an appeal under section 66(1) of that Act.'.
      No. 247, in page 86, line 33, at end insert—
      '15A Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 to that Act (appeals: procedure: Convention cases) shall be amended as follows—

      (a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a). omit "(4), (5)", and

      (b) omit sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).'.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

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

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      BUILDING
      That the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 440) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
      ELECTORAL COMMISSION
      That the Electoral Commission (Limit on Public Awareness Expenditure) Order 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 505) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT
      That the Local Government (Best Value) Performance Indicators and Performance Standards Order 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 523) he referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

    LIAISON COMMITTEE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145(3) (Liaison Committee),
    That this House agrees with the Report [16th May] of the Liaison Committee.[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

  Catherine Meyer
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  10.52 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise in the House the case of Catherine Meyer, whose two sons were abducted by her former husband eight years ago, in 1994. This is a tragic case. It is impossible to imagine the pain and suffering that this mother has had to go through over the last few years. It has been described as torture. As the parent of two young children, one the same age as Lady Meyer's children when she last had custody of then, I can only dare to imagine how awful must be her grief. I know that the Minister also has young children, so he will know what I mean when I say this.
  Although this debate will focus on one case, it is one case among many—far too many. The House has debated the subject of child abduction before. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) raised the issue on 24 October 2000 when he called for a review of The Hague convention. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) also raised the issue in respect of his constituent Lawrence Horne, on 22 April 1999. The shadow Attorney-General, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), has also talked about child abduction with his usual passion. We can change the names of the children, and the facts, but we seem unable to change the results.
  Two Departments have responsibility for these matters: the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department; the Home Office also has a remit. This case has also been raised at the highest levels by President Chirac in 1997, President Clinton in 2000, and President Bush in 2001. Lady Meyer's husband is, of course. Her Majesty's ambassador to Washington.
  We are also dealing with real gaps in an international convention, the complete failure of the German courts to bring justice to the situation, and the manipulation by their father of the emotions and the psychology of two young children. Dr. Hans Peter Volkmann has behaved appallingly in robbing his own children of their childhood.
  This sad story began eight years ago. Catherine Meyer, a British citizen, had a legal separation agreement from her husband, Dr. Volkmann. She had legal custody of the children from the German court by a notarised separation agreement. It was 6 July 1994, and the two boys, Alexander aged nine and Constantine aged seven, were living with their mother in London. They went on a routine access holiday to be with their father in Germany.
  On 24 August, four days before the children were due home in London, Dr. Volkmann wrote a 21-page letter telling Lady Meyer that he would not be returning the children to London and that he had applied for custody of the boys. Attempts by their mother to reach them by telephone were thwarted by Dr. Volkmann, who repeatedly said that they were not available. When she eventually spoke to Alexander, he said to her, "I'm German. I have to go to a German school."
  There then began a history of court action, which continues to this day. It makes me wonder about the principles that underpin German justice. Dr. Volkmann's application for custody of the children was rejected by a court in Verden on 24 August 1994, but in spite of that

  841
  he decided to keep the children in Germany. He simply ignored the ruling. On 31 August, the High Court in London ruled the retention illegal and ordered the immediate return of the children. It also made them wards of court. A month later, the Verden court upheld the British order and ordered the immediate return of the children to the United Kingdom under the terms of The Hague convention, with help from the court bailiffs if necessary.
  The father asked for half an hour to say goodbye to the children, and Lady Meyer's lawyer agreed. Volkmann and his family went to the café where the boys were waiting and threw them into the back seat of a waiting car. The car sped away to the town of Celle, where his family had influence. He immediately lodged an ex-parte application against the Verden decision. Neither Lady Meyer nor her lawyer was informed; they were simply not represented.
  In November 1994, the appeal court in Celle reversed the two previous decisions and ruled that the children remain in Germany, as they were suffering in a foreign environment because German was not spoken at home or at school. The judges also deemed that the children, then aged seven and nine, were mature enough to have their views taken into account. By that time, Lady Meyer had not seen them in mere than four months and they were under the exclusive control of their father and his family. In March 1995, the German Constitutional Court rejected her appeal.
  The Lord Chancellor's Department told Lady Meyer that there was little it could do and that she was now in the hands of the local German courts, to which she should apply for custody and access. Since 1994, Lady Meyer has tried repeatedly, and failed, to find redress in the German courts. Not only were her sons not returned to England, but she has been denied normal access to them for the entire eight years since their illegal retention in Germany.
  The boys are now l7 and 15. Since summer 1994, she has been allowed to see her sons for a grand total of 25 hours—only in Germany, usually in her ex-husband's house or on the premises of the Verden youth authority and on only three occasions without a member of the father's family or a German bureaucrat present.
  The last visit was in early 1999, and the situation has gone from bad to worse. Lady Meyer is now forbidden to see her children until 2003. Then, she will no longer be able to apply for access under German law as her sons will be over 16. The handling of her case by the German courts and the youth authority has comprised a mix of bias, incompetence and malice, but the heart of the problem has been the creation of facts by the German courts, which justify subsequent decisions favouring her ex-husband. Central to that has been delay.
  From the very beginning, the slowness of court proceedings has given her ex-husband ample opportunity to manipulate the children against her. It has taken up to a year to make a decision on access applications—not custody applications, but applications for access. Statements are extracted from the children, saying that they do not wish to see her. These are taken at face value by the German courts, which seem unable to understand that the will of the children is in fact the will of the father.
  842
  Dr. Volkmann is therefore able arrogantly to tear up access agreements and force Lady Meyer to keep making these applications. For her, this has meant 20 fruitless trips to Germany over the last eight years, more than 30 applications and the expenditure of more than £200,000 in legal fees and travel costs.
  The more time that elapses without her seeing her children, the more the courts and the youth authority resort to the argument that it would be too traumatic for the children to visit her. The German courts refused to fine Dr. Volkmann for disobeying access arrangements. In August 2000, a psychologist made a report after extensive interviews of all parties. His conclusion was that the children were being negatively influenced against their mother and that access to the mother should be resumed immediately in the mother's home. This led to the first positive decision.
  However, Dr. Volkmann immediately appealed against the decision. A new psychologist was appointed; the mother was not even interviewed. The latest decision, scrapping all her access rights until 2003, is based on this very one-sided report.
  The situation is not unique. There are many parents who find themselves in a similar predicament. These cases closely follow an established pattern. The court registers an agreed programme of access rights; the abducting parent refuses to abide by it; the court refuses to enforce it The victim parent is required to begin again with new hearings. With the passage of time, the court relies increasingly on the child's will and the arguments of trauma of reunion with the left-behind parent. In too many cases, the victim parent cannot continue, emotionally and financially trapped in this vicious cycle. A few find release in suicide.
  I have been alarmed at the number of children who go missing and are abducted every year. More than 100 children go missing every day in the United Kingdom. Although most are found or returned within a few hours, last year in England and Wales 1,300 children were still missing two weeks after they disappeared. Of these, 750 were from the Metropolitan police area. Some 546 had been abducted; 40 per cent. were victims of parental abduction. Reunite, whose work I want to commend, informs us that there was a 58 per cent. jump in the recorded number of children abducted from Britain between 1995 and the end of last year. The true figure could be far higher.
  The US State Department estimates that at least 1,000 children are taken from the United States each year by a m m-American parent without the consent of the other parent. In a parliamentary reply, the Lord Chancellor's Department informed us that, in respect of signatories to The Hague convention, there were 1,314 cases of abduction reported and 668 of these had been returned—a 51 per cent. success rate. It came as no surprise to me that Germany had 80 cases of abduction and a success rate of only 35 per cent., one of the worst figures of any country.
  What now can be done to resolve the situation? First, I want ministerial action at the highest levels between Britain and Germany on the issue. I shall be writing to the Prime Minister today to ask him to raise this case directly with Chancellor Schröder. Germany is an EU member, a signatory to the convention and a close ally of Britain. We know that the courts are independent of

  843
  Government, but they are supposed to exist in order to ensure that justice is done, not that national interests are served. There was rightly a lot of Government anger over the detaining of the British planespotters in Greece. I would like to see some ministerial anger over this. I will ask again before the summer recess what action has been taken to follow it up.
  Secondly, I want the Lord Chancellor's Department to do much more. I know that Ministers in the Department treat the issue very seriously indeed. The area of justice and home affairs is ripe for co-operation, and no issues of sovereignty are at stake. Let us have some positive judicial co-operation. I know that the German Justice Ministry has been reformed in its dealing with Hague cases, and that is thanks to the campaigning of Catherine Meyer and others.
  Surely the courts and judges in the two countries can talk to one another about the issue and produce some positive results. Perhaps we can offer some judicial training in child care law to those in the German courts who would like it. We need to learn from the administrative mistakes that have been made. It would be helpful if the Lord Chancellor's Department could ask the German authorities to review the conduct of the German courts in this case. I shall write to the German Chancellor to ask him to raise the matter directly with the German chief justice.
  Thirdly, this must be seen as a human rights issue. What advice can the Government give to Lady Meyer on pursuing the matter in the European Court of Human Rights, and what are we to do about The Hague convention? It is a pointless exercise to sign, as Germany has done, without any inclination to ensure that the articles are actually followed.
  Fourthly, I would like the Minister to agree to a meeting between the Foreign Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and Lady Meyer. Let us have some joined-up action.
  Finally, I would like the Government to support much more actively the work of non-profit-making organisations. In particular, I commend the work of PACT, the organisation founded by Catherine Meyer as a result of her terrible ordeal. She is a courageous woman who has dedicated the past eight years of her life to her beloved sons. PACT stands for Parents and Abducted Children Together, and its website is al www.pact-online.org. It exists to give information and advice to those who suffer the horror of having their children abducted and seeks to raise the profile of cases and of the subject generally in a positive and constructive way. Lady Meyer may not be able to help herself, but she intends to help others.
  Lady Meyer wrote a book entitled "Two Children Behind a Wall", chronicling her attempts to be reunited with her sons. Her love for her children is of course never-ending. She ends her book with a moving message to her young sons:
  "I have nothing left but my life to give you. This book is the only way I have left to communicate my indestructible boundless love for you. When you grow up and you are free perhaps you will read these words and understand. I do not know why life has burdened us with such a fate. I only know that even in my helplessness I will never abandon you … I will always be there for you but until the day when we are together again—and we will be—you must have faith. Till then sleep well, and let us meet in your dreams. In the dark at least our thoughts are our own to hold and to cherish and we can laugh again. For ever yours, Mummy."
  844
  I urge the Minister not to abandon this mother, and the Government to do what they can to help her and thousands of others who suffer because of the cruelty and spite of people such as Hans Peter Volkmann and the administrative failures of the German court system.
  11.9 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on securing this debate on the case of Lady Catherine Meyer, the mother of two children who were wrongfully retained in Germany by their father following an access visit in 1994. I congratulate him not only on the powerful case that he has made but on the way in which he has set it in the broader context of children who are abducted and disappear. Those of us who believe that family life should occupy an increasing rather than decreasing part in our society should be grateful to him.
  I want to place on the record my admiration for my hon. Friend's persistence in this as in other matters relating to the right of mothers to be with their children. As children, we all learn to speak what is called a mother tongue. In today's world, the right of mothers to be mothers to their children is usually afforded primacy in law and custom, but this case is a grave and serious exception to that general rule. No one should doubt how seriously every decent European citizen would, once familiar with the details of the case as laid before the House tonight, regard the conduct of German lawyers in seeking to deny what Germans call Mutterrecht. The right of a mother to be a mother must be considered.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important and distressing issue, and his initiating this debate is an indication of his commitment to Lady Meyer's case. As he said, there has been extensive parliamentary and public interest in it, and I welcome the opportunity to set out the action that the Government and we in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have taken so far on Lady Meyer's behalf.
  As my hon. Friend pointed out, Lady Meyer's children were wrongfully retained in Germany by her ex-husband, following a contact visit in 1994. Before that, Lady Meyer had full custody under the terms of the separation agreement, and her husband had access rights. The High Court in England and Wales ordered the return of the children and made them wards of court. Initially, the lower courts in Germany made an order to return the children to the UK under The Hague convention, which governs the handling of abducted children by European countries.
  In Lady Meyer's case, the initial decision of the German lower courts was overturned by the higher regional court, without her being present. Lady Meyer appealed against the decision, but lost in the German constitutional court in 1995. At that point, The Hague convention route was effectively dead. Lady Meyer therefore had no choice but to apply for contact with her children through domestic court processes in Germany. To aid those applications, the children ceased to be wards of court in the UK.
  As my hon. Friend recounted in distressing detail, Lady Meyer has pursued applications for contact since November 1994. However, she has been permitted to see

  845
  her children for a total of just 24 hours throughout this period. Various contact orders have been awarded in Lady Meyer's favour, but the German courts have not enforced them. I believe that that is contrary to all European norms.
  It is important to understand how Her Majesty's Government can assist families affected by child abduction. In broad terms, responsibility for assisting such families is divided into two areas: Hague convention cases and non-Hague convention cases. The Lord Chancellor's Department is the lead Department for abductions to and from Hague convention countries in England and Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own central authorities. The FCO is the lead Department for non-Hague convention countries.
  The Hague convention on the international aspects of child abduction is a multilateral treaty. It seeks to return children who have been abducted abroad to their country of habitual residence, where issues of custody and contact can be resolved through the courts. It seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of international child abduction by providing a procedure to bring about their prompt return.
  As I said, the FCO is the lead Department for non-Hague convention cases. Where The Hague convention is not in force between two countries, families of abducted children must pursue court proceedings in the foreign country to gain contact with, or custody of, them. The FCO provides support for parents who are pursuing contact or custody cases through the domestic courts of another country, but it also gets involved in Hague convention cases in which diplomatic intervention could expedite progress. That is why the FCO has been closely involved in Lady Meyer's case. Since January 2000, formal representations to the German authorities have been made on at least four occasions. Those have included correspondence to the German authorities from our ambassador in Berlin, our chargé daffaires in Berlin and Baroness Scotland. Other embassy and consulate-general staff have been closely involved in negotiating a compromise between the children's father, the court in Celle, and the lawyer appointed by the Celle court to look after the children's interests.
  Although I do not: have direct ministerial responsibility for Germany, I know the country and its Chancellor, and I believe that the denial of Mutterrecht—the right of a mother to be a mother—is not acceptable in a modern, tolerant, liberal Europe. I give the House my assurance that I will give my personal support to the case. It is the considered view of the Foreign Office that the German courts have been incapable of dealing fairly and objectively with the unique circumstances of Lady Meyer's case. She has been treated unsympathetically.
  Mr. Vaz: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks and appreciate greatly his support. Will he agree to convene a meeting with the Lord Chancellor's Department and Lady Meyer so that both Departments can be involved in helping her to pursue the next steps?
  Mr. MacShane: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office stands ready to work with Lady Meyer on the next steps of her case and looks forward to discussing that with her. I shall convey my hon. Friend's suggestion to my
  846
  ministerial colleagues in the Foreign Office with direct responsibility for the matter, because it would be a sensible way to take matters forward.
  Lady Meyer has clearly been active and energetic in pursuing contact rights to her sons. We will continue to provide assistance to Lady Meyer wherever possible and whenever she requests it. It is extraordinarily sad that Lady Meyer has been unable to secure substantial contact rights to see her sons. It is hard to accept that in a democratic, tolerant Europe that respects the rule of law this case has to be brought to the attention of the public authorities in such a way.
  Lady Meyer's case is, in the experience of the Lord Chancellor's Department, atypical. There are currently—thankfully—no other cases in which British parents are suffering the same level of difficulties as Catherine Meyer, though parents of other nationalities are. While there have in the past been administrative difficulties concerning Hague convention cases in Germany, Germany has overhauled the court system that deals with Hague convention cases. The German Ministry of Justice recently reduced the number of courts dealing with cases under The Hague convention from 600 to 24 on the basis that fewer judges will lead to greater expertise. Those changes are welcome and they have come about not least because of the work done bilaterally by the Lord Chancellor's Department. But they are long overdue and it is a matter of deep regret that they are too late to help Catherine Meyer and other, non-British, parents in their predicament. We hope nevertheless that they will ensure chat parents in future will not suffer what Catherine has suffered.
  The answer lies in a common European system. That requires a decision, agreed by all EU member states, that the rules of unanimity mean that just one country—in this case, Germany—can exercise its veto to prevent a fair and just system from coming into operation. Those hon. Members who always insist on national rules and systems, and the right of veto fiber alles, so to speak, may reflect on what happens when national egoism prevails over a greater need for justice.
  As my hon. Friend has stated, Lady Meyer has tried to use her difficult experience to help others. She has been the driving force behind the establishment of the charity Parents and Abducted Children Together—PACT. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Lady Meyer's work with PACT and to welcome the presence on the Front Bench of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who, while Foreign Secretary, gave his strong personal support to Lady Meyer's case.
  Returning to Lady Meyer's case, I am confident that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has provided Lady Meyer with appropriate advice and consular assistance. My noble Friend Baroness Scotland, when she was a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, showed an active interest in Lady Meyer's case, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East when he was Minister for Europe. I will ensure that my noble Friend Baroness Amos, who now has responsibility for this issue, sees a transcript of tonight's important debate. I hope that the other interventions by my hon. Friend, which he mentioned earlier, will help to assist the case.

  847
  Staff at our embassy in Berlin and our consulate-general in Hamburg have also devoted a good deal of time to assisting Lady Meyer. We will continue to do what we can to provide Lady Meyer with support and assistance, and to take a close interest in her case. It is utterly irrelevant that she is the wife of one our ambassadors. She speaks as a mother denied the right to be a mother to her children. That is a crime against
  848
  motherhood, and the German legal system and those who have denied her right to be a mother should be thoroughly ashamed of it. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office stands beside her, as we stand behind every mother who wants to be a parent to her sons.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Central Railway
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]
9.30 am
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am delighted to have been able to secure this debate. The subject is of great interest to the Opposition, and I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends. If it comes about, the Central Railway scheme would have as great an impact on my constituency as anywhere else. Not only would an area of outstanding natural beauty have to play host to a 14 km tunnel that would take five years to construct, but the railway's operations would have a disastrous impact on the quality of life of thousands of my constituents in Merstham, where the route is proposed to run overground.
Since being elected in 1997, I have spent some time making home visits in order to listen to the noise of trains in tunnels. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) have no confidence that the tunnel would insulate those unfortunate enough to live above it. It is therefore unsurprising that, following the scheme's resurrection after its decisive defeat in Parliament in 1996, I have been taking a keen interest in Central Railway's proposals. I note that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), is the fourth Minister to reply to debates on Central Railway. I hope that he will be the last.
The scheme's proponents claim that it will meet 75 per cent. of the Government's objectives in moving freight from road to rail, but that it will be done at no cost to the taxpayer. That superficial level of analysis seems too good to be true. Indeed, on the available evidence, one must conclude that the scheme is too good to be true at national level, as well as being too awful to contemplate at constituency level.
When the subject was last debated here—it was in a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who is in his place today—the then Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), was unable to answer my hon. Friend's two simple questions. He had asked whether the Government supported the scheme and, if so, whether they would use the company's proposed vehicle of a hybrid Bill to enable it to escape the usual scrutiny of a planning inquiry. The Minister said that it would be impossible for the Government to take a position until the Strategic Rail Authority had completed its review of Central Railway's proposals.
That evidence was made available to the Government last year, but still no decision has been taken. Indeed, yet more work has been commissioned from the SRA. I regret that, as do my blighted constituents, but I understand the Government's reluctance to give up their
186WH
pursuit of the crock of gold at the end of the Central Railway rainbow. However, enough is enough. My primary objective today is to invite the Government to state their opposition or their support for the scheme at the completion of the latest analysis.
I want to summarise why the Government should not support the scheme. In the last debate on the subject, the Minister helpfully recited the terms of reference that the Government had given the SRA, and they are listed at column 54 of the Westminster Hall debate of 6 March 2001. Because of time constraints, I do not intend to repeat them, but any analysis based on the Government's terms of reference will show that the scheme should fail.
First, on volume, market share, revenue and operating forecasts, the conclusions of chapter 3 of the consultants' report, "Market and Revenue Forecasts", are devastating for the Central Railway proposal. Central Railway claims that within three years it will win a 35 per cent. market share of all freight currently transported by lorry or container between the United Kingdom and the continent via all French, Belgian, and Dutch ports and through the channel tunnel. It is claimed that that market share will generate revenue of £1.4 billion in 2011. That is based on the market continuing to grow at historic rates of 6 per cent. per annum. Central Railway claims that that figure is conservative, but I regard it as heroic. However, from what we know so far, the SRA is in no position to advise the Minister that those market share assumptions are valid. The SRA's report states:
"Central Railway's investigation of the price elasticity of demand in the UK showed that a 10 per cent. reduction in tariffs would generate a 27 per cent. increase in volume. The consultants were not told whether a 10 per cent. increase in tariffs results in a 27 per cent. reduction in volume."
The consultants went on to say:
"The traffic forecasts are highly dependent on the assessment of price elasticity and customer mode switching behaviour, however demand is very price sensitive. The model does not assume any competitor reaction to Central Railway, it is almost certain that improvements would be made to the competitor offer…MDST concludes that a 40 per cent. market share is unattainable"
and that
"the haulage rates used are totally unrealistic."
Yesterday, I asked Chris Savage, the director of government affairs at Central Railway—I am grateful to him for taking the time to come and brief me—whether any further work had been carried out on the economic forecasts. He told me that it had not. That updates the SRA's consultants' statement that
"Central Railway has not yet carried out any further market research to test specific service/price propositions and provide a validation of its initial assessment of buying behaviour."
The whole scheme rests on one survey of 200 road hauliers conducted by the proponents of the scheme. In a paper exercise, the hauliers responded overwhelmingly to a question about price. In the real world, it will not work like that, even if the price data are reliable. For example, Central Railway states that the scheme
"assumes that Transport firms would use the unaccompanied service if the cost saving justified it."

187WH
At the moment, Central Railway is proposing that lorries will go on trains without their drivers. Quite apart from the inherent inflexibility of rail compared with road, Central Railway appears to have taken no account of the fact that a significant percentage of the road haulage industry is represented by owner-drivers who are unlikely to want to put their lorry unaccompanied on a railway. There is no discount factor in its calculations for that section of the road haulage industry. Its calculation is based solely on its price claims.
The Minister said in the previous debate on 6 March 2001 that operating costs were part of the SRA's remit. The SRA states:
"As part of our review, we sought back-up for the operating cost assumptions. Central Railway told us that these had been provided based on advice from France (SNCF)."
It is, at the very least, inconsistent for what is supposed to be an entirely commercial scheme to rely on advice about operating costs from a nationalised and highly subsidised business. The Minister will have noticed that the SRA's consultants dryly report:
"The costs do not appear to have been benchmarked against any current UK experience or supply market tested."
On capital costs, at the time that the consultants' report for the SRA was completed, Central Railway did not have a comprehensive costed schedule of all the work that is required to be undertaken for the total route. According to the information that I received from Central Railway yesterday, that remains the case. Even the most superficial examination of the capital costs, related solely to the work in my constituency, suggests that the ballpark estimate of £4 billion for the construction costs must be way off the mark. Central Railway claims that the 14 km tunnel that will end in an unspecified place in my constituency between junction 8 of the M25 and the A23 will represent 10 per cent. of the cost. It does not know where the tunnel will go, which is a comment on the quality of its proposals. In 1999, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), his predecessor, Sir Archie Hamilton, and I met the chairman of Central Railway. We had to point out that the company's paper exercise on where the line would run showed that one end of the tunnel would come up in the middle of a housing estate in what was then Sir Archie Hamilton's constituency. On the basis of that information, the tunnel's planned route was changed, but there is still an almost total lack of detail about this important matter.
Mr. John Randall: I do not want to stop my hon. Friend in mid flow, but I am sure that he agrees that all our constituents face a big problem because their properties will suffer blight as long as the plans and the route remain uncertain. Admittedly, that blight has been masked by the rise in house prices, but it is blight all the same. Something must be done quickly, which is why I am sure that my hon. Friend will urge the Government to say no to the plan as soon as possible.
Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One can see from the presence of so many hon. Members today that there is concern among constituents, who are
188WH
experiencing real hurt because of the loss of asset value of their properties. The Central Railway proposition has been kicking around for seven years, and anyone living near the proposed route or routes has suffered property blight. The Government owe it to our constituents to end that uncertainty, and the primary objective of today's debate is to enable the Minister to give an undertaking to do so.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend will see that several Opposition Members from Buckinghamshire are here to support him. Do the figures that he received recently from Central Railway include estimates by Chiltern Railways of the costs involved? Chiltern Railways recently received a new 20-year franchise, and is probably the best train-operating company in the country. It says that the wide gauge of the Central Railway trains would require every station on the Chiltern line to be rebuilt and new tracks to be installed. It also notes that Central Railway's ill-thought-out proposals could be achieved only by constructing two entirely separate tracks along the Chiltern line. Has my hon. Friend received any estimate of the vast costs and disruption to our constituents and the local economy?
Mr. Blunt: The answer is, of course, no. Indeed, I do not think that Central Railway has any idea of the costs that would be incurred, which is part of the difficulty with the scheme. As the Strategic Rail Authority's consultants told the Government, there is still a complete vacuum as regards details of how the scheme will operate alongside existing railways, such as the Chiltern line. My hon. Friend has given a classic example of the risk factors involved in such schemes. As she said, they have not been quantified at all in this case.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his approach to the matter, and I strongly agree with him and with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on the question of uncertainty. Does he accept that people up and down the M25—I refer particularly to constituents in Byfleet and West Byfleet—have faced blight for years? That uncertainty is damaging, and it is vital to reach a conclusion quickly and to oppose the proposal.
Mr. Blunt: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for my central proposition, which is that the Government must make a decision at the end of the period of analysis. I hope that the Minister will give us and our constituents comfort on the matter later in the debate.
Central Railway claims that the tunnel, one end of which will be in my constituency, will take up about 10 per cent. of the construction costs of the whole railway—£400 million. Nearly two decades ago the channel tunnel cost £100 million per kilometre, four times the price that Central Railway claims for the proposed tunnel under the North Downs. It proposes that the railway will exit the tunnel and run alongside the M25 and M23 past the Merstham estate in my constituency. Any examination of the substantial cuttings and embankments that make up the boundary of the motorways at that point will demonstrate what a huge civil engineering undertaking that 3 km stretch

189WH
alone would be, let alone what the Highways Agency would have to say; I am not even sure that it has been consulted. On the evidence of my eyes, I cannot believe Central Railway's capital cost forecast for the scheme.
The Minister will also know that the chapter on technical feasibility and deliverability of the scheme in the SRA consultants' report is far from a robust endorsement. The consultants said that, to clarify feasibility further,
"There will be a need to communicate and operate the route with interfaces with Railtrack as the UK's prime infrastructure owner. Each interface constitutes a risk to the operation of the networks. These risks have yet to be quantified which can only occur when the dialogue with Railtrack, the TOCs and the SRA has been undertaken on a more focused basis."
That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) made and it is reinforced in the report that is before Ministers. If the Minister does not get satisfaction on those points, it will be a serious indicator that the Government should reject the request for a hybrid Bill.
Central Railway has been around for over seven years; longer than Railtrack or the train operating companies. The fact that it has been unable to address the issues with them in a serious way, and to find solutions, must give us cause to doubt the robustness of the proposal, which throws up myriad serious planning concerns, not least in my constituency, as some of my hon. Friends have mentioned. One can understand why the company wants a hybrid Bill. The Government should not give their weight to any scheme that poses as many serious planning issues the length of the country as this one does, if that enables the issues to escape proper public scrutiny.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I hope to say more later, but I should like to highlight the inclusion in the scheme of terminals for trans-shipment from road to rail. One is proposed in my constituency in an area that is already saturated with traffic, and to which it is intended to attract lorries from a 200 km radius. Such issues and their implications seem to be totally unaddressed by Central Railway.
Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well and I agree with him. I am glad that I do not appear to be getting a terminal as well as a tunnel. The point about planning is central. A hybrid Bill would be the most inappropriate vehicle for this scheme. Planning blight is well documented and has already been mentioned—many of our constituents have been badly affected. After seven years, those constituents and other people who have suffered damage as a result of the scheme are now owed certainty from their Government.
Mr. Ian Taylor: My hon. Friend has kindly raised the question of certainty. That is much in the minds of my constituents, as they still have hanging over them the possibility of a service station at Downside. This morning's papers report that consultants now say that the M25 should be widened further. That will undoubtedly affect my constituents and his, and it means that the Central Railway plans will be subject to many other considerations that the Government will have to take into account. We will not
190WH
know the outcome for some time unless the Government are decisive and reject at least that element of uncertainty.
Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as I had not been aware of the precise points that he made. The M25 has recently undergone an extension, not least through Reigate. The junction of the M25 and M23 is a central point, and no doubt the motorways will be developed beyond the present four lanes. To put a railway line bang alongside the M25 and M23 would be unacceptable to the Highways Agency, I imagine, as it would preclude expansion of the motorway network in decades to come. Consultation has not taken place on such issues, which is another nail in the coffin of the Central Railway scheme.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I have a question on blight. My hon. Friend will be aware that Central Railway maintains that it has an innovative compensation scheme for people who are likely to be affected. Has it suggested how many people might benefit from that scheme? Does not the firm retain control over who is offered the compensation package?
Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend is right. On superficial reading, the compensation scheme seems excellent, but one then has to read the small print. In the end, Central Railway decides who has access to the scheme. As there is no one else to adjudicate on access, the decision will be taken by Central Railway.
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blunt: In a moment.
However good the compensation scheme looks at first, I regret to say that it is not robust enough to survive analysis. Perhaps the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) will suggest that the scheme has changed since it was last presented to me, but that is currently its fatal flaw.
Mr. Hopkins: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the scheme proposed by Central Railway was praised by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions? The essence of it is that it will pay enough to compensate people. There have been examples of negotiations with possible trackside homeowners in which they have agreed to accept compensation under that scheme.
Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he makes the point that the scheme is superficially generous and sounds good. However, in preparation for the debate, I asked Central Railway in a letter whether entry to the property owners' compensation scheme was a matter for the company's discretion. Central Railway replied that the provisions of the property protection scheme were at the discretion of the company, and pointed out that they were more generous than the statutory arrangements. It also said that people would continue to have their statutory rights under the scheme. The scheme sounds very nice, like the whole Central Railway proposition, but the detail is lacking. It is in the detail that the scheme fails.
Mr. Philip Hammond: The essence of the compensation scheme as I understand

191WH
it, is to underwrite the value of a property, and thus make it tradable while the blight continues. Is not the real weakness of the scheme that the guarantee is only as strong as the company that makes it? That company is thinly capitalised and likely to go belly-up if the scheme itself does not proceed.
Mr. Blunt: Quite.
I want to return to capacity. Some other points may be dealt with in other hon. Members' speeches, and I will hurry to a conclusion to allow time for others to contribute.
The channel tunnel is a vital choke point for the scheme, but it does not have enough capacity for Central Railway's projections alongside those of everyone else. There will be a mix of demands from different rail operators through the channel tunnel. Central Railway must operate throughout the day to handle its forecast volume of ad hoc lorry traffic. It suggests that peak arrivals in 2010 will be 403 units an hour. That includes 10 Central Railway trains, increasing to 15 trains an hour by 2020. However, by 2010 the tunnel will be approaching capacity, based on the projections of the Eurotunnel shuttle and the high speed Eurostar passenger traffic from St. Pancras. Simply put, there may not be enough capacity in the tunnel to meet Central Railway's plans. In response to that potential showstopper, Central Railway challenged the assumptions of Eurostar and Eurotunnel, but why should their assumptions have less merit than those that underlie the Central Railway proposition?
The quality and detail of the Central Railway proposal has always been the problem, which is perhaps unsurprising given the nature of the company. It employs fewer than a dozen full-time equivalents, has only one corporate shareholder and its proposed project manager is an American company called Parsons, which owns only 8 per cent. of the equity. The remainder is owned by the directors and employees. The entrepreneurial nature of the company is at one level to be admired, but the Government would be in wholesale dereliction of their duty if they invited Parliament to pass a hybrid Bill on the basis of the scant information available now from that little company.
The latest report from the SRA leaves more questions unanswered than answered. It has exposed a project built on unreliable evidence. In the words of the disclaimer on Central Railway's own information document, "The business case for Central railway":
"While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information in this document, no responsibility can be taken for errors or omissions made."
The Minister will be aware that the Government cannot properly make such a disclaimer—certainly, we understand that to be the case under the new management of his Department.
The Government are providing Central Railway with a third opportunity to refine its superficially attractive proposals for a freight railway line from Liverpool to Lille. On examination, the proposal seems an entrepreneurial and environmental catastrophe waiting to happen. The SRA will finish its next assessment of the revised proposals in September. The Government must then be willing to put this half-baked scheme out of its misery.
9.56 am
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on raising this important subject, although I take a different view of the scheme. I am a strong supporter of the concept of Central Railway and look forward to the Government, in time, making a positive decision to accept and support it.
Mr. Hammond: If the scheme's merits are so self-evident, why are its promoters reluctant to use the established procedures for obtaining approval, as laid down in the Transport and Works Act 1992, and seeking instead to shelter behind Government support in the form of a hybrid Bill?
Mr. Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman would have to ask the company that question. The hybrid Bill route is one way in which to achieve Government support and involvement, which is important for a scheme of such national consequence. It might be easier to get the scheme through under a hybrid Bill than by using the measures under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. Of course it would be easier to get the scheme through under the hybrid Bill procedure because it would avoid the planning constraints and public inquiries that would normally take place. In other words, by that means, the scheme would avoid proper public scrutiny. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that that is an inappropriate way in which to proceed with such a scheme?
Mr. Hopkins: No, I do not think that it is an inappropriate way to proceed. Of course, any Government involvement would necessarily mean that the Government would have to take careful account of all interests involved, especially those affected by the route. No Government would ride roughshod over people's feelings and interests—certainly not this Government.
I have been involved with the scheme for the past seven years, but I should emphasise that I have no pecuniary interests in the matter. I have had lunch with people from the company on many occasions, but have always insisted on paying for myself, because there is no such thing as a free lunch. I believe profoundly in the scheme, which would make a vital contribution to the nation's transport infrastructure. A dedicated freight link between the industrial heartland of Britain and the continent, especially from the north, is essential.
Mr. Grieve: How can it be a dedicated freight line when its proponents intend to share the track that will run through my constituency and the constituencies of several of my hon. Friends with Chiltern Railways, which says unequivocally that shared use is incompatible?
Mr. Hopkins: It is essentially a freight scheme. Clearly, extra track will have to be built in some areas, but the scheme will mostly use unused track bed and unused tunnels. I do not dispute that there are likely to be technical and civil engineering difficulties, and, indeed, social and economic difficulties on the route.

193WH
Those will have to be dealt with and paid for, but that is insufficient reason to prevent this great scheme from going ahead.
The north-west of Britain and south Yorkshire have suffered serious economic decline in recent decades, and it is vital to link peripheral economies with the continent of Europe. We are experiencing increasing gridlock on our roads, which increases the difficulties for lorries such that reliability will soon be impossible for the road haulage industry. This turn-up-and-go rail scheme will guarantee delivery to the continent of Europe in a few hours and will have tremendous cost advantages for road hauliers but, more importantly, it will have the advantage of reliability and will breathe new life into northern economies.
Roads beyond south Yorkshire and south Lancashire can still cope because traffic density in the area is not as great, but roads further south are already clogged, and getting worse.
Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the objectives that he has outlined of revitalising northern economies could be achieved as easily by the alignment of a freight-only railway to the east of London, and that such an alignment would fit more comfortably with the Government's policy of regenerating the Thames gateway? Can he see any reason why the railway would have to pass to the west of London?
Mr. Hopkins: No. I do not think that there is an argument for any alternative. The original scheme proposed a long tunnel from Olympia to Croydon in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies). There has now been a new proposal, but I do not think that there are other alternatives. It is important to ensure that the scheme goes ahead, so that there is an aorta—a lifeline—between the northern and midland economies of Britain and the continent of Europe. It will form part of the trans-European networks on which the European Union is so keen. I have some criticisms of the European Union, but in this respect, I am on its side. I believe that there is also some sympathy for the scheme among Commissioners in Brussels. That may not persuade all Opposition Members, but the scheme is important to our economy.
The major advantage of the scheme is that it will use super gauge—large height and width gauge—so that full-scale lorries can be put on to trains and rolled off at the other end. It will not require investment in cut down trucks or special lorries—a key advantage for hauliers. The gauge will also permit double stacked containers, although the channel tunnel cannot take two full-size containers. It can take one container of 9 ft, 6 in and one of 8 ft, 6 in, but not two containers of 9 ft, 6 in. If the channel tunnel were built slightly larger, double stacked full-scale containers could have been used all the way through.
Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman has just given an example of how the scheme fails in the detail. There is no dispute about what appear from his argument to be the superficial attractions of the scheme. I agree with him about the desirability of the strategic objective that Central Railway appears to deliver. The problem is that
194WH
the scheme simply fails on both the business and the practical cases. Double stacking, which was in the Central Railway proposals for some considerable time, is a classic example: it failed to measure the size of the proposal against the size of the channel tunnel. That rather suggests that the scheme is under-prepared and under-resourced in terms of research. It would be wholly improper of the Government to invite Parliament to support a hybrid Bill on the current evidence.
Mr. Hopkins: The primary attraction of the scheme is to put lorries on trains. Another attraction is that it can take containers and double stacked containers up to a certain size. The limiting factor is not Central Railway, but the channel tunnel. The problem is the lack of foresight of those who built the channel tunnel.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to the extent that it is possible to stack double containers or to have full-height lorries going on at ambient level in journeys within the United Kingdom, the environmental impacts in the rural parts of our constituencies will be considerably aggravated?
Mr. Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the alternative is more lorries on roads. As the M1 goes through my constituency, I am very conscious of the impact of lorries on roads. Trucks damage roads, and motorway congestion is caused by road repairs necessitated by that damage. Axle weight is crucial. The fourth power road law suggests that road damage is proportionate to the fourth power of an increase in axle weight. If the axle weight is doubled, road damage is multiplied by 16; if it is trebled, it is multiplied by 81 and if it is quadrupled it is multiplied by 256. If there were no lorries and only cars on the motorways there would be almost no damage. There would be almost no congestion due to road repairs because the motorways would last for such a long time. It is lorries that cause the problem. We will have to have lorries on the motorways for the foreseeable future, but if we take a significant proportion of them off the roads, there will be less road damage and lower costs to the Government.
Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I appreciate his point as a generality, but there is a practical issue. Those lorries will have to get on to the trains at some point. Terminals have been projected by Central Railway and one is to be located in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman will know the geography of my constituency well enough to realise that the area is currently entirely saturated with traffic. Far from reducing the volume of lorry use in the area I represent and the surrounding districts, the scheme, if Central Railway is successful, will multiply it by an almost infinite amount. Yet here is a proposal—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. This is becoming a speech. Will the hon. Gentleman bring his intervention to a speedy conclusion?
Mr. Grieve: I will do so. The issue has not even been addressed in Central Railway's own proposals.
Mr. Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interesting intervention. The bulk of the traffic will be

195WH
international and will go from the north right through his constituency. But there will clearly be some terminal loading and offloading in parts of Britain too. Inevitably there will be some disruption in certain areas to get this great scheme to work. The alternative is for all that traffic to go on roads through Kent and other beautiful southern counties instead of on a relatively narrow rail track at a rapid rate, with several trains an hour and many lorries on each train.
The loading and offloading will be very quick. I visited France last year with the rail freight group and a number of hon. Members from both sides of the House. We saw the modern technology for loading and offloading lorries. It is very speedy: it takes a second for a truck to drive on at an angle, straighten and go off the other side. One can take the tractor on the train or leave it behind. The technology is advanced and is in place—indeed, the technology for building railways has existed for a century and a half. No new trickery is involved; it is very straightforward. The costs are nowhere near as questionable as hon. Members have suggested.
Mr. Hammond: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but there are just 20 minutes before the Front Bench speeches start and at least five other Oppn Members want to speak. The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 14 minutes. Does he intend to convey the impression that he is filibustering?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must come to the defence of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), who has given way many times. However, we need to start the winding-up speeches in 20 minutes and several hon. Members have indicated a wish to speak. I want to call at least four hon. Members before then. I hope that hon. Members will show self-discipline.
Mr. Hopkins: I will draw my remarks to a close soon. I thought it important to take interventions and I am trying to be generous, but that cuts into other people's time.
The key issue is the future of our country, in terms of its environment and economy—particularly the northern economy. Many hon. Members live in areas of high unemployment and some look forward to the development of terminals in their constituencies because they provide much employment to people in the construction industry. The scheme would provide other economic benefits.
Mr. Blunt: The central economic point is that we do no service to the British economy if we initiate a scheme that turns out to be entirely uneconomic when the business case is examined. That would suck resources from the economy rather than improve it and do damage to the whole economy, including businesses in the north.
Mr. Hopkins: I shall round off my remarks by saying that that is not the view on the continent of Europe. Last year I visited France with the rail freight group; we saw massive investments in rail freight and passenger services. We should go the way of France. It is building new passenger lines and using the older network as a
196WH
dedicated freight network for the whole country. It takes railways seriously; it invests two and a half times what we do in railways every year. That is the way forward. Railways take traffic off roads. Roads and road damage are causing problems and the country would be grateful if the Government sensibly allowed the scheme.
I have been to two revenue forecast presentations by independent consultants. Both concluded that the revenue case is very strong. I see no possibility of the scheme not working, given the enormous demand for north-south freight traffic in Britain. That traffic is currently crowded on to our motorways and up to the equivalent of one motorway lane would transfer on to the proposed railway. The scheme has a great future and I hope that the Government will eventually promote it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope, unofficially, that subsequent speakers will restrict their remarks to four minutes. That would enable most hon. Members who wish to do so to speak. [Interruption.]
10.14 am
Sitting suspended.
10.15 am
On resuming—
Mr. David Tredinnick: Long may the peace continue.
I first came across the proposal as a member of the Committee that considered the channel tunnel rail link. The Committee sat in this very Chamber—it was then known as the Grand Committee Room—from February 1995 to February 1996, and we sat for long enough to walk from London to Madrid at a leisurely pace. During the 300 hours of sittings, we considered the then proposal for the Central Railway.
We are short of time today, but I must say that the proposal now before us is a much-improved one. It is entirely consistent with the Government's strategy of getting more traffic off the roads and on to rail. That will benefit Hinckley, a main town in my constituency of Bosworth in the middle of England. It is absolutely right that the Govt have asked the Strategic Rail Authority to make further investigations that will answer many of the questions raised by those of my hon. Friends who may not view me as a particular friend in this debate. I apologise to them.
The hybrid Bill procedure that was used for the channel tunnel rail link legislation is the correct one to use. That quasi-judicial Committee dealt with a complex measure and had to fix many important aspects of that route and to make decisions about tunnels.
I am also impressed that the funding for the railway is intended to come from the private sector. If the money does not come, the railway will not be built and the private sector will decide on the merits of the proposals. They are not right yet, and I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) feel that strongly, but the proposals are well on the way.

197WH
Let us not forget that the Sheffield, as the Great Central railway was originally called, was propelled south from Sheffield through Loughborough, Leicester and Rugby at the end of the century. It came into St. Marylebone after upending the pitch at Lord's, and that is why there is a slope on the ground there. It was the finest railway ever built in Britain, and many in the midlands think that the wrong line was shut. Beeching should have shut the Midland and not the Great Central railway. To rebuild the section between Princes Risborough and Rugby would be relatively easy, because most of the track bed is in place. It is also a very level railway. As the hon. Member for Luton, North pointed out—I shall not use the same terminology—it was built to Berne gauge, so one of the greatest tunnels ever built, the great tunnel at Catesby, is built to Berne gauge. The "cage" at Rugby is still there where the Central railway crossed the west coast main line. It was a superior railway.
The proposal to rebuild the Central railway on a new route around the M25 makes a great deal of sense. I had a long discussion on Friday with Albert Sharpe, a former railwayman who is a consultant in my constituency, and he spoke about the upgrading of Hinckley station to take heavy goods trains and the ability to run more traffic on the upgraded new line. That is the right approach.
All the problems that my hon. Friends have described will be resolved quite simply and all the planning blight will disappear when the line is built. There will be no relief until the line is built. It is the obvious option and we need the line in the midlands and the north. If this proposal is kicked into touch, there will be another proposal for the Central railway, as the track bed is largely in place. If one studies the map in the Library, one sees that the proposal would use mainly disused railways, and the hon. Member for Luton, North is nodding as I make that point. There is inevitability about the proposal. The line will be built sooner or later. It is in all our interests to build it—and the sooner, the better.
10.19 am
Geraint Davies: In principle, it is a good idea to have a north-south freight railway that links to the channel crossing. However, in practice, the proposal is flawed and faces many political and business problems. The financial risk that would be involved in the Government promoting the current scheme would be enormous and the opportunity cost of the money that they would end up spending to bail out a business failure could be better invested in the main transport infrastructure that we so urgently need.
I have several specific problems with the proposal. As Members will know, a cursory glance at the projections for the channel tunnel shows that it is expected to reach capacity in terms of Eurotunnel and Eurostar by 2010. There is no prospect of widening the tunnel or building another, so the proposal is immediately reduced to a north-south rail link, leading on to ferries. It may be a good idea to have such a link, but we should not pretend that any of the freight would be able to go down the tunnel.
Doubledecker containers and stacking on trains have been mentioned. An earlier proposal presumed that doubledecker trains could go through the tunnel, but in
198WH
fact they cannot—we cannot get them under bridges, for example. That shows how early on we are in pushing forward the proposal. We must consider the detail, because it is not the case that everything will be all right once the proposal has been considered. Whether trains fit in tunnels is a fundamental issue, and the fact is that they will not. The smaller trains will fit, but there will be no opportunities for them unless Eurotunnel and Eurostar give up some of their capacity, and obviously they will not.
The business analysis assumes that the trains are filled to 100 per cent. capacity, but empirically one finds that they are more likely to be filled to 50 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) said that there would be no delay in loading and offloading, but in reality if a lorry breaks down in the queue on the way to a train, the train will be delayed and will not get through the tunnel or will not get its slot. The assumptions are based on perfection, but clearly we live in an imperfect world. In reality, delays occur and have a knock-on effect on efficiency.
A haulage company owner wants to know that his product will go from A to B in a certain time. Obviously, there are congestion problems and delays on the motorways, but it would require only a series of unexpected delays on the trains for a client suddenly to go on to the roads, and the fixed costs in the infrastructure—interest costs and so on—would become difficult to pay. The private sector—the consortium that backs the project, in the first instance—would then go into quick liquidation, and the public sector would have to pick up the tab. If there were a multi-billion pound investment in a north-south freight link, ultimately the Government would be required to finish the project once it had been started. We would then have an enormous white elephant and a massive problem for taxpayers.
I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak, but I am concerned about the risks down the line for Government and taxpayer. I am concerned about ownership of the line passing to Central Railway and about public accountability. The train-operating companies, Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, Eurotunnel, Railtrack and so on appear not to have been properly consulted. I hope that the Government are not suggesting that the proposal will hurtle ahead, but that it will be properly evaluated and the opportunity costs of alternative risks and investments properly considered. That would allow us to get more freight on to the railways, but not on the back of a rather hare-brained scheme.
10.23 am
Mr. Tim Boswell: I am no opponent of rail freight in principle. I would very much like Daventry international rail freight terminal to be used more intensively. However, the Minister is well aware of the difficulties with security in the channel tunnel, and this debate has brought out well the long-term constraints of that tunnel in terms of a separate rail link. For that reason, I have serious reservations about the Central Railway proposal.
I have not spoken on the matter previously, not least because I thought that as we were likely to consider it under the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure, I

199WH
should operate quasi-judicially and wait until we had a scheme to consider. I would have fewer inhibitions about making my views known if the measure were to be introduced as a hybrid Bill. I suspect that, like me, most of the Opposition Members here today are concerned about the environmental impact on their constituencies. That concern is proper, especially with regard to my constituency, as the railway would transect it from south-east to north-west over a 30-mile area and would have a major environmental impact. My singling out of particular places in no way removes the generality of my concern.
In Brackley, the major viaduct of the old great central line was demolished some years ago, and rebuilding it would cost some £10 million. It would also be necessary to produce a new alignment around the housing and industrial developments that have been built since its removal. In Helmdon, flora has developed within the old cutting, making it a site of special scientific interest. At Woodford Halse—the old marshalling yard and engineering base of the great central line—a housing estate has been built across the line. The village of Lilbourne—the newly proposed diversion route from Rugby in the far north-west of my constituency that adjoins the Leicestershire border—is already heavily beset by the M1, and would suffer further major environmental, visual and aural intrusion. The bypass would also have major implications for any restructuring of junction 19 on the M1.
I want to emphasise how different things are now from 1963, and the different concept of the scale, frequency, visual and aural intrusion of the trains. I add my concerns to those developed so adeptly by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). My abiding concern, which echoes that raised by the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies), is that it may be possible to find some answers to these problems, or even to produce a scheme that would be acceptable to some extent, although many of my constituents will never accept it however good the package on offer. However, the costs are enhanced each time a difficulty is identified and addressed. My greatest fear, especially with the hybrid Bill procedure, is that the Government must stand behind the scheme. If it runs into financial difficulties with its private sector backers, the Government will have to step in and finish it off or be left with a half-finished scheme. There is the danger of having an environmental impact, but no benefits. That is far too high a cost to pay at present.
10.28 am
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on introducing the debate on a matter of great concern to my constituents and those of other hon. Members here today.
There is no doubt that the idea of switching freight from road to rail is attractive. The problem, which we explored thoroughly today, is that the scheme does not and will not work. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) says that there is an inevitability about the scheme, but the only inevitability is that it will fail. It would be better for it to fail at an early stage—although we cannot describe the stage as
200WH
early even now as it has been going on for seven years—rather than for it to lumber on causing further blight and unhappiness along the way before finally petering out. The financial case for the project is extremely weak. I speak as someone who in a previous incarnation acted as an adviser to Eurotunnel. We all know that the project encountered significant financial difficulties despite the huge amount of backing and careful planning, and the Government's full support. This project has none of that. It is weakly thought through, under-capitalised, and based on a wing and a prayer. A survey of 200 businesses is not a sound basis on which to construct a business case for a project that could cost £6 billion and affect freight movements across Europe.
I am also concerned about the project because of its impact on my constituents, particularly those in South Godstone, South Nutfield and Bletchingly. I have been formally approached by the director of environmental protection for Tandridge district council to express its grave concern about the impact that the project would have in an area of both green belt and outstanding natural beauty. I had hoped that the project had died in 1996, but someone forgot to put a stake through its heart. I hope that the Minister will do that at the earliest opportunity.
10.30 am
Mr. Philip Hammond: I should like to make three points. First, on blight, the Government must do something about the situation that our constituents have experienced as a result of the Central Railway proposal. It appears as though a relatively small company can propose a scheme that creates a blight, which is revealed on local authority searches and makes it virtually impossible to dispose of property, with absolutely no obligation to make progress with the scheme. The Deputy Prime Minister said in 2000 that he hoped that an application under the Transport and Works Act 1992 would be made imminently, but we still have not seen any progress. It offends my sense of natural justice—as it must do the Minister's—that this blight can be imposed without any obligation on the scheme's promoter to move things forward.
My second point relates to the scheme's substance. If the Government are considering using a hybrid Bill, the scheme that is covered must optimise the proposals in public policy terms. As I suggested earlier, the alignment of Central Railway's proposal around the southwestern quadrant of the M25 runs contrary to Government policy to promote development in the Thames gateway. If it were a purely private scheme going through the planning process, it would be up to the promoters to decide which scheme they wanted to introduce. If the Government are going to support the scheme actively through a hybrid Bill, it is incumbent on them to ensure that it is the most appropriate in terms of public policy.
My third point concerns the appropriateness of the hybrid Bill mechanism. It is not appropriate for the Government to offer shelter and protection to such a scheme. They should not actively support a private scheme that runs counter to public policy in some respects and will effectively put them in the position of promoting one company's proposal rather than opening the field for competitive bids for a north-south rail

201WH
freight scheme, which my hon. Friends and I would recognise as a good idea in principle. There is a perfectly good mechanism for determining the planning aspects of such a scheme, which is the 1992 Act. The Government introduced a consultation paper on planning for major infrastructure projects, and their approach is to build on what is currently made available by the 1992 Act. It would be wholly inappropriate for the Government to allow this scheme to bypass the proper controls and mechanisms that already exist.
The Government have it in their power to relieve the misery of my constituents and to put an end to the blight that they have suffered during the past three years. I urge them to do so without further delay.
10.34 am
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I totally agree with the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) about the general desirability of a scheme to take freight off the roads and put it on to rail, but it must be matched against the reality of the project's details. It may be right and necessary for individuals in my constituency to suffer a diminution in their quality of life for some greater good, but we must consider the scheme's details. They are incompatible with the current use of the Chiltern line, which has been encouraged by the Government and is likely to take many road users off the road and on to the train service to London. That alone should encourage the view that the current proposals are fatally flawed. Furthermore, the location of the freight terminal proposed for my constituency, which remains obscure under present proposals, is truly extraordinary in view of the saturation of the road network, amply demonstrated in a recent planning inquiry into another road/rail depot to be located close by.
That is why we should be deeply sceptical about the proposal. It is not an ordinary proposal, but one seeking Government backing. As I tell my constituents, it is no good blaming the proposers. I may believe that the proposal is flawed, but in a free country anyone is entitled to suggest it. However, the proposers want a hybrid Bill, which places a serious responsibility on the Government to determine their view of the scheme. I hope that the Minister's response today will demonstrate that, in the absence of detailed planning, the Government will be hostile to the scheme and that they will reassure us about the need to remove the planning blight that is harming my constituents and others.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank hon. Members for their co-operation.
10.36 am
Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on securing the debate. In the eight or so minutes available, I hope to do justice to this serious issue.
The Liberal Democrats support the principle of moving freight off roads and on to rail. On paper, the Central Railway proposal looks attractive. We agree that using rail for freight is a good idea, but the implementation and impact of the proposals is the key
202WH
issue. Hon. Members on both sides have raised important questions, to which I hope the Minister will respond shortly.
The proposal should not be allowed to proceed without a satisfactory and full environmental impact assessment. It should not allow the Government to escape from improving the national rail infrastructure, but the proposal is certainly preferable to the six-lane Birtway floated a few weeks ago.
If the proposal goes ahead, will the Government ensure that a full environmental impact assessment is carried out? To what extent will the Government accept financial exposure for the project if it first succeeds but subsequently fails? Many environmental claims have been made about the proposal. Apparently, 3 million lorry movements per year will be removed from the roads. Central Railway has a memorandum of understanding with several national environmental agencies that will ensure that agreed proceedings for assessing and managing environmental impacts are followed. Will the memorandum of understanding be binding?
The proposal suggests seven terminals, perhaps five of which could be located in industrial or brownfield areas, leaving at least two on greenfield sites. Will that contravene any of the Government's greenfield or green belt policies?
Hon. Members have referred to the hybrid Bill. Do the Government support that route or the Transport and Works Act 1992 route? Given the level of concern across the country, proceeding with a hybrid Bill would be a risky venture for the Government, so I hope that they will reflect further on the Transport and Works Act, which would allow more detailed consideration of the proposals. The timing of the Government's plans to overhaul planning procedures for major infrastructure projects might enable them to follow that route in preference to a hybrid Bill.
Many hon. Members have referred to the proposal's impact on rural areas. What can the Government do to alleviate such anxieties if Central Railway's scheme goes ahead?
What consideration have the Government given to one of the greatest matters of concern: the proposed railway's integration with the rest of the network and its compatibility with Chiltern Railways? Is it possible to run a dedicated rail freight line alongside that railway or along the same line as the passenger services, given the impact that the proposed scheme will have on stations along the route?
Many hon. Members have called for much more detailed work to be done on the business case. Central Railway estimates that the total capital cost will be £4.5 billion, although other consultants suggest that the cost will be closer to £8 billion. Have the Government assessed those estimates and what is their view of the potential cost of the proposal? What will be their financial exposure if they provide support for the proposal?
The Liberal Democrats would support the project in principle if the environmental concerns were addressed, if the economics added up and if the new capacity that is promised with the proposal materialised. That is not an inconsistent position; it is much better to ask searching questions and to await responses than to draw

203WH
conclusions on whether the project is sound from the scant details available. Hon. Members refer time and again to the fact that details are not available but then draw conclusions about whether the project is viable. It is better to press for information on which to take a decision rather than to draw rapid conclusions.
It is too early to say whether the economics stack up and whether the environmental impact can be negated. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my questions in his response.
10.42 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on securing the debate on this important proposal, which will have a dramatic impact on the constituencies of many of my hon. Friends.
I shall be brief, and ask one or two questions, as it is important that the Minister and the Government come clean on the issue once and for all. Do the Government support the scheme? Do they support the use of a hybrid Bill? How many times do they intend to send the proposal backwards and forwards like a yo-yo to the Strategic Rail Authority, which will pronounce on the matter in September? May we have the Minister's assurance that the Government will make a final decision as soon as possible after that date?
The Government must take a view on whether they want the difficulties of a hybrid Bill if they are not convinced that the private sector, in the guise of Central Railway or a successor company, will deliver money from that sector.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, by taking the hybrid Bill route the Government, may, by association, be implicated in the scheme. If at a future date the private sector runs into difficulties and the scheme does not have the finances expected, the Government may be duty bound to bail it out. Are there not therefore considerable implications for the public purse?
10.44 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on securing this debate and on his contribution to it. He rightly made many points on behalf of his constituents, as did all hon. Members who contributed. The debate has shown that there are differences on the Labour Benches and on the Conservative Benches—the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) shakes his head, but there are differences. For example, the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who I thought was getting applause at one stage, has a very different view of the matter. It is good that there has been such interest on both sides of the Chamber—the Government are being pressed hard and therefore we must consider the matter most carefully and in detail.
I was pleased to note that I am the fourth Minister to have answered a debate on this subject. We live in interesting times and who knows how many others may yet have to do so. The hon. Member for Reigate gave an interesting analysis of what he considers to be the points
204WH
against the project. I will not go into those points, but they and those made by other hon. Members both for and against the project will be given the most careful consideration when the Government decide whether to support the scheme. I can assure him that those points are not new to us and are being given careful consideration.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of blight. That is a regrettable but inevitable consequence of any major scheme. I hope that the matter can be resolved, particularly on behalf of the constituents of those hon. Members who have raised the matter today. That is why we have placed a time scale on the SRA's consideration of the scheme on our behalf. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) talked about natural justice being served. Natural justice is served in such matters by first giving careful consideration to any proposal and then deciding on it as expeditiously as possible so that people get an outcome.
The hon. Member for Reigate asked two questions, which were reinforced by his hon. Friends. He asked whether we support the scheme and whether we support the hybrid Bill. Those questions were put on 6 March 2001 by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge to one of the previous Ministers answering on the matter. They were recycled from that debate, so I will recycle the answers as well, in my own way. We certainly support, in principle, a move from road to rail. [Interruption.] It needs to be said—if the hon. Member for Reigate wants an answer to his questions, he will have to bear with me.
If a totally viable and sustainable case were made that met the terms of reference in the SRA review, we would have to make an informed decision at the end of the process. Do we support the scheme? We will have to await the outcome of the SRA review to find out whether it meets the criteria that have been mentioned and that were set out in the previous debate.
Do we support the proposed hybrid Bill? In the end, the approach is up to the proposer. If the scheme were to meet all the very rigorous criteria, we would support it. If it were not to meet those criteria, we would not. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's questions and is helpful to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who originally asked the questions more than a year ago.
Mr. Hammond: Since that debate in March 2001 the Government's proposals for infrastructure planning decisions have come on a long way. Will the Minister explain in what circumstances a hybrid Bill is appropriate when the Government have proposed an elaborate scheme of their own for dealing with such infrastructure proposals? Why should a hybrid Bill be used to evade or avoid the procedures that the Government are promoting?
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman suggests that proper discussion and examination might be prevented, depending on whether we take a Transport and Works Act 1992 route or a hybrid Bill route. Both routes would, however, require proper examination in the

205WH
House, and hon. Members would have an opportunity to speak on behalf of their constituents in a debate, as they have done today.
Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jamieson: I will, although it will inhibit my ability to answer some of the questions that other hon. Members have quite properly raised.
Mr. Hammond: This is important. There is a perception that going down the hybrid Bill route will mean that the scheme has Government support and, given the parliamentary arithmetic, that it will be approved. Is the Minister prepared to say that there would not be a whipped vote if a hybrid Bill came before the House?
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman is jumping to the next phase. He assumes that the scheme has Government support, but I am saying that we must weigh the matter up. If the scheme gets Government backing, it will have all the support that we normally give Bills as they go through Parliament. If it does not get our backing, it will not have that support. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman, and lays the matter to rest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) made some good points about developing the economy and employment, and about why we must consider such schemes carefully. They can be important for economic development, and they are certainly important in parts of the country well to the north of his constituency. I am glad that he made those points. The hon. Member for Bosworth made similar points about his area, which I know quite well.
We must weigh the issues carefully. There are strong economic arguments for such schemes, and there are the arguments about moving freight from road to rail. We must, however, balance those against all the environmental and other issues that have been raised today.
Let me answer one of the many questions from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) so that he does not accuse me of not answering any of them. He asked whether there would be an environmental assessment, and the answer is, of course, yes. He asked many other questions, and they are the very sorts of question that we shall ask when we consider the SRA review.
The hon. Member for Reigate has been following the Government's consideration of Central Railway's hybrid Bill proposals and the SRA's high-level review, and he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has written to the chairman of Central Railway about the review's conclusions. I welcome this opportunity to explain the current position to other hon. Members.
As several contributors to the debate have said, encouraging more rail freight remains at the heart of the Government's integrated transport policy, and we are committed to working with the industry to achieve that. After many years of decline, rail freight has made an impressive recovery. Indeed, the figures that the SRA released last week show that the amount of freight
206WH
moved by rail has increased by 30 per cent. in the past five years. We welcome that growth, and want it to continue. Transferring more freight off the roads and on to more sustainable modes of transport is a key component of our long-term vision for transport. Hon. Members will know that our 10-year plan sets out a framework for further growth in rail freight by 2010.
Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend talks about the percentage increases in rail freight, but the amounts involved are relatively small, and we need more infrastructure investment to achieve a substantial increase. Central Railway could quadruple present levels of rail freight.
Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Although there has been an increase, the base was very low, and our ambition is that it should be raised considerably.
Through its freight strategy, the SRA is working in partnership with Railtrack and the freight operators to deliver the details of the investment programme set out in our 10-year plan, including improvements to the capacity and capability of the network, better targeted funding for rail freight developments and more freight interchanges. The Government have made it clear that they are committed to rail freight growth as a key element of sustainable distribution. To that end we shall support, in principle, projects that offer value for money and bring economic and environmental benefits to the country. With that in mind, the Government would not wish to obstruct the progress of privately led and privately financed initiatives such as that proposed by Central Railway.
I am aware of the history of the project and of the results of previous attempts by Central Railway to gain the approval of this House for the scheme. In considering the company's request for Government support for a Bill to promote its project, we have taken a number of factors into account and have listened to representations from many interested parties—both those in favour of the scheme and those opposed to it. As a result of the SRA's high-level review, and given other information, it is clear that were it to succeed, the Central Railway proposal would meet a significant part of the freight market's need in the long term. However, it is also clear that important questions remain. Those were considered by the SRA's review but, due to its scope, it was not able to test them in sufficient depth to reach clear-cut conclusions.
The Government recognise the wider public interest, which the hon. Member for Reigate illustrated. We must be satisfied that Central Railway's proposals offer viable solutions for rail freight that are compatible with our long-term vision for transport and the environment. I think that that covers some of the points made by the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge and for Carshalton and Wallington.
Mr. David Lidington: Interoperability is of key importance to my constituents served by the Chiltern line. Can the Minister give me an assurance that, in its new review, the SRA will consult Railtrack and the rail operators that would be affected by the Central Railway proposals? Chiltern Railways told me last weekend that it had still had no proper approach

207WH
from Central Railway to discuss problems. As the Minister knows, Chiltern Railways says that Central Railway's proposal is utterly incompatible with the present level of passenger services, let alone those that it is contractually obliged to provide under the terms of the new franchise.
Mr. Jamieson: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that, of course, that would be part of our consideration. The availability of channel tunnel paths will be an important factor in underpinning the robustness of Central Railway's revenue assumptions. We shall therefore consider that, too.
Some hon. Members, particularly those whose constituencies are directly affected by the scheme, have urged an early response to the hybrid Bill proposal. Given the scale of the project, it is quite right that the SRA should have wished to learn more about the proposals before taking a view. It was also appropriate that it should have carried out its high-level review within the context of its overall freight strategy and the Government's 10-year plan. Inevitably, that has taken time.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has made it clear that there is insufficient evidence to enable the Government to support a hybrid Bill. In order to reach a point at which we can take an informed decision about the proposals, further work is necessary. I can assure the hon. Member for Reigate and others who have contributed to the debate that that does not mean that the Government intend to continue to work the proposals until we find good reason to support the scheme. We believe that it is important to give the scheme a fair and thorough hearing, and that is what we shall do.
That is why, with the help of consultants and the co-operation of Central Railway, the SRA is carrying out a further detailed assessment in order to test key remaining areas of the proposals. That will not simply be a repeat of the high-level review; it will test more closely those key areas where the earlier review could not provide sufficient confidence in the proposals. We expect that the SRA's review will be completed in September. When we receive it, we will give it careful and due consideration.
Mr. Blunt: That is appalling.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman says that that is appalling but before we make a decision, given that the scheme is of such importance and has aroused many conflicting views, it is incumbent on the Government to listen to and consider those views carefully, including those that he has aired today. If the Government did anything other than that, we would be irresponsible.

Financial Services Industry
11 am
Paul Flynn: Some of my colleagues suggested that a debate on the integrity of the financial services industry would be a brief affair. Perhaps the full title should have a question mark, as we will debate the quest to find integrity in the industry rather than concentrating on something that is a rare commodity in the relevant companies.
I do not introduce the debate because I have specialist knowledge in the subject, although many distinguished colleagues are present who have contributed to such debates from their knowledge. My interest is as a Member of the House for 15 years. In that period, I have seen a procession of constituents whose financial lives have been damaged by the work of the financial services industry. This morning, I want to detail many of the scandals that have taken place, because millions of people have been cheated and bamboozled by commission-hungry salesmen who have mis-sold poor-value pensions, mortgages and insurances.
Having checked the numbers of robberies and muggings in the past year, I can say with certainty that the public are much more likely to be robbed by the financial services industry than by burglars or muggers. The difference is that criminal theft is usually a single event, but robbery by financial institutions continues every week for decades.
There is a seemingly endless litany of scandals. Millions of people have been cheated by the mis-selling of personal pensions, with compensation of £15 billion and rising. About 6 million endowment mortgages face certain shortfalls. Then there are the scandals of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, Maxwell, the West Bromwich building society's home income bonds—you will remember them well, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the Independent Insurance Company, Barings Bank, Equitable Life, Chester Street Insurance Holdings and the AXA orphan assets. Now there is the split capital investment trust. Recent events form the background to that, including the collapses of Enron, Andersen and Marconi, which have dangerously shaken public confidence in the market.
An industry that manages £1,900 billion of Britain's savings is haemorrhaging confidence. Individuals and families have suffered huge losses. The well-off are often cushioned against such losses and can recover from them. The casualties are the people whom we see in our surgeries, who have tried to organise their lives so that they have a comfortable old age with an adequate income. Given the activities of organisations that behave disreputably, they now face a future on the edge of poverty.
If confidence is to be restored, I hope that we can persuade the Government to take a more active role. This and the previous Government have creditable records, but this Government must ensure that the industry simplifies its products, establishes a network of genuinely independent financial advice, nurtures the good value of the credit unions and restores faith in the national insurance system, a system that was brought about by the last Liberal Government. We want to say with some force that we are not all Thatcherites now. There is still a belief in the simplicity and good value of the national insurance system.

209WH
Let us start with the bottom feeders in the murky pond of the financial services industry: debt management companies and non-status lenders. Debt management companies infest daytime television with advertisements that promise that all one's debts can be rolled up into one manageable payment and that, somehow, the burden and anxiety of debt can be magicked away. Debt management companies take on the debts, routinely add 15 per cent. to the total debt and then pocket a whole month's repayments. Then, with one exception—Firstplus is a reasonably efficient firm—they are inefficient when it comes to paying the debts on time. They actually increase the debt and lengthen the period of indebtedness. Even more damaging is the impression they give that, by going along to such a company, debts can be magicked away. That encourages people who are not in serious debt to take on debts in the belief that, if they get into serious trouble, they need only phone the nice people on the television, who will solve all their problems for them.
There is no painless escape from debt. The average adult in Britain is now a record £3,000 in debt, and that figure is growing rapidly. In the past year alone, it has risen by 12 per cent. to a massive £130 billion, and I believe that the activities of debt management companies have played a significant part in that increase. Good advice on debt is available free from citizens advice bureaux or the Foundation for Credit Counselling. Debt management firms say that their job is loan consolidation, but it is not: it is debt multiplication.
The main non-status mortgage provider was once known as the City Mortgage Corporation. It then became Ocwen and is now known as the igroup. Many Members will have spent hours talking about the activities of that body. At least nine years ago, there was a scandal involving the City Mortgage Corporation. It seeks out people who cannot afford mortgages and offers them mortgages, in the almost certain knowledge that the loans will never be paid off. It routinely adds 2 per cent. to the interest rates charged in the high street, and it certainly used to double the interest rate if there were any question of a payment arriving late, or for almost any other reason. Borrowers would rapidly get into serious debt. The company charges enormous fees for its services and for redemption charges, with the result that a loan of £20,000 would increase to £40,000 in a short time, and the house was often lost.
I remember one constituent who was in desperate financial trouble, but he had built his own house and was determined to stay there by hook or by crook. He became involved with that company, eventually lost his beloved house and ended up in serious debt. I thought that the problem had been solved or at least reduced, but I am informed by the CAB that it has increasing evidence of bad practice by non-status companies. New regulations, which have been promised for some time, are due this year, but the wheels of reform grind slowly, often obstructed by the inertia and lobbying power of the companies involved. In one incident, the City Mortgage Corporation had the backing of certain Members and action was taken as a result. I do not want to unearth past scandals, but that incident gives no credit to certain Opposition Members.
210WH
It was not those disreputable companies that contributed to what was probably the worst scandal: personal pensions. It is hard for those who were not Members at the time to realise how we got into the scandal of personal pensions. It was a strange, surreal period. It was not the small companies but the Government and the high street banks who advertised personal pensions. One advertisement showed a person in chains saying, "Escape from the chains of SERPS"—the state earnings-related pension scheme—"to the—freedom of your own personal pension." That was part of a £1 million advertising campaign paid for by the Government. An advertisement by the Midland bank said that people should not be SERPS—a SERPS was represented as a oleaginous blob that no one would want to be associated with—when they could get a £5,500 gift from the Government. Another equally misleading advert was made by Barclays bank.
The result of that activity was that unsophisticated people—most people felt thoroughly inadequate in the face of salesmen from the pensions industry—were convinced that they should leave their good-value occupational final salary pensions and plunge into the gamble of personal pensions, which are now proving to be such "good" value. Of those pensions, 40 per cent. were allowed to lapse or were transferred within the first four years; and, given the present annuity rates, those who bought money purchase schemes must be regretting that they took that advice.
I treasure one moment from 1988, when I had the effrontery to criticise the then Prime Minister on her policy on personal pensions. She told to me that, as a socialist, I was obviously against choice. However, it was Hobson's choice for those who took out personal pensions. Many people were pushed into them by firms which employed wicked tactics. For instance, when a company made workers redundant or suffered a major upset, those firms would move in. However, they employed not their own salespeople but former workers—ex-miners or ex-steelworkers who were mates, many of whom knew nothing about pensions except what they learned in a session lasting a couple of hours.
It was those trusted people who sold personal pensions to their pals and family—until they had no friends left. They were employed in selling personal pensions for an average of six months. It was a wicked way to manipulate people, but it was a bonanza for the financial services industry, which greedily and irresponsibly pushed those poor-value pensions. The scandal of the marketing of endowment mortgages proves the scarcity of integrity in the financial services industry.
The Financial Services Authority has confirmed that 60 per cent. of those who responded to its survey said that they were told that their endowment policies were guaranteed to pay off their mortgages; and a further 26 per cent. said that they were told that the policies would "probably" pay off their mortgages. Many people were told that they would receive a nest egg at the end of it; no one can determine what was said by the sales staff, but commission-hungry salesmen will say such things. Few people would risk the gamble of an endowment mortgage that depended on what would happen in the stock markets in 20, 30 or 40 years' time when, most of all, they wanted security in their homes.

211WH
The only people whose interests were being served by the use of endowment mortgages were those who sold them—and it is still going on.
I first raised the issue some four years ago, and I remember being hammered by my local newspaper. The local endowment mortgage sellers got together and denounced me for such terrible scaremongering. I called for a Government inquiry into endowment mortgages in 1998, because millions of people had been sold poor policies and the sellers were more interested in collecting hefty commissions than in selling the most suitable products. I was condemned, and not only by the Newport and Cwmbran Weekly Argus. In August 1999, I said that those who were offered endowment policies should say no, and that they should have nothing to do with them; but on 10 August 1999, the FSA dismissed claims of mis-selling of endowment mortgages, saying that the
"overwhelming majority of endowment policies pay out adequately and that there is no question of their being banned."
Sue Anderson of the Council of Mortgage Lenders said it was not correct to say that endowments were "inappropriate."
On 13 May 2002, the FSA said:
"About 60 per cent. of endowment holders, or 3.6 million people, are now in danger of failing to cover their mortgage debt. Several leading United Kingdom insurance companies could face heavy fines for having mis-sold endowment policies".
The truth is that almost 6 million have had red or amber warning letters.
The regulator has identified a number of well-known insurance companies that systematically mis-sold endowment policies by mispricing them. One or two firms will be named and shamed. There should be transparency on the matter, and we should be told which companies carried out such sales despite knowing that they were likely to end in tears.
There is a way of finding out about this practice and correcting it. The FSA figures show that only 100,000 people have complained to companies, with approximately one third of complaints being upheld. However, 218,000 policies were redressed when the FSA initiated investigations into companies. It is only right that the FSA should take a more active role to widen the focus of investigation and force more companies to take action.
I was under the impression that sales had collapsed, given all the publicity and the fact that most main high street companies no longer sell endowment mortgages. However, a letter that I received from the Council of Mortgage Lenders states that 10 per cent. of all new mortgages sold in the first quarter of this year were endowments. If the main companies that were the principal sellers have not sold those mortgages, other companies must have vastly increased their sales.
A newspaper report quoted a salesman as saying that he would need to sell 140 stakeholder pensions to earn the commission he gets from selling 14 endowment mortgages. Those who have made profits in the past continue to do so, and some companies seem to be intensifying their activities in selling to ill-informed customers mortgages that will almost certainly fail. I suggest that the most sophisticated of customers would run a mile if someone offered them an endowment these days.
212WH
The next scandal that will emerge will be with general insurance, especially for accident, sickness and unemployment. In the early 1990s, when it was clear that the bonanza days of selling personal pensions were over, there was great excitement about the idea that companies might make a killing by selling accident, sickness and unemployment insurance. The commissions charged on those products are enormous, and they are sold with virtually no controls.
I can give an example of the scandalous practices of some companies in that market. I was visited by a gentleman who had a distinguished career in public service and who went to work as an inspector for the Combined Insurance Company of America, which is very active in this country. He was a man of undoubted integrity and probity, and he was so horrified by what he saw that he came all the way down from the north of England to visit me. I arranged several meetings with the General Insurance Standards Council, the industry regulator, which he attended carrying a huge sheaf of papers. His information showed that appalling corruption was taking place—I use the word "corruption" advisedly. The company is corrupt and is corrupting its staff. It pays no wages, and the staff are so desperate to earn money to pay for their cars and expenses at the end of the week that they are forced to sell hopelessly unsuitable policies, sometimes to people with illnesses, some of which are terminal, that would debar them from claiming benefits from other policies. Life insurance policies have been sold to elderly people who could not possibly benefit from them. Many such cases have been brought before the General Insurance Standards Council.
One anecdote about the company struck me in particular. A gentleman went to work for it armed with a conscience, but found that he was not producing the required volume of work. At a social event, the Europe president of the company, Mr. John E. Johnson, asked three of the 50 managers present to stand up at the end of the meal. One of the three was the gentleman in question. To improve the morale of the staff, he explained to them that he had asked the managers to stand up because he wanted not to embarrass them, but to humiliate them. The average turnover of the company was 400 per cent. a year. Those who went to work for the company were forced to do things that they were ashamed of and that were damaging to them. Such activities create casualties among staff as well as the policyholders. However, it was made clear to them that it was a question of "no deal, no meal".
There are many such cases, and I will not burden the Chamber with all of them. I last heard from the supervisory body some 15 months ago, and I recently got back to it to ask what was being done. There has been a series of meetings to try to correct the excesses of such companies, but I understand that there has been no real improvement.
With-profits policies should be known more accurately as with-losses policies. Some 10 million policyholders hold investments worth £350 billion. Those policies are at the heart of most of the financial scandals of the past two decades. The FSA has a statutory duty to protect consumers, yet it has failed to produce any robust review of the market or to take action to ensure that the millions of consumers who are mis-sold mortgage endowments receive the redress that

213WH
they deserve. I pay tribute to the work of the Consumers Association, which has called for the ring fencing of policyholders' funds to protect them from director and shareholder raids and to ensure that directors have the same legal duty to policyholders as they do to shareholders. It is extraordinary that directors have a fiduciary duty to shareholders, but not to policyholders.
Orphan assets also involve an enormous sum of money—£45 billion—which has accumulated as a result of very low annual payments on policies and the companies' ludicrously pessimistic forecasts. There is no reason why such funds should not be used to assist the casualties of mis-selling and other scandals over recent years. The power that directors and actuaries wield in these spheres has been abused to the detriment of policyholders. The AXA High Court case is an example. If we are to prevent another AXA case, we need new regulations that decree that asset shares should include 90 per cent. of orphan assets. There is little transparency in the business, and in many cases there has been a lack of action from the FSA—although it is a good body that is far better than the ragbag of self-regulating bodies set up by the previous Government in the late 1980s and 1990s, which were absorbed into the industry if they were not already a functioning part of it. I met many of those bodies at various times; they saw themselves as the mouthpiece of the industry.
The incestuous nature of the financial services industry is also disturbing. Many of the staff of the ombudsman's office and the FSA have worked in the industry. There is an identification of interests, and the attitude is, "We are right and everyone else—policyholders, customers, the Government—is outside us and should not interfere with anything we do".
Mr. Hugo Swire: Would the hon. Gentleman regard as incestuous the fact that Howard Davies was made chairman of the FSA without much consultation?
Paul Flynn: I have some regard for Howard Davies and I do not want to personalise the issue. However, last August, when Howard Davies was to make an announcement for the FSA, I had an interview with the spokesperson of the Association of British Insurers, a lady who once worked for Her Majesty the Queen. She was a splendid communicator, and it emerged from the conversation that the previous night she had had dinner with Howard Davies. That seemed to me a little close and cosy, if not incestuous. On another occasion I attended a meeting, under Chatham House rules, involving the ombudsman's department, financial journalists, people from the industry and from the Consumers Association. The person from the Consumers Association and I went away feeling angry about the sentiment that had been expressed that Government of any colour should not get involved in such matters because they were not independent. The industry itself was apparently independent.
I heartily agree with the comment made by Colin Brown, the recently appointed chairman of a new body of the FSA, the consumer panel:
"The ability of this industry to behave as though it is dealing with its own money and has a God-given right to a profit without thinking about what it is doing to consumers is unbelievable."
214WH
Such views represent an encouraging trend. The consumer panel is doing a splendid job in practising what it preaches. We are moving away from an incestuous situation.
As for the scandal involving the split capital investment trust, another product was advertised as having more safety features than a Volvo—this does not end, but goes on and on. In one case quoted in the press, an unfortunate gentleman from Glasgow invested his nest egg of £12,000 in the scheme in 1974; it was vastly over-sold, with huge commissions and poor returns, and the original sum has now shrunk to £27—not so much safe as a Volvo as dangerous as an old banger.
Colin Brown went on to say that no other industry is like the financial services industry, in which "consumer" is a dirty word, and that there is no real opportunity for the industry to grow up and behave like other industries. Brown and his board are urging the regulator to require companies known to be in financial difficulties to give public warnings much earlier than has happened in past scandals. That would have been valuable in the case of Equitable Life.
There is a great gap in what the regulation provides. It does not provide a completely safe environment for ignorant consumers, which includes the majority of us. The question is how far down the regulations should be brought to help such people and how far up we can bring their awareness. If we create better educated and more skilled financial advisers, we increase the gap between them and their potential customers. The only way forward is to simplify products, because their complexity is one of the main ways of ensuring that the public are bamboozled.
In "Star Trek", which is one of my favourite television programmes, the Ferengi are a dire warning of what the future is likely to be. They are based on a nightmare view of Thatcherism. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) should be shown tapes of the programme so he knows what he is really suggesting. The Ferengi are the likely result if the daughters of financial advisers marry the sons of bankers and breed a generation instilled in their philosophy. They have 250 laws of acquisition, including never cheat a man who is wearing a better suit than you are; treat people in your debt like family; and employees are the rungs on the ladder of success, so step on them. Those laws would not be out of place in the boardrooms of many insurance and banking companies. Two precepts of acquisition—rules 239 and 59—strike a chord. They are: never be afraid to mislabel a product, and free advice is never cheap. The word "integrity" does not occur in the Ferengi language.
The remedy is independent financial advice, which is a matter that I have raised in early-day motions tabled under successive Governments, in 1994, 1997 and 1999. The only way to restore confidence in financial products is to provide advice that is genuinely independent and free from anyone seeking commission or sales. Fifty per cent. of people questioned in a survey carried out by the Consumers Association said that they were not saving because they could not trust advice from anyone. They had learned to distrust independent financial advisers—they are not always independent—banks and insurance companies. The accretion of scandal has convinced them that they should not get involved in anything, so they do nothing, which is bad news.

215WH
The original suggestion in a leaflet produced by the Consumers Association was to establish a body on the lines of citizen advice bureaux that can give competent advice on a simple and a sophisticated level, which may have to be paid for, but which has nothing to do with the financial services industry.
Credit unions, which have had enormous success in Ireland and Canada, should be nurtured. There is a very successful credit union in my constituency, which provides simple banking. It is grassroots based, accessible and understood by everyone. It is entirely transparent and provides the best possible value.
New Labour's favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, recently published a splendid report pointing out the virtues of the national insurance system.
Mr. Andrew Love: One conclusion of the IPPR's report was that the retirement age should be increased by one, two or three years to create a decent pension in retirement. Does my hon. Friend support that proposal?
Paul Flynn: With great enthusiasm. I hope that my hon. Friend will write to my constituents when the matter of selection is discussed in a few years' time to say that I am about eight years younger than Her Majesty. Those of us who are now in our late 60s know that we seem young compared with our parents and grandparents at that age. It is cruel nonsense to force people to retire at 60 or any other age.
If we are to clear up the wreckage of the past 20 years, it will be essential to introduce compulsion into pensions. Young people think that they will never grow old and need a pension, but they will. The only way to provide an adequate pension is through a universal and compulsory scheme.
Like all MPs concerned about this issue, I am most alarmed when I see the faces of people who have done everything right in organising their lives, have been prudent and careful in setting aside money for the future, but find to their horror that they have been cheated and robbed by a system that they do not understand. Such people are now looking forward to an old age of anxiety, worry and near poverty. I recall in my mind's eye the face of one such constituent. If I multiply that by a hundred, then by another hundred, I can continue until I see the faces of nearly 10 million people who have been badly treated by the financial services industry. That should lead us to ask about that industry's integrity, and to think about what we can do as politicians to ensure that the people who have suffered receive some compensation. No generation should be robbed in the shameful way that this generation has been.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Six hon. Members have indicated their wish to speak in the debate, but we now have fewer than 25 minutes before the winding-up speeches commence. I hope that hon. Members who are successful in catching my eye will be self-disciplined and understand that others wish to speak after them.
11.36 am
Mr. Mark Field: I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on securing the debate, which I greatly welcome. I suspect that it will be the first of many on the subject. I also take the opportunity in this post-Thatcherite and pre-Ferengi world to congratulate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on his promotion. He always wears a better suit than I do, so I have little chance of cheating him—but we shall see.
As hon. Members know, I am fortunate enough to represent the City of London, home for much of the financial services industry in this country. Rest assured, however, that I am here neither to praise nor to bury that industry. The hon. Gentleman raised issues that will be debated for a long time to come. However, it is important to differentiate, which the hon. Gentleman failed to do, between imprudent conduct and recklessness or fraud. We should not imply criminal intent to all aspects of failure. It is important also to instil and reinforce a culture whereby transparency, integrity and good business practice are the norm. I accept that that has not always applied to all aspects of the financial services industry. The Financial Services Authority has a tight, perhaps worryingly over-tight, regulatory regime and it is important to ensure the right balance.
A decade or so ago, the subject of pensions aroused little passion. The young did not consider it; single women ignored it; and the main pensions planners were couples over 40. That may be a generalisation, but the public's lack of detailed interest and knowledge left this country's financial services industry in a mess.
I recently listened to an executive from a major pensions company who exhorted that everyone should consider taking out a pension now—not entirely a hard sell, but largely along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggested. We had to start planning earlier and invest 15 per cent. of our current salaries from our mid-20s onwards towards a retirement pension. No doubt it is something of a farce. The industry has proved itself incompetent to handle the public's money and the mis-selling scandals, including the ongoing disaster of Equitable Life and the mess of annuities, have virtually wrecked public confidence in pension savings. That has rightly been viewed as a potential horror story, and we should devote our collective energies to regaining the public's trust.
The more I speak to younger constituents, the more I realise that they are guided to buy property as the only safe haven for their money in the longer term. If that continues, it has all the hallmarks of a long-term disaster for this country.
I recently sought reactions and advice on the current pension needs from some of my constituents. They comprised what might be called a focus group, although not the most obvious one as they were in Knightsbridge. They made some interesting points. My wife and I worked in the City until I was elected last year, and it is clear that many of us relatively educated folk have little idea of how the pensions industry works. We simply put aside many hundreds of pounds every month, paying

217WH
little thought as to what would arise from it. As someone who has always strongly believed in the idea of business probity and the importance of that within the financial services sector, I was saddened by the individual experiences described by many of my constituents.
It is clear that we have allowed ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by the enthusiasm of pension providers and politicians' attempts to ensure that everyone has a good life style in the longer term. The adverse publicity and the reduction in so many of the fund payouts has left the young, and especially people in the lower income brackets, with little confidence in such late life provision. By the same token, more and more employees have little expectation of a job for life and do not expect to have a long-term pension commitment from their employers. In exhorting everyone to try to save properly for their old age, it is up to us as politicians to ensure that as far as possible those savings stay safe and that no one who has saved responsibly should be left impoverished by the failure of the pensions industry.
My namesake, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and the hon. Member for Newport, West spoke persuasively about compulsion. However, only if the pensions industry is made far safer can we possibly contemplate compelling people to put their trust in it. If a law effectively forces us to hand over an unspent surplus of our hard-earned cash to those who are either unqualified or incompetent, there is little incentive for any of us to save. That will lead to another long-term problem.
I appreciate that the proposals to force us to put money away are not yet Government proposals, although many items have been flagged up in the financial press in recent months. Behind them lies an instinctive bossiness and intolerance, as well as a lack of appreciation why so many people fail to make provision for their future. In reality, and again this goes back to the point made by the hon. Gentleman, no amount of new legislation will overcome the fact that many of our fellow countrymen are simply too poor to save adequately for their long-term future.
Mr. Love: In 1988, the Conservative Government took away the right of an employer to make joining a pension scheme a condition of employment. Would the hon. Gentleman like to see that facet of pensions legislation changed?
Mr. Field: It is a valid point. To be fair, I have not conclusively determined where I stand on that. Clearly 14 years ago choice was seen to offer a great advantage. That choice has been something of a two-edged sword at the very best. We must therefore be open-minded about the proposals that are being put forward and are likely to be come into force following the Pickering report.
I have spoken for quite some time. I should like to say more, but other hon. Members want to contribute. I shall be interested to hear what the Chief Secretary has to say. I hope to take part in debates on these matters in the months and years ahead.
11.44 am
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). As such I will perhaps be regarded as a tail of two cities. I follow him also in offering my sincere and heartfelt congratulations to the Chief Secretary. His appointment was a great source of joy to many. Indeed, I recall first meeting my right hon. Friend 10 or more years ago when he was shadow Minister with responsibilities for banking. It has been a long and well-merited track upwards.
Today is a pregnant time for the financial services industry. I refer to the expectation with which the market anticipates the Pickering report on pensions, the Inland Revenue's report on pension taxation and Ron Sandler's report on improvements to the long-term savings market. I will return to them later in my remarks if I have time, but I first want to draw the Chief Secretary's attention to a report published last week by RSM Robson Rhodes, which is a leading accounting and actuarial consultancy company.
The report demands a thorough overhaul of corporate governance to prevent an Enron-type collapse of a major corporation in the UK. The Chief Secretary will recall that in two previous debates—on Equitable Life and independent insurance—I urged tighter controls on accounting companies that use the audit function as a loss leader to sell consultancy services to their clients. Prior to Arthur Andersen coming under the spotlight at Enron, many in the Financial Services Authority saw my calls as unwarranted and alarmist, but RSM's report now urges clear restrictions on the consultancy work offered by accountancy firms to clients to which they already provide audit services. It calls further for the combined code on corporate governance to be a compulsory requirement for firms listed on the London stock exchange. Is the Chief Secretary prepared to accept those findings and take action to implement them?
A further recommendation is to raise the present requirement that one sixth of the members of listed companies' boards should be made up of independent directors so that at least half become independent directors. My right hon. Friend will be aware that those recommendations echo the proposals that the New York stock exchange introduced last week to beef up board independence and strengthen the role of the audit committee, giving it sole responsibility for the hiring and firing of auditors. The RSM report points out that we need a corporate governance system that prevents problems starting, rather than one that tries to correct them once they have happened.
That brings us back to Pickering and Sandler and what the public know as endowment mortgages. In fact, those mortgages are a bundling of two things—an interest-only mortgage and, behind it, a with-profits endowment life policy. The policy is set up to repay the capital borrowed to purchase the property when the policy matures. The borrower therefore pays off each month only the interest on the loan coupled with the premium due on his endowment policy.

219WH
That is the theory, but the practice has been somewhat different. I was sent a letter by Mr. Hardgrave, who due to ill health had to remortgage more than 10 years ago. He says:
"My financial adviser introduced a package of investments—a pension with Friends Provident, insurance with Norwich Union, PEPs with Schroeder and Perpetual, plus life cover only for myself and my wife with Scots Amicable. Upon reaching June 2002, shortly after my 70th birthday, the mortgage to C&G would be paid off leaving an £8,000 'bonus'! In reality, we are £4,000 short of the necessary repayment figure. But what is more significant, never at any time, where I am now aware, was there any warning of a shortfall. Over the ten year period I needed to earn £2,000 per month just to keep afloat … I enclose my adviser's letter which encourages me to bat on for a further six months. I never imagined in the heady carefree days of my apprenticeship in 1948 that I would still be working in 2002."
He goes on to say:
"I thank you for reading my letter and I would be most obliged to receive your comments",
but it gets better. He adds:
"Incidentally I joined the Labour Party in 1997 from sheer pleasure and relief at your ending eighteen years of crippling Tory misrule!"
What is so disturbing about Mr. Hardgrave's case is that his financial adviser was encouraging a man who was recovering from ill health and who was then aged 61—within four years of the state retirement age—to take out an endowment mortgage over a period as short as 10 years.
I do not know the details of the commission that the adviser received, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will be aware that the first year's payment of premium on such policies is often consumed entirely by commission and administrative costs. It is hard to conceive that Mr. Hardgrave was sold a suitable financial product. Instead of the with-profits windfall of £8,000 that he believed he was promised, he was left with a shortfall of £4,000. How does the industry explain such cases?
How does the industry explain also that it has had to issue red traffic light warnings to 35 per cent. of all endowment policyholders so far reviewed? There is a high risk that their policy will not pay out the target amount at the end of the term. The figure of 35 per cent. of the 6 million endowment policyholders in the UK means that more than 2 million people live in real anxiety about their financial future and the security of their family home. Amber notices to a further 26 per cent. mean that almost 4 million people face a potential shortfall on their mortgage.
The industry tries to explain the project shortfalls as the result of a two-year fall in the equities market. That is nonsense. Before the current downward trend, there was unprecedented growth in equities for 10 years, and the current fall has clawed back only a third of that growth. Where has all the money gone? With-profits policies are precisely intended to smooth out market conditions. Profits made in a rising market are withheld from bonuses precisely to even up bonuses in falling market conditions.
The suspicion is that companies have not withheld profits from bonuses for smoothing purposes, but have withheld them to pass on to shareholders. That is why
220WH
they do not have the resources to make up the shortfall in lean years. That point can be checked, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to consider launching an investigation into the relative performance of mutuals and plcs in the percentage of policyholders issued with red and amber warning notices. That would need to be done by a year-by-year comparison from when the policy was taken out to show a parity. However, it could easily be done, and would provide compelling evidence of the practice of transferring funds properly due to policyholders over to shareholders.
Mr. Howard Flight: Many insurance polices were issued by mutuals that do not have shareholders or make profits. Their overall performance is not that different. The view that the money has gone to shareholders is not realistic.
Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman forestalls what I was about to say. I had anticipated that point and, in the light of his remarks, I caution that the investigation should also examine the transfers that both sectors—mutuals and plcs—have made to their general funds. I do not wish to replay the debate on orphan assets that we held in this Chamber, but my right hon. Friend will recognise the need to ensure that, contrary to the AXA deal, policyholders receive their 90 per cent. entitlement to their company's orphan assets, particularly when they may have been boosted by the retained profits not added to annual bonuses in rising markets. That may account for the parity between mutuals and plcs if, indeed, there is one.
I draw attention to a further absurdity of the market's response to the present endowment mortgage scandal. It says that people should have recognised that they were saving in interest payments because of low interest rates, and they should have used that saving to increase their policy premium payments. That attempts to use the public's confusion about the two elements of an endowment mortgage to cover the industry's own malpractice. It is the same as telling people not to worry about the cost of petrol increasing because the price of bananas has become cheaper.
Mr. Love: My hon. Friend is really getting at the lack of adequate disclosure by pensions companies of exactly how with-profits schemes operate. We must consider carefully, as Sandler needs to, how we can ensure that a policyholder knows exactly what is happening.
Mr. Gardiner: Again, my hon. Friend anticipates exactly the direction of my speech. Low interest rates are neither the cause of nor the solution to the endowment problem. The cause is company and shareholder greed, and a culture of excessive commission for agents. The solution, we hope, will come with the Sandler report, but a minimum requirement is the imposition of transparency about the way in which companies decide on their profit allocation to annual and final bonuses as well as to shareholders and the general fund.
I wanted to speak about polarisation, financial advice bureaux—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) alluded—and bridging the

221WH
savings gap of £27 billion in our pension projections. Alas, time precludes that, but I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I seek to be as helpful to hon. Members as I can. If contributions are very brief, and the winding-up speakers are prepared to surrender a moment or two, we may be able to hear two further speakers before the winding-up speeches.
11.56 am
Mr. Hugo Swire: I, too, congratulate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on his position and the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on securing the debate. He painted a pretty bleak picture, with a fairly broad brush, of the whole industry. Without wishing to turn the debate into a Trekkie convention, I should point out that he omitted to mention, in a speech more than 30 minutes long, that the starship was called the Starship Enterprise. Indeed, enterprise was notably lacking from anything that he said.
It is perhaps worth remembering that financial services remain our most successful export, and London, despite—or should I say in spite of—the euro, is still one of the most important financial markets internationally. That is probably why NASDAQ is seeking to come here to do a deal with the London stock exchange. I caution against over-regulation. I believe in regulation, but with an industry suffering from overregulation, we should proceed with extreme caution.
The integrity of the financial industry has been called into question—rightly or wrongly—on a number of key issues. Like many hon. Members—I doubt whether there is an exception in the Chamber this morning—I have received much correspondence about Equitable Life. I note that my colleagues were successful in securing a change of heart from the parliamentary ombudsman about his original decision not to investigate Equitable Life cases following claims of maladministration. However, Equitable Life has been raised on other occasions, including in debates secured by my hon. Friends, so I shall concentrate on two other key issues if I have time.
The most important issue is endowment mortgages. According to the Association of British Insurers, 6 million homeowners with such mortgages may not now be able to pay off their mortgage loans in full with the proceeds of their endowment insurance policies. As we have heard, the proportion of those with endowment mortgages who face that problem has risen from 46 to more than 60 per cent. in the past two years.
In the recent past, when inflation and nominal interest rates were higher, endowment policies typically provided an attractive savings route to repay mortgage loans. Nominal interest rates on mortgage loans were much higher, effectively compensating lenders for the decline in real terms in the outstanding loan. Similarly, the nominal returns on endowment insurance policies were higher, reflecting higher nominal interest rates earned by the insurance companies, and the tendency for equity markets to rise in nominal terms following the nominal increase in company profits resulting from inflation. That has ended over the past decade, however, because of the climate of low inflation that has been in
222WH
place since the early 1990s. On the one hand, nominal interest rates on mortgage loans have fallen, but on the other, the nominal returns on endowment insurance policies have also fallen.
The Financial Services Authority is investigating the extent to which insurance companies and others who advise on and sell endowment-linked mortgages mis-sold policies. It is focusing particularly on situations in which consumers were advised that their stock market-linked endowments were, effectively, guaranteed to pay off their mortgages. Three United Kingdom life insurers have already been fined over endowment mortgage mis-selling, and the insurance industry has set aside £325 million for endowment-related redress.
It is not for me to say whether the mis-selling of endowments took place, but the FSA has made it clear that it does not intend to launch a formal review of endowment mortgages. It has also advised that it has no evidence of widespread mis-selling, notwithstanding the escalation of problems with endowment mortgages over the past year. I would therefore be grateful if the Chief Secretary could confirm whether the Government intend to launch such an inquiry.
For its part, the Association of British Insurers does not accept that widespread mis-selling took place, and argues that the main issue is the fall in nominal investment returns. Millions of endowment policies must grow by at least 8 per cent. per annum for the mortgage to be fully repaid. Although that was widely accepted as a realistic and likely prospect in the recent past, it is simply not likely in present economic and stock market conditions. Those involved must clearly tread a delicate line. On the one hand, consumers must take responsibility for their financial decisions, and the principle of buyer beware is embodied in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. On the other hand, there is the issue of mis-selling.
I do not have time to refer to split capital investment trusts, or splits. I should say, however, that the bottom line in the case of endowments and splits is that while none of us can control what happens in the markets, none of us would condone malpractice. The task is, therefore, to root out malpractice and to provide consumers with the reassurance that they will receive fair redress should their case merit it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Miss Anne Begg (in the Chair): Order. I realise that several hon. Members still want to speak, but it is now two minutes past 12, so we shall move on to the summings-up.
12.2 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) and the Chief Secretary, whom I first encountered a few years ago, when he was a very junior Minister. He took on an extremely complicated adoption case of mine, and I am pleased to say that he overruled his officials. I hope that he maintains that independence of mind in the Treasury, where it is badly needed.
The key issue is that we are dealing not with scattered scandals, but with a systemic problem. The Financial Times—the newspaper of the City—talked about a toxic

223WH
legacy of mis-selling, while the chairman of the Financial Services Authority recently talked about the disgrace of the financial services industry. Those are strong words.
There has now been a cumulative loss of basic trust in financial products, which is important not only for customers, but for the Government. We have a savings gap of £27 billion a year, which will not be filled unless financial products can be sold, and that requires trust.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) made a distinction between crooks—the Maxwell, BCCI-type problem—and honest failure. There is, however, something in between. It is not crooked behaviour or honest failure, but sharp practice. A common element in many of the scandals is the prevalence of sharp practice and the industry's inability to get on top of it.
The pensions mis-selling scandal has largely been dealt with through compensation, but I hope that the Government will produce an evaluation of what has been achieved, because this is a Government, not an FSA issue. My concern is about who paid the £15 billion restitution. We know from Sandler and others that there is a lack of control over funds in the with-profits industry, so I suspect that much of the restitution was paid not by shareholders but by other policyholders. We need a thorough evaluation of how that exercise panned out.
We need to distinguish between the different types of mis-selling that occurred in relation to endowments. There was that by people who claimed that there was a guarantee when there was not one, and the mis-selling to people who were told that they could not have a mortgage unless they had an endowment with it. There is nothing inherently wrong with endowment mortgages; that point has not been made. I paid off my mortgage three or four years ago and received quite a large bonus on the back of the endowment that was linked to it. A number of people have had favourable experiences. However, the point is that when the market began to turn sour, the industry, which had pocketed its commissions, did not exercise a duty of care. That is not mis-selling, but it is a form of negligence. There is a responsibility involved. As interest rates fell, people with endowments became better off; they were not losing money. Somebody needed to tell them then to put money aside to compensate for the lack of value of the endowment. Nobody did, and that was the failure in the system.
We must ask whether the scope of the FSA inquiry is sufficient; it seems to have been drawn very narrowly, especially compared with that for pension mis-selling. If the FSA is not willing to look at the matter more comprehensively, are the Government? The second question, which is asked less often, is whether there was a regulatory failure. This happened pre-FSA. I suspect that the regulator was within the old structure. Did somebody in the regulatory system fail to alert the industry to the fact that customers needed to be warned to save more? Thirdly, two serious things seem to have happened in the small but important split trusts segment of the market. There has been extreme mis-selling. Customers were sold what were presented as very low-risk investments but were nothing of the kind. The other thing, not mis-selling but probably more serious, was
224WH
the collusion between the so-called magic circle of companies, which were investing in each other's operations to create what was known as exponential risk. That highly irresponsible and dangerous behaviour produced a subsequent collapse and a large-scale loss of savings. The splits issue is important because it is a test of the FSA's credibility. Is it willing to insist on full restitution and to get to the bottom of what seems to have been serious market abuse?
I hope that the Minister will touch briefly on the failure of professional self-regulation, which has been exposed by recent events. The Equitable Life scandal revealed that we had actuaries who could not count and auditors who were blind and deaf. The worst thing about the Equitable Life situation was the conduct of the auditors, Ernst and Young. To the credit of the accountancy profession, it has recently shown signs of being willing to make radical changes to improve its performance. However, the ultimate responsibility is the Government's. The Department of Trade and Industry rather than the Treasury should insist on changes in audit practice to prevent that kind of thing from happening again.
Finally, nobody has mentioned an issue that is central to a discussion about lack of confidence in the financial system: the role of the banks. I mention this because it is a responsibility of the Government rather than of the FSA. As I always ask in debates on financial services, where is the follow-up to the Cruickshank report? The Government accepted that report, which suggested that there were very large "excess profits" in the banking system at the expense of personal customers, and promised us a payment regulator. That has not happened. Where is it?
A few months ago, the Chancellor presented to the House of Commons the report of the competition authorities on business lending. The Chancellor was very tough. He wanted full implementation. We discovered this morning that the banks are not implementing his instructions. Interest on deposits, which was due to be paid from the beginning of June, will not be paid—the banks are withholding it at a cost of £500 million a year to small businesses. Will the Government force through the competition authorities' recommendation? The banks are cocking a snook at the Government and the competition authorities and something should be done. Will the Government do anything about it?
Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman refers to the debate that took place on the Floor of the House. He will remember my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on that occasion, when I asked him whether he would use the threat of a windfall tax if the banks did not comply with the recommendations. Would the hon. Gentleman support that measure?
Dr. Cable: I thought at the time that that would be excessive, but it is now beginning to seem necessary, in order to show the seriousness of the problem.
In the last minute of my speech I shall make some specific points that I hope the Government will follow up. I would like to talk about consumer protection, for which the FSA has responsibility and which it is now taking seriously. If the Minister has been following the

225WH
debates on the Enterprise Bill, he will know that both Opposition parties, together with Labour Back Benchers, are urging the inclusion of a duty to trade fairly in the context of legislation affecting financial institutions that come under the Department of Trade and Industry rather than the FSA, which relates to issues such as consumer debt. Such a duty is an important omission from the Bill and I hope that the Government will address that.
The hon. Member for Newport. West and I—and, I think, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner)—have made the suggestion in the past that there should be some kind of pro bono system of financial advice. Confidence in financial advice has collapsed and the industry needs to find a totally independent system of advice that is not linked to commission. The Government might want to promote that.
Finally, as a result of that collapse of confidence, the Government will have to take responsibility for the production of more regulated products with. CAT standards. We currently have individual savings accounts and stakeholder pensions produced to such standards and I fear that many other products will have to be launched in that way in order to preserve minimum confidence in the financial system.
12.11 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I have a great liking for the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), but I was disappointed by his speech and felt that much of what he said was not as responsible as it might have been. I was personally offended as—I declare an interest—I worked in the financial services industry for 30 years, building an investment management business of which I am still non-executive chairman. With transparent products such as unit trusts and open-ended funds investors know what is happening and—dare I say—most of the clients that we built up during 20 years were pretty satisfied with our service.
The fundamental issue is that all financial assets carry risk. If one keeps one's money in cash and inflation is rising, its real value can disappear—it is not safe. If one invests in equities, one incurs the risk of the stock markets. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, between 1980 and 2000 everyone was in the main extremely happy. Their endowment policies more than paid off their mortgages and bonuses paid out by with-profit bonds were high. They were probably too high, and that was partly because of regulations about the extent to which reserves can be built up.
Let us consider the matter another way. From 1945 until 1985, people who, on Government advice, bought gilts lost 90 per cent. of the real value of their money. Inflation eroded it and rising interest rates killed prices. The idea that everyone in the financial services industry is a cheating robber whereas the Government are wonderful and have all the solutions, as we heard from the hon. Member for Newport, West, is not fair. Risk is in the nature of financial markets.
Pensions were the great success of this country between 1950 and the 1990s. Not only were huge amounts—£800 billion or so—built up, but 65 per cent. of the population had some form of private sector
226WH
pension saving. That was much more than anywhere else—even in America, the figure was only about 47 per cent. The huge taxes on employment to pay for state pay-as-you-go earnings-related pensions meant that continental European economies suffered from poor economic growth. They also suffered from capital outflows because they were bad places in which to invest.
Regrettably, occupational final salary schemes are in crisis, in part because the Chancellor thought that he could extract £5 billion a year from them. I remember him saying that stock markets would go up and that everything would be wonderful. When stock markets go down, the problem is unleashed. Not surprisingly in many ways, companies are increasingly unwilling to take the open-ended risks of having to fund final salary schemes, so they are closing them like fury.
Even money purchase pension schemes are affected. The issue of what pension people will receive, including stakeholders, will in part depend on the performance of financial markets and in part on inflation. A major problem for the generation approaching retirement is that the cost of annuities has more than doubled in the past decade, which has been the result of not only lower inflation, but a significant fall in real interest rates.
Mr. Gardiner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the companies that are closing their final salary schemes are, in many instances, the same companies that took superannuation holidays during the past 10 or 15 years? That has left those schemes underfunded to pay the final salaries that they were supposed to meet.
Mr. Flight: No, I do not. Obviously, that applies to some large established firms, but I am aware of many firms that did not take pension holidays, especially in the middle bracket. The hon. Gentleman will know the rules about the extent to which pension funds can be overfunded anyway, which has been a limitation, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out.
As stakeholders move, along with everyone else, to money purchase schemes and the obligation to buy an annuity, my great worry is that we are in a period of low inflation. The guaranteed annuities one buys reflect that, with a low nominal as well as a low real interest rate. If inflation rises significantly over the next decade, as is perfectly possible, people who lock into schemes today will be screwed. Will the hon. Member for Newport, West blame the Government for forcing people to buy annuities? If that happens, it will be the result of many factors. People object to compulsion on the issue because they fundamentally know that there is huge risk in buying a guaranteed annuity when interest rates are extremely low.
Given what we have heard today, it might be surprising to know that the overwhelming majority of independent surveys show the clients of financial advisers to be quite satisfied with their services. The average income of independent financial advisers is about £25,000 a year. It is not a fat-cat profession, so it is unlike the great and good circles of large companies. There is no substantiation for the simple argument that the problem is excessive commissions and overpayments. Commissions are an issue, but there is no evidence for a rip-off argument that shows that financial advisers grow hugely wealthy on the back of them.

227WH
The problem with Equitable Life was about guaranteed annuities. It was about the Treasury in 1998 endorsing the mistaken decision of Equitable Life to believe that the law enabled it to force the owners of guaranteed annuities to pay the costs. When the House of Lords rejected that, trouble resulted. I remind hon. Members that Equitable Life was a mutual. Like a credit union, it was ultimately owned by its members. Credit unions are jolly useful when they work, but there are many problems with them. A great number of them are insolvent. One cannot think that they will be the solution to all our problems, given that standards of management are often not satisfactory, to be candid.
Regulation has been in place since 1986 to try to address the problems, and standards have risen in that time. There are now major problems, which largely reflect markets, and more transparency is needed. There is especially a further need to reform the insurance industry. However, talking about the financial services industry as if it is a load of cheating robbers does no good. We should be diagnosing and solving the problems; but we should remember that there will always be risk in all forms of financial investment.
12.19 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): There can be no better first outing for an incoming Chief Secretary to the Treasury than to appear in Westminster Hall, with so many experts speaking on a subject that is of interest not only to our constituents, some of whom have suffered as a result of failings in integrity of the financial services industry, but to everyone. It is an important subject. In the generality of things, UK plc stands to benefit from a financial services industry that is perceived to have integrity, because the economy and the nation are better able to gain from all that it has to offer. I am grateful for all the kind things that have been said today—and, in the case of the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), what was put in writing prior to the debate.
The market for financial advice is complex, and reform is required on both sides. On the demand side, we need educated consumers who are capable of making informed decisions on the products that are right for them. On the supply side, we need appropriate incentives for financial advisers, we need to extend the market in advice so that more people can benefit, and we need products that people can understand. That plea has been made by a number of hon. Members.
I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) for sharing his experience of the financial services industry, and for giving us the opportunity to debate the subject. While my hon. Friend was speaking, I looked round the Chamber, and it seemed that apart from your distinguished predecessor in the Chair this morning, Miss Begg, whose memory and parliamentary longevity are positively elephantine, I was the only Member to have heard my hon. Friend put his question to the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher. I remember that her answer was indeed to describe him as a socialist, which was her usual response to those who asked difficult questions. My hon. Friend has borne that as a badge of honour ever since.
228WH
My hon. Friend was good enough to recognise that the establishment of the Financial Services Authority signalled an end to the confusion caused by the overlapping agencies that presided over the scandals of the 1980s and 1990s. Indeed, the excellent chairmanship of Sir Howard Davies has strengthened the authority. We have gone beyond what my hon. Friend described as a ragbag; we are now in a different position, and it is, important that we should recognise the positive even as we debate the negative. We should remember that there are people in the financial services industry who possess integrity and who are concerned about the welfare of those to whom they sell products. We need to achieve a balance in the debate, because we want to ensure a successful industry. I hope that no one will take that as a sign that I have gone over to the Ferengi. I rather lost interest in "Star Trek" when Lieutenant Uhuru was subject to a compulsory redundancy: when she went, so did I. I have no doubt that lessons can be learned from the Ferengi—and my hon. Friend shared them with us.
Enhancing consumer education and increasing consumer understanding are essential components of our effort to offer appropriate protection for consumers and to enhance the efficiency of the financial services market. The FSA has a statutory duty to promote understanding of the financial system. It should aim to provide individuals with the knowledge, the aptitude and the skills to become effective consumers. It is working with schools to start financial education earlier, and it publishes a range of information on financial products in easy-to-understand flow charts and comparative tables. That is important.
Pension mis-selling and mortgage endowments have been identified during the debate as areas of concern. In each case, responsibility for the detailed operation of the regulatory system properly lies with the FSA while the Treasury retains responsibility for the overall framework. I or my hon. Friends the Paymaster General and Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who have day-to-day responsibility for these matters, will write to hon. Members in response to the specific questions that they have raised, but I shall make a few short points in the time that I have available.
I shall deal first with mortgage endowments. The Government have been successful in achieving low, stable inflation, the wider benefits of which include, for many borrowers, welcome reductions in monthly mortgage payments as the interest element has fallen. However, low inflation has also resulted in lower cash returns on investments, so, in some instances, the return on an endowment, in cash terms, may not be sufficient to cover the outstanding mortgage at the end of the term. We must recognise that that down side puts the issue of mortgage endowments into a different category from pension mis-selling, and so it requires a different response.
The role of the FSA is to regulate advice and sales of investments to protect consumers and help them make informed decisions. Clearly, it has a responsibility to regulate endowments. In his letter of 5 June to the Consumers Association, Sir Howard Davies referred to the FSA's overall strategy in that regard. I commend that letter to hon. Members as a sign of the welcome work that the FSA will be doing in this area.

229WH
Pension mis-selling is a scandal that still reverberates around the industry. No one should be in any doubt that there is much to learn from what has occurred. Two million cases of pension mis-selling have been examined, and offers of redress totalling £9 billion have been made in more than 1 million cases. The FSA has paid particular attention to laggard firms which have not given the review the priority that it deserves. They should be in no doubt about the FSA's determination to deal with them. Regulators have not been soft on the industry—far from it. Almost 350 firms have already been disciplined over pension mis-selling, with fines approaching £10 million. Most recently, in May this year, an IFA firm was fined £120,000 for serious failures in conducting the review. That is very different from the issue of mortgage endowments. The FSA published guidance to firms last year to ensure a consistent approach to their handling of mortgage endowment complaints.
The FSA has the right strategy. It must strike a balance between informing consumers, so that they can take the right decisions, and ensuring that firms do the right thing. Such an approach is also important in relation to accident, sickness and unemployment cover, to which some hon. Members have referred. In 1999, the last year of the independent Insurance Ombudsman Bureau, that office handled more than 450 complaints, 10 per cent. of the total of 4,645 complaints about payment protection policies linked to unemployment and sickness. It is interesting that only 12 of those complaints related to the selling process, so it is important to understand the distinction between the three different areas.
The right balance has now been struck and, learning from the past, we can build a more efficient system with proper processes in place for consumer protection and redress. The role of Members in highlighting those issues, as we have done during the debate, is an important contribution to that process. I and my colleagues in the Treasury will continue to listen and to respond with care to hon. Members' points, because we must learn and ensure that the market responds in the right way. We must do that if we are to do something about our constituents' concerns and about the terrible looks on their faces when they describe the impact on their lives of some of the scandals. We are determined to get to the bottom of such scandals and to improve the situation, because everyone should have confidence and trust in our financial services industry.

Silicone Implants
12.30 pm
Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity to follow up a debate that I introduced a couple of years ago on silicone implants. Implants were introduced almost 40 years ago, and breast enlargement is now the most common cosmetic surgery procedure to be performed on women in the United Kingdom. It is estimated that 10,000 operations are performed each year, and 80 per cent. of those who receive implants opt for silicone gel implants. Significantly, 80 per cent. of operations are cosmetic, rather than for reconstruction purposes.
According to those who campaign on the issue, 60.000 women in the UK suffer from the effects of silicone implants, and the number of websites that provide information on the issue makes the point. Despite the debate held a couple of years ago, and the report by the Select Committee on Health in March last year, no decisive action has been taken. The Government have been slow to act, and I have no evidence that they have struck the right balance between the benefits and risks of breast implants.
It is worth going over some of the ministerial responses to the March 2000 debate. At the time, the independent review group recommended that all patients who underwent surgery should be able to obtain free, independent and comprehensive information from a designated body or from the Government. That information is now available, and there is a Department of Health booklet entitled "Breast Implants Information for women considering breast implants". As others have said, however, the information in that document is not as challenging as it should be. Furthermore, the Department's website address is incorrect, so women who want to visit the website to obtain a copy of the leaflet would be unable to do so. The information in the leaflet is quite bland, and does not put across the real impact of a breast implant that goes wrong.
It is worth returning to the case history of a constituent to show that the problems associated with breast implants are not merely tenderness or the shape not being quite correct. The medical implications can be very severe, but that does not come across in the leaflet. Implants may have to be removed, and some women are left with prominent scars or holes in the tissue. Infections can also arise. Furthermore, concern about the failure of a breast implant may lead to conditions related to stress, such as peptic ulcers.
There is also concern that women who have had silicone implants that have leaked or ruptured could develop other conditions further down the line, such as myalgic encephalomyelitis or rheumatoid arthritis. The Minister may say that there is no medical evidence to support that, but there is certainly anecdotal evidence. There is concern among a significant number of women that implants have such side effects, and the severity of their concerns should be reflected in the document, but it is not. The Health Committee believes that the document does not provide sufficient information about the risks of these products. Since its report, the document may have been reviewed and additional information provided, but the Consumers Association also said that it was disappointed with the leaflet and was concerned about its usefulness.

231WH
Informed consent for an operation is another issue. Will the Minister tell us how thorough and useful is the new consent form? Will she provide an update on progress made on implementation of the Health Committee's recommendation No. 8, which will make it mandatory to give women an identification card containing the make and model of their breast implant? That will give women a physical record to which they could refer if anything went wrong in the future.
Registration was another issue referred to two years ago, and I want to press the Minister on it now. The Government say that the registration process by which women place their details on a national breast implant register should be voluntary. Does not the Minister agree that it would be preferable to have a compulsory registration scheme in which the details of individuals were not available, but the details of the implants were? That would provide a mechanism for tracking and linking details to individual people if problems subsequently developed.
Surely we should keep proper information. When we use our cards in Tescos and Safeways, we give the supermarket chains a whole host of information about what we purchase and why, and few people bat an eyelid about that. As clear health concerns are involved with implants, compulsory registration with the data anonymised—and no means of identifying particular individuals—should not cause women any problems. If it were compulsory, we would have consistent and complete data on all the implants in the UK. Will the Minister respond to that point?
I checked with Liberty, and was told that it has no concerns from a human rights standpoint. As long as the data is anonymised, it is not worried about data protection issues. If the Minister believes that an important issue is at stake with compulsory registration, will she explain why Liberty—the organisation most likely to clamour against it—does not?
The register was established in 1993, but what research has the information been used for subsequently? The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that no work has been done whatever. Nine years on, the Department of Health is commissioning a contract to establish whether the register can be used to assess the outcome of breast implants. When the register was set up, surely its main purpose was precisely that. I am alarmed that nine years after the register was established, research is being carried out to see whether it can be used for the purpose for which it was originally intended. Many women consider that, because the register has not been used to conduct detailed research into the outcomes of breast implants, women in the UK may have been used as guinea pigs in clinical trials, which would be unacceptable in countries where a moratorium on the use of implants for cosmetic reasons is in force.
Another area of concern is the apparent inconsistency in the approaches to the different types of implant. As there is insufficient evidence to show that trilucent implants are safe, the view is that they should be banned, but as there is insufficient evidence to show that silicone implants are unsafe the view is that we should allow them. Perhaps the Minister can explain that position, and why one implant is banned and another is not.
232WH
The Minister will, I am sure, be aware that a draft European Union directive will be adopted in September that will reclassify implants as class 3 highest risk medical devices. Does she think that will help? Is she worried that the Government are not concerned about silicone implants, whereas the EU is reclassifying them as class 3 devices, which will mean that more pre-market clinical testing of the products will be needed?
Associated with that at an EU level is the concept of CE marking. Everyone will have seen those two letters on products on sale in our shops and supermarkets. It is a badge of certification to show that they pass certain standards. The trilucent implants have received that badge. Is the Minister satisfied with that form of classification? Is she satisfied that the fact that a CE mark has been allocated ensures that a particular implant is safe?
Does the Minister have any concerns about the moratorium that other countries have imposed on implants, and does she feel that we should introduce one here under the precautionary principle? It is widely recognised by all quarters that silicone gel can be released into the tissue. Implants can rupture, and silicone oils can bleed through the shell into a woman's body. Silicone was found in my constituent's armpits. There is clearly concern about leakage. The associated risks, such as infection, are not spelled out clearly in the Department of Health leaflet. Perhaps some photographs of the affected women are needed. That might draw it to people's attention more than the rather bland text.
The implications for women's health need to be taken into account to a much greater extent. It is not good enough to explain the relative lack of action by saying that it takes a long time for illnesses that affect the whole of a woman's body to show up, and to argue that we need to wait for further evidence before we can conduct research into the health implications of implants. There is no conclusive evidence that they are 100 per cent. safe, and other countries have taken a harder line than the UK. It is therefore time that the UK Government erred on the side of caution and immediately banned the use of silicone implants for cosmetic purposes.
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing a debate on an important issue that is of great concern to many women who have had, or are contemplating having, breast implants. Since the hon. Gentleman first raised the issue, there have been many developments in the safety of breast implants, whether they are filled with silicone gel or other materials. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points that he made, and to put into the public domain further details about those developments.
The Government have always taken seriously the health of women who have had silicone gel breast implants. In the past 10 years, there have been several definitive expert reviews of the safety of those implants, and recent developments must be considered in the light of the fact that each review has firmly established the suitability of silicone for use as implant material.
In 1991, it was suggested that silicone gel breast implants might cause connective tissue disease. The Department of Health immediately initiated a detailed

233WH
review of the relevant evidence, and convened an independent expert advisory group. In 1992 and 1994, the group concluded that there was no evidence of an increased incidence of connective tissue disease associated with silicone gel breast implants, and there was therefore no scientific case for changing practice or policy on breast implantation in the UK.
Despite those reassurances, some women remained convinced that silicone gel breast implants may have caused debilitating illnesses. As a result of those concerns, one of the Government's first actions in May 1997 was to ask the chief medical officer to take a fresh look at the safety of silicone gel breast implants. The chief medical officer set up an independent review group to examine pre-operative patient information and the possible health effects associated with the implants. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Department of Health leaflet, to which I will refer in detail in a moment.
In July 1998, the independent review group published its report, in which it concluded that silicone gel breast implants are not associated with any health risk greater than that associated with other surgical implants. The hon. Gentleman said that we should take steps to ban implants if we cannot be satisfied that they are 100 per cent. safe. I am sure that he will accept that no procedure will be 100 per cent. safe with any implant surgery. There will always be risks in any surgery, and therefore balancing those risks is an important consideration.
Tom Brake: I entirely agree with the Minister. However, there is a slight difference in that a medical implant is being used for cosmetic purposes.
Ms Blears: The Government and the independent review group must take into account the medical and scientific evidence, not the purpose for which the procedure is carried out. We are committed to developing a rigorous evidence base for everything that the Department of Health does. We must concentrate on that evidence base when we consider the risks to ensure that we get the balance right for people who are contemplating any implant surgery.
The hon. Gentleman referred to other countries and their views. Conclusions similar to those of the review group were reached by the American Medical Association, a Canadian independent advisory committee, the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Science, a national science panel appointed by the US Federal Court, and a scientific technological options assessment carried out on behalf of the European Parliament.
The UK is not alone in taking the advice of the independent review group, which concluded that silicone gel implants are as safe as any other surgical implant. The Government consider it important that the group continue to meet, and that this is not a one-off review. The group should consider any new evidence as it appears. It continues to meet about twice a year, and so far nothing has emerged that has caused it to alter its original conclusions.
However, although the review group was satisfied on the safety of silicone gel breast implants, it was concerned about a number of issues associated with their use. It felt that information provided to women undergoing breast implantation was often inadequate,
234WH
and that that problem needed to be addressed. It made several important recommendations about information provided to women and clinicians, and about possible consequences.
Since the publication of that report, we have implemented various actions to try to ensure that clinicians and women have appropriate information. We have formed an advisory group to prepare an information booklet for women, which included representatives of women's support groups. It is crucial that patient advocates are involved in preparing the information. From October 2000, 80,000 copies of the booklet were circulated. It has recently been revised, taking into account the recommendations made by the Health Committee in March 2001, and a further 100,000 copies have been printed and are being distributed.
The leaflet includes a full section on the potential consequences and risks: the possibility of hardness, discomfort and changes in breast sensation. It talks about capsular contracture, whereby scar tissue is formed within the breast cavity, and about what happens when the scar tissue hardens and the effect of that on the implant. It refers to rupture rates and life expectancy of implants. A section makes clear that breast implants are a long-term commitment. It states:
"Remember that breast implants do not come with a lifetime guarantee. They are likely to need replacing with consequent further surgery and expense. A young woman who has implants may expect to have further operations in her lifetime".
That is very clear. The section on risk is graphic.
"Occasionally, the silicone can spread outside the capsule and create a series of lumps known as siliconomas. These may give rise to local symptoms such as tenderness…Breast tissue may be lost when the implants are removed."
On scarring, it says that
"in a small number of women (up to 1 in 20) as with any surgical procedure, scars will be red, or highly coloured, thick, painful and will take several years before they improve."
On creasing and folds in the breasts, it states:
"The nature of the implant capsule may enhance less desirable characteristics such as creasing, kinking, vertical ripple folds and rippling in the breast."
The leaflet does not underplay the likely effects of the surgery. It tries to set out for women what the decision involves. It refers to the silicone controversy, to the independent review group and to some of the symptoms that have become apparent. It says that some people believe that symptoms include muscle spasm, swollen and painful joints, rashes, changed eye and saliva fluid and hair loss. It contains some photographs, and if any woman contemplating breast implantation read it, it would give her a pretty good tour around the issues.
I am in favour of informed consent and of anyone undertaking operations having full knowledge. The hon. Gentleman asked about the consent form and about the data registry. We want to ensure that when people are entered on the registry they get a copy of the entry, with all the details about the batch and the manufacturer of the implants so that the woman is in possession of those important details.
Tom Brake: The Minister has correctly pointed out that there are photographs in the leaflet, but they would not do anything to dissuade women from having implants—I suspect that they would have the opposite

235WH
effect. The Minister pointed out the uncertainty of the life expectancy of implants, and said that women would know that they would have something inside them with an unknown life expectancy. She has also set out some of the many problems associated with implants. Does not she consider that the problems outlined in the leaflet are sufficient to introduce a moratorium on the cosmetic use of implants?
Ms Blears: No. It is for patients to decide, on the basis of information and knowledge about the likely implications, whether they want to proceed. We are in the business of assessing and balancing risk and ensuring that people are empowered to make those decisions themselves, not making those decisions for them. That is a fundamental principle, and the information in that leaflet is accurate and graphic enough to outline the risks. The hon. Gentleman's point was that the information was bland and did not really draw out the details, but I disagree.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the specific issue of the reclassification of devices under the European directive from class 2b to class 3. The UK has been at the forefront of the push for devices to be in class 3, which will require a more detailed assessment of individual dossiers of each device. Indeed, many of the EU's recommendations have been made on the basis of actions that we have already implemented in the UK, and I can reassure him that we are at the forefront in clinical practice. He will also know that with the introduction of the National Care Standards Commission, we now have the opportunity to regulate, inspect and monitor standards in the private health care sector. That will be in the best interests of women undertaking such surgery.
The hon. Gentleman asked about research and the length of time that it has taken to use the registry to support research. The National Breast Implant Registry was set up in 1993, and it takes about five or six years to gain the necessary information. Our studies will be five years on from implantation and will consider the epidemiological implications for women. It takes time to gather the data and then to conduct the studies. Almost
236WH
two years ago, a particular company proposed a study that met the quality issues for research, but it proved impossible in the negotiations to reach an agreed contract on the terms and conditions. The company raised concerns about indemnities and liability.
However, I am pleased to say that we have been able to agree a research project that will use information from the breast registry to examine epidemiological implications. The contracts are just about to be agreed, so we should be able to get on with it soon. The hon. Gentleman is right, as there has been a delay because of the difficult contract negotiations with the original research body, but that has now been resolved. I want to ensure that we press on and get research on this important topic.
The hon. Gentleman raised the point about trilucent breast implants, which have soya bean oil fillings. They were withdrawn in March 1999 as a precautionary measure, and since then we have learned more about the risks that they pose. In June 2001, the Medical Devices Agency issued a hazard notice that advised women with the implants to have them removed, because of concerns about the toxicity of the filling. When the soya bean oil starts to break down, it can have toxic effects. There is no such evidence with silicone gel or saline, which are other currently approved implants. In the trilucent case, the manufacturer organised an implant removal programme, and I understand that 95 per cent. of women who received the implants have had them removed and there are only about 200 women in the country who still have them.
There have been a number of developments in breast implants. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the concerns of his constituent, but the UK is at the forefront of ensuring that the issues are considered in this country and throughout the European Union. When devices are approved for use in any European country, they can be used here. We are trying to get as much information and scientific evidence as possible so that women's health is protected. It is fundamental that women should be able to make the decision themselves in the light of the best available scientific knowledge. That is our current position on this extremely important issue.

Unauthorised Encampments
1 pm
Mr. Bill Rammell: I am pleased to have the opportunity to deal with this subject in an Adjournment debate, but first may I welcome the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), to his first appearance at the Dispatch Box? I am aware of his Irish antecedents, so I apologise to him for securing this debate at the time of the Ireland game. I hope that he will not hold that against me.
I am pursuing the issue because the problems posed by unauthorised encampments are a real concern to my constituents in Harlow, Roydon, Sheering and Nazeing. However, I wish to make it clear that bigoted prejudice against travellers is simply wrong. My criticisms of unauthorised encampments are not criticisms of all travellers, but of that minority that persistently ignore the laws of the land. Everyone should have the right freely and peacefully to live their life in a manner of their choosing. However, as well as rights, in this society we have responsibilities. I simply do not believe that someone has the right to live their life regardless of the consequences for others. Some travellers cause nuisance and vandalism and engage in antisocial behaviour and criminal damage, and that is wholly unacceptable and unjustifiable.
I also wish to make the point strongly that unauthorised encampments and the problems that they bring disproportionately affect my constituency and the areas surrounding it. The Department's last count of unauthorised traveller caravans was undertaken in January this year, and it shows that the eastern region had by far the largest number of unauthorised encampments, with 25 per cent. of the English total. Within the eastern region itself, Essex, within which my constituency comes, had by far the highest total. Indeed, Epping Forest, which part of my Harlow constituency falls within, had the highest number, with a whacking 32 per cent. of all the Essex unauthorised encampments. I do not quote the figures to bore people with statistics, but to try to hammer home the message that the problem disproportionately affects my constituents compared with people in the country as a whole.
Every summer, Harlow is affected by numerous unauthorised encampments that often bring rubbish, antisocial behaviour and crime in their wake. Two summers ago, on Harlow common, we had a 100-caravan illegal encampment, which after much pressing from me and local councillors was removed by the police using section 61 powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. However, the clean-up costs to the community, which were borne by the local taxpayer, were a staggering £20,000.
In the three villages that make up the rest of my constituency but that come within Epping Forest district council, matters are, if anything, more serious. As I said, we now have the largest number of unauthorised traveller encampments, with 32 per cent. of the Essex total. In Roydon and Nazeing in particular, it seems as though barely a week goes by without an additional unauthorised encampment. In Hamlet Hill in Roydon, 30 travellers have been encamped illegally since the new year. Residents are rightly concerned
238WH
about the impact on the green belt, local wildlife, the local environment and the security of their properties. In Bumbles Green, a 22-family encampment has been proposed, but it is green belt land and totally unsuitable for development.
Perhaps the worst current example is Payne's lane, where the problem has been going on for a staggering 10 years or more. The land is owned by travellers but has consistently been deemed unsuitable by the planning authority for permanent encampments. When an enforcement notice is issued, the travellers submit another planning application—usually a slightly amended version of the original—and that prevents the enforcement procedure from taking place. Alternatively, after the enforcement notice has been issued, the travellers move off the site for a few months and then return, and the council has to start the whole process over again.
I can give a flavour of what has been happening. An application for a stable block on that site was first submitted to facilitate the travellers' encampment as long ago as 1990. The case went to court, injunctions were served and travellers were brought before the court for contempt. All the while, the unauthorised encampment continued in one form or another and the issue still has not been resolved. Matters were brought to a head in January when the unauthorised encampment increased in size significantly. It is no exaggeration to say that the lives of residents who live in the narrow lane, which is the only access route to the illegal encampment, have been made a misery.
Some residents have been physically assaulted; the travellers have pushed garden refuse and gas cylinders into the flood ditch, forcing local residents to dig a new one; the area has become infested with rats; the travellers regularly bring hardcore to the site in large lorries, which the lane was not designed to accommodate, sometimes in the early hours of the morning, disturbing residents and causing houses to vibrate; and they park on residents' properties and abuse them when asked to remove their vehicles. It genuinely is a living hell.
To give hon. Members a flavour of the situation, I shall quote from a constituent, Mrs. Sally Cooper.
"My life and the lives of my children and the rest of the family are not the same any more. I have been scared to leave the house because of getting out of the lane, then getting home again and what I may find on my return. If we were able to sell our cottage we would to lead a normal life again. But we couldn't currently give it away so we are stuck with this hell on earth."
I hope that the Minister will agree with me that people should not have to live like that.
My constituents need to be reassured that the Government recognise the scale of the problem and will act to strengthen enforcement provisions against unauthorised encampments. I would welcome the Minister's confirmation, on the record, that the Government have not weakened the regulatory framework to deter traveller encampments, as some have erroneously suggested.
What more can be done to relieve the misery that my constituents have to suffer? Local councils and the police should make vigorous use of the powers already available to them. In a previous Adjournment debate on the subject, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) argued that the police could use the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 more often

239WH
than they do currently to deal with unauthorised encampments. He argued that section 61 of that Act, which gives the police powers to direct trespassers to vacate the land, could be used when the landowner has taken reasonable steps to ask the trespassers to leave and when trespassers have six or more vehicles on the land. I would welcome the Minister confirming that interpretation of the Act, even if it is done with the caveat that the provisions of the Children Act 1989 and the Human Rights Act 1998 must also be assessed when children are involved. Such an interpretation would greatly clarify the ability of the police to use section 61 to deal speedily with large, unauthorised encampments such as that in Harlow two summers ago. At present, my advice from the local police is that section 61 should not necessarily be considered, even when the number of caravans exceeds six. The Minister's guidance on the issue would thus be helpful.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that the Human Rights Act is a two-way street. Yes, it enforces the human rights of travellers, but it also enforces the human rights of the settled population to have their property protected and to ensure respect for their private and family life. The Human Rights Act does not give anyone, settled resident or traveller, the right to act in an antisocial or criminal manner. I would welcome the Minister making that abundantly clear.
The Porter case, concerning planning enforcement against unauthorised encampments, which went before the Court of Appeal in October 2001, led some police forces and local councils to the erroneous view that the Human Rights Act has blocked effective planning enforcement through the courts. I strongly urge the Minister to confirm that the case hinged on a technicality. The issue before the Court of Appeal was not whether the original court judgment should have been granted, but whether the original judge had properly directed himself in making his judgment. It would greatly help police forces and local authorities if the Minister confirmed that Porter did not establish a hard and fast principle, and that as long as a judge assesses the human rights issues he can still reach a judgment that results in planning enforcement against an unauthorised encampment.
I am convinced that, as well as properly using the powers already available, we must consider further changes to help communities to tackle unauthorised encampments much more quickly and effectively. I shall set out some of the ways in which I believe that can be done.
As I have said, the cost to the community of cleaning up after an unauthorised encampment can be significant: it was a staggering £20,000 two summers ago in Harlow. I simply do not understand why the general public, through their council tax, have to bear that burden. I strongly urge the Government to consider making travellers, or any other trespassers, legally and individually responsible for damage caused during an illegal occupation. Such a penalty would act as a powerful deterrent against the antisocial dumping of rubbish that often accompanies an unauthorised encampment.
Another problem occurs when travellers seek planning permission that is ultimately refused. Planning decisions and enforcement can sometimes take years, and all the while the unauthorised encampment continues. In those
240WH
circumstances, I urge the Minister to allow councils to be granted an injunction coupled with the power of arrest, which would allow the police, with bailiff support, to remove an unauthorised encampment until the planning decision had been determined. Such a change would provide enormous relief to my constituents.
I urge the Government to consider fast tracking planning enforcement decisions that deal with unauthorised encampments. We have been told that the case of Payne's lane has been fast tracked, yet the original problem occurred in January, when the injunction was sought, and the case has gone to the High Court only this week. That does not represent fast tracking in any meaningful sense of the phrase as my constituents and I understand it. Surely there is a case for a specialist court, with a specialist planning judiciary, dedicated to making quicker and tighter decisions on unauthorised encampments.
The court procedures often appear to be abused and drawn out by the lawyers representing travellers to put off enforcement decisions that would otherwise be taken. The history of the Payne's lane site is beset with legalistic ruses that have no intrinsic merit, but serve to string out the court or local authority procedures. One example is planning application forms that are filled in incorrectly or incompletely time after time to delay the process. Surely there should be a limit on the number of times that that is permitted without nullifying the application. I strongly urge my hon. Friend to consider the whole planning and enforcement process, and to introduce changes that stop the legalistic filibustering that is greatly slowing down the legal redress available to my constituents.
In considering the situation, I am tempted to draw the conclusion that if every local authority provided a minimum number of permanent authorised sites, as both Epping Forest and Harlow do, we would not be facing anything like the current scale of the problem. The previous Government made a mistake in 1994, when the statutory duty on local authorities to provide an authorised site was removed. We need to reconsider that issue, and I strongly urge the Government to do so.
Many of my constituents are suffering a living hell because of the actions of some travellers. I do not exaggerate; I have been on sites and seen the impact on their lives. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that he understands the problem, that he shares our concern and that the Government will introduce changes to help my constituents. They desperately need it.
1.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty): I am grateful for the welcoming comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), and I congratulate him on securing this important debate. For reasons that most people are aware of, I am a little surprised to be responding to it, but the slot became vacant because of the elevation of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy). My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow is a lifelong Spurs fan, and I am sure that this is the first time in a long while that anything from Tottenham has made him so happy. The subject is important for many hon. Members, and I shall deal with the serious points that he made.
I am grateful for the fact that my hon. Friend did not criticise all travellers. Clearly, only a minority ignore the law of the land, but that attitude must not prevail.

241WH
Travellers have a right to pursue a nomadic lifestyle, with many gypsies living peaceably next to settled communities. Gypsies and travellers are the largest group among travelling communities in the United Kingdom, and form a recognised minority ethnic group. They also have the same right to access education and welfare as everyone else.
The Government are aware of the settled community's perception of travellers, and we want to dispel such prejudices and enhance toleration of the traveller's way of life. However, that is a two-way process. Travellers are often at the receiving end of bad publicity, some of which is caused by their own behaviour. We have heard reports about the amount of rubbish left behind on sites in Harlow common and Epping Forest, but we should be aware that not all travellers make trouble. That is why I was grateful for my hon. Friend's opening remarks.
Travellers excite much prejudice, but it is often ill-founded and based on knee-jerk reactions. None the less, local communities and the Government can and should expect the standard of behaviour of travellers to be the same as that of the settled community. Any antisocial behaviour must be dealt with in the same way for both communities.
The Government are fully aware that nuisance and disorder at some sites, especially unauthorised encampments on local authority or privately owned land, cause misery and distress. The typical consequences of unauthorised encampments include unacceptable behaviour, sometimes of a criminal nature, and a lack of respect for other people's property, the general environment and the amenities and quality of life of surrounding residents—not least those eloquently described by my hon. Friend when he talked of the residents of Payne's lane. He and the resident he quoted are entirely right that no one should have to live like that.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister receives a huge postbag from hon. Members, local authorities and the settled and business communities regarding unauthorised encampments by travellers. The Department has responsibility with the local authority to manage unauthorised camping, and Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office work closely together to ensure that any criminal activity is dealt with.
The police and local authorities have powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to direct travellers to leave land if they are camped without consent. The police can use their powers under section 61 of that Act. If reasonable efforts have been made to ask travellers to leave an unauthorised site and they have refused, the senior police officer present may direct them to leave if certain statutory conditions have been fulfilled. Travellers must have been abusive to the landowner or his or her agent, caused damage or brought six or more vehicles on the land. The powers do not apply to land forming part of a highway.
Mr. Rammell: Can my hon. Friend make it clear that it is necessary for only one of those criteria to apply, not all three of them?
Mr. McNulty: That is the situation, as far as I know. I shall inform my hon. Friend if I am wrong.
The decision to use section 61 remains an operational matter for the senior police officer on the ground, but Home Office Ministers have made it clear that police powers should be used at an early stage, where necessary.
242WH
As part of any decent society, even within the context of unauthorised camping, an effective strategy must also address the welfare and educational needs of travellers and their children. In exchange for better site provision, travellers must respect the settled community. When using the services provided, travellers should leave sites clean and tidy and adhere to acceptable standards of behaviour.
The new Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working closely with other Departments to develop our policies and initiatives. My hon. Friend spoke about stronger eviction powers and enforcement. The ODPM is working jointly with the Home Office to produce new guidance on managing unauthorised camping, with a view to publishing it later in the year. That new guidance will be informed by the view of stakeholders from the settled, business, farming and travelling communities. It will emphasise the need for effective local strategies that clearly set out lead responsibilities for taking action between local authorities and the police.
The guidance will also emphasise that the same standards of behaviour and regard for the law are expected from all sectors of the community, including regard for public health, proper disposal of waste and the conduct of business activities. However, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has policy responsibility for waste management, and subjects such as fly tipping and pollution come under the purview of the Environment Agency. Under section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Environment Agency has powers to remove fly-tipped waste, and to recover costs from those who deposited it or knowingly allowed it to be illegally dumped.
It is a criminal offence to dispose of waste without a waste management licence, or outside the terms of a registered exemption from licensing. That offence can be subject to severe penalties, including an unlimited fine or imprisonment for up to two years. The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the new guidance in making improvements on the ground, and will continue to keep the scope and application of existing powers under review. The guidance will inform much of what we do following its publication in the summer.
The ODPM is also researching site provision, again with a view to publication in the summer. That research—being carried out by Birmingham university—is considering the availability, quality and management of sites, detailed information about site closures and pitch losses, and actual site provision, which includes what sites exist, the need for sites and how demand can be met. The Government will take that into account when considering future policy and spending considerations, and will review the adequacy of existing enforcement powers in the area. With the guidance, the research on sites and other enforcement powers, much is being done to evaluate the existing position and to reach a stage at which the people of Harlow and Epping Forest are not encumbered in this way.
Furthermore, the ODPM's site refurbishment programme aims to keep the existing network of more than 300 local authority sites in good repair and available for use. That programme is making £17 million available between 2001–02 and 2003–04. In those three years, we shall spend £3 million, £6 million and £8 million. Round one has already taken place, with 38 bids approved

243WH
totalling almost £4 million. The bidding guidance for round two, which will apply to 2002–03, was issued to local authorities on 15 October.
The ODPM received a total of 86 bids from 50 local authorities. The results were announced on 20 March, with a total of 57 successful bids amounting to £8.1 million. The site refurbishment grant meets 75 per cent. of the costs, and the unsuccessful local authorities received evaluation feedback. My hon. Friend will know that the Elizabeth way site in his constituency successfully secured £15,400 for fencing work.
It is important to note that such work and the measures we are taking with the Home Office will inform us far more about the way forward on unauthorised encampments. With those initiatives in place, I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that the Government are actively seeking ways to enable local agencies to manage the problem effectively.
As my hon. Friend suggested, the problem is one of balance. Rights and responsibilities are important. The people who dwell on unauthorised encampments should tolerate and respect the settled communities around them. He is also right to suggest that the legal and regulatory framework remains the same as it was under the previous Government, and has been the same for some time. I am more than happy to put that on the record.
It is a matter of real regret that some unscrupulous politicians seek to abuse and exploit this issue for their own ends. They should work with us and with local councils to resolve the problem of competing interests to the satisfaction of the travellers and of the settled community. We suggest that there are rights and responsibilities on both sides.
My hon. Friend mentioned in passing the case of Porter v. South Buckinghamshire district council, and suggested that the conclusion drawn by some people that the Human Rights Act 1998 means that enforcement can no longer prevail on unauthorised encampments was erroneous. He was absolutely right. I understand that that case revolved entirely around the judge's competence in a particular area to direct himself to a conclusion, and concerned merely that legal technicality. It has no impact on the planning jurisdiction, which prevails as before.
244WH
I exhort those who feel that the erroneous conclusion arising from that case is accurate to re-examine the matter, and to get in touch with my office to receive the same advice that I have been given. As I understand it, the case does not alter the planning jurisdiction with regard to enforcement.
This is an issue of real concern that warrants serious debate. The ODPM site research programme is important, because any solution to the problem must revolve around the issue of sites. I do not concur with my hon. Friend that the 1994 statutory obligation of all authorities to have a site for this purpose should be restored. However, we now have the site research programme, the new guidance to be issued jointly with the Home Office on unauthorised camping and the site refurbishment programme for the existing 300 sites. All those elements will better inform us of the need for any changes in the way that central and local government deal with the issue.
I end where my hon. Friend began. We need to get to a stage where residents such as those in Payne's lane, Roydon, Nazeing, Hamlet Hill and Bumbles Green—all the areas that he mentioned in his constituency—do not have to live that way and be encumbered, put upon and disrespected because of unauthorised campsites.
I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful comments. I assure him that as and when events unfold, which will be before the summer and therefore sooner rather than later, I will keep him fully apprised of any new developments in the area following on from our work on site provision, research and the new guidance. The issue is serious but if it is dealt with fairly and in a balanced fashion those on both sides—whether from the settled or the travelling community—should be able both to enjoy their rights and to be apprised of and live up to their responsibilities.
I am grateful that my hon. Friend said clearly at the beginning of his speech that it was not intended as a criticism of all travellers, but merely of a small minority. Much of our enforcement and other powers will be directed at that minority, especially those on unauthorised encampments. For the majority, research into site provision, the provision of further sites and the maintenance of existing sites remain paramount, so that the settled and the travelling communities can live together and respect fully each other's rights and responsibilities.

Mental Health Services (Mid-Surrey)
1.29 pm
Chris Grayling: I shall start by expressing my gratitude to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), for allowing me to take some time out of her busy diary today. I want to raise a number of issues in relation to the provision of mental health services in my constituency and in mid-Surrey generally.
The Minister will be aware that mental health services have been a cornerstone of the community in Epsom for the best part of a century. Epsom has played host to five substantial mental hospitals, which were set up in the early years of the 20th century. At their peak they held approximately 10,000 residents; they were a dominating feature of that part of my constituency. Nearly 100 years later, with the advent of care in the community, the ethos of caring for those with learning disabilities and mental health problems has changed.
Over the past decade or so, we have seen a gradual move from institutional care to a more community-based provision. Step by step, those five hospitals have ceased to be used for their original purpose. Many arguments can be made for and against community-based services. The changes that have taken place have thrown up a large number of concerns in the Epsom area, which I suspect are invisible to the Government because that substantial and obvious block of care is no longer being provided in the area.
I want to raise three issues, the first of which concerns the debate that has been taking place over a number of years between the NHS and the parents and relatives of residents at St. Ebba's hospital, some of whom still live there. Secondly, I am concerned about how health service structures impact on mental health care in mid-Surrey. Thirdly—I am afraid that it often comes down to this—I draw the hon. Lady's attention to funding. I do not come here with a begging bowl, but when future NHS funding decisions are taken I want her to be aware of the particular circumstances of my constituency, and the fact that our problems could be overlooked when assessments for a broader funding formulae are made.
The Minister will be aware that a number of parents and relatives of patients at St. Ebba's have been arguing strongly for a long time for the creation of a village community on the site. Indeed, the Government have given much attention to the principle of village communities, because they deliver a high quality of mental health care in many parts of the county. St. Ebba's poses a conundrum because it is not always apparent from the exchange of letters between the Department for Health and the parents and relatives of the patients that two issues are involved, the first of which concerns what will happen to the residual services provided by Surrey Oaklands NHS trust on the St. Ebba's site.
The Minister may be aware that there has been some debate, and not a little controversy, about the trust's plans. A controversial planning application was recently lost on appeal for the provision of flats on the site. The trust is also putting a number of smaller units on the site to absorb some of the residents from St. Ebba's for whom care in the community may not be the right option.
246WH
A final solution to the trust's future provision is not yet in place, but the goal of the parents and relatives group is rather different. Surrey Oaklands is considering its current operations and what still needs to be done, but the parents and relatives have been arguing for a long time that using part of the St. Ebba's site as a village community could offer much more than is offered to current residents. There has been much debate about whether a village community would be appropriate and feasible. Over the years, the parents and relatives have drawn carefully on the Government's policy on villages. Most recently, in a letter to my one of my constituents on 17 May, the Department made it clear that options for the care of people with learning disabilities and other mental health care problems
"should include small scale ordinary housing, supported living and village and intentional communities",
and stated:
"Councils should respect the preferences of individuals and their families, wherever the preferred options will meet individuals' assessed needs and are affordable."
That is right, and there is no dispute or debate about it. The parents and relatives group, with which my predecessor, Sir Archie Hamilton, worked actively, has argued for a number of years that St. Ebba's site should be used to provide such a community, to ensure that there is a proper mix of care in the area. There are pros and cons and planning issues to consider. Whether the borough council will permit the development of such a complex and whether the authorities are providing the resources and the people to populate such a community we cannot be certain. However, I think that the Government have an opportunity to clear up the issue. My belief is shared by senior people in Surrey Oaklands and in the NHS community locally.
One of my reasons for initiating the debate was to explain to the Minister why I think that that opportunity exists, and to ask her whether she will consider taking it. Two of the five hospitals, The Manor and Long Grove, have been fully developed: they have been completed and are fully populated. The Horton hospital site is up for sale to developers and the outline plans are clearly in place. I expect development to go ahead within the next year or two. The fourth hospital, West Park, is still partly used by Surrey Oaklands for a number of services—I shall touch on one of them later—and is just reaching the point at which outline planning permission is being sought. Detailed discussions are taking place about the development. I should tell the Minister that NHS Estates and the local authorities will find themselves under a lot of pressure over a controversial road scheme as part of that development, but I shall not be distracted on to that today.
NHS Estates now has two big developments to deal with: the Horton site and West Park. It is also beginning to turn its attention to St. Ebba's. However, I would argue that it cannot do everything at once. These are five substantial sites, and if there is to be substantial construction work at Horton and West Park, work at St. Ebba's should be further down the track.
The Government should tell the parents and relatives of the residents of St. Ebba's that they do not know whether they are right, but they are prepared to give them an 18-month window and an option on the 12 acres at the St. Ebba's site that they are considering

247WH
taking on. They should be told to put forward a commercial, viable proposition, backed by the private sector and the local authorities, if they believe that it is right to do so. If they can show the Government that there is a business case and a care case for what they want to do, and that people could valuably take advantage of a village community in the area, let them do so, because it would not damage NHS Estates' ambitions to develop the other sites in the area one jot.
Therefore my first request to the Minister is to give those parents and relatives an 18-month window, so that they can come back with a solution. If they cannot do that, we know where we stand. If they can, there is an exciting option for the future that would do credit to everyone involved if it were given serious consideration.
My second concern relates to NHS structures. It is particularly associated with a seemingly growing commitment in the NHS to focus services on London, where it is delivering services to London. Whereas, in the past, a number of services have crossed boundaries, there is an increasing tendency within the NHS in London to do things itself. That has most recently manifested itself in one of the remaining units on the West Park site, the Woodside adolescent unit. Over a number of years, that has provided a service across a wide range of authority areas for young people with particular mental health problems. Discussions are taking place within the Surrey Oaklands NHS trust about the future model of care that would be required for that service, and such a debate has been taking place for some time. Surrey Oaklands is now being forced into a decision to close that unit because the principal buying source in London—Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth—has decided that it will no longer buy that service from Surrey but will establish its own unit two miles up the road in Tolworth.
Clearly, there are clinical and health considerations to be taken into account in determining the rights and wrongs of the matter, but I am concerned that that decision has been taken as a result of the desire of the NHS in London to deliver its own services. I am sure that the Minister would agree that it makes no sense to break up a team in north Surrey only to recreate a team in London. Will she ensure that no curtain is drawn across the London boundary that prevents services from being provided across that boundary? If London purchasing power is removed—it was London purchasing power that built up the services in Epsom in the first place—the community in Surrey will not have the services that it needs.
I am also concerned about proposals to establish a mental health trust for the whole of Surrey, because the last thing that Surrey Oaklands needs is another reorganisation. I ask the Minister to think carefully before pressing ahead with that option.
I now turn to finance and resources. There were 10,000 residents in Surrey hospitals, many of whom are now of pensionable age. Their families can no longer support them, although their relatives have done a wonderful job in trying to provide support in difficult situations. As a result, there is now an older community of people in the area who are more dispersed than before, and because Epsom was a magnet for people with learning disabilities and mental health problems,
248WH
that community is disproportionately large. My concern is that the Government will take a decision on resourcing for Surrey based on many other factors. It would be easy for the Government to decide that the prosperous area of Surrey does not need the same resourcing as other areas, and for that mental health community to be forgotten.
That approach manifests itself to me most clearly in the fate of the mental health citizens advice bureau in Epsom. That service has been run by the local CAB for several years and provides valuable support. The chairman of the CAB told me that he no longer receives NHS or Government funding. He has been able to secure interim finance from a charitable source, but the service risks disappearing in 12 months' time. There is a need to provide a disproportionately high level of support services to that community, but I fear that services may be eroded because funding decisions will be taken according to much broader formulae. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind when making future service and funding decisions.
My concern is shared by others. Mid-Surrey Mencap has expressed its concern about insufficient funding being available for Surrey social services to meet the needs of the mental health community. I have received letters and e-mails from other people involved in mental health who say that funding decisions are eroding their ability to provide the necessary support for people with learning disabilities and mental health problems in the Epsom area.
Can we lay the issue of St. Ebba's to rest once and for all? Will the Government please take extreme care over what the NHS does as regards providing services across the London border? Will they please also ensure that future funding decisions do not remove core services from a relatively substantial community of people who have a special need? These are wonderful people. I visited a home the other day and met a gentleman in his 60s who had had mental health problems all his life, but who was the most wonderful pianist. I have visited and spoken to many of the devoted staff who care for such people. They deserve my support as their Member of Parliament and the support of the Government, and I hope that they continue to get it. I hope, too, that the Minister will take steps to make their jobs easier.
1.45 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing this debate. He took a very measured approach to describing his constituents' concerns and the operation of the system in Surrey. I hope to be able to give his constituents some assurances, although I may not be able to give them all the assurances that they are hoping for. I can, however, promise him that the needs of service users will remain the primary concern throughout the many changes that are taking place in the provision of mental health services and of services for those with learning disabilities. I think that we share that objective.
The Government have proved that they attach significant importance to mental health. It was not only the focus of the first national service framework, which was issued in March 1999, but one of our clinical priorities in terms of investment. The national service

249WH
framework put in place a 10-year programme with new, high standards for mental health care services. It clearly stated what services should aim to achieve, how they should be developed and delivered, and how to measure performance in every part of the country. Standards were set in five crucial areas: mental health promotion; primary care and access to services; effective services for people with severe mental illness; carers; and the action necessary to reduce suicides.
Although the framework concentrated on the mental health needs of people of working age, we are also dealing with the needs of children, adolescents and the elderly through other national service frameworks. The framework for older people was published in March 2001, and contains a dedicated standard on mental health for older people, which requires the NHS and social services to put in place by April 2004 plans for integrated mental health services for older people. My Department is also working on the children's national service framework, and one module will be dedicated to the mental health and psychological well-being of children and young people, which clearly relates to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about the Woodside unit.
In July 2000, the NHS plan built on the first national service framework, and provided for extra investment in mental health of more than £300 million by 2004. The purpose of that extra investment is to fast forward the implementation of the framework and to ensure that NHS commitments are delivered. It has already provided almost 500 extra secure beds; more than 320 24-hour staffed beds; 170 assertive outreach teams to provide intensive support and follow-up to patients who were being lost to services, often with tragic results; and access to services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for all those with complex mental health needs. In addition, we have provided investment to improve the physical environment in psychiatric wards, and issued guidance to ensure the safety, privacy and dignity of mental health patients.
The hon. Gentleman touched on the long-term care of people with learning disabilities, which is an important service that is often linked with mental health provision. There is no doubt that improvements were desperately needed in that area of care. People often spent a great part of their lives in large hospitals, often living in conditions that would not be tolerated now, because it was widely assumed that they had no expectancy of a normal life and would have little chance of making any contribution to the wider community.
Times and attitudes started to change, and it began to be recognised that many residents would do better in smaller, community-based care homes. However, when the old institutions closed, the comprehensive local health services needed to care for people too often failed to materialise. The Government recognised that it was vital that people with learning disabilities were properly supported in a variety of settings and given access to appropriate resources such as housing, education and work, to ensure that they had the quality of life to which they were entitled. Such concerns culminated in the publication in March 2001 of the White Paper "Valuing People", which was the first White Paper for 30 years on the care of people with learning disabilities.
250WH
The Government initiatives outlined in the White Paper and the changed attitudes that I mentioned have resulted in real benefits for a large and previously neglected group of people. We welcome that, but we must not ignore the fact that change is often stressful. It takes no imagination to understand how frightening such change must be to patients who have lived for many years in the institutional system and to their families, although many mental health professionals have stories about how the most unlikely people have thrived when given the opportunity to live in the community with the support necessary to make that a reality. We must ensure that the option to do so is open to all, but there will still be people whose needs are best served by care in the more traditional setting, and appropriate provision must be made for them.
The hon. Gentleman clearly highlighted the St. Ebba's issue. He will know that that redevelopment came about because of concerns that the residents' quality of life was not what it should have been. They lived in dormitory accommodation in turn-of-the-century buildings. They had little privacy, personal space or ability to choose how and with whom they spent their day.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the future configuration of the St. Ebba's site, including the development of a village community, is a matter that must be determined locally. It is not a matter in which Ministers can intervene. However, I can assure his constituents that health and social services authorities will continue to work with parents, relatives, carers and, most importantly, the residents themselves to ensure that people with learning disabilities are placed in the care environment that is right for their individual needs.
Chris Grayling: It is true that the part of St. Ebba's that is being dealt with by the Surrey Oaklands NHS trust remains very much a local service but, at present, the remainder of the site is under the auspices of NHS Estates, which is one reason for diverting the matter to Ministers.
Jacqui Smith: I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is vital that we release resources that are tied up in surplus NHS properties owned by the Secretary of State and plough the funds back into the NHS for the benefit of all. For that reason, surplus NHS land, including that at St. Ebba's, is sold. I have some sympathy with those who are concerned about the future of their relatives following the changes at St. Ebba's, but I do not believe that we can put off the business case that has been made for selling the land on the basis of what the hon. Gentleman agreed was an uncertain prospect.
I am willing to consider the timetable for the sale of the land, but I would not want the hon. Gentleman to go away with the feeling that it would be sensible or efficient to lose the significant financial benefits from the sale of the land because of some of the plans that he discussed. He stated the Government's position on housing for those with learning disabilities, and I am aware of the need to carry out properly a full assessment of the care

251WH
needs of those at St. Ebba's, for example, and to ensure that appropriate care arrangements are put in place. I have been assured by the local commissioner that the proposals that have been developed fulfil that duty, but housing is key to the lives of those with learning disabilities. That is why we made it clear in the White Paper that there is no veto on any option, including village communities, and that where there is limited demand for a particular option, councils and housing authorities may need to consider joining neighbouring authorities to encourage development of a greater range of provision.
Turning to Woodside, the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that a full range of child and adolescent mental health services is available to those who need them. Our ongoing commitment included extra investment of £35 million last year to assist health and local authorities to meet the requirement to improve provision of appropriate high-quality care and treatment for children and young people by building up locally based services. I have a problem with the hon. Gentleman's contention that we should protect a service in one part of the country by preventing another part of the country from developing precisely those locally based services.
It is probably good for young people with mental health problems if the services they need are developed near to them or in London so that they can be easily accessed. It is precisely that demand for the sort of services currently offered at Woodside that is the basis of the need to change and of the considerations of closure. Of course it is important that health commissioners work with other key agencies and providers—I understand that they are doing so—to plan and develop provision to ensure that there is better integration and joint work between tier 3, which covers specialist outreach and out-patient services, and tier 4, which covers in-patient services, to improve the links and provide a 24-hour crisis response team, better outreach and respite services and early intervention in psychosis. All will require some change—change is difficult for users and clinicians—and careful planning and involvement of users and professionals.
252WH
Although a decision has been made by Surrey Oaklands NHS trust to close the Woodside unit, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the views of those most directly affected will be key to the development of the new services. A steering group consisting of staff, clinicians, commissioners, carers and users has been established to conduct a review of the services currently supplied by Woodside and to recommend how the model of care delivery given to adolescents and children could be modernised in line with national policy. The group's proposals will be presented for consideration by Surrey Oaklands NHS trust later this month and will then be open to wide consultation involving all stakeholders. Their views will be taken into account before a final decision is made.
In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman referred bravely to funding and finance. I recognise his point that there are ways in the standard spending assessment distribution for local authority funding and health allocations. We must work on the formula to ensure that it delivers the necessary resources in those areas where needs are greatest and work is being done with the SSA formula and the health formula. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the issue for Surrey may not be solely distribution but the amount of money, so I have no doubt that he welcomes the Chancellor's ongoing, extra investment into health and social services and the effect of that on his constituents.
I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern about the particular nature of the population of those with learning difficulties. It is because we recognise the needs of those with learning disabilities, particularly with older carers, that we made that a key area for investment of the learning disability development fund.
Last year, Surrey received through local funding a 12.6 per cent. increase in its mental health grant. A further increase this year will be important to maintain the sort of services that we want for the hon. Gentleman's constituents with mental health problems and learning disabilities. Regardless of whether we are changing the system, we shall continue to place users' needs at the centre of improvements.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the number of farm businesses in receipt of compensation during the foot and mouth epidemic which have since(a) been sold and (b) ceased to trade as farms. [54341]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 7 May 2002]: No formal assessment has been made of the number of farm businesses in receipt of compensation during the foot and mouth epidemic which have since (a) been sold and (b) ceased to trade. However, an informal survey conducted by the Department in February 2002 suggested that 6 per cent. of farmers whose animals had been infected with foot and mouth disease intend to move out of farming.

  Committee Mandates
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the EU Committee for the adaptation to scientific and technical progress and implementation of the directives on waste is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; when it is next due to meet; what the UK representation on it is; whether any experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [60390]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Committee's mandate is determined by Articles 17 and 18 of the Waste Framework Directive. Article 9 of the Hazardous Waste Directive and Article 11 of the End-Of-Life Vehicles Directive. In summary, its mandate is to assist the European Commission to adapt aspects of those Directives in the light of scientific and technical progress.

  The Committee met on 6 July 2001, 30 January 2002 and 22 May 2002. The UK's representation is determined by the agenda for each meeting but the basic representation is usually two officials.

  The Scottish Executive have not nominated any experts to attend the Committee's meetings. However, my officials work closely with the Scottish Executive on waste management issues, including those dealt with by the Committee.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what investigations she has made into alternative ways of disposing of unwanted(a) hazardous and (b) nonhazardous items; and if she will make a statement. [60100]
  1124W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The EU Landfill Directive bans the landfilling of:
  Liquid waste.
  Waste which in the conditions of landfill is explosive, oxidising, corrosive, flammable or highly flammable.
  Chemical substances from R&D or teaching, e.g. unidentified or new laboratory residues whose effects on man or the environment are not known.
  Hospital and other clinical wastes arising from medical or veterinary establishments which are infectious.
  Whole used tyres from 2003 and shredded used tyres from 2006.
  Any waste that does not fulfil the waste acceptance criteria.

  Some of the wastes banned from landfill are not generally landfilled at present. For those that are, research for the Department concluded that there were sufficient alternative disposal systems (in use or planned) to cope with the large volume of organic process waste streams requiring diversion from landfill. Examples given included:
  Pyrolysis and gasification—commissioned in some major industrial sites already.
  Merchant treatment plants for organic wastes offering pre-treatment, such as air stripping or pH balancing.
  Existing landfill leachate plant could treat a range of aqueous organic waste streams, further developments could provide a wider range of outlets for organic wastes.
  Some water companies are encouraging greater use of their spare capacity in aerobic and anaerobic treatment systems
  Solvent recovery plants have some spare capacity and are planning investment to recover useful materials from aqueous feedstock.
  High temperature incineration.

  The report suggested additional facilities might be required for oily wastes, contaminated soils, and inorganic chemical wastes.

  The Government are also working in partnership with the tyre industry through the Used Tyre Working Group (UTWG) investigating alternative disposal, recycling and recovery options for those tyres displaced from landfill with the aim of ensuring that sufficient capacity is available to handle those tyres displaced from landfill.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 11 September 2001 from the hon. Member for Torbay on behalf of Mr. Moore of Paignton. [58921]

  Mr. Morley
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 12 November 2001.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 28 November 2001 from the hon. Member for Torbay on behalf of Mr. Jones of Torquay. [58924]

  Mr. Morley
  The hon. Member's letter was transferred to the Department for Trade and Industry as the issues it raised are the responsibility of that Department. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Energy and Industry (Mr. Wilson) replied on 12 March 2002.

  Farm Subsidies
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to rationalise the main funding schemes in the uplands to provide a simplified system of support for farmers in these areas. [59705]

  Mr. Morley
  The Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food recommended that the long-term aim for less favoured area support should be an integrated tiered payment scheme reflecting environmental and social benefits, actual cost of landscape, wildlife and access maintenance and the economic difficulties of traditional hill farming. The Government will take full account of this recommendation in reviewing the hill farm allowance and the current agri-environment schemes. In addition, plans are being drawn up for a small farmers scheme which will provide a simplified claims procedure for small farmers in the uplands and lowlands.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was the

  Table 2: Number of fishermen 1997–2000

  Year

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  1997

  10m and under

  5,129

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Over 10m

  4,300

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  All vessels

  9,429

  8,194

  981

  18,604

  1998

  10m and under

  5,045

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Over 10m

  4,066

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  All vessels

  9,111

  7,771

  1,007

  17,889

  1999

  10m and under

  4,100

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Over 10m

  3,596

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  All vessels

  7,696

  7,330

  935

  15,961

  2000

  10m and under

  4,185

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Over 10m

  3,121

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  All vessels

  7,306

  6,092

  686

  14,084

  Source:

  Fisheries Departments in the UK

  Regional Organisation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what regional organisation her Department has; and if she will list the counties and unitary authorities in each region in(a) 1997 and (b) 2002. [58934]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was created in June 2001 from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and parts of the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Home Office.

  In relation to MAFF in 1997 there were nine regional service centres carrying out work for the Ministry. There were also three regional areas for the State Veterinary Service, and offices in Scotland and Wales. The counties for each of these offices are laid out in the table. The unitary authorities are not included in this table due to the disproportionate cost of providing such information in the requested form.

  On 1 April 2001 the regional service centres were dissolved and the Rural Development Service was established with eight regional offices to take forward the
  1126W
  (a) value of and (b) number of jobs in the UK inshore fishing industry in each year since 1997. [60158]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: Accurate estimates of the value of jobs in the inshore fishing industry are not available. Vessels under 10 metres in length comprise most of the UK inshore fleet, and Table 1 shows the value of landings made by these vessels for 1997 to 2001. The available data on jobs in the fishing industry cover only numbers of fishermen working on vessels. The information is given in Table 2; information for vessels under 10 metres is available only for England and Wales.

  Table 1: Value of landings by the under-10m fleet, 1997–2001

  Year

  Value (£ million)

  1997

  60.0

  1998

  69.1

  1999

  56.0

  2000

  48.2

  2001

  50.1

  Source:

  Fisheries Departments in the UK

  England Rural Development Programme. Since the creation of DEFRA in June 2001, the Government offices have also carried out work for my Department.

  The details of the counties and unitary authorities for the regional offices of the Rural Development Service, the State Veterinary Service and the Government offices in 2002 are set out in the second table.

  1997 MAFF regional structure

  MAFF regional service centres/counties

  State Veterinary Service

  South West

  Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  West1

  Wessex (Bristol)

  Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire

  South Mercia (Worcester)

  Hereford and Worcester

  Gloucestershire

  West Midlands

  East

  Warwickshire

  South East (Reading)

  Greater London, Kent,

  East and West Sussex,

  Surrey, Hampshire, Berkshire,

  Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire

  1127W

  1997 MAFF regional structure

  MAFF regional service centres/counties

  State Veterinary Service

  Anglia (Cambridge)

  (East)

  Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Bedfordshire

  East Midlands (Nottingham)

  Leicestershire

  Northamptonshire

  Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire

  North

  North Mercia (Crewe)

  Greater Manchester, Cheshire,

  2002 DEFRA regional structure

  RDS/GO regions

  Counties

  Unitary authorities

  SVS regions

  South West

  Cornwall, and the Isles of Scilly, Devon, Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire

  Plymouth, Torbay, Poole, Bournemouth, Bristol, South Gloucestershire, Bath and North East Somerset, North Somerset, Swindon

  West

  West Midlands

  Shropshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire—see footnote 1

  Herefordshire, Telford and Wrekin, Stoke-on-Trent-see footnote 1. The metropolitan authorities in the West Midlands

  East—East of England

  Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire

  Peterborough, Luton, Southend-on-Sea, Thurrock

  East

  South East

  Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Surrey, Kent, West Sussex, East Sussex East Sussex

  Isle of Wight, Milton Keynes, Brighton and Hove, Medway, Portsmouth, Southampton, Bracknell Forest, Reading, Slough, West Berkshire, Windsor and Maidenhead, Wokingham

  London

  Greater London

  East Midlands

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire. Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire

  Leicester, Rutland Derby, Nottingham

  North1

  North East

  Northumberland, Durham

  Darlington, Hartlepool, Stockton on Tees, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland. The Metropolitan authorities in Tyne and Wear

  North West

  Cumbria, Lancashire, Cheshire

  Blackpool, Blackburn with Darwen, Warrington, Halton. The Metropolitan authorities in Merseyside and in Greater Manchester

  Yorkshire and Humber

  North Yorkshire

  York, East Riding of Yorkshire, Kingston Upon Hull, North Lincolnshire, North East Lincolnshire. The Metropolitan authorities in South Yorkshire and in West Yorkshire

  North

  Wales Scotland

  1Includes Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the potential carbon savings are in the EU as a result of the proposed energy performance of buildings directive expressed in tonnes of carbon dioxide. [45138]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 21 March 2002]: The European Union Final Energy Demand by sector and by fuel in 1997 (Mtoe) indicated that 40.7 per cent. of final energy demand would come from buildings1. A further review by the European Union2 reviewed existing energy
  1128W

  1997 MAFF regional structure

  MAFF regional service centres/counties

  State Veterinary Service

  Staffordshire, Shropshire (see footnote 1) and Merseyside

  (North)

  North East (Northallerton)

  North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Durham

  Northern (Carlisle)

  Lancashire, Cumbria, Northumberland and Tyne and Wear

  Wales Scotland

  1 Includes Shropshire

  efficiency measures and identified buildings as a priority action area for the short and medium term. An action plan3 outlined ways to limit carbon dioxide emissions from buildings and to improve their energy efficiency.

  In the UK, the residential and tertiary building sectors have been shown to be the largest overall end users of energy, mainly for heating, lighting, appliances and equipment. The energy consumed in buildings in the UK amounts to 46 per cent. of the national total (27 per cent. from the domestic sector and 19 per cent. from the

  1129W
  non-domestic sector). This equates to about 235 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year—or about 63.5 million tonnes of carbon per year (MtC/year).

  1 Source: Energy in Europe—European Union Energy Outlook to 2020, special issue November 1999. The Shared Analysis Project, EEC.

  2 Communication from the Commission of 29 April 1998: Energy Efficiency in the European Community—Towards a Strategy for the Rational Use of Energy.

  3 Action plan to improve energy efficiency in the European Community, 2000. Commission Proposal COM (2000) 247 final http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/energy/Ivb/127033.htm.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what recent meetings she has had with her EU counterparts to discuss regulation of GM crops; and if she will make a statement; [58128]

  (2) what recent meetings she has had with her counterparts in the EU at which plans to change the procedure for approval of GM foods and seeds within the EU was discussed. [58547]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Secretary of State attended Environment Council in October 2001, at which the proposed regulations on traceability and labelling of food and feed products derived from genetically modified organisms were discussed. She also attended the Agriculture Council on 23 October, at which the proposed regulations for GM food and feed and the proposed regulations on traceability and labelling were discussed.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what bilateral meetings she and her officials have had with the United States Department of Agriculture at which the subject of GM crops was discussed; and if she will make a statement. [58127]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Secretary of State visited the USA in December 2001 and April 2002 and discussed GM crops in meetings with her counterparts. There have recently been discussions of an informal nature at official level with USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Agricultural Research Service.

  Press Releases
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many press releases have been issued by her Department in each month of 2002. [59481]

  Mr. Morley
  Our records show that the DEFRA Press Office have issued a total of 169 press releases in the first four calendar months of 2002.

  Press releases issued

  January

  44

  February

  33

  March

  48

  April

  44

  Total

  169

  Flooding
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the cost to the Environment Agency and local authorities of sandbag deployment in areas experiencing and prone to flooding in each of the last five years. [59271]

  Mr. Morley
  The cost of sandbag deployment is highly variable and is not recorded separately from other costs of dealing with flooding emergencies. For example, in emergency situations, bags can be supplied full or empty. They may be filled manually on site or by bagging machines, if access to the problem area is easy. Alternatively, they may be filled at a central depot and transported by road or air, as for example occurred in the north-east during autumn 2000.

  The information requested is therefore not available and cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate costs.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures the Government are taking to ensure that international aid given to Zimbabwe is linked to(a) allowing UN observers into the country and (b) land reform. [60190]

  Clare Short
  There are no links between our humanitarian aid, which is managed outside of Government channels, and land reform. The UN already has a large presence in Zimbabwe implementing emergency programmes. This includes the presence of food programme monitors in 19 districts. Our aid for Zimbabwe is confined to humanitarian assistance, and the prevention and mitigation of HIV/AIDS.

  United Nations Commission on Human Rights
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which resolutions were supported by the UK representatives at the recent annual session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. [58628]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  This year the Commission passed over 100 resolutions. The UK supported (through co-sponsorship and in votes) 72 resolutions including those on the death penalty, a draft optional protocol to the Convention Against Torture, rights of the child, freedom of expression, torture and the rights of persons with disabilities. We also co-sponsored initiatives on countries including Iraq, Burma, Sudan, Cuba, East Timor, Cambodia, Colombia and Israel and the Occupied Territories.

  I will send the hon. Member a full voting record, which shows how each country voted on each resolution and the outcome of the texts. A copy will also be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the outcome of the recent annual session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. [58630]
  1131W
  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  Promotion of human rights is at the heart of our foreign policy. The Commission on Human Rights is the UN's main human rights forum. The UK is committed to playing a major role at CHR, and has been one of its most active and committed members since its inception in 1946. The recent session adopted over 100 resolutions on human rights issues. The UK actively supported over 70 of these. Particular achievements were resolutions on a draft optional protocol to the Convention Against Torture, the death penalty, rights of people with disabilities and rights of the child, and the Commission's condemnation of human rights violations in Burma, Iraq, Sudan, Cuba and the Democratic Republic of Congo. We were, however, disappointed by the lack of progress in some areas, including racism, and the reluctance of the Commission to condemn human rights violations in some parts of the world, including Zimbabwe, Iran and Chechnya. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs addressed the plenary of this year's Commission on 18 April. A copy of his speech can be found on the FCO website.

  Subcontinent
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has made to the Governments of India and Pakistan regarding their policy on land mines. [59852]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since July 1998, when the United Kingdom became a state party to the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines, we have lobbied all users of land mines, including India and Pakistan, to ratify the Convention. Both states claim political and defence reasons for not doing so.

TRANSPORT

  Rail ways
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when the GNER franchise will next be advertised. [59355]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The current franchise agreement expires in April 2005. The Strategic Rail Authority will put arrangements in place for awarding a new franchise, in good time and in the light of progress on the development of the proposed East Coast Main Line infrastructure upgrade.

  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) whether inspection bodies operating in the UK railway systems are accredited by UKAS; [59168]

  (2) whether UKAS accredited personnel certification is used for those undertaking track maintenance and safety; [59166]

  (3) if the sub-contractors employed by Railtrack operate quality management systems certified by UKAS accredited certification bodies. [59167]
  1132W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that there are currently no certification bodies accredited by UKAS for railway specific purposes. UKAS will provide advice to the Strategic Rail Authority on the appointment of notified bodies under the Railways (Interoperability) (High-Speed) Regulations 2002.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list(a) the contractors and (b) sub-contractors responsible to Railtrack for maintenance of the track for each operating zone; what changes have taken place since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [59325]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department does not hold the information requested, which are operational matters for Railtrack.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions whether(a) he and (b) his officials have met directors of Network Rail since they announced their bid for Railtrack. [59357]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not the normal practice of the Government to discuss details of meetings or discussions with private individuals or companies.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether train operating companies' driving staff are required to carry, and complete when they judge necessary, report forms detailing irregularities, incidents and other matters related to safe operation of the railways which are the responsibility of rail companies, their contractors and their sub-contractors. [58860]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Train operating companies have various reporting forms on which drivers record delays and other incidents as they occur. Drivers submit these written reports to their line management at the earliest opportunity and before signing off duty. These forms usually have a section that prompts action by the train operator's management to inform Railtrack of incidents as necessary.

  Drivers are required to report to the signaller all incidents that have an immediate effect on the safety of train operation or on the operation of the line. Reports are made at the time of the incident by either cab secure radio or signal post telephone.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions(a) he, (b) his Ministers and (c) his officials have had with the Solicitor-General on the case for a corporate manslaughter charge arising from the Paddington rail crash since 20 May. [59819]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  None.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment(a) his Department and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority has undertaken of the ability of station operators to conform with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [59634]
  1133W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Strategic Rail Authority published its code of practice "Train and Station Services For Disabled Passengers" on 6 February 2002. The Authority is currently reviewing each train operators Disabled People's Protection Policy (DPPP) against its code of practice and its DPPP guidance to identify where current facilities need to be improved.

  Mr. Mike Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received the report of the rail industry interview process carried out by Mercer Management Consulting. [61250]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following the High Court's decision to place Railtrack plc into administration last October, the Government wanted the development of railway policy to be based on a full understanding of the issues facing the rail industry. The Government therefore commissioned Mercer Management Consulting to manage a series of interviews with rail industry stakeholders to gather views about all aspects of the UK railways. Mercer kept the Government informed of the views expressed throughout the process and has now produced a report summarising the key messages heard. This has been made public today, and copies have been placed in the House Libraries.

  Uff-Cullen Recommendations
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which of the Uff-Cullen recommendations have been implemented. [59356]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) published the first action plan/progress report, indicating firm commitments to implement the recommendations of the Joint Inquiry into Train Protection Systems, on 27 September 2001. A copy is available in the House Library. The HSE are currently analysing progress towards implementation of the recommendations with the intention of publishing a further progress report before the end of July 2002. A copy will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Dibden Bay Planning Inquiry
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the planning inquiry at Dibden Bay will report. [60425]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The inquiry is currently timetabled to finish at the end of this year. On that basis we are expecting to receive the inspector's report in the latter half of 2003.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies of the evidence that his Department has given to the planning inquiry at Dibden Bay. [60415]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has not supplied any evidence to the Dibden Bay inquiry.

  Traffic Management
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what 1134W
  guidance he gives to local authorities and to elected mayors on the timing sequence of traffic lights on trunk roads to ensure that congestion is minimised. [59107]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Highways Agency issues advice on the safety-related timings for traffic signals. These are contained in their Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to introduce during non-rush hour periods traffic lights which have a light vehicle flow which are switched to show only a flashing amber light in each direction. [59184]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  We do not think this is appropriate. A short flashing amber stage is already used at Pelican pedestrian crossings and has a specific meaning—if there are no pedestrians on the crossing the driver may proceed with caution. The same signal sequence cannot safely be used to indicate a different message.

  The adoption of this proposal could confuse drivers and increase the likelihood of accidents at junctions, particularly those where the visibility of crossing traffic is limited, for example, by difficult junction geometry.

  It is believed that the flashing amber sequence was introduced in the USA to help counter the inherent inefficiencies of fixed-time signals, particularly at off-peak times. As most traffic signals in the UK are traffic responsive, there would be little if any improvement in efficiency from adopting this proposal because our traffic signals are able to respond to varying traffic demands without compromising road safety.

  Channel Tunnel
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the arrangements to secure rail freight through the channel tunnel; and who will pay for them. [59069]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is for the French railway industry and public authorities to ensure that rail freight through the channel tunnel is not disrupted by incursions into the Frethun freight yard. SNCF has just announced investment of euro 7.5 million to improve physical security measures at Frethun. I understand that this will be funded by Reseau Ferre de France.

  Swanwick Air Traffic Control Centre
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made by(a) the Health and Safety Executive and (b) the Civil Aviation Authority of the operation of the new air traffic control centre at Swanwick; if he will place copies of related documentation in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [60400]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on 10 June 2002,Official Report, columns 759–60W.
  1135W
  The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the air safety regulator, gave National Air Traffic Services its full approval to take Swanwick into operation. Assessments made by the CAA are a matter for that organisation.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on recent safety levels at the Air Traffic Control Centre in Swanick with special reference to reports of the(a) Health and Safety Executive and (b) Civil Aviation Authority. [60272]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on 10 June 2002,Official Report, columns 759–60W.

  The Civil Aviation Authority, the air safety regulator, remains satisfied that there are no breaches of the CAA safety regulations nor is flight safety affected.

  Working Time Directive (Maritime Sector)
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken by the Department to monitor the effects of the implementation of the EU working time directive in the maritime sector. [60165]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: When the directive is implemented in the UK the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, as the competent authority, will be responsible for enforcing its provisions and monitoring its operation.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress the Department is making in implementing the EU working time directive in the maritime sector. [60167]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: Regulations are in preparation to implement the directive in the UK.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the need in implementing the EU working time directive to include measures to limit the maximum number of hours worked in the maritime sector. [60166]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: In implementing the working time directive in the maritime sector the UK, like several of its EU partners, has elected to apply the option within the directive of specifying the minimum hours of daily and weekly rest which must be provided to seafarers. The maximum number of hours which may be worked each day and each week can be calculated by reference to these minima.

  Passenger Transport Authorities
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what benchmarks are laid down for staffing levels in PTAs. [60677]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Roads (Newcastle to Edinburgh)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what planned works there are on the(a) A68, (b) A696 and (c) A7 between Newcastle and Edinburgh; [60644]
  1136W
  (2) what his estimate is for the increase in traffic on the (a) A68, (b) A696 and (c) A7 between Newcastle and Edinburgh over the lifetime of the 10-year plan; [60646]

  (3) if he will list the major infrastructure work carried out on the (a) A68, (b) A696 and (c) A7 between Newcastle and Edinburgh in the last 15 years, in each case giving (i) the aim and nature of the works, (ii) the name of the Government body responsible, (iii) the length of time the works took and (iv) the costs of the works. [60643]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 11 June 2002:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Transport to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the A68, A696 and A7 between Newcastle and Edinburgh.
  The Highways Agency only has responsibility for trunk roads in England, in this case the A696, part of the A68 and a short section of the A7 in England between Carlisle and the Scottish border that is earmarked for detrunking. Roads in Scotland, including the remaining sections of the A68 and A7, are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.
  The only major infrastructure work carried out over the last 15 years on the A68/A696 was the building of the A696 Woolsington Bypass which connected to the Al Newcastle Western Bypass providing better access to Newcastle International Airport. The scheme was completed in 1990, was delivered by the then Department of Transport and cost £12.6 million.
  Improvement works currently planned for the A68/A696 include carriageway widening and resurfacing of the A696 at Heeston Bank, carriageway resurfacing and bridge deck waterproofing on the A68 between Whitelees Farm and Carter Bar, bridge deck waterproofing on the A68 at Rochester and various small highway improvements on the A696 at Ponteland.
  On behalf of the Ministry of Defence, we plan to harden verges along the A696 to provide passing points for Army tank convoys travelling to and from the MOD Otterburn Training Area. We hope to finish these works by November 2003.
  The Highways Agency does not forecast increases in traffic for specific roads. However, the growth in traffic on rural single carriageway roads in the National Road Traffic Forecast 1997 is forecast to be 22% by 2011, relative to 1996 levels.
  If you require any further information, Peter Moffatt in our Leeds Office will be happy to assist you. He can be contacted on 0113 283 6503.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) cars, motorbikes and vans, (b) lorries and (c) camper-vans and caravans used the (i) A68, (ii) A696 and (iii) A7 between Newcastle and Edinburgh on an average day in the last 12 months. [60645]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The available information on the average numbers of vehicles per day on the A696/A68/A7 route between Newcastle and Edinburgh in 2000, is given in the table:

  Vehicle type

  Number

  Cars

  5,041

  Motorcycles

  68

  LGV (vans)

  639

  HGV (lorries)

  446

  Road Haulage Vehicles
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road haulage vehicles were inspected by the vehicle inspectorate in each of the last three years. [60457]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information about the vehicle inspectorate's enforcement activities for the three years to the end of March 2001 is published in the inspectorate's Effectiveness Report 2001, a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what resources were provided for inspections of road haulage vehicles with regard to overloading and vehicle drivers' hours offences, in each of the last three years. [60456]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Traffic examiners (TEs) carry out weighings and check compliance with drivers' hours legislation as part of their duties. The vehicle inspectorate (VI) employed 175 TEs in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The number of TEs increased to 209 at the end of 2001–02 in response to additional funding from the Road Haulage Forum. In addition to VI's network of permanent weighbridge sites, a number of mobile weighpads were introduced in 2000–01 which have improved VI's ability to target its checks. Work will be done in 2002–03 to test electronic tachograph analysis equipment which will improve the examiner's ability to detect drivers' hours and other offences.

  Parking
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much in the last financial year for which figures are available each local authority in England and Wales has raised from the issuing of(a) parking permits, (b) parking meters and (c) pay and display systems. [55797]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  Separate statistics on local authority income from parking permits, parking meters and pay and display systems are not collected centrally. A table showing the expenditure on and income from parking for local authorities in England in 2000–01 has been placed in the Libraries of the House. Local authorities in Wales spent £10.72 million on parking and received income of £16.58 million in 2000–01.

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers the administrators of Railtrack have to sell(a) major stations, (b) other property and (c) other land assets independently of the remainder of the rail network. [60650]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In accordance with section 59 of the Railways Act 1993, the railway administration order made in respect of Railtrack plc directs that the affairs, business and property of the company shall be managed by the administrators for the achievement of the purposes of the administration order. The purposes of the order include transferring the network undertaking as a going concern and ensuring that the management of the rail network can be properly carried on pending a transfer.
  1138W
  The administrators have the power to sell major stations, other property and other land assets, but may use it only to achieve the purposes of the administration order. Furthermore, to protect the public interest, it is a condition of its network licence that Railtrack plc (in administration) may not dispose of land without the consent of the Rail Regulator.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many full-time engineers were employed by Railtrack who worked on(a) maintenance and (b) enhancements and projects on 24 September 2001; how many there are; and how many have joined the company since 5 October 2001. [60653]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 617W. Further information is not held in the form requested.

  Vehicle Registration
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the vehicle registration system. [60884]

  Mr. Spellar
  Some months ago the Department undertook a review of the vehicle registration system in partnership with the insurance industry. Research was undertaken by the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science, University College London (JDI). The review examined ways of enhancing the accuracy of databases, improving enforcement arrangements and providing more reliable services to benefit all motorists. The JDI report made 11 recommendations. The first of these, the introduction of continuous registration, has already been accepted and enabling provisions have been included in the Finance Bill. The details of those provisions and the other recommendations will be discussed in detail with stakeholders prior to implementation. I have made available copies of the JDI report in the Library of the House.

  Cycling
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many kilometres were cycled per person in each of the last three years. [60455]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The latest data available, from the National Travel Survey, cover the average distance cycled for those living in Great Britain for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000:

  Distance cycled per person per year (kilometres)

  1998

  58

  1999

  68

  2000

  59

  The volatility of the single year figures is likely to be a result of the relatively small sample sizes and the geographical clustering of the sample. Cycling patterns over individual years are also very dependent on the weather.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the average carbon dioxide emissions for a motorist using their car in the last 12 months in the UK. [60427]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In 2000 (the latest year for which data are available), it is estimated that average carbon dioxide emissions from cars in the UK were three tonnes.

  International Flights
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many international flights there were from the UK(a) over the North Atlantic, (b) to other EU countries and (c) to other world destinations in each quarter of the last five years. [60655]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of international flights from the UK(a) over the North Atlantic (b) to other EU countries and (c) to all other world destinations in each quarter of the last five years is shown in the table. Flights are attributed only to their final overseas destination and not, if any, to intermediate destinations. There were a similar number of international flights arriving in the UK.

  Flights from the UK over the North Atlantic1

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  1997

  8,786

  11,053

  12,782

  10,677

  1998

  9,840

  12,226

  13,782

  11,674

  1999

  10,733

  12,730

  14,208

  12,103

  2000

  11,380

  13,256

  14,550

  12,332

  2001

  11,442

  13,597

  14,171

  10,897

  1 Flights to USA and Canada

  Flights from the UK to other EU countries

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  1997

  77,409

  92,483

  99,661

  86,195

  1998

  83,351

  99,510

  109,436

  93,357

  1999

  89,997

  106,602

  117,345

  99,812

  2000

  97,906

  115,318

  127,260

  105,324

  2001

  100,194

  119,921

  130,702

  102,997

  Note:

  For the purpose of this analysis Gibraltar has been included in 'other EU countries'

  Flights from the UK to other world destinations

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  1997

  29,621

  34,194

  36,624

  33,264

  1998

  31,363

  35,272

  38,332

  34,219

  1999

  33,240

  36,186

  38,917

  34,216

  2000

  33,074

  36,203

  39,577

  35,725

  2001

  33,852

  37,537

  40,031

  34,329

  Note:

  Flights are attributed to the overseas country of destination and not to each point of call. For example a flight whose route is Gatwick—Paris—Tunis is allocated only to 'other world destinations'.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidelines he has issued to the CAA on the relationship between the number of flights(a) over the North Atlantic, (b) to other EU countries and (c) to other world destinations, and the level of the price cap that the CAA places on the fees that NATS charges airlines. [60656]
  1140W
  Mr. Jamieson
  I have issued no guidelines on these matters to the CAA. Although the initial price cap on NATS was set by the Government, as is usual when a public entity is transferred to the private sector, the CAA is the economic regulator of NATS and the Government do not interfere with its discharge of its economic regulatory duties.

  High Speed Network
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money has been set aside as part of(a) the SRA Plan and (b) the 10-Year Plan for the implementation of the EU directives on interoperability on the high speed network. [60413]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Neither the 10-Year Plan or the SRA Strategic plan identify specific sums for implementing the high speed interoperability directive which does not, in itself, require projects to be initiated. However, new high speed projects will have to comply with the Directive and the cost of implementation will he taken into account when those projects are developed.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the costs of implementing the EU directives on interoperability on the high speed network. [60411]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the regulatory impact assessment produced in support of the Railways (Interoperability) (High-Speed) Regulations 2002 implementing the high-speed interoperability directive, a copy of which was placed in the Libraries of the House on 25 April 2002.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the percentage of the possible costs for implementing the EU directives on interoperability on the high speed network, that will be borne by(a) the Government, (b) the successor to Railtrack, (c) the SRA, (d) freight rail companies and (e) passenger rail companies. [60412]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No assessment has been made of the potential allocation of costs arising from implementation of the high speed interoperability directive which does not, in itself, require projects to be initiated. However, new high speed projects will have to comply with the directive and, to the extent that this results in costs being incurred by network or train operators (which will vary from project to project), those costs will be taken into account in the railway funding and charging regime in the usual way.

  Non-departmental Bodies
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the non-departmental bodies attached to his Department that have a responsibility for transport issues, listing their responsibilities in each case. [60422]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The main non-departmental public bodies whose responsibilities are transport issues, are:The Commission for Integrated Transport's remit is to provide independent advice to Government on the implementation of the integrated transport agenda, to monitor developments across transport, environment, health and other sectors and to review progress. Its responsibilities are UK-wide in respect of those matters reserved to the UK Government after devolution to

  1141W
  Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and it also advises Government on all aspects of integrated transport policy in England.
  The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee advises Government and industry on the transport and built environment needs of disabled people.
  The Northern Lighthouse Board and Trinity House Lighthouse Service provide marine aids to navigation to make transport safer.
  The Strategic Rail Authority's purposes are set out at section 205 of the Transport Act 2000.
  The Traffic Commissioners have responsibility in their geographical area for the licensing of operators of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and of buses and coaches (PSVs); the registration of local bus services; and disciplinary action against drivers of HGVs and PSVs.

  Bus Companies
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what incentives he has given to encourage bus companies to convert their fleets to use more environmentally friendly fuels. [60642]

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–011

  Overturning or serious damage to a tank while conveying by road prescribed dangerous substances, or the uncontrolled release or fire involved the substance being conveyed

  28

  21

  26

  Uncontrolled release or escape of a dangerous substance, or a fire involving the dangerous substance, when being conveyed by road in a vehicle

  24

  44

  74

  Rail accidents involving vehicles transporting dangerous goods

  11

  4

  4

  1 Provisional

  Electoral Arrangements
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the(a) numbers and (b) percentage of residents who were not registered on the electoral register in (i) the UK, (ii) Greater London and (iii) Enfield in each of the last five years. [58972]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  Data on which to make such an estimate are not available.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much public expenditure was incurred in organising the 2001 general election in(a) the UK, (b) Greater London and (c) Enfield; and if he will make a statement. [58967]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  The funds made available to acting returning officers to conduct the 2001 general election were as follows:

  (a) England and Wales—£27 million;

  (b) Greater London—£5 million; and

  (c) Enfield—£153,000.

  These figures represent advances made; when final accounts are submitted and paid they are expected to rise. In addition in England and Wales, around £18 million was paid for the delivery of candidates' election material and for electoral equipment. No further breakdown of this figure is available in the form requested. The responsibility for funding parliamentary elections in
  1142W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have introduced a range of measures to encourage environmentally friendly buses. These include: lower fuel duties for cleaner fuels; reduced vehicle excise duty for buses that meet tighter emissions standards; and grants from TransportAction for buses that run on cleaner fuels or are fitted with pollution reducing technology. In addition the Green Fuels Challenge programme is supporting, through duty exemptions, hydrogen fuel cell buses.

  Hazardous Materials
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) road and (b) rail accidents there have been in each of the last three years which involved vehicles transporting dangerous or hazardous materials. [60663]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of road and rail accidents notified to the Health and Safety Executive under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations for 1995 for the past three years is:

  Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland, respectively.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensions
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will introduce proposals to change the pensions rules to remove the ability of companies to take contribution holidays from their employees' pension schemes. [51377]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government do not have any plans to change the rules about, or to prevent firms from taking, contribution holidays from their defined benefit pension schemes. Under Inland Revenue rules, pension funds that are funded in excess of 105 per cent. of their liabilities must take action to reduce that surplus. That action might take the form of improved benefits for members, contribution holidays for members or sponsoring employers, or a taxable return to the employer.

  It is for the individual scheme (trustees) to decide how best to deal with a fund surplus according to the particular circumstances of each scheme.

  The Pensions Act 1995 provides that before any surplus is returned to an employer, all current and future pensions in payment should be increased annually in line with the retail prices index up to a maximum of 5 per cent. In

  1143W
  addition, trustees have to satisfy themselves that the use of the surplus is in the interest of the members, and that members should be notified of the proposal.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the development of statutory money purchase illustrations and composite annual pension benefit statements. [59063]

  Mr. McCartney
  We have been working closely with the Faculty of Actuaries and the Institute of Actuaries to produce regulations and guidance that will mean people paying toward money purchase benefits will, starting in April 2003, receive an annual illustration of what their future pension might be. Regulations were laid before the House on 20 May, and a technical memorandum has been published on the Faculty of Actuaries and Institute of Actuaries website.

  This is an important development that will help people plan more effectively for retirement.

  The combined pension forecasting service, that gives information about state and private pensions together, was launched in October 2001 at the industry's annual pensions show. Since that date, the service has been open to all pension providers to register their interest in participating.

  We are also looking at the feasibility of a composite pension forecast, where information about state pension would be combined with details of private pensions from more than one provider. This is still at a very early stage, but we are working closely with the office of the e-envoy and people in the pensions industry.

  Departmental Staff (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what percentage of(a) civil service, (b) executive agencies and (c) non-departmental public body jobs under the remit of his Department are located in Scotland; and how many of each have been relocated to Scotland since May 1997. [56304]

  Mr. McCartney
  Information on the number and percentage of Department for Work and Pensions jobs in Scotland as at 1 April 2002 is in the following table.

  None of these posts have relocated to Scotland since May 1997.

  Number of posts

  Percentage of total DWP

  Executive agencies

  12,255

  12.2

  Independent statutory bodies

  0

  0

  Others

  1,192

  6.2

  Notes:

  1. The numbers are expressed in whole time equivalent rounded to the nearest whole number.

  2. The figures do not include casual posts.

  Anti-fraud Hotline
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many calls have been dealt with by the anti-fraud hotline in the last year for which figures are available; how many cases of suspected fraud have been reported to the hotline; how many of these cases have 1144W
  been investigated; how many of them have led to a successful prosecution; and how many of them have led to a custodial sentence. [56417]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The National Benefit Fraud Hotline receives over 17,000 calls a month, resulting in more than two prosecutions a day.

  The available information is in the table.

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  Number

  Number of calls received

  205,999

  Number of cases of suspected fraud reported1

  161,052

  Number of resulting investigations

  108,986

  Number of resulting benefit rate changes

  26,385

  Number of prosecutions so far

  768

  Number of resulting custodial sentences

  3Not available

  1 Including referrals received by telephone, e-mail and post.

  2 Figures include increases and decreases and can relate either to fraud, client error or official error.

  3Information is not collated centrally on the number of custodial sentences arising from investigations as a direct result of calls to the hotline.

  Source:

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline Management Information.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what representations he has received about changing the eligibility for winter fuel payments when couples separate after the eligibility date; and if he will make a statement. [58393]

  Mr. McCartney
  Queries are received from time to time regarding revised entitlement to benefits following a change in a person's circumstances. However, entitlement to a winter fuel payment is based on the individual's circumstances in the qualifying week. Changes of circumstance occurring after that date are irrelevant but could affect entitlement to a winter fuel payment the following year.

  Older People
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent steps he has taken to develop his Department's strategy to help older people. [59650]

  Mr. McCartney
  In developing the Department for Work and Pension's strategy to help older people, the creation of the Pension Service is a major step forward. The Pension Service has a customer focus that will provide support to pensioners via 26 pension centres, backed by a local service providing face to face contact to those pensioners unable to use the telephone.

  Over the next 18 months the Pension Service will develop and implement the Government's new pension credit, which will provide additional income for some 3.9 million pensioners.

  In addition to this the Pension Service is working closely with other Government Departments, local authorities and voluntary organisations to improve services to older people. Groups such as Better Government for Older People and Partnerships Against Poverty are helping the Pension Service to develop its

  1145W
  strategies and service while local partnerships, for example through Care Direct, are being pursued to provide a more joined up service to pensioners.

  For those older people not yet ready to retire, Jobcentre Plus will continue to provide support with new deal 50 plus and work to change employers attitudes to older people through the age positive campaign. In the longer term the Government will be legislating against age discrimination in employment by 2006.

  Smoking
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the answer from the Secretary of State for Health of 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 302W, on smoking, if he will estimate the savings to public funds relating to pension payments as a consequence of premature deaths among smokers. [60267]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is not available.

  SERPS
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what data he has collated on the proportion of people earning above £10,000 per year who have been contracted out of SERPS and the state second pension over the past three years. [60486]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many individuals(a) receive SERPS and (b) have contributed to SERPS but are yet to receive any pension. [60487]

  Mr. McCartney
  The latest figures available show that 6.24 million people were in receipt of an additional pension from SERPS'.

  The latest available information is that around 22.2 million people under state pension age have built up some entitlement to an additional pension from SERPS2.

  Sources:

  1 Pensions Strategy Computer System.

  2 National Insurance Recording System.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the(a) mean and (b) median payment of SERPS has been in the five most recent years for which he has data. [60488]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information is in the table.

  Mean and median amounts of additional pension (SERPS)

  £ weekly

  Mean amount

  Median amount

  31 March 1997

  10.90

  6.87

  31 March 1998

  11.82

  7.42

  31 March 1999

  13.10

  8.35

  31 March 2000

  14.37

  9.25

  31 March 2001

  15.13

  9.64

  Notes:

  1. Average amounts are based on pensioners' entitlement records on Pension Strategy Computer System at the date of extraction.

  2. Mean and Median amounts are rounded to the nearest penny.

  3. Figures are for GB only.

  Source:

  RP administrative data.
  1146W
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many pensioners he expects will be receiving SERPS in(a) five (b) 10 and (c) 15 years' time; [60489]

  (2) what the (a) mean and (b) median payment of SERPS will be in (i) five, (ii) 10 and (iii) 15 years' time. [60490]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information available is in the following table.

  People in receipt of additional pension1 (million)

  Mean amount of additional pension1 (£ weekly)

  2007–08

  8.6

  19.60

  2012–13

  9.9

  21.70

  2017–18

  10.6

  23.05

  1 SERPS and the state second pension.

  Notes:

  1. Number of recipients of additional pension rounded to the nearest 100,000.

  2. Mean weekly amounts rounded to the nearest 5p, in 2002–03 prices.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Key Stage 2 Tests
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of pupils were omitted from the calculation of the LEA average in KS2 performance tables in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001 because they met the criteria of having English as an additional language, being new to English schooling and having joined their primary school during years 5 or 6 in each. [60038]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what number and percentage of pupils were allowed additional time for completion of KS2 tests in 2002 because of special needs or EAL needs for each LEA. [60039]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority collects information on special arrangements, including the use of additional time, from local education authorities at pupil and school level. The information for 2002 is currently being collected and figures will be available at the end of June 2002.

  Further Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the areas where reorganisation of 16 to 19 provision has taken place in each year since 1997, listing in each case the general further education colleges, sixth form colleges and school sixth forms involved. [60040]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is contained in tables, copies of which I have placed in the Library.
  1147W
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the proposals under consideration involving changes to the organisation of 16 to 19 provision. [60044]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department has been informed of the following proposals for schools to open new, or close existing, sixth forms for which we understand a decision has not yet been made by the local School Organisation Committee:

  Name of school

  LEA

  Proposals to establish new sixth forms

  The Giles School

  Lincolnshire

  Proposals to close sixth forms

  Batley High School for Boys

  Kirklees

  Colne Valley High School

  Kirklees

  St. Thomas Becket RC High School

  Knowsley

  Stratford Foundation School

  Newham

  Tideway Community School

  East Sussex

  Information held by the Department on proposals for the reorganisation of colleges in the FE sector is as follows:
  A proposal for Teesside College and Middlesbrough College to merge and to form Middlesbrough College has been submitted by the LSC to the Secretary of State.
  A feasibility study has been completed into the possible merger of Oxford College and North Oxfordshire College. The LSC has proposed that an area wide review of provision should be carried out before any decisions are made.
  Additionally, the organisation of 16–19 provision is reviewed in those local areas where a recent Area-Wide inspection has so recommended. In such cases the Learning and Skills Council is required to agree an Action Plan with local partners, before seeking Ministerial approval.

  Pupil Absence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the target proportion of pupil days to be lost through absence was for(a) each LEA and (b) England in each year since 1997. [59117]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: There is no target proportion of pupil days to be lost through absence for England. In the past local education authorities have only set targets for unauthorised absence through their Education Development plans. Local education authorities were asked to set new targets for the proportion of pupil days lost in their Education Development Plans this year, these targets will apply to the academic years 2002–03 and 2003–04. Education Development Plans are published by local education authorities.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many letters were received by each Minister in her Department in each month since June 1997. [59315]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on the volume of Members' correspondence received by departments. The Report for 2001 was published on Friday 24 May (22 May 2002,Official Report, column 326W). Copies of previous reports are available in the Library of the House.
  1148W
  Information about other correspondence received by Ministers (ie Treat Official correspondence) is not held centrally and can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  School Bullies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance she has issued to appeals panels on overturning head teachers' decisions to exclude(a) bullies and (b) racist bullies. [60132]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Earlier this year we consulted publicly on a draft revised version of the guidance on the use of exclusion in our Circular 10–99 'Social Inclusion: Pupil Support'. This made clear that the Secretary of State would normally regard it as inappropriate to reinstate a pupil permanently excluded for (among other things) persistent and defiant behaviour—which would encompass bullying including racist bullying. All forms of bullying need to be dealt with firmly by schools. We cannot direct appeal panels to take particular decisions in particular cases, but we have made clear that they should also consider the impact that a reinstatement might have on other members of the school community.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Taxes and Rates
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister what council tax and non-domestic rates collection rates were achieved by English billing authorities in 2001–02. [61296]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am publishing today figures showing that English councils have collected an extra £40 million in council taxes this year by simply improving on council tax collection rates. The figures show the good start of a joint initiative launched last year by us and the Local Government Association (LGA), to help poorly performing councils improve their collection rates.

  English councils had collected £12.84 billion in council taxes for 2001–02 by the end of March 2002. The figures represent 96.1 per cent. of the £13.36 billion collectable. This is an increase of 0.3 per cent. on the previous year.

  We recognise that council tax collection has therefore improved slightly, and that many councils are making a great effort. However, half a billion pounds was still uncollected last year. We recognise that this is money that could have been spent on local services and we believe there is still room for improvement. The Council Tax Collection Help Team which we set up with the LGA last year will continue its work to identify and tackle barriers to better performance and encourage good practice.

  We also recognise that the in-year collection rate does not provide the full picture of the work authorities put in to collecting council tax. We will also be collecting and publishing authorities' levels of arrears and performance in collecting them.

  The councils showing the best improvements in their performance include Hackney Council, which improved its collection rate from 67.8 per cent. during 2000–2001 to 74.0 per cent. this year, an increase of 6.2 percentage points; Lambeth Council, which improved its collection rate from

  1149W
  82.0 per cent. during 2000–2001 to 86.5 per cent. this year, an increase of 4.5 percentage points; and Southwark Council, which improved its collection rate from 87.1 per cent. during 2000–2001 to 90.2 per cent. this year, an increase of 3.1 percentage points.

  Other improving councils include North Hertfordshire, an increase of 2.8 percentage points, Waltham Forest, an increase of 2.6 percentage points, Castle Point, an increase of 2.5 percentage points, South Gloucestershire UA, an increase of 2.5 percentage points, and Oxford City, an increase of 2.4 percentage points.

  In addition, figures show that £14.42 billion in non-domestic rates for 2001–2002 had been collected by the end of March. This represents 97.9 per cent. of the £14.74 billion collectable, an improvement of 0.5 percentage points on last year.

  Background note "Information for the Minister (Not for the public domain)".

  Local Authority Grant
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister how and when he intends to consult on new formulae for distributing general grant to local authorities in England. [61295]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We will consult publicly on the new system over the summer, ahead of implementing change in the 2003–04 Local Government Finance Settlement. The consultation document will include the principles for the new system and will show the effects of a range of possible options for each formula. We intend to start the consultation by mid-July.

  Indices of Deprivation
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister what plans his Department has to include in the Indices of Deprivation statistics on access to local services and public transport for those over 65 and 75 years in the most deprived wards; and whether indicators on age-related issues will be included in the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit's review of how the Indices of Deprivation may be developed. [60623]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Indices of Deprivation (ID 2000) has been developed to provide a measure of how deprived a particular area (ward or local authority district) is relative to the rest of the country.

  The current 'Access to Services' domain measures the extent to which people have poor geographical access to certain key services. Three of the indicators included in the domain (access to post offices, large food shops and doctors surgeries) measure geographical access to services for people on low incomes (ie claimants of means-tested benefits). As such, this will include pensioners who are eligible for income support payments.

  The ID 2000 has been designed to reflect deprivation as experienced by all age groups, including the elderly. The forthcoming review on the further development of the indices will continue to maintain this objective.

  Home Ownership
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister how many home-owners there were in(a) 1979, (b) 1997 and (c) at the latest date for which figures are available; and what percentage of the population this represented at each of these dates. [60792]

  Mr. McNulty
  Consistent estimates of the number of owner occupied households are not available before 1981. For England, the information requested for 1981, 1979 and 2000 is given in the following table.

  Owner occupied households in England

  Year

  Owner occupied households (thousand)

  All households (thousand)

  Percentage of owner occupiers

  1981

  9,860

  17,225

  57

  1997–98

  13,940

  20,250

  69

  2000–01

  14,437

  20.660

  70

  Source:

  Survey of English Housing. ODPM

  House Fires
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many households were made homeless by house fires in each of the last six years. [60434]

  Mr. McNulty
  Precise information is not collected centrally. Data presented in the quarterly Statistical Release on Statutory Homelessness includes the number of households accepted by local authorities where homelessness was due to an emergency (table 3), but this does not distinguish cases involving house fires. Copies of the latest Statistical Release, issued on 14 March 2002 and covering the period to end December 2001, are available in the Library.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people were(a) killed and (b) injured in house fires in the UK in each of the last six years, broken down by (i) deliberate and (ii) accidental fires. [60433]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The following table shows the number of people killed or injured in deliberate and accidental dwelling' fires in the UK between 1995 and 2000.

  Deliberate fires2

  Accidental fires

  Deaths3

  Injuries3

  Deaths3

  Injuries3

  1995

  78

  1,932

  481

  11,176

  1996

  76

  2,026

  488

  12,163

  1997

  65

  2,019

  497

  12,877

  1998

  59

  2,152

  454

  12,827

  1999

  65

  2,068

  398

  12,556

  20004

  51

  2,326

  396

  12,065

  1 Including caravans, houseboats and other non-building permanent dwellings.

  2 Includes those fires where deliberate ignition is merely suspected.

  3 Including brigade casualties.

  4 Data for 2000 are provisional. Death figures have been estimated to take account of revisions expected to occur as a result of checks made against death certificates later in the year.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many house fires there were in each of the last six years broken down by(a) deliberate and (b) accidental fires in each fire authority. [60437]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information is contained in the table.
  1151W

  Fires1 in dwellings2 by brigade area and motive, UK, 1995–2000

  19953

  1996

  1997

  Brigade area

  Total

  Accidental

  Malicious

  Total

  Accidental

  Malicious

  Total

  Accidental

  Malicious

  United Kingdom

  66,401

  52,761

  13,640

  71,709

  57,456

  14,253

  72,492

  58,708

  13,784

  England and Wales

  55,182

  43,783

  11,399

  59,955

  48,152

  11,803

  60,957

  49,568

  11,389

  England

  52,175

  41,212

  10,963

  56,626

  45,396

  11,230

  57,584

  46,783

  10,800

  England: Non-met counties

  26,645

  22,231

  4,414

  29,381

  24,787

  4,594

  29,970

  25,569

  4,401

  Avon

  841

  689

  152

  980

  814

  166

  1,047

  896

  151

  Bedfordshire

  458

  379

  79

  466

  357

  109

  536

  424

  112

  Berkshire

  559

  492

  67

  646

  568

  78

  671

  596

  75

  Buckinghamshire

  646

  543

  104

  726

  643

  83

  738

  631

  107

  Cambridgeshire

  491

  395

  96

  562

  433

  129

  579

  453

  126

  Cheshire

  922

  770

  152

  1,010

  804

  206

  1,069

  875

  194

  Cleveland

  1,117

  545

  571

  954

  581

  373

  852

  594

  258

  Cornwall

  375

  354

  21

  452

  414

  38

  481

  455

  26

  Cumbria

  543

  459

  84

  609

  517

  92

  587

  505

  82

  Derbyshire

  644

  555

  89

  710

  603

  107

  773

  650

  123

  Devon

  1,030

  904

  126

  1,117

  987

  130

  1,189

  1,086

  103

  Dorset

  467

  430

  37

  522

  478

  44

  568

  519

  49

  Durham

  658

  530

  128

  653

  539

  114

  719

  566

  153

  East Sussex

  890

  779

  111

  1,000

  867

  133

  995

  852

  143

  Essex

  1,015

  883

  132

  1,091

  978

  113

  1,041

  918

  123

  Gloucestershire

  471

  405

  66

  479

  432

  47

  511

  461

  50

  Hampshire

  1,138

  993

  145

  1,410

  1,159

  251

  1,321

  1.141

  180

  Hereford and Worcester

  529

  471

  58

  670

  615

  55

  762

  679

  83

  Hertfordshire

  725

  644

  80

  903

  805

  98

  951

  853

  98

  Humberside

  907

  695

  211

  1,018

  797

  221

  1,082

  797

  285

  Isle of Wight

  116

  108

  8

  154

  144

  10

  163

  155

  8

  Kent

  1,176

  1,001

  175

  1,316

  1.110

  206

  1,401

  1,217

  184

  Lancashire

  2,290

  1,832

  458

  2,413

  2,042

  371

  2,287

  1,909

  378

  Leicestershire

  765

  597

  168

  825

  625

  200

  774

  603

  171

  Lincolnshire

  404

  337

  68

  429

  338

  91

  475

  412

  63

  Norfolk

  532

  462

  70

  551

  469

  82

  629

  549

  80

  North Yorkshire

  450

  406

  44

  567

  524

  43

  476

  433

  43

  Northamptonshire

  564

  478

  87

  671

  567

  104

  780

  643

  137

  Northumberland

  277

  239

  38

  358

  312

  46

  324

  271

  53

  Nottinghamshire

  1,028

  771

  257

  1,161

  897

  264

  1,158

  937

  221

  Oxfordshire

  485

  428

  56

  520

  453

  67

  452

  393

  59

  Shropshire

  370

  317

  53

  370

  315

  55

  382

  340

  42

  Somerset

  341

  314

  28

  363

  338

  25

  389

  350

  39

  Staffordshire

  875

  739

  135

  983

  820

  163

  956

  827

  129

  Suffolk

  574

  523

  51

  559

  516

  43

  563

  512

  51

  Surrey

  616

  558

  58

  669

  615

  54

  701

  646

  55

  Warwickshire

  373

  327

  46

  397

  339

  58

  416

  367

  49

  West Sussex

  607

  555

  52

  626

  565

  61

  670

  597

  73

  Wiltshire

  375

  323

  52

  468

  404

  64

  498

  454

  44

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  0

  2

  2

  0

  England: Met-counties

  25,530

  18,981

  6,549

  27,245

  20,609

  6,636

  27,613

  21,214

  6,399

  Greater Manchester

  4,425

  3,196

  1,230

  4,835

  3,527

  1,308

  4,934

  3,607

  1,327

  Merseyside

  2,720

  1,861

  860

  2,782

  1,955

  827

  2,932

  2,009

  923

  South Yorkshire

  1,371

  1,093

  279

  1,441

  1,092

  349

  1,416

  1,116

  300

  Tyne and Wear

  2,081

  1,180

  902

  1,913

  1,239

  674

  2,117

  1,456

  661

  West Midlands

  4,240

  3,141

  1,099

  4,643

  3,418

  1,225

  4,610

  3,504

  1,106

  West Yorkshire

  2,656

  1,930

  725

  2,925

  2,142

  783

  2,875

  2,156

  719

  Greater London

  8,037

  6,581

  1,455

  8,705

  7,236

  1,469

  8,729

  7,366

  1,363

  Wales

  3,006

  2,571

  435

  3,329

  2,756

  573

  3,373

  2,784

  589

  North Wales

  686

  615

  71

  805

  704

  101

  758

  656

  102

  Mid and West Wales

  915

  834

  81

  949

  816

  133

  999

  860

  139

  South Wales

  1,406

  1,122

  284

  1,576

  1,237

  339

  1,616

  1,268

  348

  Northern Ireland

  2,067

  1,558

  509

  2,238

  1,606

  632

  2,210

  1,616

  594

  Scotland

  9,152

  7,420

  1,732

  9,516

  7,698

  1,818

  9,325

  7,524

  1,801

  Strathclyde

  4,620

  3,776

  845

  4,685

  3,823

  862

  4,716

  3,845

  871

  Highland and Islands

  339

  321

  17

  309

  288

  21

  288

  269

  19

  Grampian

  668

  576

  92

  757

  632

  125

  711

  605

  106

  Tayside

  772

  628

  144

  834

  670

  161

  780

  647

  133

  Lothian and Borders

  1,765

  1,252

  513

  1,906

  1,367

  539

  1,832

  1,264

  568

  Fife

  469

  391

  78

  475

  404

  71

  463

  410

  53

  Central

  349

  317

  32

  367

  329

  38

  356

  317

  39

  Dumfries

  171

  158

  12

  186

  185

  1

  179

  167

  12

  1152W 1153W

  1998

  1999

  20004

  Brigade area

  Total

  Accidental

  Malicious

  Total

  Accidental

  Malicious

  Total

  Accidental

  Malicious

  United Kingdom

  71,077

  57,718

  13,359

  72,228

  58,366

  13,862

  70,897

  56,655

  14,242

  England and Wales

  59,680

  48,701

  10,979

  60,808

  49,497

  11,311

  59,413

  47,929

  11,484

  England

  56,464

  46,052

  10,412

  57,490

  46,744

  10,746

  56,184

  45,277

  10,907

  England: Non-met counties

  29,463

  25,008

  4,455

  29,942

  25,563

  4,379

  29,243

  24,539

  4,704

  Avon

  974

  831

  143

  970

  826

  144

  976

  820

  156

  Bedfordshire

  485

  368

  117

  431

  366

  65

  463

  374

  89

  Berkshire

  695

  612

  83

  726

  673

  53

  687

  616

  71

  Buckinghamshire

  740

  636

  104

  679

  609

  70

  669

  569

  100

  Cambridgeshire

  569

  442

  127

  547

  432

  115

  547

  444

  103

  Cheshire

  1,067

  888

  179

  999

  835

  164

  999

  818

  181

  Cleveland

  776

  545

  231

  836

  562

  274

  951

  658

  293

  Cornwall

  445

  400

  45

  436

  408

  28

  470

  426

  44

  Cumbria

  641

  576

  65

  609

  535

  74

  551

  466

  85

  Derbyshire

  775

  655

  120

  783

  663

  120

  734

  617

  117

  Devon

  1,144

  1,055

  89

  1,226

  1,128

  98

  1.290

  1,118

  102

  Dorset

  510

  462

  48

  491

  446

  45

  530

  478

  52

  Durham

  702

  601

  101

  677

  567

  110

  690

  572

  118

  East Sussex

  1,043

  904

  139

  1,128

  993

  135

  1,038

  900

  138

  Essex

  1,024

  879

  145

  1,220

  1,064

  156

  1.265

  1,073

  192

  Gloucestershire

  512

  460

  52

  521

  474

  47

  456

  408

  48

  Hampshire

  1,428

  1,212

  216

  1,491

  1,290

  201

  1,407

  1,269

  138

  Hereford and Worcester

  743

  679

  64

  689

  640

  49

  594

  537

  57

  Hertfordshire

  894

  812

  82

  947

  856

  91

  936

  851

  85

  Humberside

  1,060

  788

  272

  1,104

  820

  284

  1,043

  743

  300

  Isle of Wight

  169

  162

  7

  165

  164

  1

  151

  141

  10

  Kent

  1,318

  1.113

  205

  1,272

  1.108

  164

  1,242

  1,051

  191

  Lancashire

  2,324

  1,894

  430

  2,273

  1,729

  544

  2,299

  1,770

  529

  Leicestershire

  838

  607

  231

  737

  567

  170

  656

  488

  168

  Lincolnshire

  457

  379

  78

  519

  446

  73

  512

  444

  68

  Norfolk

  574

  471

  103

  583

  508

  75

  584

  489

  95

  North Yorkshire

  503

  451

  52

  545

  479

  66

  666

  597

  69

  Northamptonshire

  714

  596

  118

  715

  580

  135

  653

  501

  152

  Northumberland

  311

  251

  60

  308

  269

  39

  332

  266

  66

  Nottinghamshire

  1,074

  870

  204

  1,109

  886

  223

  1,043

  799

  244

  Oxfordshire

  509

  461

  48

  474

  421

  53

  490

  429

  61

  Shropshire

  357

  296

  61

  436

  380

  56

  361

  317

  44

  Somerset

  385

  351

  34

  387

  349

  38

  436

  390

  46

  Staffordshire

  985

  866

  119

  1,182

  1,047

  135

  926

  778

  148

  Suffolk

  523

  472

  51

  554

  500

  54

  510

  447

  63

  Surrey

  666

  615

  51

  629

  588

  41

  645

  585

  60

  Warwickshire

  396

  343

  53

  402

  349

  53

  353

  287

  66

  West Sussex

  648

  570

  78

  659

  577

  82

  651

  544

  107

  Wiltshire

  484

  434

  50

  482

  428

  54

  435

  387

  48

  Isles of Scilly

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  2

  0

  England: Met-counties

  27,001

  21,044

  5,957

  27,548

  21,181

  6,367

  26,941

  20,738

  6,203

  Greater Manchester

  4,782

  3,531

  1,251

  5,120

  3,697

  1,423

  4,934

  3,654

  1,280

  Merseyside

  2,914

  2,023

  891

  3,018

  2,009

  1,009

  3,023

  1,975

  1,048

  South Yorkshire

  1,483

  1,165

  318

  1,433

  1,092

  341

  1,463

  1,092

  371

  Tyne and Wear

  2,318

  1,721

  597

  2,241

  1,696

  545

  2,210

  1,717

  493

  West Midlands

  4,400

  3,428

  972

  4,429

  3,444

  985

  4,243

  3,201

  1,042

  West Yorkshire

  2,582

  1,940

  642

  2,505

  1,877

  628

  2,510

  1,904

  606

  Greater London

  8,522

  7,236

  1,286

  8,802

  7,366

  1,436

  8,558

  7,195

  1,363

  Wales

  3,216

  2,649

  567

  3,318

  2,753

  565

  3,229

  2,652

  577

  North Wales

  704

  607

  97

  824

  704

  120

  776

  674

  102

  Mid and West Wales

  955

  831

  124

  1,029

  884

  145

  984

  566

  118

  South Wales

  1,557

  1,211

  346

  1,465

  1,165

  300

  1,469

  1,112

  357

  Northern Ireland

  2,243

  1,601

  642

  2,005

  1,398

  607

  2,175

  1,505

  670

  Scotland

  9,154

  7,416

  1,738

  9,415

  7,471

  1,644

  9,309

  7,221

  2,088

  Strathclyde

  4,575

  3,795

  780

  4,727

  3,774

  953

  257

  3,685

  1,007

  Highland and Islands

  322

  300

  22

  288

  274

  14

  273

  257

  16

  Grampian

  761

  658

  103

  885

  762

  123

  864

  723

  141

  Tayside

  730

  603

  127

  795

  636

  159

  788

  619

  169

  Lothian and Borders

  1,752

  1,207

  545

  1803

  1,241

  562

  1,765

  1,174

  591

  Fife

  510

  422

  88

  437

  363

  74

  418

  326

  92

  Central

  354

  300

  54

  326

  282

  44

  335

  279

  56

  Dumfries

  150

  131

  19

  154

  139

  15

  174

  158

  16

  1 Including late call, heat and smoke (LCHS) incidents. Fires are sampled and weighted to brigade totals.

  2 Includes caravans, houseboats and other non-building structures used solely as a permanent dwelling.

  3 Excludes some late call, heat and smoke incidents.

  4 Figures for 2000 are provisional.

  Sound Insulation
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent estimate he has made of the cost per household of improving sound insulation in houses affected by poor sound insulation. [60661]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not made an estimate of the cost of improving sound insulation for the existing housing stock. However, in a House of Lords ruling on two Appeal Court cases determined in 1999, it was estimated that the average cost of installing sound installation in the flats in question was £8,000 per flat. The cost in any particular case would depend on the nature and extent of the work required.

  Electronic Services
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister of the central Government Departments and agencies required to meet the Prime Minister's target for electronically available services by 2005, what common problems have been revealed through the regular e-business strategy documents; and how they are being addressed. [55985]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest e-business strategies were submitted to the e-envoy during summer 2001. An analysis of the strategies revealed several common issues.
  There is a need for staff to gain necessary skills. Departments are tackling this in a number of ways with support from the centre. For example the office of the e-envoy has developed a skills map for e-government which identifies all the skills that might need to be considered when implementing e-services. In addition, the Centre for Management and Policy Studies ran a series of events where the leadership dimensions of successful e-government projects was addressed.
  Additional resources are required to support IT-enabled change programmes—this is being addressed in part under the current spending review. In addition Departments may bid for funding from the Capital Modernisation Fund and Invest to Save Budget.
  Departments need to update existing, or legacy, IT systems. This is a matter for Departments to address. Centrally, the Government Gateway infrastructure allows joined-up government services to be delivered electronically.
  In order to more reliably assess the costs and benefits from e-government, the office of the e-envoy are considering with HM Treasury the case for developing additional guidance addressing the appraisal of risks involved in realising the benefits from e-delivery projects.
  Internet-enabled 'Intermediaries'—acting on behalf of their customers—can provide better access to e-government services for those without other means to benefit from online access. The office of the e-envoy has worked with intermediaries, including the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB) which has received funding to assist its advisers in 1,400 centres to deliver e-government services and advice to individuals who may not have direct Internet access themselves.

  Air Miles
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many air miles he has been awarded from flights at public expense since 1 June 2001; [57837]

  (2) how many (a) air miles and (b) other airline rewards members of his Department have been awarded in total since 1 June 2001. [57834]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.
  1156W
  All travel arrangements for Ministers are made in accordance with the rules set out in the "Ministerial Code" and "Travel by Ministers", copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Travel arrangements by officials are delegated to Departments in accordance with the Civil Service Management Code.

  Travel by officials in my Department is subject to internal Cabinet Office guidelines, which state that benefits of frequent flying and similar schemes deriving from expenditure on official business should be used for official travel or forgone, as set out in the answer given by the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 15 March 1994, Official Report, column 646W.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Holiday Industry
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to create an independent regulator for the holiday industry; and if she will make a statement. [59097]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A considerable body of consumer protection legislation applies to the holiday industry and there are no plans to create an independent regulator.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what licences have been granted for equipment on the military list to(a) Georgia, (b) Uzbekistan, (c) Kyrgyzstan, (d) Tajikistan, (e) Turkey, (f) Bahrain, (k) Oman, (l) Jordan and (m) Yemen in each month since September 2001, including military list and dual-use ratings; what equipment is covered under these licences; and if she will make a statement. [60626]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The number of Standard Individual Licences (SIELs) covering items on the military and dual-use lists issued to end users in Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkey, the Philippines, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan and Yemen in each month since September 2001 is set out in the tables that I have placed in the Libraries of the House today. Individual licences might cover a range of items with various ratings. Where this is so, the licence is included in the tables in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  The summary description of the items covered by these ratings will be published in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which will be available in the Libraries of the House. In addition some of the countries are permitted destinations on certain Open General Export Licences, copies of which are also placed in the Libraries of the House. All relevant export licence applications are considered very carefully on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time. The criteria include a specific reference to the behaviour of the buyer country with regard to the international community, as regards in particular to its attitude to terrorism, the nature of its alliances and respect for international law.
  1157W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to improve the process for granting arms export licences. [60240]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government recognise that the system for processing export licence applications requires continuous improvement if we are to deliver a more efficient and effective export licensing system, which is both accountable and transparent.

  The Export Control Organisation (ECO) has introduced a number of initiatives to improve the risk assessment and to reduce the time taken to process individual export licence applications. These include the roll out of new enhanced IT systems that will allow exporters to submit applications for a Standard Individual Export Licence over the internet.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking about reports that UK arms dealers are offering prospective brokers means of circumventing licensing requirements; and if she will make a statement. [59662]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government and the UK enforcement authorities take very seriously reports of any breaches of UK export licensing requirements.

  I understand that the police and HM Customs and Excise are investigating the case which was recently reported.

  Street Trading
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received regarding the(a) reform and (b) repeal of the Pedlars Act 1871; and what plans she has to amend legislation relating to street trading. [60498]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  One representation has been received suggesting reform or repeal of the Pedlars Act 1871 from Chelmsford borough council. I have no plans to amend street trading legislation.

  Director of Civil Nuclear Security
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will place the report of the Director of Civil Nuclear Security in the Library. [61138]

  Mr. Wilson
  The report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by the Director of Civil Nuclear Security "The State of Security in the Civil Nuclear Industry and the Effectiveness of Security Regulation" will be placed in the Library of both Houses today. It is also being made available on the DTI website www.dti.gov.uk.

  New Corporate Identities
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent work her Department has undertaken on new corporate identities; and if she will make a statement. [60073]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The independent review of company law set in hand by my Department considered the case for new corporate identities and recommended a new form of incorporation for charities. In addition, this Department's Social Enterprise Unit established a1158W
  working group on issues surrounding social enterprises. The Government are carefully considering the final report of the company law review.

  Internal Market, Consumer Tourism Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Internal Market, Consumer and Tourism Council on 21 May; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [59177]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Council conclusions were agreed on the Community Patent stating that the Presidency package is the basis for further work but that nothing is finally agreed until there is agreement on the whole package and that further work is needed on jurisdiction in particular. There was political agreement on the Public Procurement Directive and on the European Co-operative Society Statute.

  Resolutions were agreed on the Future of European Tourism and supporting the Commission's approach to better regulation. There was political agreement on the substance of the Customs 2007 programme, to continue and enhance customs co-operation, although the UK and two other member states maintained reservations on the legal base.

  There was a policy debate on the draft sales promotion regulation and Commission briefings on consumers and the euro, the follow-up to the Green Paper on EU Consumer Protection, services of general economic interest and on the proposal for a consolidated directive on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. The Commission presented its recently adopted Consumer Policy Strategy 2002–06 and there was a Presidency presentation on the fourth European Consumers' Day in Madrid. There was a short discussion on the 2002 Review of the Internal Market Strategy, the Single Market Scoreboard and the Joint Work Programme of the Three Presidencies and a Presidency briefing on the proposal for a regulation on Food Hygiene.

  Under Any Other Business the Commission urged member states to accept the European Parliament's broad endorsement of the Council's common position on the Distance Marketing of Financial Services Directive.

  The UK voted in favour of the two legislative items—the public procurement directive and the European Co-operative Society Statute. Conclusions were adopted on the Community Patent with the UK in favour. The Resolutions on Tourism and Better Regulation were agreed also with the UK in favour. The UK voted against political agreement on the Customs 2007 item, due to the proposed legal base.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further measures she is taking to address the impact of late payments of invoices on small businesses. [59645]
  1159W
  Nigel Griffiths
  We are ensuring that from 7 August 2002:all businesses and public sector bodies can claim interest for late payment;
  creditors can claim a fixed sum of compensation to cover debt recovery costs if they have to chase up late payment;
  all businesses and public sector bodies can challenge contractual terms that do not provide a substantial remedy for late payment; SMEs are provided with the right to have appropriate organisations and a trade association act on their behalf and to challenge unfair contractual terms that try to remove or alter their right to statutory interest; and
  a simple reference rate will be created which will be set for six months and used to determine the late payment interest rate. (The late payment interest rate is the reference rate plus 8 per cent.) This will make it easier for firms to calculate the interest they may be owed.

  Lakshmi Mittal
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer given by the Foreign Secretary on 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 255W, on meetings with embassy staff, what the commercial benefit to the United Kingdom was of the Lakshmi Mittal Romanian steel contract. [60552]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 610–12W.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Child Care
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when the most recent assessment was made of the(a) present and (b) future child care needs of people who work in the Palace of Westminster. [57427]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 April 2002,Official Report, column 691W.

  Catering and Cleaning Staff
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if all House of Commons catering and cleaning staff(a) are included in the House-wide annual performance appraisal process and (b) have personal development plans that are regularly reviewed and updated. [59682]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  All the Departments of the House have achieved recognition as Investors in People; this process has involved ensuring that the appraisal systems are operating effectively, and that personal development is given due attention.

  Management and administrative staff of the Refreshment Department are included in the House-wide annual performance review process, and the department
  1160W
  operates two separate appraisal schemes developed to meet the specific needs of its catering staff. All catering staff have personal development plans which are reviewed and updated regularly. In addition, the department last year became an approved centre with the Hospitality Awarding Body to register and certificate its own National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs). So far, three staff of the Department have been trained as NVQ Internal Verifiers and a further 12 staff are qualified NVQ Assessors. Last year over 50 staff of the Refreshment Department achieved nationally recognised trainer qualifications.

  All House cleaning staff are included in the House-wide annual performance appraisal process. They have annual personal objectives, which are agreed with line managers and are regularly reviewed. Their training and development needs are identified and updated through that process.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Programme Motions
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Council what recent representations he has received about the working of programme motions on legislation. [57428]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The hon. Member himself has made representations as have some other hon. Members. The Modernisation Committee will report on programming before the end of the Session.

  House of Lords Reform
  David Taylor
  To ask the President of the Council what representations he has received from campaigning organisations following his statement on 13 May to the House on Lords reform. [57429]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  We have received one communication from Charter 88 about the setting up of the Joint Committee which the two Houses are in the process of establishing. I would expect any representations about the substance of reform now to be made to the Joint Committee.

  Parliamentary Proceedings (Access)
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals he plans to put to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons relating to making proceedings in the House more accessible to visually disabled people. [57430]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has a full programme, but I am sure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be interested in proposals from any hon. Members. The House of Commons Commission may also have an interest.

  Parliamentary Terminology
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to reform the use of parliamentary terminology in the business of the House. [57431]
  1161W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present.

  Disqualification
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Council if he will introduce legislation providing for parity of treatment between Members of both Houses in relation to disqualification following imprisonment consequent upon criminal conviction. [57432]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  In their proposals on House of Lords reform, the Government consulted on possible changes to the rules which would enable those members of the House of Lords who had been sentenced to particular terms of imprisonment to be expelled from the House. House of Lords reform will now be looked at by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. It would be premature for the Government to introduce any measures in advance of that Joint Committee reporting.

  People's Peers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council when the House of Lords Appointments Commission is to embark on its proposed road shows to encourage applications from putative people's peers. [57433]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I understand that the Commission has yet to finalise plans for its forthcoming programme of regional visits.

  Legislation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council if he will ensure that each new Bill undergoes pre-legislative scrutiny similar to that of the Communications Bill. [60065]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  As I made clear to my hon. Friend in answer to his question of 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 395, it is our intention that pre-legislative scrutiny should become the norm for Government legislation. However, capacity constraints, including the number of the Parliamentary draftsmen, mean that it may take some years to achieve this. The appropriate form of scrutiny will vary from Bill to Bill. Many draft Bills will fall naturally to pre-existing Select Committees, some may be scrutinised by Joint Committees and others by ad hoc Committees of either House. The detailed method of scrutiny is a matter for the Committee examining a particular Bill.

  The Government nevertheless welcome the use of electronic forms of communication to involve the public in such scrutiny.

  Travel
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the President of the Council if he will ask the Commission to amend the rules concerning spouse warrants to enable hon. Members' families to travel more often. [60066]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  This is not a matter for the Commission. I am not aware of great demand for an increase in the present number of 15 return journeys for 1162W
  spouses and each child, but this would be an issue the Speaker's Advisory Panel could consider if there are substantial concerns.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2002,Official Report, column 178W, on the armed forces pension scheme, when he will write to the hon. Member. [43325]

  Dr. Moonie
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 6 June and a copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the agencies that have been responsible for the administration of armed forces pensions since 1972. [60543]

  Dr. Moonie
  Until 1997, when the Armed Forces and Administration Agency (AFPAA) was formed as a partnership between Ministry of Defence and Electronic Data Services (EDS), administration for the armed forces pension scheme was undertaken in-house by the three single services. From 1997, AFPAA has undertaken the administration, ie the calculation and award, of pensions on behalf of Navy and RAF personnel, with administration for the Army remaining with that service until 1 October 2001, when it too became part of AFPAA.

  The actual payment of pensions to retired forces personnel has since been made on MOD's behalf in respect of Navy and RAF personnel and Army officers, by the 1830s Paymaster (formerly Paymaster General). Payments of pensions for other ranks in the Army were retained in house until 1 October 2001, when these payments were also transferred to Paymaster.

  NATO
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the agenda is of the meeting of NATO Heads of State and Government in Prague from 18 to 24 November; and what the United Kingdom's objectives are for the meeting. [59822]

  Mr. Hoon
  The NATO summit will take place in Prague on 21–22 November. There is no formal agenda as yet, although we expect that capabilities, enlargement, the new relationship with Russia, NATO's adaptation to the changed strategic setting, strengthening of the NATO-EU relationship and partnership will be discussed. The United Kingdom's principal objective at Prague will be to ensure the continued effectiveness and relevance of an enlarged Alliance in the face of new challenges.

  Nuclear Deterrents
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people working in the armed forces are directly employed in the area of nuclear deterrent. [60284]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently some 1,509 full-time armed forces posts in the Ministry of Defence and its agencies for tasks directly related to the nuclear deterrent,
  1163W
  though not all posts are filled at any given time. In addition, a number of other service personnel spend some of their time directly or indirectly on such tasks but comprehensive data are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost(a) of retaining the nuclear deterrent by the UK in each year since 1990 and (b) of being a part of NATO and the percentage this was of the defence budget in each year since 1997. [60283]

  Mr. Hoon
  The estimated total acquisition cost of the Trident programme is £9,764 million. As described in the Strategic Defence Review Supporting Essay 5 of July 1998. a copy of which is in the Library of the House, the average annual operating cost of the Trident force is expected to be around £280 million. As a percentage of the defence budget, the capital and running costs for retaining the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent for each year since 1990 were as follows:

  Financial year

  Capital costs

  Running costs

  1990–91

  4

  1

  1991–92

  5

  1

  1992–93

  4

  1

  1993–94

  4

  1

  1994–95

  3

  1

  1995–96

  2

  1

  1996–97

  2

  1

  1997–98

  1

  1

  1998–99

  1

  1

  1999–2000

  1

  1

  2000–01

  1

  2

  These figures do not include the costs of the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb and Lance nuclear artillery system that went out of service in 1997–98 and 1992–1993 respectively.

  The United Kingdom's contributions to NATO's Security Investment Programme and Military Budget are funded by the Defence budget. For each year since 1997, these were as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  Percentage

  1997–98

  102.032

  0.459

  1998–99

  110.477

  0.471

  1999–2000

  103.812

  0.436

  2000–01

  101.411

  0.408

  Final figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the public consultations undertaken by his Department since June 2001, stating in each case the(a) number of respondents and (b) percentage of those specifically consulted who responded. [60143]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: Since June 2001 the Ministry of Defence has completed or undertaken the following public consultations:
  Armed Forces Pension Scheme Review
  Joint Compensation Review
  1164W
  2ndConsultation on the Introduction of a Voluntary Screening Programme for Depleted Uranium
  MOD Police Quinquennial Review.
  The MOD also issued a public discussion document on the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) New Chapter during this period.

  1,500 Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) Review and Joint Compensation Review (JCR) consultation documents were issued in March 2001 with a closing date of 31 July 2001 for responses. These were issued to all units of the three services and also sent to ex-service organisations such as the Forces Pension Society, Widows Associations and the Royal British Legion. 20,000 leaflets were also distributed to serving members of the armed forces and the consultation documents were issued on the MOD website. 203 responses were received in total, with some respondents commenting on both the AFPS and JCR. Responses were received from all the principal ex-service organisations specifically consulted.

  The 2nd consultation on the Introduction of a Voluntary Screening Programme for Depleted Uranium was issued in April 2001 with a closing date of 4 July 2001 for responses. A total of 21 responses were received by the Department and a full summary of the responses received is available on the MOD website.

  I am unable to provide the requested information for the MOD Police Quinquennial Review in the time available. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  In addition, the SDR New Chapter public discussion document has attracted a wide range of constructive responses, some 315 to date. The closing date for responses was 15 March 2002 and all have been given full consideration in the continuing SDR New Chapter work.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on compensation for the families of nuclear test veterans. [60780]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has every confidence in the independent studies carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund that showed veterans' participation in the nuclear test programme has not had a detectable effect on their expectation of life, or on their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases. Consequently grounds do not exist for compensation to be paid to British nuclear test veterans or their surviving spouses and families. There are no plans to review this position.

  Military Threat
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the potential threat from(a) Iraq, (b) Iran, (c) Syria, (d) Libya and (e) North Korea. [60257]

  Mr. Hoon
  We assess that there is no immediate threat of military attack by Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya or North Korea to the United Kingdom mainland, although Iraq threatens RAF aircraft patrolling the Iraqi No-Fly Zones daily.
  1165W
  An assessment of the ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction programmes of a number of countries was included in a "Supplementary Memorandum to the House of Commons Defence Committee: The Ballistic Missile Threat" of 18 March 2002 and, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a "Joint Memorandum to the House of Commons Defence Committee: Missile Defence" of 11 February 2002.

  We continue to monitor developments closely, particularly as they might affect deployed forces.

  Armed Forces (Minority Representation)
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what future targets have been set to achieve higher ethnic minority representation in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [61246]

  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces are seeking an approach that recognises and values diversity, without in any way compromising their commitment to comply with equality legislation and eradicate any form of harassment, intimidation or unlawful discrimination. The new diversity policy has been embodied in a revised Armed Forces Personnel Strategy Guideline, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House; this sets out the armed forces' diversity goal, and the principles which underpin it, and seeks to define diversity in a military context, demonstrating its importance for the achievement of operational effectiveness while recognising the unique circumstances of the armed forces.

  The armed forces are determined to become more representative of the ethnically diverse society they serve. Targets remain an important means of achieving this. For the future, I have agreed that this year's target should be for each service to increase recruitment of ethnic minorities by a further 1 per cent. of all recruits, subject to an overall target of 6 per cent. This marks the continuation of the major drive by the armed forces over the past four years to attain a proper share of talent available in the ethnic communities. Future goals for ethnic minority representation and recruitment will be set in the coming year, taking account of the results of the ethnic origin resurvey of armed forces personnel currently under way, ethnic minority recruiting achievement and evidence on ethnic minority numbers likely to emerge from the 2001 national census.

  War Widows Pilgrimage Scheme
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received to extend the War Widows Pilgrimage Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [61247]

  Dr. Moonie
  Following a recent approach by the Royal British Legion, I have agreed to an extension of the War Widows Pilgrimage Scheme for a further two years, until 31 March 2005. The Government greatly appreciate the excellent work of the Royal British Legion who administer this subsidised scheme on our behalf. To date the scheme has enabled more than 4,000 widows to visit their husband's grave in many parts of the world.

  Porton Down
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for epidemiological research on Porton Down volunteers; and if he will make a statement. [61248]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence has accepted a recommendation by the Medical Research Council (MRC) to fund research to be undertaken by Dr. Kate Venables of Oxford University and colleagues from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and from Imperial College, London. This research will consist of a one-year pilot study to assess the incidence of mortality and cancer among a selected group of 500 Porton Down volunteers compared with a control group of 500 other members of the armed forces and a small scale questionnaire study to evaluate volunteers' own views of their health status.

  The pilot study will commence later this month and will take about a year to complete. The MRC will be in a position towards the end of the pilot study to advise MOD whether the available historical data are of sufficient quality and quantity to allow a full scale epidemiological study to proceed.

  BioReliance
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contact was made between his Department and BioReliance after the visit of his Department's officials in late 2001. [57315]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 23 May 2002, Official Report, column 478W.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Paddington Rail Crash
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Solicitor-General on what basis the CPS decided that the investigation of the case of corporate manslaughter arising from the Paddington rail crash should be re-opened. [59817]

  The Solicitor-General
  The CPS has advised the police to undertake limited inquiries to determine whether or not there is an impediment in linking the management of the signal sighting around Ladbroke Grove, in particular Signal SN109, with the actual circumstances of the Ladbroke Grove collision. This was on the basis of having considered further legal advice.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the CPS(a) decided and (b) informed the British transport police that the investigation of a corporate manslaughter charge in relation to the Paddington rail crash should be re-opened. [59818]

  The Solicitor-General
  The CPS considered the advice that it would offer to the British transport police over a number of weeks, and kept the British transport police informed of its developing thinking. A decision was made recently and formal notification of its advice was made by the CPS to the British transport police on 21 May.
  1167W
  Letters to interested parties, including victims' relatives, were dispatched that day. If any further evidence is obtained that will, of course, be considered by the CPS. The HSE has in any event announced its intention to issue proceedings against Railtrack and Thames Trains for offences contrary to sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.

  Freedom of Information
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans she has to propose changes to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to align its provisions with the Council of Europe Recommendation on Freedom of Information; and if she will make a statement. [59206]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. I am advised that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is fully consistent with the Council of Europe Recommendation on access to official documents (Rec. (2002)2).

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Hockey
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what estimate she has made of(a) the number of people who play hockey, (b) the number of children and young people who play hockey and (c) the trend in levels of participation in hockey; [58323]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the effect of the financial situation of English Hockey on the organisation and promotion of hockey among young people; [58322]

  (3) if she will make a statement on the state of hockey in England; [58324]

  (4) what steps she is taking to promote and develop hockey among young people in the inner cities. [58325]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: The Government Plan for Sport sets out a framework and range of policies aimed at increasing participation in all sports particularly among young people with an emphasis on the part that sport can play in tackling a range of objectives including social exclusion, crime reduction and better health. The implementation of programmes to promote and develop particular sports is a matter for the relevant governing bodies.

  Following a Special General Meeting on 4 May 2002, the English Hockey Association is currently being restructured into a new organisation to be called "Hockey England Ltd.". I am assured that, despite this restructuring, the new governing body intends to continue actively to promote the sport at all levels in the future. Its main funding comes from annual subscriptions paid by member clubs, of which there are approximately 1,650 representing some 165,000 active club members playing in some 4,300 teams. In addition, elite English hockey players and the governing body's grass roots activities will continue to receive support and funding from Sport England. When the restructuring has been completed the new governing body expects to be a strong, financially solid organisation providing for hockey requirements at all levels in England. It believes that the game will
  1168W
  continue to be played by people of all ages and both sexes with a high proportion of participants from ethnic minorities.

  The governing body has a network of regional development managers across England in the north, south, east, west and midlands. Each of these managers has a specific brief to aid and assist the development of hockey in the regions, with specific emphasis on youth and in the inner cities in particular.

  The General Household survey carried out in 1996, the latest year for which this survey collected figures for sports participation, indicated that in England 118,000 adults had played hockey at least once in the previous four weeks. Sport England's Young People in Sport Survey carried out in 1999 indicated that 409,300 young people aged six to 16 participated in hockey out of school lessons at least 10 times in the previous 12 months, while in school lessons 1,200,000 young people participated at least 10 times in the last 12 months. The governing body's view is that the numbers involved in men's, women's and mixed hockey will remain constant and that participation by juniors is likely to rise due largely to the increasing use of artificial pitches.

  Culture and Audiovisual Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the outcome was of the Culture and Audiovisual Council held in Brussels on 23 May; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including their voting record; and if she will make a statement. [60491]

  Dr. Howells
  The culture and audiovisual Council held in Brussels on 23 May discussed future EU cultural co-operation, the preservation of digital content for future generations and proposals to revise the Directive on "Television Without Frontiers". A lunchtime discussion addressed the role of private sector cultural sponsorship.

  Resolutions were agreed by unanimity on a work plan for future EU cultural co-operation and on the importance of ensuring that digital content is preserved so as to be accessible by future generations.

  Discussions on the future of the current framework programme for cultural co-operation—Culture 2000—were of a preliminary nature only and there was no vote. The UK view was that the existing programme should be extended in order to allow sufficient time to review its impact to date and to discuss its successor. The Commission has agreed to produce a report on the existing scheme by the end of 2002 and will also put forward a number of proposals for further discussion.

  All delegations agreed that the review of the "Television Without Frontiers" Directive should be preceded by detailed debate and reflection and the Commission agreed to produce a work programme by the end of 2002. There was no formal vote. The priority for the UK will be to ensure that discussions on the review of the Directive take into account the provisions outlined in the draft communications Bill, published by my Department earlier this month.

  The lunchtime discussion reiterated the importance of private sector cultural sponsorship and it was agreed that Member States should discuss ways of sharing

  1169W
  experiences and agreeing best practice. This was an informal discussion and there was no vote. The UK fully supported the outcome of the debate.

  European Football Championships 2008
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance is being given to support the bid of Scotland and Ireland to stage the 2008 European Football Championships. [60232]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government consider the Scotland and Ireland bid to be a strong one, and will give their full support. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Scottish Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport on 18 March to discuss how DCMS may best support the bid team's efforts. To date, central Government support has centred on the provision of the formal guarantees required by UEFA. As well as a statement of UK Government support for the bid, these included commitments from the Department for Work and Pensions, the Home Office, HM Customs and Excise and other Departments, covering issues of work permits, immigration control and value added tax.

  Television Licence
  Mr. Lyons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost would be of removing the requirement for a TV licence for people between 70 and 75 years. [60482]

  Dr. Howells
  In 2001–02 total expenditure on free TV licences for people aged 75 and over was £369.57 million. If everyone aged 70 and over had been eligible for a free TV licence in 2001–02, the additional cost would have been £182 million.

  Sport England
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the sum given in each of the last three years to Sport England was allocated to model aircraft flying. [59781]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: None of Sport England's Exchequer income has been given to model aircraft flying in any of the last three years. The lottery funds awarded were as follows:

  Lottery funding

  Year

  £

  Percentage of total lottery income

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  2000–01

  2,850

  0.00127

  2001–02

  4,683

  0.00160

  Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Programme
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been granted under the Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Programme, broken down by region. [59778]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The total amount of funding committed to date in the United Kingdom under the New Opportunities Fund's Green
  1170W
  Spaces and Sustainable Communities programme is £25,379,355. This comprises £17,432,146 in England, £6,058,366 in Scotland, £1,426,271 in Wales and £462,572 in Northern Ireland. The table breaks down funding in England by region, where such a breakdown is possible.

  Region

  Funding (£)

  Number of projects

  Eastern

  1,041,989

  32

  East Midlands

  1,061,908

  49

  London

  1,687,502

  58

  North East

  2,415,197

  71

  North West

  3,112,983

  100

  South West

  2,416,668

  70

  West Midlands

  2,609,675

  53

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,916,851

  66

  South East

  1,114,525

  56

  Tourism (England)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her proposals for the marketing of tourism in England. [60035]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: Proposals for the modernisation and reform of tourism were announced on 13 May and further details will be announced later in the summer.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which(a) individuals and (b) companies or organisations her Department consulted on the proposals for the marketing of tourism in England. [60034]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: Since the difficult events of 2001, we have consulted a wide variety of individuals and organisations about the future arrangements for domestic marketing. Our emerging proposals have been discussed with key industry stakeholders at the Tourism Forum, organised by the English Tourism Council, and at a special seminar chaired by the Secretary of State at Hartwell House. We have also worked closely with the Tourism Alliance and many national and regional tourism bodies.

  Arts Development
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will respond to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's third report on arts development. [61137]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government's response to the report was laid before Parliament earlier today.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Staff (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what percentage of(a) Civil Service, (b) executive agencies and (c) non-departmental public body jobs under the remit of his Department are located in Scotland; and how many of each have been relocated to Scotland since May 1997. [56303]
  1171W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No civil service or executive agency jobs under the remit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are located in Scotland.

  For non-departmental public bodies, 34 jobs (3.11 per cent.) are located in Scotland. All these were located in Scotland prior to 1997. A further 20 British Council slots will be relocated to Edinburgh between now and summer 2003.

  Disclosure of Interests
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what rules apply to

  Non-departmental public body

  Present status

  Information available

  British Council

  Code of best practice for board members adopted on 1 November 1994

  Available on request from the secretariat of the British Council

  Wilton Park Academic Council

  Draft code of practice to be adopted on 13 June 2002. WPAC also hold 'conflict of interests' register

  Once approved, will be on WPAC website www.wiltonpark.org.uk/

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe

  Does not have a register of interest, though compliant with Companies Act requirement for board members to declare any other company directorships

  —

  Great Britain China Centre

  Has a register of executive committee members' interests relevant to its activities

  May be obtained by contacting GBCC in writing. Details also given on website (www.gbcc.org.uk)

  Britain Russia Centre

  No code of practice in respect of its disclosure of interest currently in place

  Board members sign an annual declaration provided by the auditors that they have had no personal gain or financial interest from/in BRC activities. Website: www.briteastwest.org.uk/

  Diplomatic Service Appeals Board

  Code of practice currently being drafted. Register of interests covered in application forms

  Information can be obtained from Secretary, DSAB, FCO, London SW1A 2PA

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  Code of practice under review. Do hold a register of interests. WFD also has code of conduct for board members which includes the obligation to declare any material interests

  Held by company secretary. Website www.wfd.org/

  Government Hospitality Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine

  Code of practice adopted

  Published in annual report. Information can be obtained from the Head of Government Hospitality, Lancaster House, St. James's, London SW1

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  Code of practice adopted by commission on 25 April 1997

  Documents available from commission secretariat at Association of Commonwealth Universities (not on website but details in ACU annual report)

  Libya (Flight LAA 1103)
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of meetings held in the last six months between his staff at the Tripoli Embassy and the Libyan authorities on the subject of a crash report into flight LAA 1103. [57016]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on 23 May 2002,Official Report, column 533W.

  Pakistan
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations 1172W
  the disclosure of interests on the part of those serving on public bodies which are responsible to his Department. [56452]

  Mr. Straw
  All advisory and executive non-departmental public bodies (NDPB) are required to adopt a board members' code, based on guidance produced by the Cabinet Office, and they should have registers of interests. The definition of interests is ultimately for individual Departments since they are best placed to decide what might be thought to influence members of their NDPBs.

  The following table lists the NDPBs sponsored by this Department and in each cases indicates what the relevant code of practice is and where it is available.

  the Government have made to the Government of Pakistan on the protection of women's rights. [58342]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We and our EU partners regularly raise our human rights concerns, including women's rights issues, with the Pakistan authorities. The Government of Pakistan have made progress over the last year in addressing the position of women through electoral reform and their National Commission on the Status of Women. We support these steps and are supporting Pakistani women's groups in their campaigns to promote women's rights within the existing Islamic legal framework.

  The EU Human Rights Group takes a close interest in human rights development in Pakistan. The Group is currently considering what further action they should take.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information was provided by the French authorities to his Department concerning the visit of Zimbabwean Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri to that country recently. [59199]

  Mr. Straw
  As they were obliged to, under the terms of the EU travel ban, the French authorities provided full relevant information prior to Chihuri's recent attendance at the 14–16 May Interpol meeting in Lyon.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the meetings of international organisations which the Zimbabweans who are listed on the UK/EU travel ban list are allowed to attend. [58959]

  Mr. Straw
  There is no defined list. The terms of the Common Position imposing the travel ban allow Member States to grant exemptions on the grounds of"humanitarian need, including religious obligation, or on the grounds attending meetings of international bodies or conducting political dialogue that promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe".

  In practice, EU Member States examine visa applications from banned Zimbabweans on a case-by-case basis and consult other partners before reaching a final decision.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date his Department was contacted by the French authorities concerning the visit of the Zimbabwean Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri; and what response his Department gave to the French. [59198]

  Mr. Straw
  We understand that Chihuri entered France on a single-entry 10-day visa on 11 May and returned to Zimbabwe on 20 May.

  The French authorities alerted EU partners to Chihuri's application for a visa on 27 March. They explained that they were obliged under Article 15 of the Interpol Accord to allow Chihuri, a Vice-President representing Africa on Interpol's Executive Committee, to attend the organisation's 14–16 May meeting. The French authorities noted that the exemptions allowed under the EU travel ban include permission for banned individuals to attend international meetings of this kind.

  My Department accepted the legal basis of the French request, but asked the French authorities to attach maximum restrictive conditions to Chihuri's entry visa and, where possible, to restrict his movements on EU soil to the immediate vicinity of the Interpol meeting.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has received from European Government representatives since 11 March concerning Zimbabwean Ministers attending meetings in Europe, while they are on the EU sanctions list. [58960]

  Mr. Straw
  The terms of the EU travel ban allow banned individuals to attend meetings of international organisations based in Europe which are subject to established treaty arrangements. These may effectively require a host country to allow access irrespective of any ban.
  1174W
  France informed EU partners on 27 March that Augustine Chihuri had applied to attend an Interpol meeting in Lyon from 14 to 16 May, and again on 23 May that he had applied to attend another meeting from 18 to 20 June. France noted its obligation under the Interpol Accord to allow national representatives to attend meetings at the headquarters of this international organisation. France issued him a restrictive, single entry 10-day visa for the May meetings, and a five-day visa for the June meeting. Spain has reported an application from Chihuri to enter Spain following the June meeting. This application has been refused.

  France also reported a request from Zimbabwean officials on behalf of Robert Mugabe, Elliot Manyika, Elisha Muzonzini and Stanislaus Mudenge for permission to enter France while transitting Paris airport en route from New York on the weekend of 11 May. The request was turned down. Germany informed partners on 27 May that Stanislaus Mudenge had applied to enter Germany on private business. The application was turned down.

  Italy alerted partners on 29 May and 5 June to requests from Robert Mugabe, Stanislaus Mudenge, Elliot Manyika, George Charamba and Joseph Made for permission to attend the UN Food Summit in Rome from 10 to 13 June. Italy noted its obligation to allow these individuals entry to attend this UN summit. They are likely to be given a five-day single entry visa.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long the Zimbabwean Police Commissioner Augustine Chihuri was in the European Union. [59197]

  Mr. Straw
  We understand that Chihuri entered France on a single-entry 10-day visa on 11 May and returned to Zimbabwe on 20 May.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has recently discussed with the Argentine Government a change in sovereign status of the Falkland Islands. [58954]

  Mr. Straw
  The British Government have no doubt about their sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and have held no recent meetings with Argentina about the future status of the Islands.

  United Kingdom Overseas Territories
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the constitutional position of(a) the Falkland Islands and (b) Gibraltar. [58955]

  Mr. Straw
  The constitutional position of the Falkland Islands is expressed in the preamble to Chapter 1 of the 1985 Falkland Islands Constitution Order. In the case of Gibraltar this is expressed in the preamble to the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution Order. The constitutional positions of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands are bound by the legal frameworks in which they are set, and in this respect they are quite distinct.

  Jonathan Lincoln Brown
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations
  1175W
  his Department has made to the Government of Oman about a constituent, Jonathan Lincoln Brown; and if he will make a statement. [58932]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Mr. Brown is involved in a private legal dispute. We have assisted him where we properly can in a number of matters. These included representations to the Omani Government requesting them to consider Mr. Brown's case compassionately because of his mother's ill health and subsequent death. Our ambassador raised the case with the Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The embassy were also instrumental in ensuring Mr. Brown received an appeal date. We remain in contact with Mr. Brown and are providing all proper consular assistance.

  Afghanistan
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date his Department received reports and representations from the International Committee of the Red Cross regarding the conditions of fighters held in Shibergan prison in Afghanistan; and what action his Department has taken. [58844]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I understand that this Department did not receive any representations from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) regarding the conditions of fighters held in Shiberghan prison in Afghanistan.

  Our Embassy staff in Kabul are in frequent contact with the ICRC, which monitors closely the situation and welfare of all prisoners in Afghanistan. The ICRC is concerned about conditions in the camp. A number of prisoners have been released since February, but the prison continues to hold some 1,600 men (it was designed to hold 1,000). The ICRC began a feeding programme for prisoners in mid-April.

  Throughout the conflict last autumn, we urged the Northern Alliance to respect international human rights laws, including the Geneva Conventions, and to treat humanely all those who surrendered and were taken prisoner. Since then, we have made clear to the Afghan Interim Administration that we expect them to respect their international obligations, including to treat their prisoners humanely.

  The former Foreign Office Minister with responsibility for South Asia, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, raised our concerns most recently on 27 May, when he discussed the reported mistreatment of prisoners with the Afghan Foreign Minister, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. The US$4.5 billion pledged by the international community for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan over the next five years should help to improve conditions across the country, including in prisons. The Afghan Interim Administration has asked General Dostum, the regional commander with responsibility for the camp, to ensure that conditions at Shiberghan are improved swiftly.

  Kaliningrad
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on co-operation between Kaliningrad and the European Union. [59368]
  1176W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government recognise that Kaliningrad is a significant issue in the EU-Russia relationship.

  The EU recognises also the impact that enlargement will have on Kaliningrad. Due to concerns over illegal migration, the EU has made clear that visa-free transit will no longer be possible between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia after Poland and Lithuania have joined the European Union.

  The Union has therefore developed a package of assistance: to facilitate the issuing of visas; to promote workable border arrangements; and to support Kaliningrad's economic development. This assistance is intended to help Kaliningrad benefit from the opportunities offered by EU enlargement. Implementation of this package will depend on overall agreement between the EU and Russia. The issue was discussed at the EU-Russia summit on 29 May. Expert level contacts between the two sides will continue.

  Angola
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department has taken since 5 April to help the implementation of the ceasefire agreement between the Government of Angola and the UNITA rebels; what reports he has received from his staff in the area about possible problems; what representations he has made to the Government of Angola with respect to creating a lasting peace; and if he will make a statement. [58908]

  Mr. MacShane
  We are in close contact with the Angolan Government, from President dos Santos down. We discussed the latest developments with Foreign Minister Miranda in London in March. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development held follow-up discussions in Luanda in April. We are also in touch with Ibrahim Gambari, the UN Secretary General's Special Adviser on Africa (including talks on 6 June), and with our EU colleagues, with the aim of encouraging transparent dialogue between all parties.

  There have been reports that quartering areas are over-stretched and unable to meet the basic welfare needs of former UNITA troops and their families. We have played a leading role with other donors to encourage the UN and Government of Angola to overcome earlier co-ordination problems and to agree roles and responsibilities in the quartering areas. The UN has now begun work on implementing relief activity, within guidelines agreed with the Angolan government. Her Majesty's Government are contributing $1 million to the UN's office for the co-ordination of humanitarian affairs (OCHA) in Angola. It is important that the Angolan Government fulfils its own stated obligations and that it continues to co-operate fully with the international community, particularly on the humanitarian relief agenda.

  European Council (Seville)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's
  1177W
  priorities are for the European Council's meeting at Seville; by what standards he will judge the success of the meeting; and if he will make a statement. [59101]

  Peter Hain
  We want Seville to give fresh impetus to the EU's work to combat illegal immigration, by strengthening the EU's borders, enhancing our work with source countries in tackling the causes and consequences of illegal migration, and focusing the EU's policies and resources more sharply. We also want Seville to agree a package of reforms to the workings of the Council, to improve its efficiency and make it more transparent to the citizen. In addition, Heads of State and Government will discuss enlargement, in particular how to communicate its benefits more effectively to public opinion; other aspects of the future of Europe debate; sustainable development; a range of economic and social topics to continue to deliver the Lisbon agenda; and a number of CFSP issues.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the Government will be putting forward on the reform of the European Union's rotating presidency to the European Council's meeting at Seville; and if he will make a statement. [59099]

  Peter Hain
  The Government would like agreement at the Seville European Council on practical steps to improve the way the Council works. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out some concrete ideas in his joint letter to Prime Minster Aznar with Chancellor Schroder in February. Seville, however, cannot agree changes to the rotating presidency system: such changes would require amendments to the Union's treaties; these can only be agreed at an Intergovernmental Conference (expected to take place in 2004).

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's aims are for the promotion of environmental strategies in the European Union's external responsibilities at the European Council's meeting at Seville; and if he will make a statement. [59100]

  Peter Hain
  The Government want the European Council in Seville to elaborate the external dimension of the EU's sustainable development strategy. This strategy aims to strike a balance between the environmental, economic and social objectives of society, in order to maximise well-being in the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. We want the EU to agree a set of priority objectives, with related targets and actions. These should include improving coherence between its internal and external policies and addressing developing country concerns such as market access. A commitment at Seville will demonstrate the EU's engagement with the global agenda for sustainable development, poverty eradication and achieving the UN's Millennium Development Goals.

  The European Council is also the opportunity for the EU to make a clear statement on sustainable development and to prepare for the forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg later this year. We favour decisions by the Council on the EU's top priorities for political agreement at Johannesburg, such as initiatives on freshwater and sanitation, and sustainable energy.

  Press and Public Relations
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much expenditure his Department has incurred in 1997–98 on employing external consultants to deal with the press or public relations of his Department. [59497]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 24 January 2002,Official Report, column 999W.

  That answer covered the period 1998–2002. In 1997–98, the British Council paid £23,500 to a consultancy which looked at the British Council brand development and identity.

  Tibet
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times in the last three years he has met his Chinese counterpart to discuss Tibet. [59597]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has met his Chinese counterpart, Tang Jiaxuan, several times in the last three years to discuss issues of international and bilateral concern. He has raised our concerns over Tibet twice, most recently in January this year.

  Uzbekistan
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK observers were(a) sent by his Department and (b) part of international missions to Uzbekistan on 5 December 1999; and if he will make a statement. [59686]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Neither the Foreign and Commonwealth Office nor the OSCE sent observers to Uzbekistan for the parliamentary elections on 5 December 1999. No other international missions were deployed.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK observers were present in Uzbekistan on 27 January; and if he will make a statement. [59683]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK did not send official observers to the national referendum, which took place in Uzbekistan on 27 January 2002. However, the Government of Uzbekistan invited two UK nationals in a private capacity.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports have been received by his Department on human rights in Uzbekistan since April 1997; and if he will make a statement. [59688]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) receives regular reporting on human rights in Uzbekistan from our embassy in Tashkent. The embassy closely monitors the human rights situation in the country and is in regular contact with the leaders of independent human rights organisations and international NGOs based there. The FCO also receives information direct from human rights organisations. For example, in January, Human Rights Watch wrote to the Department outlining concerns about human rights in Uzbekistan. In
  1179W
  the same month, the UK ensured that issues highlighted by Human Rights Watch were raised at the EU-Uzbekistan Cooperation Council.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when representations have been made by(a) his Department and (b) UK diplomatic staff in Tashkent to the Government of Uzbekistan concerning human rights since April 1997; and if he will make a statement. [59687]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) frequently raises human rights concerns with the Ambassador of Uzbekistan in London. It also contributes to EU statements and raises human rights issues and individual cases together with EU partners at the OSCE.

  In Tashkent, the embassy monitors the human rights situation and maintains a close dialogue with human rights groups. General human rights concerns and individual cases are raised by senior FCO officials visiting Uzbekistan and by the British Ambassador. The embassy also makes representations with EU colleagues.

  UK diplomatic staff regularly remind Uzbekistan of its international obligations under the OSCE charter and the EU Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, as well as under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Uzbekistan signed in 1995.

  The UK has carried out, with the cooperation of the Uzbekistan authorities, a number of projects to improve human rights, including most recently a project to install electronic recording equipment in courtrooms.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK observers were present at the presidential elections in Uzbekistan on 9 January 2000; and if he will make a statement. [59684]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK did not send official observers to the presidential elections which took place in Uzbekistan on 9 January 2000.

  UN Conventions (Terrorism)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) 12 UN conventions related to terrorism and (b) countries that have both signed and ratified all 12 conventions. [60778]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The twelve UN conventions related to terrorism are:Convention and Certain Other Offences Committed on Board Aircraft (Tokyo 14/06/63)
  Convention for the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (The Hague 16/ 12/70)
  Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Aircraft (Montreal 23/09/71)
  Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Personnel (New York 14/12/73)
  Convention Against the Taking of Hostages (New York 17/12/79)
  Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials (Vienna 03/03/80)
  1180W
  Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence at Airports Serving International Aviation, complementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Aircraft (Montreal 24/02/88)
  Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (Rome 10/03/88)
  Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Fixed Platforms on the Continental Shelf (Rome 10/03/88)
  Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection (Montreal 01/03/91)
  UN Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (New York 15/12/97)
  UN Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism (New York 09/12/99).
  The states which have signed and acceded to all 12 Conventions and Protocols are: Canada, Chile, the Netherlands, Peru, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

  We have placed in the House Library details of the status of state's accession to each UN Convention or Protocol.

  European Union Business
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for June and (b) major European Union events for the period between 1 July and November. [61249]

  Peter Hain
  The information is as follows.

  4 June—ECOFIN—Brussels

  1. Adoption of the agenda

  2. (poss.) Approval of the list of "A" items

  3. Preparation of the Seville European Council

  Council report on Broad Economic Policy and Guidelines

  Council report on administrative co-operation in tax matters

  4. (poss.) Recasting of the Financial Regulation

  5. Macro-financial assistance

  Policy debate

  6. Directive on prospectuses

  Policy debate

  7. (poss.) Directive on Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision

  Political agreement

  8. Sixth half-yearly Commission report on the Financial Services Action Plan

  9. Tax Matters

  Tax Package

  Savings taxation

  Report on dependent or associated territories

  Report on negotiations with third States

  Code of Conduct: progress report

  (poss.) Taxation of biofuels

  Political agreement

  (poss.) Energy taxation

  Administrative co-operation in tax matters

  Council conclusions

  VAT treatment of cross-border motor vehicle leasing

  10. Methods of evaluating output gaps

  11. Advantages of the different types of pension schemes

  12. Other business

  1181W
  6–7 June—Industry and Energy Council—Brussels

  1. Approval of provisional agenda

  2. (poss.) Approval of the list of "A" items

  3. Competitiveness and enterprise policy in the EU

  (a) Commission communication "Productivity: the key to competitiveness"—annual Commission report on competitiveness (2002)

  Presentation by the Commission and discussion

  Council conclusions

  (b) Communication from the Commission on the impact of the e-Economy on European businesses: economic analysis and political implications 14748/01 ECO 367

  Council conclusions

  (c) Report on the European Charter for Small Enterprises: Follow-up to the Barcelona European Council on 15 and 16 March 2002

  Presidency briefing 6125/02 ECO 38

  4. Sustainable development

  (a) Strategy for chemicals

  Commission briefing

  (b) Contribution of enterprise policy to sustainable development

  Discussion

  Council conclusions

  5. Steel

  (a) Expiry of the ECSC treaty

  Commission briefing

  (b) Situation on the world steel market

  Commission briefing

  6. (poss.) Shipbuilding

  (a) Fifth report from the Commission to the Council on the situation in world shipbuilding

  Presentation by the Commission 8689/02 RC 6

  (b) Proposal for a Council regulation concerning a temporary defensive mechanism inn shipbuilding (LA)(*) (Articles 87(3) and 89 of the treaty) 11335/01 RC 14 WTO 83

  7. Competition

  (a) Proposal for a Council regulation on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the treaty and amending regulations (EEC) No. 1017/68, (EEC) No. 2988/74. (EEC) No. 4056/86 and (EEC) No. 3975/87

  Progress report

  (b) XXXIst Commission report on Competition Policy 2001

  Presentation by the Commission 8455/02 RC 4

  8. (poss.) Reduction/re-orientation of public aid, State-aid scoreboard-spring 2002 edition

  Presentation by the Commission

  9. Life sciences and biotechnology—A strategy for Europe

  Council conclusions 6415/02 RECH 40 ENV 103 CONSOM 14 SAN 24 DEVGEN 15 MI 31 IND 23 AGRI 43 SOC 87 RELEX 27 EDUC 30 AG 6

  10. Euromed—industrial cooperation

  Presidency briefing on the outcome of the Ministerial Conference in Malaga on 9 and 10 April 2002 7922/02 ECO 116 MED 30

  11. G1O medicinal products

  Report from the High-Level Working Party on innovation and the supply of medicinal products

  Commission briefing

  1182W

  Energy (7 June 2002)

  12. Proposal for a Council regulation on state aid to the coal industry after the expiry of the ECSC treaty (LA) (*) (Articles 87 and 89 TEC)

  Political agreement

  13. Internal market in electricity and gas

  (a) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 96/92/EC and 98/30/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and natural gas (LA) (*) (Article 95 TEC)

  Political agreement

  (b) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity (LA) (Article 95 TEC)

  Progress report

  14. Proposal for an amendment to the Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision 1254/96/EC laying down a series of guidelines for trans-European energy networks (LA) (Article 196 TEC)

  General approach

  15. Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of the use of biofuels for transport (LA) (Article 175 TEC)

  General approach

  16. Energy Charter

  Progress report

  17. Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council adopting a multi-annual programme for action in the field of energy: "Intelligent Energy for Europe" Programme (2003–2006) (LA) (Article 175 TEC)

  Presentation by the Commission

  18. Security of energy supply

  Commission briefing on follow-up to consultations on the Green Paper on security of supply

  Other business

  Other business

  3—Brussels—Employment and Social Affairs Council

  3—Brussels—Eurogroup (evening)

  4—Brussels—ECOFIN

  6–7—Brussels—Convention on the Future of Europe—Plenary Session

  6–7—Madrid—EU—ASEM meeting (EU 15)

  6–8—Brussels—Foreign Affairs (ASEM Ministers)

  10–11—Brussels—General Affairs Council

  10–11—Brussels—Agriculture Council

  11—Brussels—Fisheries Council

  13–14—Brussels—Justice and Home Affairs Council

  17–18—Brussels—Transport and Telecommunications Council

  17–18—Brussels—General Affairs Council

  21–22—Seville—European Council

  24–Brussels—General Affairs Council (evening)

  24–25—Brussels—Convention on the Future of Europe—Plenary Session

  24–25—Brussels—Environment Council

  25—Brussels—ECOFIN

  26—Brussels—Health Council

  The following are the principal events in the EU between 1 July and November 2002. The list is based on the information available at the date of issue.
  1183W

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  July

  12–13

  Kolding

  Meeting of Employment and Social Policy Ministers (Informal)

  15–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  19

  Brussels

  Budget Meeting

  19–21

  Århus

  Environment Ministers meeting (Informal)

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  August

  31–1

  Elsinore

  Gymnich (Ministerial Informal)

  September

  6

  Brussels

  ASEM Economic Ministers Meeting

  6–8

  Copenhagen

  ECOFIN (Ministerial Informal)

  8–10

  Nyborg

  Agriculture Council (Ministerial Informal)

  12–13

  Copenhagen

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Ministerial Informal)

  22–23

  Copenhagen

  ASEM Meeting

  23–24

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  26

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Tourism Council

  27

  Tent

  ACP-EU Ministers Meeting

  30

  Brussels

  Research Council

  30–1

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  October

  3–4

  Brussels

  Transport and Telecommunications Council

  8

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  October

  8

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Policy Council

  14

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  14–15

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs, and Civil Protection Council

  15–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  17

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  18–19

  Aalborg

  Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Industry Meeting (Ministerial Informal)

  21–22

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  European Council

  November

  1

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  2

  Brussels

  ECOFIN—Troika meeting on Macro-Economic Dialogue

  12

  Brussels

  Education and Youth Council

  14–15

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumer Affairs and Youth Council

  18

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  18–19

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  19–20

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  22

  Brussels

  Development Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  Budget [Council]

  25–26

  Brussels

  Industry and Energy Council

  28–29

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs, and Civil Protection Council

SCOTLAND

  East Coast Main Line
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Strategic Rail Authority about improvements to the east coast main line north of Edinburgh. [57382]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My predecessor and Scotland Office officials met with senior management from the Strategic Rail Authority on 16 May. They discussed a range of issues including matters relative to the east coast main line north of Edinburgh.

  It was clear from the meeting that Richard Bowker leads a senior management team with a vision and commitment to improve rail services, knowledge of the rail system, and a pragmatic approach to getting the job done.

  National Minimum Wage
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland benefit from the national minimum wage. [57383]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Some 110,000 people across Scotland have benefited from the national minimum wage since it was introduced in April 1999.

  Economic Trends
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on business growth and inward investment in Scotland. [57384]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Business support is devolved and policy responsibility rests with the Scottish Executive with delivery through the enterprise networks in Scotland. Scottish Development International will be publishing its latest annual inward investment results later this year.
  1185W
  This Government have put in place macroeconomic policies which are delivering economic stability, low inflation and low interest rates—providing a platform for business growth and confidence.

  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning; and if she will make a statement on prospects for economic prosperity with reference to inward investment. [57389]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I meet with Ministers of the Scottish Executive on a regular basis.

  The UK economy coped well with the challenges posed by the world economic slowdown in 2001 and grew by 2.25 per cent. in 2001—the fastest of any G7 economy. The UK fundamentals remain strong—with the UK on course for sustained growth with low inflation. Scottish Development International., which is responsible to the Scottish Executive, will be publishing its latest annual inward investment results later this year.

  Air Links
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on progress made on expanding direct air links from Scottish airports to European destinations. [57385]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government, together with the Scottish Executive, will shortly publish a regional consultation document on air services in Scotland. This will set out the options for development of Scotland's airports and air services for the next 30 years.

  Over the past year I have held meetings with the airlines, business organisations in Scotland and with the airport operators and tourism authorities with the aim of stimulating a response to the demand for more direct flights.

  Scottish Tourism
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps she is taking to promote Scottish tourism. [57386]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I am undertaking a wide range of events to assist in promoting tourism to Scotland. On 15 May I hosted a reception for the overseas and UK managers of the BTA. On 26 June, I will join my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Secretary of State for Wales in hosting a reception at Dover House to thank the partners of the BTA for their contribution to the one million extra visitors advertising campaign.

  My Friends of Scotland team work very closely with the BTA and VisitScotland to ensure that the tourism message is a key part of my efforts to promote Scotland around the world.

  Customs Officers
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last discussed the deployment of customs officers in remote areas of Scotland with Treasury Ministers. [57387]
  1186W
  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend has frequent discussions with Treasury Ministers on a wide range of issues.

  Broadband Coverage
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what joint initiatives she has launched with the Scottish Executive to increase the coverage of broadband in Scotland. [57388]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The UK Government work closely with the Scottish Executive to ensure that reserved and devolved responsibilities relating to the extension of broadband coverage in Scotland are co-ordinated.

  The Government have made available a £30 million fund for broadband, of which the Scottish Executive will receive £4.4 million to promote affordable pervasive access to broadband connections across Scotland.

  Economic Development
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has for increased public expenditure on economic development in Scotland. [57390]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government provided a substantial increase for public expenditure in Scotland in the 2002 Budget. Scotland will receive annual increases ranging from £224 million in 2003–04 to £3.2 billion in 2007–08. Economic development is a devolved matter and it is for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament to decide on the allocation of resources according to their own priorities for Scotland.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues about the regulation of firework sales. [57391]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Government is aware about concerns in this area and is carefully considering what action should be taken.

  Enterprise
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what joint initiatives she has launched with the Scottish Executive to encourage enterprise in Scotland. [57392]

  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what joint initiatives she has launched with the Scottish Executive to encourage enterprise in Scotland. [57397]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scotland Office continues to promote joint working between the Government and the Scottish Executive across a wide range of issues where there are shared or complementary interests, including matters which will encourage enterprise.

  Business Links (Europe)
  Rosemary McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent steps she has taken to further the interests of Scottish business within the European Union. [57393]
  1187W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The EU is Scotland's most important export market representing 63 per cent. of Scottish manufactured exports. I have regular discussions both with business organisations and within Government to ensure that Scottish business benefits from membership of the EU.

  Asset Seizures
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the action being taken to seize the assets of major drug dealers in Scotland. [57394]

  Mrs. McGuire
  We are determined to put in place even stronger seizure and confiscation procedures than currently exist and the Proceeds of Crime Bill, once law, will achieve that. This is a top priority and I will be working with Home Office and Scottish Executive colleagues to ensure the overall anti-drugs messages are effective.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry concerning deregulation of postal deliveries in Scotland. [57395]

  Mrs. McGuire
  None. Regulation of postal services in Scotland is a matter for Postcomm.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the reform of postal services in Scotland. [57400]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer

  I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), Official Report, column 703.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she will next meet representatives from Consignia to discuss the reform of Scotland's postal services. [57401]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I have no immediate plans to meet with representatives from Consignia. However, I am in touch on a regular basis with a wide range of individuals and organisations in relation to postal services in Scotland.

  Military Bases
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she next expects to meet MOD officials to discuss military bases in Scotland. [57396]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend has regular contact with the Ministry of Defence to discuss a wide range of issues, including military bases in Scotland.

  In 2000 (the latest year for which figures are available) the total deployment of defence personnel in Scotland was 24,400 of whom 15,100 were service personnel and 9,300 were civilian employees. This represents around 9.2 per cent. of UK defence personnel deployment.

  Pensioner Income
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to meet representatives of pensioners in Scotland to discuss the uptake of minimum income guarantee and the pensions credit. [57398]
  1188W
  Mrs. McGuire
  I will be speaking at the Scottish Pensioners' Forum annual conference on 18 June in Dundee.

  National Security
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will list her responsibilities in relation to national security. [57399]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have no specific responsibilities for national security other than those discharged collectively through Cabinet and my membership of the Civil Contingencies Committee.

  Asbestos
  Jim Sheridan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on delays in payment of compensation to those with asbestos-related diseases in Scotland and the action taken by her to reduce delays. [57402]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I held a meeting on 24 April to discuss delays in dealing with claims against Chester Street. I have also issued a newsletter to all Scottish MPs. Progress is being made and a Service Standard has been laid down for dealing with Chester Street claims. Under this Service Standard, where damages are agreed and payment is due from the Association of British Insurers or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, claims will be processed and paid within 25 working days. This timetable is dependent on documents requiring a claimant's signature being returned promptly.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the aggregates tax as it affects quarrying in Scotland. [57403]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The levy came into effect on 1 April 2002. It has been introduced to address the environmental impacts of the extraction and transportation of aggregates, including noise, dust, vibration, visual intrusion, loss of biodiversity and amenity. The levy will result in prices for primary aggregates which better reflect these environmental costs, and so encourage both the use of recycled aggregates as an alternative and more efficient use of aggregates.

  Part of the revenue from the aggregates levy will be used to establish the new Sustainability Fund, which will promote environmentally beneficial practices such as the use of recycled aggregate. Scotland stands to benefit from some £3 million from the fund.

CABINET OFFICE

  Refurbishment (22 Whitehall)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Cabinet Office when he will complete the inquiry into the procurement of timber for the refurbishment project of 22 Whitehall. [57131]

  Mr. Alexander
  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister stated to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on 14 May 2002,
  1189W
  Official Report, column 567W, an initial report has been received and there will be a report to the House when the report is finalised.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Cabinet Office what the median length of time has been between the departure of a chief executive and the commencement in post of a successor for all non-departmental public bodies since 1997. [59715]

  Mr. Alexander
  Following the machinery of Government changes announced by the Prime Minister on 29 May, none of the non-departmental public bodies for which the Cabinet Office is responsible require a chief executive or equivalent.

  Parliamentary Ombudsman
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Cabinet Office what instructions are given to officials on responding to requests for papers by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. [605781

  Mr. Alexander
  Guidance to officials on responding to requests for papers by the Parliamentary Ombudsman is set out in 'Handling of Parliamentary Ombudsman Cases.'

  'The Ombudsman in Your Files, the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information' and guidance on its interpretation are also relevant.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Information Technology
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on the use of IT in the court system. [574121

  Yvette Cooper
  Current IT systems in the courts are relatively old, limited in their scope and in their ability to communicate with IT in other parts of the justice system.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department has started a programme of IT modernisation to improve service to users of the justice system and to meet the e-Government targets set by the Prime Minister.

  The first step in this process is well under way with the introduction of a modern IT infrastructure and is 75 per cent. complete in the magistrates courts. Subject to funding, it will be completed in 2004 for the Crown and civil courts.

  Justice of the Peace
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement about the nationality requirements for appointment as a justice of the peace. [57413]

  Yvette Cooper
  As the hon. Member may know, my noble and learned Friend recently discovered that 22 people have been appointed as magistrates contrary to the nationality requirements of the Act of Settlement 1701. This Act requires people seeking a place of trust under the Crown to hold citizenship of Britain, Eire or a Commonwealth country. We are considering ways to allow the 22 people to return to sitting at the earliest opportunity.

  King Edward VIII
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will arrange for the release of official papers relating to the abdication of King Edward VIII. [57416]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the number of written questions I have answered on this subject. Any official papers relating to the abdication of King Edward VIII will need to be re-reviewed by Departments. It is hoped that the results of the review will be known and put into effect by the end of the year.

  Queen's Counsel System
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement about reform of the QC system. [57417]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Queen's Counsel system is one of a number of issues relating to the legal profession raised in the OFT report, which fall to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to consider. The Government plan to consult on those issues before the summer recess.

  Magistrates Courts
  David Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has for the rural magistrates court network. [57418]

  Yvette Cooper
  Magistrates courts committees (MCCs) are taking account of the need of rural users in the delivery of their services, by taking forward the rural proofing initiative, as set out in the rural White Paper. The Countryside Agency's rural proofing checklist was sent to all 42 MCCs in May 2001, to encourage MCCs to take into account the interests of rural communities when developing or implementing existing or new policy.

  Furthermore, my Department has been and continues to work closely with the Countryside Agency and the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, to put in place protocols to ensure that rural proofing options are carefully considered, before any decisions on the future of magistrates courts are concluded.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she next expects to meet representatives of the magistracy to discuss magistrates courts in small towns. [57422]

  Yvette Cooper
  My predecessor my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) said in the debates on 1 May and 15 May that he would meet representatives of the magistracy to discuss magistrates' courts in Essex and Wiltshire. My office is in the process of arranging these meetings, but no dates have yet been confirmed.

  Witness Protection
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the Government's policy on the protection of witnesses on court premises. [57419]
  1191W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Government's policy is to provide adequate protection for witnesses on court premises to allow them to give their best evidence.

  The Court Service recognises that while witnesses are on court premises we have a responsibility to do what we can to prevent intimidation. For example, in all 67 designated street crime courts witnesses use a separate entrance or are segregated immediately on arrival. Provision for segregated waiting arrangements are made, as well as for separate catering and toilets to be used.

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Services
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions the Lord Chancellor has had with the National Assembly for Wales about the operation of CAFCASS in Wales. [57420]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  None. Since the creation of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS), representatives of CAFCASS at board and director level have met, among others, the Assembly Minister for Health and Social Services, Jane Hutt, and the Heads of Government Offices in Wales. The director and members of CAFCASS (Cymru) have also attended a number of conferences organised by the National Assembly for Wales.

  Court Sittings
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action the Lord Chancellor's Department will take to facilitate the extension of court sitting hours in selected areas to deal with street crime; and if she will make a statement. [57421]

  Yvette Cooper
  Extended court hours are currently being piloted in certain Magistrates courts in areas of high street crime, in London and Manchester. On completion of the four month pilot period at the end of September we will assess whether such an approach is a cost-effective means of reducing delays and best serves the needs of victims and witnesses, and in the light of that assessment will consider its possible extension to other criminal courts.

  Court Reform
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, (1) pursuant to the answer of 20 March 2002,Official Report, column 414W, if she will make a further statement on her plans to reform (a) criminal and (b) magistrates court; [60191]

  (2) what plans she has to introduce a White Paper on the reform of (a) criminal and (b) magistrates courts; when she intends to publish that White Paper; and if she will make a statement. [60192]

  Yvette Cooper
  Sir Robin Auld's Review of the Criminal Courts in England and Wales makes wide-ranging recommendations. The period for comment closed on 31 January. The Government have taken no decisions on the report and are now considering the recommendations in detail, taking account of the 1192W
  comments received. The Government will announce their conclusions by way of a White Paper before the summer recess.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations she has had from(a) magistrates and (b) magistrates courts committees, following her review of the criminal and magistrates courts system; and if she will a statement. [60193]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have received nearly 500 responses. On behalf of(a) magistrates, we have received responses from over 60 individuals who identified themselves as magistrates; and (b) of the 42 magistrates courts committee areas representations have been received from 37 areas.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the mandate of the Committee on the service in the member states of judicial and extrajudicial documents and on co-operation between the courts of the member states in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [58451]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are two separate committees, one relating to the regulation on the service in the member states of judicial and extrajudicial documents and the other relating to the regulation on co-operation between the courts of the member states in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters. The former has met once in the last year to provide information to bring the regulation into force. No further meetings have been scheduled. The UK was represented by an official from the Lord Chancellor's Department and another from the Scottish Executive. The cost of attendance at this meeting was approximately £400. The latter will not meet until after the Regulation applies from 1 January 2004. It will meet only when it is necessary to review the standard forms in the annexe to the regulation. As both committees are responsible only for the implementation of regulations that have already been subject to parliamentary scrutiny there are no plans to change the accountability or transparency of either.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the mandate of the Committee on the jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses and on the jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I and II) is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if she will list the items currently under its consideration; if she will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if she will make a statement. [58452]
  1193W
  Yvette Cooper
  The committees which considered the two conventions mentioned (Brussels I and II) concluded their work over a year ago and are no longer in existence. Neither committee met within the last 12 months.

  Mortgage Defaults
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many court repossessions of homes because of default on mortgages there have been in each of the last 20 years. [58666]

  Yvette Cooper
  Specific reasons for the instigation of mortgage possession proceedings in the county courts are not collected centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost to the Department. However, for information purposes, figures are provided in the table illustrating the number of possession warrants executed as a percentage of orders made for both mortgage and rent possessions. It is not currently possible to split the warrants executed figure into mortgage and rent components.

  Mortgage and rent possession actions—possession orders and warrants issued and executed

  Mortgage and rent possession actions

  Possession warrants:

  Warrants executed as percentage of:

  Possession orders made1

  Issued

  Executed

  Orders made

  Warrants issued

  2001

  158,857

  133,500

  65,620

  41.3

  49.2

  2000

  161,746

  134,478

  61,581

  38.1

  45.8

  1999

  171,518

  136,718

  68,723

  40.1

  50.3

  1998

  178,291

  129,961

  59,701

  33.5

  45.9

  1997

  157,025

  115,646

  49,865

  31.8

  43.1

  1996

  159,052

  111,473

  48,587

  30.5

  43.6

  1995

  157,857

  117,301

  51,096

  32.4

  43.6

  1994

  141,242

  115,688

  49,222

  34.8

  42.5

  1993

  188,007

  124,271

  51,333

  27.3

  41.3

  1992

  223,839

  124,211

  62,439

  27.9

  50.3

  1991

  237,918

  133,101

  61,139

  25.7

  45.9

  1990

  216,288

  106,980

  41,799

  19.3

  39.1

  1989

  164,843

  85,310

  29,287

  17.8

  34.3

  1988

  117,879

  70,121

  28,588

  24.3

  40.8

  1987

  101,340

  66,813

  30,092

  29.7

  45.0

  1986

  91,091

  59,971

  30,302

  33.3

  50.5

  1985

  82,516

  53,172

  26,116

  31.6

  49.1

  1984

  79,917

  49,563

  23,934

  29.9

  48.3

  1983

  87,748

  45,817

  20,373

  23.2

  44.5

  1982

  106,555

  50,711

  20,951

  19.7

  41.3

  1 Includes suspended orders

  Funding (Luton, South)
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what moneys have been provided(a) directly and (b) via agencies for which the Department has responsibility to the Luton, South constituency since 1997. [58593]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Land Sales
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the land that her Department is(a) offering for sale and (b) plans to offer in the next 12 months, giving its (i) location and (ii) size. [59061]
  1194W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Lord Chancellor's Department currently has(a) no land which is offered for sale and (b) no plans to offer any land for sale in the next 12 months.

  Celebrations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements her Department has made to celebrate(a) St Patrick's Day, (h) St George's Day, (c) St Andrew's Day and (d) Her Majesty the Queen's Golden Jubilee; and how her Department celebrated St David's Day. [42304]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise for the delay in replying. This was due to an administrative oversight. I refer the hon. Member to the reply the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport gave to the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) in response to his question of 30 January 2002,Official Report, 11 February 2002, columns 58–59W.

  The Department flies the Union flag on certain days of the year known as 'named days'. 'Named days' include St David's Day (in Wales), St George's Day (in England), St Andrew's Day (in Scotland), but not St Patrick's Day.

  The Union flag was flown on Coronation Day (2 June) as this was a 'named day'.

  Supreme Court
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on her policy on a separate new Supreme Court; and if she will make a statement. [57695]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government do not believe that a sufficient case has been made for the abolition of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and its replacement by a separate new Supreme Court.

  Youth Court
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment the Department has made of the effect on the attendance of witnesses of youth court adjournments. [60327]

  Yvette Cooper
  A joint monitoring scheme with the Crown Prosecution Service and other criminal justice agencies began on 1 April in all magistrates courts. This collects data for all adjourned trials including youth cases, and includes the attendance of witnesses. The first quarterly figures will be available in July 2002. The Crown court also operates a similar monitoring scheme. The data will inform a research project, planned to start later this year, to investigate the effect of trial adjournments on witness attendance. It will include youth cases.

  Correspondence
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what targets her Department and the agencies it sponsors have for responding to correspondence(a) from hon. Members and (b) from members of the public; and what her Department's performance against such targets has been for each of the last 36 months in both categories. [31006]
  1195W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Pursuant to my reply of 26 March 2002,Official Report, columns 842–44, I regret that the information provided for Court Service HQ for I April 2001 to 31 December 2001 was incorrect. The 1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001 figure of 94 per cent.

  Percentage of correspondence from MPs answered within target

  Per cent.

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001

  LCD Headquarters

  88

  76

  73

  75

  Land Registry1

  100

  91

  93

  79

  Public Trust Office2

  99

  83

  78

  Public Guardianship Office

  52

  Public Record Office

  100

  100

  96

  100

  Court Service HQ3

  99

  93

  94

  74

  1 Figures for the Land Registry are for the calendar years 1998, 1999 and 2000.

  2 The Public Guardianship Office was created on I April 2001 when the Public Trust Office ceased to exist.

  3 The Court Service target in 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 was 20 working days and was tightened to 15 days from 1 April 2001. The percentage figure for 1 April 2001 to 31 December 2001 is against the 15 day target.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lakshmi Mittal
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer by the Foreign Secretary of 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 255, on meetings with embassy staff, what the overall benefit to the United Kingdom was of the Lakshmi Mittal Romanian steel contract. [60550]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answers I gave the hon. Members for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on 14 February 2002,Official Report, columns 610–12W.

  Nepal
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the discussions he held with the Nepalese Prime Minister on his recent visit to London; and what commitments were made regarding military assistance and exports. [60628]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 20 May 2002,Official Report, column 55W.

  The United Kingdom will be hosting a conference in London in June with the aim of bringing together the international community to agree a common strategy of support for Nepal. This will address security concerns as well as the political and developmental challenges facing Nepal.

  Royal Marriages
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with his counterparts in independent countries within the Commonwealth where the Queen is head of state about providing for(a) the monarch and (b) the heir to the throne to enter into a morganatic marriage. [57415]

  The Prime Minister
  None.
  1196W
  represented performance against the previous 20 working day target and not the current 15 working day target. The table for the "Percentage of correspondence from MPs answered within target" should have read:

TREASURY

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a review date has been set when the effectiveness of the Sustainability Fund established by the Aggregates Levy will be assessed. [59402]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund will be distributed through the Countryside Agency, English Heritage, English Nature, WRAP, DTI's Construction Innovation and Research Management Programme, DTLR's Planning Research programme, Clean Up programme and Freight Facilities Grant. It will run for two years initially, with £29.3 million available each year. The fund aims to reduce damage to the environment from extracting aggregates by reducing the demand for primary aggregates, promoting more environmentally friendly extraction and transport and reducing the effect of local aggregate extraction.

  Monitoring and review arrangements will be put in place to assess the impact of the fund and help inform future decisions on how the fund works, although there is no specific review date.

  Press Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost of running the Department's press office was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [46811]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 10 April 2002]: It is not possible to separate out figures for the cost of running the press office. The number of press officers employed across this period remained broadly constant. Figures are available for the total running costs for the strategy and public inquiry unit and press office combined, which were as follows:
  1996–97: £694,419
  2000–01: £1,235,649.

  Monetary Policy Committee
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which members of(a) the Monetary Policy Committee and (b) his office had communications by (i) personal meeting, (ii) telephone call, (iii) e-mail and (iv) other forms of communications during the period 1 March 2001 to 31 March 2002; and how many such contacts occurred. [60258]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor meets with the Governor of the Bank of England regularly to discuss a wide range of issues. He does not have regular contact and there are no official meetings with other members of the MPC.

  Hospital Transport
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department will bring forward proposals to exempt VAT paid by charities on fuel for(a) the transport of out-patients to hospital in voluntary sector-run patient transport vehicles and (b) for accident and emergency transport which would otherwise be undertaken by NHS ambulance trusts. [60621]

  John Healey
  Long-standing agreements with our European partners mean that the UK may not relieve road fuel from VAT. Accident and emergency transport is undertaken only by NHS ambulance trusts.

  VAT Exemptions (Voluntary Sector)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department will bring forward proposals to exempt from VAT, projects whereby voluntary organisations in the care sector extend their building in order to take on new partnership arrangements with a local authority. [60622]

  John Healey
  Construction of new buildings and of annexes to existing buildings by charities, including those in the care sector, is already subject to a zero rate of VAT provided the building or annex is to be used for a relevant charitable purpose. The Government have no plans to extend VAT reliefs in this area.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the Inland Revenue definition of a permanent place of work in respect of those employed in the construction industry. [60549]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Employees working in the construction industry are subject to the same tax rules as other employees. We have no plans to change this.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  IRA Ceasefire
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 23 May 2002, Ref. 48766, on the IRA ceasefire, what activities(a) within and (b) outside the UK by the Provisional IRA he assessed in order to reach his determination on the level of threat to the ceasefire; and what activities he defines as constituting a breach of the ceasefire. [60259]
  1198W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State keeps the status of all paramilitary ceasefires under constant review. Any judgment on the status of an organisation's ceasefire is made in the round in the light of all the available information and taking account of the views of security advisers.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 579W, on job advertisements, what the outcome was of the advertisements placed in each case; and how many more have joined his Department's payroll as a result. [50554]

  Jane Kennedy
  As a result of the advertisements, detailed in the answer of 4 March 2002,Official Report, column 579W, all the vacancies have been filled/are in the process of being filled by successful candidates. A total of 15 new starts have so far joined the Department's payroll.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the statutory instruments issued by his Department in the last 12 months, indicating(a) the purpose of each and (b) the cost of each to (i) public funds, (ii) businesses and (iii) individuals. [36230]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is as follows:Statutory instrument—The Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) 2001

  Purpose
  This amends Part IV of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (NI9) ("the 1996 Order").
  The Order provides additional investigation powers to cover investigations into the extent or whereabouts or property held or transferred within the previous six years by or to a person who has benefited from conduct of a criminal nature. The Order also allows senior customs officers to apply for a financial investigator to be appointed and other powers to assist in the recovery of the proceeds of crime. The Order also extends a power to require information regarding money laundering and a power to require a solicitor to provide information as to whether a specified person was a client of his in respect of certain matters and about the nature of any transaction relating to them. The Order also extends the time limit for bringing summary proceedings for offences.

  Costs
  There will be a neutral impact on any public expenditure incurred on implementing the proposals, as they will be met within existing resources. It is anticipated that these proposals will result in additional revenue from the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. There will be a small impact on businesses, particularly solicitors. It is anticipated that no more than eight man hours would be required to meet an individual request from a financial investigator at £15 to £20 per hour, this suggests a maximum of £160 per request. As to the number of requests that are likely to be made on solicitors for information in a similar regime which already exists regarding banks 20 such requests have been made since 1998. There will be no financial impact on individuals.
  1199W
  Statutory Instrument—The Police (Northern Ireland) Order 2001

  Purpose
  The Order amends two provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. Section 41, which deals with trainees, is amended so that, before the Northern Ireland Policing Board is established, references to the Board are to he construed as references to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland.
  Section 76 is amended so that draft orders under section 47(3) (renewal of temporary provisions on recruitment) and 54 (emblems and flags) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the procedure provided for in section 6 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946.
  The Order also amends the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to include police trainees and police reserve trainees in the provision which exempts police officers from the need for a firearm certificate.

  Costs
  No costs to either public funds, businesses or individuals.

  Statutory Instrument—The Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 2001

  Purpose
  This Order repeals the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. It replaces the arrangements under that Order for paying compensation for criminal injuries. The key features of the new arrangements are:

  Organisation

  Subject consulted on

  Date consulted

  Childline

  Proposed Draft Criminal Injuries Compensation (NI) Order

  June 2001

  Children's Law Centre

  Proposed Draft Criminal Injuries Compensation (NI) Order

  June 2001

  Putting Children First

  Proposed Draft Criminal Injuries Compensation (NI) Order

  June 2001

  Youth Council for NI

  Proposed Draft Criminal Injuries Compensation (NI) Order

  June 2001

  NIACRO

  Community Safety

  2000

  Youth Council

  Community Safety

  2000

  DENI

  Community Safety

  2000

  Extern

  Community Safety

  2000

  Belfast Education and Library Board

  Community Safety

  2000

  Press Subscriptions
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the newspapers subscribed to(a) Monday to Saturday and (b) on Sunday by his Department, stating for each subscription (i) the number of copies taken, and (ii) the annual cost. [52829]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is as follows:

  Newspapers

  Number of copies per week

  Monday to Saturday

  Belfast Telegraph

  373

  Daily Express

  62

  Daily Mail

  101

  Daily Mirror

  68

  Daily Record

  5

  Daily Star

  45

  Daily Telegraph

  106

  Evening Standard

  11

  Financial Times

  53

  Guardian

  101

  Independent

  96

  Irish Independent

  71

  Irish News

  213

  Irish Star

  5

  Irish Times

  164

  1200W

  (a) the introduction of a new statutory scheme;

  (b) the establishment of a tariff of injuries to calculate the standard amount of compensation;

  (c) in certain cases payment for loss of earnings and special expenses;

  (d) the introduction of a new bereavement support payment;

  (e) provision for review of decisions;

  (f) the establishment of an independent appeals panel to hear appeals against decisions of the Secretary of State;

  (g) the introduction of funded support and assistance from a designated body to replace paid legal assistance.

  Costs
  It is anticipated that the proposed scheme will he capable of delivering fair compensation without incurring any additional costs to the Exchequer. It is likely that savings will accrue in the longer term, but, for the initial five years, additional funds for the compensation budget will be necessary while claims are settled under both the new and existing schemes. There are no costs to businesses and individuals.

  Young People
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what subjects and on which dates his Department has consulted organisations representing young people; and if he will list such organisations. [52496]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is set out in the following table.

  Newspapers

  Number of copies per week

  Morning Star

  1

  News Letter

  212

  The Sun

  70

  The Times

  139

  Weekly newspapers

  Andersonstown News

  2

  An Phoblacht

  1

  Antrim Guardian

  4

  Antrim Times

  1

  Armaghdown Observer

  1

  Ballymena Guardian

  2

  Ballymena Times/Observer

  1

  Ballymoney and Moyle Times

  2

  Banbridge Chronicle

  3

  Carrick Advertiser

  2

  Coleraine Chronicle

  3

  Coleraine Times

  1

  County Down Spectator

  4

  Derry Sentinel

  1

  Derry Journal

  9

  Derry People (Donegal News)

  1

  Down Democrat

  1

  Down Recorder

  3

  Dromore Leader

  2

  Dungannon Observer

  1

  Fermanagh Herald

  2

  1201W

  Newspapers

  Number of copies per week

  Impartial Reporter

  2

  Larne Times

  3

  Lurgan Mail

  2

  Lurgan Portadown Examiner

  1

  Mid Ulster Mail

  2

  Mid-Ulster Observer

  3

  Mourne Observer

  2

  Newry Democrat

  2

  Newry Reporter

  3

  Newtownabbey Times

  3

  Newtownards Chronicle

  4

  Newtownards Spectator

  2

  North Belfast News

  2

  Northern Constitution

  2

  Outlook

  1

  Portadown Times

  3

  Roe Valley Sentinel

  2

  Strabane Weekly News

  2

  Strabane Chronicle

  2

  Tyrone Constitution

  2

  Tyrone Courier

  2

  Tyrone Times

  1

  Ulster Star

  4

  Ulster Gazette

  2

  Ulster Herald

  2

  Sunday newspapers

  Independent on Sunday

  5

  Ireland on Sunday

  2

  Mail on Sunday

  4

  News of the World

  4

  Observer

  6

  Sunday Business Post

  3

  Sunday Express

  5

  Sunday Independent

  4

  Sunday Life

  9

  Sunday Mirror

  5

  Sunday People

  5

  Sunday Telegraph

  5

  Sunday Times

  6

  Sunday Tribune

  5

  Sunday World

  9

  The annual cost is £63,528.55.

  Victims' Rights
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are in place to protect the rights of victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland; which of the measures for victims' rights contained within the Belfast Agreement have been implemented; and what plans he has to protect victims' rights. [53690]

  Mr. Browne
  The Belfast agreement 1998 makes specific reference to the importance of acknowledging and addressing the suffering of victims of violence as a necessary element of reconciliation, and recognises the need to provide services that are supportive and sensitive to their individual needs.

  In November 1997 the Government had appointed Sir Kenneth Bloomfield as head of a Victims' Commission
  "to examine the feasibility of providing greater recognition for those who have become victims in the last 30 years as a consequence of events in Northern Ireland"
  and asked him to consult various organisations concerned with the welfare of the bereaved and disabled as well as with community groups, churches and political parties and to make recommendations.
  1202W
  Following publication of his report "We Will Remember Them" in April 1998, the Government appointed Adam Ingram as Minister for Victims and the Victims Liaison Unit was established to take forward the implementation of the report. Since then Government have committed more than £18.25 million to support victims of the Troubles, funding a number of initiatives including:
  £700k for a family trauma centre in Belfast which provides therapeutic service addressing the psychological needs of families and young people.
  £300k for an educational bursary pilot scheme-for individuals whose education was directly affect by the Troubles. 350 people received awards.
  £4 million to the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund with a commitment of a further £1 million for 2003–04. The fund has put in place a number of schemes including:

  The small grants scheme

  The chronic pain management scheme

  The respite break scheme

  The wheelchair assessment scheme

  The amputee assessment scheme

  The education and training scheme

  £225k initially for a victim support grants scheme to assist community groups and voluntary organisations to take forward recommendations in the Bloomfield report; and more recently a further £750,000 to extend this small grants scheme.
  £6.1 million core funding for groups who support victims of the troubles.
  £500k for initiatives in Great Britain including £250k for the legacy project. This project aims to identify and meet the needs of victims of the troubles living in Great Britain.
  £1.5 million over the next three years for the development of the Northern Ireland Centre for Trauma and Transformation.
  £1.5 million over the next two years to the Devolved Administration's Strategy Implementation Fund to help NI Departments fulfil their commitment to addressing victims' needs.
  It is now four years since the Bloomfield report was published and I replaced Adam Ingram as Victims Minister last June. I am currently reviewing the Government's strategic approach to the needs of victims in the context of the ongoing political process.
  Also, as part of the Belfast Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was given the responsibility of advising the Secretary of State on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the ECHR which, taken together with the ECHR, could constitute a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. The agreement also says that the Bill should reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.
  The Commission consultation document "Making a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland" indicated that the rights of victims, both those arising from the conflict and more generally, should be included in a Bill of Rights. The Government have drawn no policy conclusions from the consultation document but will give careful consideration to the formal recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission which we expect to receive in 2003.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Norther Ireland how many letters were received by each Minister in his Department in each month since June 1997. [59311]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested by the hon. Member is listed in the following table. It is not possible to attribute letters separately to the Minister of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from members of the public. The combined totals have been provided on a separate table.

  Letters received by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland since June 1997

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  January

  —

  1,184

  627

  571

  346

  415

  February

  —

  1,053

  724

  1,073

  268

  423

  March

  —

  899

  939

  731

  255

  284

  April

  —

  841

  657

  757

  200

  251

  May

  —

  959

  446

  636

  196

  235

  June

  —

  1,082

  892

  458

  238

  —

  July

  1,143

  1,292

  1,092

  382

  258

  —

  August

  641

  1,118

  740

  265

  388

  —

  September

  1,091

  1,056

  902

  278

  191

  —

  October

  952

  712

  874

  296

  561

  —

  November

  736

  543

  969

  32I

  370

  —

  December

  643

  487

  375

  184

  198

  —

  Letters received by the Minister(s)1 of State for Northern Ireland since June 1997

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  January

  —

  106 + 12

  67 + 15

  56

  45

  60

  February

  —

  107 + 29

  53 + 22

  52

  38

  62

  March

  —

  110 + 28

  102 + 21

  68

  54

  58

  April

  —

  89 + 19

  70+ 19

  38

  39

  55

  May

  —

  102 + 22

  53 + 15

  42

  41

  39

  June

  —

  84 + 14

  88 + 21

  83

  38

  —

  July

  73 + 13

  92 + 24

  71 + 22

  61

  58

  —

  August

  49 + 21

  75 + 10

  56

  52

  43

  —

  September

  48 + 14

  81 + 27

  73

  40

  36

  —

  October

  61 + 21

  72 + 42

  94

  51

  57

  —

  November

  48 + 21

  61 +33

  97

  50

  81

  —

  December

  58 + 14

  57 + 20

  85

  30

  43

  —

  1From July 1997 until July 1999 there were two Ministers of State at the Northern Ireland Office.

  Target

  Level of achievement

  95 per cent. of telephone calls to the FreePhone number answered within 20 seconds

  100 per cent. answered within 20 seconds

  90 per cent. of complaints to be acknowledged by letter within three workings days

  77 per cent. acknowledged within three working days

  90 per cent. of complainants calling at the Office to be seen within 10 minutes of arrival

  100 per cent. seen within 10 minutes

  90 per cent. of complaints to be allocated action within three working days

  74 per cent. allocated action within three working days

  90 per cent. of complaints for fast tracking to he allocated action within one working day

  95 per cent. allocated action within one working day

  1204W

  Letters received by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland since August 1999

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  January

  —

  —

  —

  8

  4

  38

  February

  —

  —

  —

  14

  7

  28

  March

  —

  —

  —

  19

  10

  35

  April

  —

  —

  —

  11

  3

  28

  May

  —

  —

  —

  7

  3

  23

  June

  —

  —

  —

  9

  12

  —

  July

  —

  —

  —

  4

  25

  —

  August

  —

  —

  21

  8

  30

  —

  September

  —

  —

  18

  3

  26

  —

  October

  —

  —

  13

  5

  24

  —

  November

  —

  —

  9

  7

  21

  —

  December

  —

  —

  3

  3

  18

  —

  Letters received by the Minister(s) of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from members of the public

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  January

  —

  18

  14

  13

  14

  27

  February

  —

  75

  16

  7

  9

  14

  March

  —

  124

  19

  7

  6

  7

  April

  —

  20

  13

  21

  9

  10

  May

  —

  27

  5

  16

  3

  —

  June

  —

  10

  9

  4

  10

  —

  July

  20

  19

  7

  22

  7

  —

  August

  7

  11

  9

  2

  19

  —

  September

  10

  5

  7

  11

  7

  —

  October

  13

  17

  14

  6

  27

  —

  November

  14

  11

  11

  12

  15

  —

  December

  10

  6

  4

  4

  8

  —

  Police Ombudsman
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what targets have been drawn up by the police ombudsman for the number of days taken to complete each stage of the complaints process; and what his assessment is of progress made towards meeting these goals. [43891]

  Jane Kennedy
  The police ombudsman advises that the targets for dealing with complaints are contained in the police ombudsman's corporate statement and annual business plan 2001–02. The targets are reproduced in the table and include the current levels of achievement. In a number of categories the process for measuring the level of achievement against target is currently at the development stage and therefore these figures are not yet available.
  1205W

  Target

  Level of achievement

  90 per cent, of complaints to be referred for Informal Resolution within three working days of consent being given

  78 per cent, referred within three working days of consent being given

  90 per cent, of complainants to be kept informed of progress of Informal Resolution within seven weeks

  Target deemed inappropriate—progress of Informal Resolution is within control of the police

  90 per cent, of complainants to be contacted within three working days of complaint being allocated

  Measurement methodologies currently in development; no information available

  90 per cent, of statements from complainants to be taken within 21 days of complaint being allocated

  Measurement methodologies currently in development; no information available

  95 per cent, of complainants to be kept informed of progress at least every four weeks

  Measurement methodologies currently in development; no information available

  95 per cent, of police officers to be kept informed of progress at key stages of the investigation

  Measurement methodologies currently in development; no information available

  95 per cent, of emergency incident calls from the police to be responded to 24 hours a day

  70 per cent, of arrivals at emergency incident locations to within three hours at any time (1.5 hours in Greater Belfast)

  70 per cent, of investigations completed by the office not to exceed 110 working days

  Measurement methodologies currently in development; no information available

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will break down the number of complaints received by the police ombudsman by(a) perceived community origin, (b) gender and (c) other recorded categories of complainant. [43890]

  Jane Kennedy
  The police ombudsman advises that a monitoring form is issued to all complainants asking a number of questions. The answer provided is based on a return of monitoring forms from 2,731 complainants during 2001–02.

  (a) Community background of complainants

  Community background

  Number

  Total

  Percentage of Those with known community background

  Catholic

  208

  8

  40

  Church of Ireland

  117

  4

  22

  Presbyterian

  118

  4

  22

  Methodist

  26

  1

  5

  Other religion

  40

  1

  8

  No religion

  15

  1

  3

  Unknown

  2,207

  81

  —

  Total

  2,731

  100

  100

  (b) Gender of complainants

  Gender

  Number

  Percentage

  Percentage of those with known gender

  Male Female Unknown

  1,981 694 56

  73 25 2

  74 26

  Total

  2,731

  100

  100

  1206W

  (c) Age of complainants

  Age group

  Number

  Percentage

  Percentage of those with known ages

  16–20

  253

  9

  20

  21–30

  423

  15

  33

  31–40

  328

  12

  25

  41–50

  186

  7

  14

  51–60

  74

  3

  6

  60+

  29

  1

  2

  Unknown

  1,438

  53

  —

  Total

  2,731

  100

  100

  Marital status of complainants 2001–02

  Marital status

  Number

  Percentage

  Percentage of those with known marital status

  Married

  184

  1

  35

  Single

  194

  1

  37

  Separated

  63

  2

  12

  Widowed

  12

  0

  2

  Divorced

  48

  2

  9

  Co-habiting

  26

  1

  5

  Unknown

  2,204

  81

  —

  Total

  2,731

  100

  100

  Occupational status of complainants 2001–02

  Occupational staus

  Numebr

  Percentage

  Percentage of those with known occupational status

  Working full-time

  138

  5

  26

  Working part-time

  37

  1

  7

  Unemployed

  122

  5

  23

  Student

  14

  1

  3

  Self-employed

  60

  2

  11

  Retired

  26

  1

  5

  Other

  7

  0

  1

  1207W

  Occupational status of complainants 2001–02

  Occupational status

  Number

  Percentage of those with known occupational status

  Permanently sick

  85

  3

  16

  Looking after family

  40

  1

  8

  Unknown

  2,202

  81

  —

  Total

  2,731

  100

  100

  Ethnic origin of complainants 2001–02

  Ethnic origin

  Number

  Percentage

  Percentage of those with known ethnic origin

  White

  516

  19

  99

  Indian

  1

  0

  0

  Pakistani

  2

  0

  0

  Mixed

  1

  0

  0

  Other

  5

  0

  1

  Unknown

  2,206

  81

  —

  Total

  2,731

  100

  100

  Disability of complainants 2001–02

  Disability

  Number

  Percentage

  Percentage of those known

  Yes

  159

  6

  19

  No

  678

  25

  81

  Unknown

  1,894

  69

  —

  Total

  2,731

  100

  100

HEALTH

  Patient Records
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of(a) primary care and (b) hospital trusts have implemented electronic patient record systems. [47000]

  Ms Blears
  Currently 98 per cent. of general practitioners' practices are computerised and linked to a national electronic network to support email communications and web browsing. Most of them operate clinical systems as part of their practice computerisation and an electronic patient record (EPR) will be part of the system. The level of detail and functionality varies significantly from practice to practice. In the majority of cases at present it will cover the electronic storage of basic patient and administrative details, medication and recent consultations with the GP.

  At present six trusts have complete hospital wide EPR systems that meet the functionality described under level 3. However many more have some applications in place, for example results reporting and order communications. In addition some trusts have chosen to implement elements of EPR beyond level 3 with functionality around decision support and knowledge management or picture archiving and communications systems to support improved patient care.

  That is why we are taking action by introducing a new national programme and implementation plan for information technology (IT) in the National Health Service. This will significantly step up the pace of getting
  1208W
  modern IT in place to support frontline patient care and also ensure that IT both drives change and gets the best from the extra resources the NHS is now getting.

  The key points from the programme are:
  a new national IT programme director who will be responsible for the implementation of this programme;
  stringent national standards for data and IT in the NHS;
  an improved partnership with the IT industry and healthcare IT suppliers to increase the IT capacity for the NHS;
  a new procurement strategy to accelerate the impact of IT across the NHS
  better central management which will include a ministerial taskforce chaired by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, The Lord Hunt of Kingsheath, to ensure the advice and involvement of key healthcare professional and representative groups.
  The intention has always been to have a first generation of electronic records in use across the NHS from 2005. This will be the starting point from which the NHS can begin to apply the electronic record as a clinical tool in diagnosis, treatment, interventions and healthcare. By 2008, as indicated in "Delivering the NHS Plan", we will expect to see all the advanced applications and functionality of electronic patient records in all primary care trusts and trusts.

  Mount Vernon Hospital
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions he has had with the Eastern Region Health Authority and the London NHS Region about the future of services at Mount Vernon Hospital; [48900]

  (2) how many meetings he has had with NHS agencies about services provided at the Mount Vernon Patient Records—Hospital. [48904]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has not formally met with National Health Service agencies or regional offices. I have been made aware of the issues at my regular meetings with the director for London's directorate of health and social care. Also my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health has had regular meetings with the director for the midlands and east of England on this issue.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in replying to the letter from the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield to him dated 1 October 2001. [51579]

  Ms Blears
  I regret the delay was due to an administrative oversight.

  Primary Care Premises
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of primary care premises are over 30 years old. [53366]

  Mr. Lammy
  The data held centrally are those from surveys of health centres and general practitioner (GP) premises carried out by district valuers in 1999. These data indicate that some 52 per cent. of premises were originally constructed over 30 years ago.
  1209W
  This proportion will be reduce as new premises are constructed under the NHS Plan.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the Standing Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [55369]

  Mr. Lammy
  The standing committee on medicinal products for human use is a regulatory committee which assists the European Commission (EC) in exercising its powers of implementation and facilitates the adoption of draft measures in the field of medicinal products for human use. It also adopts decisions on centralised marketing authorisation applications and other regulatory actions referred to it by the European medicines evaluation agency (EMEA). It operates mainly by written procedures as set out in legislation. It meets only exceptionally, either on the chairman's initiative or at the reasoned request of the representative of a member state. The committee last met on 23 March 2000. The UK is represented by the chief executive of the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) or his deputy and, as MCA is a trading fund of the Department, no cost to public funds is generally incurred in supporting the committee's work.

  Together with member states, the EC is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".
  As an obligation under this decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report of the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Corn (2001) 783 Final). As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the Pharmaceutical Committee is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the UK representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [55371]

  Mr. Lammy
  The pharmaceutical committee fulfils a useful role in that it provides a forum for European Union member states to exchange views and information. Its task 1210W
  is to assist the European Commission (EC) and to examine:
  any question relating to the application of directives on proprietary medicinal products which are brought up by its chairman—either on his initiative or at the request of the representative of a member state;
  any other question in the field of proprietary medicinal products brought up by its chairman—either on his initiative or at the request of the representative of a member state.
  The EC consults the committee when preparing proposals for, or amendments to, directives in the field of proprietary medicinal products. During 2001 the committee met on 5 April, 5 July and 16 November, and in 2002 it met on 14 May. The pharmaceutical committee network on bioterrorism was an ad hoc group which met twice, on 23 January 2002 and 20 February 2002. No further meetings of the network are planned.

  The UK is represented jointly by two senior public health officials from the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the Department. The EC reimburses travel and subsistence costs for one delegate from each member state. The annual cost of the committee's work to public funds varies according to the number of meetings held and make-up of the UK representation. The MCA provides the main Government support for the work of the committee and usually represents the UK. As the MCA is a trading fund of the Department, this incurs no cost to public funds. If a Department official attends with the MCA delegation, his/her expenses will be borne out of public funds. This has happened twice in the last 12 months and the amount of travel and subsistence involved was in the region of £860.00.

  Information about associated costs to public funds attributable to the Department, other than travel and subsistence, is not readily available and would incur disproportionate cost to identify.

  The committee considers a wide range of issues relating to medicines regulatory matters and a summary of its discussions is put on the EC's website after each meeting. Further details and documents are available from the EC on request.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the Committee for the implementation of the Community action programme on the prevention of drug dependence in the framework of the action plans for public health is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [57479]

  Ms Blears
  The EU Committee for the implementation of the Community action programme on the prevention of drug dependence was mandated under Article 5 of Decision 102/97/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (amended under Article 4 of Decision 521/2001/EC). The committee assisted the Commission in taking forward the programme by providing opinions on proposed measures by the Commission. It is due to terminate with the introduction of the new EU action programme on public health.
  1211W
  The committee met once in the last year, in January 2002. The United Kingdom is normally represented by an official from the Department.

  Costs of the committee to public funds are minimal. Meetings last one day and the Commission pays the travel costs of nominated representatives. UK Departments are required to pay subsistence and UK travel costs.

  The financial framework for implementation of the Community action programme on the prevention of drug dependence, from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002, is euro 5.38 million.

  The Commission has now decided which projects it will fund. This list will be published on the Department's website.

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".

  As an obligation to this Decision, the Commission undertook to publish an annual report on the working of committees. The first report was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 26 February 2002 (Com [2001] 783 Final).

  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/index en.html.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the mandate of the Committee for the implementation of the Community action programme on health monitoring in the framework of the action plan for public health is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; what the annual cost of its work is to public funds; if he will list the items currently under its consideration; if he will take steps to increase its accountability and transparency to Parliament: and if he will make a statement. [57476]

  Ms Blears
  The EU Committee for the implementation of the Community action programme on health monitoring was mandated under Article 5 of Decision 1400/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. The committee assisted the Commission in taking forward the programme by providing opinions on proposed measures by the Commission. It is due to terminate with the introduction of the new EU action programme on public health. The EU health monitoring programme is focused on the establishment of a consistent, permanent and coherent community health monitoring system.

  The committee met on two occasions in the last 12 months. One UK official from the Department attended the October 2001 and February 2002 meetings.

  Domestic travel and subsistence claims paid from public funds were £348. The Commission reimbursed international travel costs.
  1212W
  Full details of the health monitoring work programme—including details of all projects funded between 1998 and 2001—are presented on Europa (the EU on-line website: http://europa.eu.int/index—en.htm).

  Together with member states, the Commission is currently conducting a review to bring existing legislation on the conduct of comitology committees into line with Council Decision 1999/468/EC, to
  "simplify the requirements for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission".
  As part of the review process, the UK Government have encouraged the Commission to produce and maintain an electronic database of every comitology committee, its agendas and recent actions, to be accessible through its website.

  NHS Dentistry
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions he is making for the future expansion of NHS dentistry. [55574]

  Mr. Lammy
  Over the last 18 months we have spent £100 million on modernising National Health Service dentistry. £10 million of this was for the Dental Care Development Fund and the Dentistry Action Plan Fund to support local plans to improve access. This money enables health authorities to assist dentists seeking to set up new practices and to expand and modernise existing ones.

  During 2001 the Chief Dental Officer led a working group to look at "Options for Change" to modernise NHS dentistry building on the Government's strategy document "Modernising NHS dentistry: Implementing the NHS Plan", published in September 2000.

  This group has completed its deliberations and the Government announced on 25 April that we intend to move forward plans to reform NHS dentistry developed by the "Options for Change" group.

  Haemophilia
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will instigate an investigation into the change of treatment for haemophilia patients in the 1970s from a cryoprecipitate treatment originating from a single donor to an unheated treatment derived from large donor pools; [56024]

  (2) what plans he has had to hold a public inquiry into how haemophiliac patients in the 1980s contracted hepatitis C and the HIV virus. [56026]

  Ms Blears
  There are no plans to hold a public inquiry or to investigate haemophilia treatment practices in the 1970s.

  We understand that treatment with cryoprecipitate carried a number of disadvantages compared to pooled clotting factors. It required the patient to be treated in hospital, it could not be given to children, it was unsterilised and carried the risk of a number of side effects.

  Pooled plasma products did not carry these disadvantages and were therefore keenly received by patients and clinicians. It was not until the mid to late

  1213W
  1980s that the risks from hepatitis C were fully understood by which time viral inactivation of pooled plasma products had been introduced.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 May 2002 to the hon. Member for Falkirk East (Mr. Connarty),Official Report, column 618W, on haemophilia, if he will make a statement on the length of time the Government are taking to make a decision on whether to make recombinant clotting factors available to all haemophiliacs. [58848]

  Ms Blears
  We have nothing further to add to our earlier response. We are still considering the provision of recombinant clotting factors for all haemophilia patients in England and will make a decision later this year.

  Operating Instruments
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) upon whose recommendation, and for what reasons, disposable instruments were introduced for use in hospital operating theatres in England; what tests were carried out on the new disposable instruments; from which manufacturers the disposable instruments were sourced; what procedures were established to monitor the introduction and use of the instruments; and if he will make a statement; [56502]

  (2) for what reasons deaths and adverse incidents resulting from the use of disposable operating instruments do not have to be reported; how many deaths have been reported and over what period; if complications resulting from use of disposable instruments have been related to specific manufacturers; and if he will make a statement; [56504]

  (3) on what date a surgeon first complained to the authorities about the quality of the newly introduced disposable operating instruments; and how many complaints have been made since then; [56503]

  (4) what steps his Department has taken to identify and contact parents and relatives of patients who have suffered adverse incidents in hospital operating theatres as a result of the use of disposable instruments who were not informed of their use at the time of the operations; and if he will make a statement. [56505]

  Mr. Lammy
  The move to single use instruments for tonsil and adenoid surgery was part of the Department's strategy to reduce the risk of transmitting variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (vCJD) through surgical instruments. This was in accordance with advice received from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC).

  When the tenders for the contract were returned, a visual inspection of the instruments offered by all suppliers was undertaken. Once specific suppliers had been short-listed, their products were sent out to randomly selected ear, nose and throat surgeons to be used during operations. After each operation, the surgeons were asked to complete an evaluation form. The results of this evaluation were used during the selection of the successful suppliers.
  1214W
  There are five companies on the National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency's framework agreement for single use instruments. They are:

  Meditech Systems Ltd

  B=H Surgical Instrument Makers

  Rocialle Medical Ltd.

  Trust Sterile Services

  Axis Medical Ltd

  We believe that there are other manufacturers of single use instruments who supplied products direct to NHS trusts, outside the Agency's framework agreement.

  In October 2001, the Department sent a questionnaire to all members of the British Association of Otorhinolaryngologists to ask their opinion of the single use instruments. As a result of the comments made, minor alterations were made to the product specification of some products, such as mouth gags.

  The medical devices regulations require device manufacturers to demonstrate that their devices meet essential safety requirements prior to placing them on the market. The safety and performance of devices in service is monitored by a mandatory vigilance system. Manufacturers are obliged to inform the competent authority (in the UK this is the Medical Devices Agency (MDA)) when an incident has occurred, involving their device, which may have caused a death or serious injury or which has the potential to cause death or serious injury.

  In addition, the MDA also operates a voluntary user reporting system for users to report any adverse incident involving a medical device. The MDA first received an adverse incident report from a user in April 2001. Since then, the MDA has received reports of incidents concerning all the manufacturers listed above. The MDA has identified from its adverse incident database a total of 125 reports in relation to non-powered instruments, (108 prior to December 2001). 24 reports have also been received relating to powered instruments (diathermy). Each incident has been investigated in conjunction with the device manufacturers and appropriate action taken. One death has been formally reported to the MDA. We are aware of a second, which is presently under investigation.

  There are possible risks in all surgical procedures. Therefore, before each operation, the clinician should explain the risks involved and any alternative treatment, to allow the patient or their family to give informed consent to the surgery. Tonsil and adenoid surgery is a relatively low risk operation, but where adverse incidents occur they are treated on a case by case basis by the NHS trust where the operation took place. Patients who have had their tonsils removed with single use instruments should not be concerned of any long-term effects following the surgery.

  Food Allergies
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were recorded as suffering from food allergies in each of the last five years. [56909]

  Ms Blears
  Data are not available for the prevalence of food allergy by individual year. The number of individuals suffering allergic reactions to food in the developed countries of the western world appears to be
  1215W
  on the increase, which is in line with increases seen in other atopic diseases such as hay fever and asthma. In the UK general population, the calculated prevalence of adverse reactions to food (including food allergy) is less than 2 per cent.

  Vaccines
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation regarding the pneumococcal vaccine. [56917]

  Ms Blears
  The joint committee on vaccination and immunisation (JCVI) has identified issues relating to the development of policies for the future use of pneumococcal vaccines, which they are addressing. Studies on the interaction between pneumococcal vaccine and the current childhood immunisation programme are under way. The JCVI will review these when they are complete.

  Brushing for Life Campaign
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 17 April,Official Report, column 1019W, what the cost per tube was of toothpaste distributed; what areas of the country were targeted for the project; and what evaluation of the scheme has taken place. [57091]

  Mr. Lammy
  The total cost of each pack provided under the scheme is less than £1. The exact price is commercially sensitive information.

  £1 million has been set aside for the project. It initially covered the 21 health authorities with the highest levels of dental decay—11 in the North, 5 in Yorkshire and 5 in London—and also all areas not in receipt of fluoridated water where there are Sure Start schemes. However, we have since added 5 more in the North, 3 in Yorkshire and 2 in Devon, bringing the total health authorities benefiting from this scheme to 31.

  The Department has commissioned The Guys, Kings and St. Thomas Dental School to evaluate the scheme, which is due to run for 3 years.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to address bed blocking in the Hampshire Health Authority; how many cases there have been in 2002; how many were from rural areas of Hampshire; and if he will make a statement. [57346]

  Jacqui Smith
  Health and local authorities are working together to take action to improve the situation. In October 2001, additional funding of £300 million was announced to tackle this problem. In 2002–02, Hampshire received an additional £2.436 million from this money. The allocation for 2002–03 is £5.160 million.

  All information, collected centrally, on delayed discharge in December 2001, quarter 3 of 2002–02, has been placed in the Library. This is the most recent period for which figures are currently available.

  National School Fruit Scheme
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of apples and pears supplied to the pilots for the National School Fruit Scheme in(a) autumn 2000 and (b) autumn 2001 were of UK origin; and if he will list the other countries of origin of the apples and pears. [57167]

  Jacqui Smith
  In Autumn 2000 all apples and pears supplied to the original national school fruit scheme pilots were from UK. In Autumn 2001 almost all apples and most pears supplied to a much larger number of pilot sites were from UK. Detailed information on other countries or origin for this period is not held centrally.

  Clinician Connect
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS health authorities whose entire computer network(a) supports and (b) does not support Clinician Connect. [58644]

  Mr. Lammy
  Clinician Connect is the programme managed by the National Health Service information authority for the NHS in England to provide all NHS Trust staff in England with email and browser facilities using the NHS national network, NHSnet.

  All health authorities are connected to the NHSnet, and are therefore able to share information with those clinicians in Trusts who have access to facilities on the network. An exercise is currently under way to monitor progress with Clinician Connect; as at 17 May 2002, 61 Trusts had achieved 100 per cent. coverage for their staff.

  Administration of the NHS in Wales is the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

  General Practitioners
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the average number of patients served by each general practitioner in(a) the Weston Area Health Trust, (b) the Avon Health Authority and (c) England. [58821]

  Ms Blears
  Information on general practitioners is collected and held by primary care trust (or their predecessor primary care groups and health authorities) rather than by National Health Service trust. In 2001 average list sizes were:(a) North Somerset Primary Care Group—1,700; (b) Avon Health Authority—1,705; (c) England—1,841.

  Departmental Policies (Wycombe)
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the activities pursued by his Department that have had a particular impact on the Wycombe constituency since 7 June 2001. [58624]

  Ms Blears
  This information can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  The Departmental Report for the Department sets out the aims and objectives for the Department, and describes the main activities which supports them. It covers different business areas for which the Department is responsible: public health, the National Health Service, social care and departmental management. It sets out

  1217W
  resources committed to each, the results that are being achieved and the priorities for the future. The 2001 report can be found on the following website: hhtp:// www.doh.gov.uk/dohreport/report 2001.

  The 2002 Departmental Report will be published shortly.

  Treatment Costs
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost has been of treating a patient(a) in a GP surgery and (b) through NHS Direct in the last 12 months. [58668]

  Mr. Lammy
  NHS Direct does not treat patients. The service provides advice to callers on a range of issues including health scares, appropriate access to healthcare, health information and self care.

  The average cost of a call to NHS Direct in 2001–02 was about £17.92 although this is expected to fall significantly in the future as call volumes rise. The National Audit Office have found that half of callers are directed to forms of care they would not have chosen and that this tends to be care of a lower level and cost of intervention. More than half of NHS Direct costs are saved in this way.

  General practitioners provide a range of services for the treatment of patients. The latest survey estimated data available (2000–01) suggest that a general practitioner consultation costs around £14.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on the media campaign aimed at reducing teenage pregnancy in each year since 2000–01. [58766]

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  South-east region

  131,393

  119,009

  119,422

  111,169

  98,725

  NHS trusts

  Eastbourne and County Healthcare

  3,441

  3,350

  3,559

  2,576

  2,756

  Eastbourne Hospitals

  1,207

  1,067

  1,255

  1,455

  1,290

  Hastings and Rother

  2,426

  2,328

  2,462

  1,608

  2,006

  South Downs Health

  6,726

  6,758

  5,237

  2,270

  2,620

  Source:

  Form KT23, Department of Health, Statistics Division (SD3G)

  Multiple Sclerosis Care
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the centres at which the drugs Avonex, Betaferon, Copaxone and Rebif will be provided to multiple sclerosis (MS) patients; and how many MS patients are waiting to be assessed for treatment with these drugs. [59212]

  Mr. Lammy
  It has been estimated that up to 9,000 multiple sclerosis (MS) patients in England and Wales may be eligible to receive treatment under the risk-sharing scheme, which started on 6 May 2002. Some centres have now started prescribing under the scheme, though the guidance in HSC 2002–04 recognises that appropriate national health service infrastructure may not yet be in place in some localities. It may take 18 months or longer before all potentially eligible patients are assessed under
  1218W
  Jacqui Smith
  The teenage pregnancy national media campaign consists of press and radio adverts, underpinned by public relations and partnership work. Expenditure was £2.2 million in 2000–01 and £2.5 million in 2001–02. We expect investment this year to be at least £2.5 million.

  Operating Theatres
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the correlation between operating theatre space and staffing levels in(a) Somerset and (b) Somerset and Dorset strategic health authority. [59353]

  Ms Blears
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Chiropody/Podiatry Services
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many new chiropody/podiatry episodes of care were begun in each of the last five years in(a) the south-east region (b) East Sussex, Brighton and Hove and (c) Eastbourne; [59215]

  (2) how many patients were discharged from NHS chiropody/podiatry lists in Eastbourne in each of the last five years. [59214]

  Ms Blears
  Information about the number of patients discharged from national health service chiropody/ podiatry lists in Eastbourne is not available centrally.

  Information about the number of new chiropody/ podiatry episodes of care for the last five years in the south-east region and for those NHS trusts which provide a chiropody service within the East Sussex, Brighton and Hove health authority, which covers Eastbourne, is shown in the table.

  the scheme. The list of locally agreed prescribing centres is not yet finalised. The scheme co-ordinator, whose appointment will shortly be announced, will collect information on progress and activity under the scheme, but as yet such details are not available centrally.

  Pesticide Poisoning
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (I) how many cases have been recorded by the National Poisons Information Service since 1996 of lindane poisoning in children up to 14 years of age; what the level of exposure was in each case; and whether these cases were(a) fatal lindane poisonings, (b) non-fatal, hospitalised lindane poisonings and (c) non-hospitalised lindane poisonings; [59635]
  1219W
  (2) if he will produce an annual report of confirmed and suspected pesticide poisonings recorded by regional centres of the National Poisons Information Service, aggregated with those recorded by the (a) Health and Safety Executive's Pesticide Incident Appraisal Panel and (b) Pesticides Safety Directorate; [59636]

  (3) how many inquiries have been received by the National Poisons Information Service since 1996 regarding lindane. [59637]

  Ms Blears
  Since 1996 the national poisons information service (NPIS) has received 376 inquiries from national health service health care professionals about lindane poisoning, of which 178 reported lindane poisoning in children up to 14 years of age. In nearly all cases the individuals were asymptomatic or suffered only mild transient symptoms.

  The NPIS centres only record data related to the inquiries they receive and the extent and format of the data held varies from centre to centre. They do not necessarily receive inquiries in every case and will only rarely be provided with information about the level of exposure. NPIS systems are not designed to follow up poisoning incidents and centres can never be certain whether the condition reported at the time of the inquiry was related to the agent implicated nor whether the clinical condition improved or deteriorated thereafter.

  The annual reports of the Health and Safety Executive's Pesticide Incident Appraisal Panel (PIAP) collate reports made to enforcing authorities (Health and Safety Executive and local authorities) which have been investigated. The Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD) does not separately record suspected incidents of exposure to pesticides.

  The information available from NPIS and PIAP reflect the different objectives of the schemes and are thus difficult to aggregate. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides is considering approaches to assessing information on pesticide-related ill health.

  Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the Cancer Centre at Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood. [59590]

  Ms Blears
  The recommendations of the review steering group were made on 29 May 2002 to the Bedfordshire & Hertfordshire Strategic Health Authority in its capacity as host health authority for the Mount Vernon Cancer Network. The health authority will consider the Mount Vernon Long-Term Cancer Review Report in the context of its acute services review which is not yet completed.

  The recommendations are:

  The review group's recommendation is that a new integrated cancer centre be established on the site of a new hospital in Hertfordshire. This would include the clinical specification set out in the report (pages 27–32) and an ambulatory radiotherapy unit on the Mount Vernon site. The centre should also have a major research and education facility. This is strongly recommended as the preferred option of the review group.
  1220W
  In the interim period before this new hospital is built, it is absolutely essential that there is significant investment on the Mount Vernon site to maintain and develop the excellent services it currently provides. The review group notes that the case for such investment has been accepted by the Bedfordshire & Hertfordshire StHA.

  The group accepts that Bedfordshire & Hertfordshire StHA may not be able to commit itself to the creation of a new hospital in Hertfordshire and reluctantly recognises that there has to be a reserve position. In these circumstances it would accept the need for the StHA to consider an integrated cancer centre on either the Watford General, Hemel Hempstead or Queen Elizabeth II DGH sites. This is solely on the condition that the full range of services (pages 27–32) to complement an integrated cancer centre is available on the selected site.

  The steering group is unable to recommend development of the future cancer centre on the Mount Vernon site as it is not consistent with the principles underlying the Bedfordshire & Hertfordshire StHA acute services review, nor in line with the cancer and acute service strategies in this part of North West London and runs the risk of destabilising local services. In reaching this recommendation, the group was conscious of the esteem in which Mount Vernon is held and the loyalty of its staff. The group was aware of the impact on research in the interim period.

  Staff and press briefings were held on 29 May 2002 with an MP briefing scheduled for 12 June 2002 following the Whitsun recess.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken within primary care trust areas to ensure that sufficient information is given to mental health service users to enable them to make informed choices before drugs are prescribed and throughout treatment. [60565]

  Jacqui Smith
  Empowering patients to take an active role in their care is a key theme in the NHS Plan. We know that people are more likely to take their medicines correctly when they understand and agree with their treatment, and have been active partners in prescribing decisions. The NHS Plan set a target for all primary care trusts to have schemes in place so that people get more help from pharmacists in using their medicines by 2004. We are also investing in medicines management services including through the medicines management collaborative hosted by the national prescribing centre.

  These actions are underscored by standards two and three of the national service framework for mental health and by targets set for those with severe mental illness in the service and financial framework for 2001–02 and the priorities and planning framework for 2002–03; they set out how copies of care plans should be provided for patients. The task force on medicines partnership, established in January 2002, also aims to improve the use of medicines in the National Health Service by involving patients as partners in prescribing decisions and supporting them in medicine-taking.

  In addition, all National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) appraisals and guidance have sections designed for patients themselves to provide up to date

  1221W
  information on the management of their conditions to help them make informed choices about their treatment. Information about this is available from the NICE website at: www.nice.org.uk

  Noise
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made as to the impact on(a) children and (b) adults of being chronically exposed to loud noise. [60659]

  Ms Blears
  As part of a joint programme with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Health commissioned a research programme designed to study the non-auditory health effects of noise.

  Five research projects were funded under this programme, three of which concentrated on the non-auditory effects of noise on children at school and in the home, one concentrated on the effects of occupational noise and the fifth concentrated on noise and insomnia.

  The five projects have recently completed and reported, and the results of the research will be discussed with colleagues from other Departments later in the year.

  Full details of the study are available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/hef/airpol/ aipolh.htm.

  Strokes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of extra spending announced for the NHS in the recent Budget will be allocated for treatment of and research into strokes. [60128]

  Jacqui Smith
  As a result of the Budget, the national health service in England will receive an annual average real-terms growth in resources of 7.4 per cent. for the five years from 2003–04 to 2007–08. Decisions about allocation of this increased funding will be announced later this year.

  The Medical Research Council (MRC) is the main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease. The MRC spent £3.4 million on stroke research in 2000–01 and does not anticipate a major change to this level of support.

  Departmental Polices (Hull, North)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact his Department's policies have had on the Kingston upon Hull, North constituency since 1997. [60548]

  Jacqui Smith
  Detailed information on the impact of Department's policies nationally is set out in the Department's annual reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2001–02" is available in Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/ dhreport

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency.

  Smallpox
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what analysis his Department has undertaken of the risks of passing Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease to recipients of a smallpox vaccine made from bovine cell culture. [44007]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 26 March 2002]: We are not aware that the manufacture of any smallpox vaccine prepared in the past utilised virus culture in bovine cell lines.

  If a manufacturer wished to produce smallpox vaccine using virus culture in bovine cells, the appropriate regulatory guidance on cell characterisation and storage would have to be followed.

  European legislation demands that an application for marketing authorisation of a medicinal product in the European Union must include satisfactory demonstration of compliance with the European note for guidance on minimising the risk of transmitting animal spongiform encephalopathy agents via human and veterinary medicinal products.

  Inventures
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial targets have been set for Inventures. [50805]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 18 April 2002]: The Department sets NHS Estates key tasks and targets on an annual basis. These targets are agreed with Ministers. One of these targets requires the agency (including lnventures) to achieve a cumulative operating surplus on ordinary activities before interest and dividends of at least 0.6 per cent. of the value of sales during the period from 1 April 1999 to March 2003.

  Inventures is essentially a consultancy business employing approximately 270 staff with an annual turnover of approximately £15 million. It provides a wide variety of property services including planning, financing, procuring and managing all aspects of healthcare environment and estates. Its primary customers are the Department of Health and national health service trusts.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of cardiac care units in the NHS operate upper age limits or other restrictions in accessing heart by-pass operations on grounds of age; and what percentage of units have age-related policies for treatment of thrombosis. [55318]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 May 2002]: It is an underlying principle of national health service care that access to services is based on clinical need alone. Cardiac care units have been informed that it is unacceptable to limit access on the basis of age. We are not aware of any NHS cardiac care unit or other NHS cardiac service that currently restricts access to its services on the basis of age.

  Food Supplements
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the incorporation of EU directives on food supplements and herbal medicines into UK law; and what assessment he
  1223W
  has made of the impact on the over the counter availability of food supplements and herbal medicines following the incorporation into UK law of the EU directives. [57973]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 22 May 2002]: The food supplements directive must be transposed into UK law by the last day of the month, one year after the date of entry into force of the Directive.

  The Directive will not immediately outlaw any products already on the UK market. Lists of permitted vitamin and mineral sources remain open, pending safety assessments for additional substances. The Government welcomes the amendment to Article 4(6)(b) which was recently adopted by the European Parliament and which extends the time for dossier submission from 18 to 36 months after the Directive comes into force. The Directive gives Member States the opportunity to allow continued sale of products containing vitamin and mineral sources not yet on the permitted list for up to seven years after the Directive comes into force, pending safety assessment of these sources. When implementing the Directive, the Government intends to take full advantage of this flexibility.

  Incorporation into United Kingdom law of the proposed Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products will be subject to the outcome of European negotiations. On the basis of the formal proposals published in January 2002 by the European Commission, we anticipate that consumers will have continuing access to a wide range of traditional herbal remedies sold over the counter.

  Features of the proposed Directive which might, in principle, inhibit availability are the requirements relating to safety and quality and the definition of traditional use. However, our assessment is that the introduction of the proposed safety and quality standards is necessary for effective public health protection and the maintenance of public confidence in the sector. This in turn will ultimately affect the strength of public demand for herbal remedies. The proposed standards are ones which are already successfully met by many manufacturers in UK and elsewhere of traditional herbal remedies.

  As to the definition of traditional use, we take the view that a large number of unlicensed herbal remedies currently on the market, and sold legally under Section 12(2) of the Medicines Act, 1968, have a strong basis in tradition and so should be able to satisfy the requirement to demonstrate traditional usage. This assessment is based, for example, on the extensive herbal literature covering various herbal traditions, on the activities of herbalists over many decades in supplying herbal medicinal products to individual patients following consultation, and on the existence of large numbers of long-standing licensed herbal remedies in the UK and elsewhere.

  It will not be possible to predict for some time to come the full extent to which herbal remedies will be sold under this Directive. One important issue is that there are likely to be significant numbers of products with a clear basis in tradition and containing herbal ingredients which, depending on the presentation of the company's specific product, may legally be sold either as medicines or in another regulatory product category such as food, cosmetic or general consumer product. There may
  1224W
  therefore be options for companies in relation to many such products as to which regulatory route would be most advantageous.

  The Medicines Control Agency is holding a public consultation on the proposed Directive including its likely regulatory impact. The consultation document (MLX 283) can be viewed on the Agency's website www.mca.gov.uk. The consultation period closes on 21 June 2002.

  Food Standards (Mobile Retailers)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer given to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 26 April 2002,Official Report, column 519W, on food standards (mobile retailers), what extra resources the Government are planning to give local authority environmental health inspectors in the enforcement of food hygiene standards of mobile retailers and takeaway establishments. [59547]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: Local authorities already receive funding, through the revenue support grant, to enable them to undertake food law enforcement inspections to the full range of food premises, of which mobile retailers form a very small part. It is for individual local authorities to decide specific resource allocations for these purposes.

  Hepatitis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been carried out into the anticipated incidence of chronic hepatitis B over the(a) next 5 years and (b) next 10 years. [60520]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The public health laboratory service (PHLS) has estimated the current incidence of chronic hepatitis B infection using laboratory reports of acute hepatitis B infection from 1992 to 1996. The estimate is based on reports to the PHLS, the proportion of cases that develop symptoms and the proportion that progress to chronic infection.

  The PHLS estimates that in the United Kingdom, there are an annual average of 311 hepatitis B infections that lead to chronic infection.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the members of the Steering Group on hepatitis C and (b) the terms of reference of the group. [60406]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The membership of the Hepatitis C strategy steering group is as follows:

  Chairman
  Professor Howard Thomas, Imperial College School of Medicine, London and Chairman, Advisory Group on Hepatitis

  Members
  John Bryce, lay member
  Jim Camp, Needle Exchange Forum
  Hannah Cinamon, Health Promotion England (until November 2001)
  Professor Chris Day, Medical School, Newcastle University
  Manlio Fahrni, Chair of Re-act and vice-chair of the recently launched national forum, the UK Assembly on Hepatitis (from September 2001)

  1225W
  Jo Guy, Hepatology Nurse Specialist, Southampton General Hospital
  Dr. Paul Hatton, Consultant in Communicable Disease Control, Leeds health authority and member. Advisory Group on Hepatitis
  Lorraine Hewitt, Action on Hepatitis C and member, Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
  Nigel Hughes, British Liver Trust
  Professor Will Irving, Department of Microbiology, University of Nottingham and member. Advisory Group on Hepatitis
  Tania Machell, Head of National Hepatitis C Resource Centre, Mainliners (from July 2001)
  Grant McNally, National Drug Users Development Agency
  Dr. Mary Ramsay, Public Health Laboratory Service Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre
  Professor Gerry Stimson, Centre for Research on Drugs and Medicine, Imperial College School of Medicine, London Professor John Strang, Director of the National Addiction Centre, Maudsley Hospital, London and member of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
  Monique Tomlinson, Deputy Director, Mainliners (until July 2001)
  Dr. Martyn Wake, General Practitioner, south west London.

  Its terms of reference are:

  "To oversee development of the Department's strategic approach to hepatitis C by bringing together issues relating to prevention, control and treatment and to produce a document within the year, for consultation with the national health service, professional bodies and the voluntary sector and community sectors".

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been carried out since 1997 to monitor the changes in the epidemiology of hepatitis C infection in England following the introduction of an effective antiviral treatment with interferon and ribavirin; and if he will make a statement. [60526]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: We are not aware of any national studies on the effect of the introduction of treatment for hepatitis C infection with interferon and ribavirin on its epidemiology.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 May 2002,Official Report, column 406W, on hepatitis C, what proportion of those cases identified had persistent viraemia. [60404]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The information requested is not available. However, several studies have shown that persistent viraemia occurs in about 80 per cent. of cases with antibody positive hepatitis C diagnoses.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 May 2002,Official Report, column 406W, on hepatitis C, if the figures given included testing carried out in virology departments of teaching hospitals and private laboratories. [60403]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The information already provided about antibody positive hepatitis C diagnoses does include those reported to the public health laboratory service (PHLS) by laboratories in teaching hospitals and the private sector.

  Most national health service microbiology laboratories (including laboratories in teaching hospitals) and some private microbiology laboratories voluntarily report
  1226W
  diagnoses of hepatitis C to the PHLS. Reports from private laboratories form a very small proportion of all reports received.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of patients have chronic liver diseases in the UK owing to chronic infection with hepatitis C virus. [60522]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The data requested are not available. However, in 2000–01, there were 27,827 finished consultant episodes in national health service hospitals in England with a primary diagnosis of liver disease. Of these, 524 finished consultant episodes had a secondary diagnosis of chronic viral hepatitis C.

  Notes:

  1. A finished consultant episode is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  2. Occasionally there may be missing records or missing diagnosis/operation codes in the HES records so a scaling factor is applied to allow for this. However these grossing factors have not yet been applied to the 2000–01 data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been diagnosed with acute hepatitis(a) A, (b) B, (c) C, (d) D, (e) E and (f) G in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [60521]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The information available is given in the tables.

  Laboratory reports, England and Wales 1990–20011

  Number of people diagnosed

  Hepatitis A infection

  1990

  7,545

  1991

  7,202

  1992

  6,762

  1993

  3,957

  1994

  2,413

  1995

  1,750

  1996

  1,086

  1997

  1,310

  1998

  1,104

  1999

  1,389

  2000

  1,047

  2001

  772

  Acute hepatitis B infection

  1990

  618

  1991

  572

  1992

  531

  1993

  629

  1994

  631

  1995

  614

  1996

  569

  1997

  652

  1998

  843

  1999

  725

  2000

  661

  2001

  534

  1 2001 data are provisional.

  Source:

  Public Health Laboratory Service
  1227W

  Laboratory reports, England and Wales 1990–20011

  Number of people diagnosed

  Hepatitis E infection

  1994

  12

  1995

  33

  1996

  52

  1997

  21

  1998

  56

  1999

  30

  2000

  34

  2001

  25

  1 2001 data are provisional

  Source:

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  The majority of cases of acute hepatitis C infection do not result in symptoms. Laboratory reports of antibody to hepatitis C do not distinguish between new and previous infections. Hepatitis D can only occur in people infected with hepatitis B and separate data on hepatitis D infections are not collected routinely. Hepatitis G is not known to cause hepatitis.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the consultation paper on a strategy for hepatitis C. [60405]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on 14 May 2002, Official Report, column 630W.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what(a) percentage and (b) sums of the budgets of each health authority and primary health trust in England are allocated for the treatment of hepatitis C; [60525]

  (2) if additional funding will be made available to primary health trusts for the use of pegylated interferon for the antiviral treatment of chronic hepatitis C, and if he will make a statement. [60523]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: Health authority allocations for 2002–03 increased by £3,704 million, or 9.9 per cent.

  It is for health authorities in partnership with primary care trusts and other local stakeholders to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  A key priority for the use of additional funding is the implementation of guidance from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). We have referred pegylated interferons for the treatment of hepatitis C to NICE for inclusion in its work programme.

  Wheelchairs
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much the NHS has spent on the provision of electrically-powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs in each year since 1997; [27351]

  (2) how many people have utilised NHS vouchers as part-payment for powered wheelchairs in each year since 1997; [27350]
  1228W
  (3) how many electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs have been made available in each year since 1997. [27348]

  Jacqui Smith
  Pursuant to her reply of 22 January 2002,Official Report, column 763W: I regret that my previous reply was incorrect. It should read:

  Expenditure on electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs (EPIOCs) are as follows.

  Expenditure on powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs—England £000

  Amount

  1997–98

  6,428

  1998–99

  8,099

  1999–2000

  6,892

  2000–01

  8,803

  Figures are not collected centrally for numbers of vouchers issued separated into manual wheelchairs and EPIOCs.

  The following table gives the only data available centrally. A number of these figures are incomplete (as annotated):

  England

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Number of powered wheelchairs issued

  4,464

  4,033

  3,388

  3,2792

  Number of vouchers issued for wheelchairs

  5601

  5,0102

  6,305

  6,2502

  1Collection of data was not mandatory

  2Incomplete figure (one return missing)

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Race Relations Act
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make changes to current authorisations under section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended. [61371]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have today revoked the authorisation signed by my hon. friend the member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) on 23 April 2001 which permits immigration officers to discriminate in the examination of passengers from certain specified ethnic or national groups. We have kept this authorisation under close review in the light of intelligence assessments from the Immigration Service. After a year's experience of operating the authorisations, the Immigration Service has found it sufficient to rely on the authorisation made on 27 March 2001 which permits it to prioritise certain passengers for additional examination on the basis of their nationality. We will keep under review the possible need for further authorisations permitting discrimination on grounds of ethnic or national origin where necessary in respect of specific targeted operations.

  Community Police Officers
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to his answer of 11 April 2002,
  1229W
  Official Report, column 565W, how many community police officers there are on the beat, broken down by division. [58344]

  Mr. Denham
  The information in the table has been provided by the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester police (D. Wilmot Esq QPM). The number of officers shown as on the beat comprises those carrying out the role of community beat constable or that of area/community sergeant.

  Division

  Community Police Officers on the beat

  North Manchester Division

  48

  South Manchester Division

  89

  The City of Salford Division

  63

  Tameside Metropolitan Borough Division

  29

  Stockport Metropolitan Borough Division

  42

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Division

  54

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Division

  40

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough Division

  27

  Bury Metropolitan Borough Division

  21

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Division

  39

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Division

  31

  Total

  483

  1Figures are for 22 May 2002

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of crime is(a) committed by and (b) committed against young males between the ages of 14 and 24 years; and if he will make a statement. [56224]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: Statistics of recorded crime are not collected by age, principally because a part of it is unsolved and therefore details of suspects are not known.

  The available information relates to persons convicted or cautioned for notifiable offences in England and Wales in 2000, 41 per cent. of whom were males aged 14 to 24 years.

  The 2000 British Crime Survey estimates that 25 per cent. of all personal crime (wounding, assault, robbery, theft from the person and other personal theft) reported to the survey was committed against males between the ages of 16 and 24.

  Lay Visitors Scheme
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many complaints have been made about the operation of the police station cells lay visitors scheme in each constabulary in each of the last three years for which records exist; [53927]

  (2) how many visits have been made in each police authority under the lay visitors scheme and its successor in each of the last three years for which records are available; [53928]

  (3) what the cost was of running the lay visitors scheme for each police authority in each of the last three years for which records exist; [53924]
  1230W
  (4) if he will list the police authorities and other bodies that have made representations to him calling for changes to the custody visitors schemes, indicating the changes requested. [53923]

  Mr. Denham
  During the most recent review of the Home Office guidance to the police on lay/custody visiting, representations were received from the following bodies:

  Police Authority

  Cheshire

  Derbyshire

  Dorset

  Greater Manchester

  Metropolitan

  Norfolk

  North Yorkshire

  North Wales

  Nottinghamshire

  West Yorkshire

  Wiltshire

  Police Force

  Derbyshire

  Greater Manchester

  Lancashire

  South Yorkshire

  Surrey

  Sussex

  Other Body

  Association of Police Authorities

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary

  Independent Custody Visitoring Association

  Police Complaints Authority

  Police Federation

  Superintendents' Association.

  The most common issues raised were the organisation, recruitment and conditions of service of lay/custody visitors, as well as the administrative support provided by police authorities. There were also concerns about the level of training provided and procedures for carrying out visits, such as frequency and visiting in pairs.

  Records of numbers of visits, the costs of running schemes and the number of complaints received are not kept centrally and the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Police Reform Bill before Parliament includes provisions for placing independent custody visiting on a statutory basis. Custody visiting schemes in each police authority will then be mandatory and a supporting code of practice will provide for consistent standards across England and Wales.

  Asylum Seekers
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Centrex site at High Ercall has been proposed as a site for an asylum seeker accommodation centre. [52353]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 25 April 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) gave on 14 May 2002, Official Report, column 597W, when she

  1231W
  announced that the Home Office would shortly be submitting planning notifications for accommodation centres at three sites. My hon. Friend also announced that a further three sites required further work before a decision could be taken as to whether to proceed to planning notifications.

  Alongside the competition for the design, build and operation of accommodation centres the private sector were invited to submit their own proposals. All of these will be given due consideration across a range of criteria.

  On 18 April 2002, my hon. Friend told the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), Official Report, column 1168W, that the site at High Ercall had not been proposed to the Home Office. Since that time a proposal has come forward. This does not necessarily mean that the site has become a serious prospect; nor will we be in a position to know whether it has until a full evaluation has taken place.

  However, the general position remains that we will not be putting details of potential new sites into the public domain unless and until they are considered to be a serious prospect for the siting of an accommodation centre.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what travel allowances will be paid to enable asylum seekers to comply with reporting requirements. [59995]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill contains a provision which if introduced will allow the Secretary of State to meet the travel costs of asylum seekers required to report. The Bill does not provide that travel expenses will be met in all cases. It is intended to meet the reasonable costs of travel where appropriate.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the possible use of Sully hospital in Cardiff to house asylum seekers. [58837]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on 14 May 2002,Official Report, column 597W.

  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many residents of Glasgow, Cathcart constituency have successfully applied for asylum in the past two years; [58874]

  (2) how many residents of Glasgow, Cathcart constituency have applied for, and been refused, asylum in the last two years; [58873]

  (3) how many asylum seekers living in Glasgow, Cathcart constituency are awaiting the outcome of their asylum applications; [58872]

  (4) how many residents of Glasgow, Cathcart constituency have been removed from the UK following their failure to he granted asylum in the past two years. [58875]
  1232W
  Beverley Hughes
  Asylum applications data are not available at regional level except by port (for those applications made at port—these accounted for 36 per cent. of applications in 2001).

  Corresponding information on initial decision outcomes, cases outstanding and removals relating to persons in particular areas of the United Kingdom is also unavailable. The requested information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the purpose is of the new asylum registration cards; and what statutory limits will be placed on their use. [57996]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Application Registration Card (ARC) is being issued to asylum seekers and their dependants as an acknowledgement of their application for asylum. It replaces the Standard Acknowledgement Letter (SAL) that has been widely forged.

  The card will be used to obtain access to the services and benefits to which many asylum seekers are entitled including support payment in cash from National Asylum Support Service (NASS)-enabled Post Offices. Asylum seekers will be expected to produce their ARC when reporting to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, as a means of identification.

  Clause 117 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill introduces offences in relation to the fraudulent use or production of application registration cards.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who is negotiating on behalf of the Government with Severn Waste Services for the purchase of land necessary to construct an access road to the Throckmorton site for a possible asylum accommodation centre; and if he will make a statement. [57113]

  Beverley Hughes
  I understand that dialogue is continuing between the site owner, QinetiQ, and Severn Waste. The proposal for an access road has its origins in QinetiQ's plan to establish a science park at Throckmorton airfield, which are well known and which pre-date our proposal for an accommodation centre for asylum seekers.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 7I8W, on asylum accommodation centres, what evaluation has taken place of bids to develop and operate asylum accommodation centres; and if he will make a statement. [59369]

  Beverley Hughes
  No bids have yet been invited to develop and operate accommodation centres.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the Defence Estates organisation about its planned disposals of land and the suitability of such land for use as an asylum accommodation centre. [59070]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are working very closely with the Defence Estates organisation on the accommodation centres programme. In relation to discussions on the Throckmorton site, we are conducting these with QinetiQ.
  1233W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received supporting the establishment of an asylum accommodation centre at Throckmorton, Worcestershire. [59086]

  Beverley Hughes
  A planning notification has not yet been submitted in respect of the proposed accommodation centre at Throckmorton.

  The consultation period of the planning process has therefore not yet begun.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet residents of the Buckingham constituency who will be affected if plans proceed for an accommodation centre for asylum seekers in Piddington. [57653]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office will shortly be taking part in public consultation as part of the planning process. We are discussing with Cherwel district council the exact nature that the consultation will take.

  Juvenile Sex Abusers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department takes to address the needs of children and young people who sexually abuse; and if he will make a statement. [57197]

  Hilary Benn
  Dealing with children and young people who sexually abuse requires contributions from different agencies, covering youth justice, child welfare, and education and health, including child and adolescent mental health agencies.

  Specific Home Office measures include the Home Office sponsored Youth Justice Board's funding of £60,000 for six projects that work with this group of young people, and a grant of £87,442 to a project developing and piloting new assessment methods. The Board are also working with the National Organisation for the Treatment of Abusers and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) to develop good practice and guidance for youth offending teams, and within the juvenile secure estate.

  The National Probation Service, jointly with the Prison Service and Youth Justice Board, are funding a pilot young sex offenders project for young people aged between 15 and 21, offering specialist assessments and interventions both in custody and in the community.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many meetings he has had with ministerial colleagues with regard to children and young people who sexually abuse in the last two years. [57199]

  Hilary Benn
  I have had no formal meetings with ministerial colleagues specifically regarding children and young people who sexually abuse.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of children and young people who are required to register in accordance with the Sex Offenders Act 1997 received treatment for sexually abusive behaviour in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001. [57176]
  1234W
  Hilary Benn
  The Sex Offenders Act 1997 requires offenders cautioned, convicted, or found not guilty by reason of insanity in respect of an offence specified in Schedule One to the Act to provide certain details to the police. There is no centralised "register" of sex offenders, as such. It is not, therefore, possible to disaggregate the number of young people from adults subject to the Act's requirements.

  Neither the Home Office nor the Youth Justice Board holds statistics on the number of young offenders who are required as a condition of their sentence to undertake treatment to address sexually abusive behaviour.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations made as a result of the consultation, 'Setting the Boundaries: Reforming the Law on Sex Offences'. [57188]

  Hilary Benn
  We are currently considering how to update existing legislation on sex offences in the light of the recommendations contained in 'Setting the Boundaries' and more than 700 responses that were received during the consultation period. We intend to bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the regulations by which schedule 1 status is applied to juveniles. [57177]

  Hilary Benn
  Schedule 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is a list of violent and sexual offences against children. This list has been used by various agencies as a way of identifying those who may pose a risk to children. There are currently no regulations that deal specifically with juveniles who commit a schedule 1 offence.

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding was available for programmes which addressed the needs of children and young people who sexually abuse in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000 and (d) 2001. [57321]

  Hilary Benn
  Full information is not held centrally. Specific related programme funding includes the Home Office sponsored Youth Justice Board's funding of six projects between 1999 and 2002, which totalled £600,000. The board are also providing funding totalling £87,442 between October 2001 and December 2003 to a project developing and piloting new assessment methods, and funding totalling £14,921 between November 2001 and March 2003 to a project examining the national provision of services.

  The National Probation Service is funding a pilot young sex offenders project designed to provide a specialist assessment and intervention service for young people aged between 15 and 21. The pilot received grant funding of £243,000 in 2001–02 and has a budget of £331,000 for 2002–03.

  Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will proscribe the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine under the Terrorism Act 2001; and if he will make a statement. [59006]
  1235W
  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The list of proscribed organisations is kept under review and decisions to proscribe or deproscribe are taken after careful consideration of all relevant aspects.

  National Asylum Support Services
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when NASS subcontracted its telephone inquiries function to an outside source; to which organisation it has been subcontracted, and for what period; for what reason the decision to subcontract the work was taken; what assessment he has made of the quality of information given out; and if he will make a statement. [58529]

  Beverley Hughes
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has not subcontracted its telephone inquiries function.

  The Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau (INEB), part of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, is responsible for handling inquiries about subsistence payments, and where it is believed support has been terminated erroneously, INEB takes these inquiries to enable NASS caseworkers to resolve queries more efficiently and in a shorter timescale.

  All other telephone inquiries are handled by NASS staff.

  Mortuaries
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who has responsibility for providing public mortuaries; [59440]

  (2) if he will list public mortuaries in England, indicating who is responsible for running them. [59439]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: Under the Public Health Act 1936, local authorities have the power to provide public mortuaries and post-mortem rooms. In practice, I understand that most coroners and local authorities rely on the national health service facilities for mortuary provision.

  Following a recent survey carried out by the Home Office, we are aware that the following local authorities in England provide a public mortuary service:

  London borough of Barnet

  London borough of Brent

  London borough of Bromley

  London borough of Croydon

  London borough of Greenwich

  London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  London borough of Hillingdon

  London borough of Lewisham

  London borough of Newham

  London borough of Westminster

  Birmingham city council

  Bracknell Forest council

  Bradford metropolitan district council

  1236W

  Brighton and Hove city council

  Bournemouth borough council

  Cannock Chase district council

  High Peak borough council

  Kingston upon Hull city council

  Liverpool city council

  Pendle borough council

  Rossendale borough council

  Sheffield city council

  Stoke-on-Trent city council

  Wolverhampton city council.

  Prisoners
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the number of prisoners who have(a) drug and (b) alcohol problems; and what services are available to them. [59625]

  Hilary Benn
  Every prisoner on reception receives a health examination and during that assessment a prisoner will be encouraged to disclose any drug or alcohol misuse problem. Figures on those with substance misuse problems are not kept centrally. Epidemiological surveys show that around 80 per cent. of prisoners had used drugs prior to prison, with 54 per cent. admitting dependency. Random mandatory drug testing figures show that, nationally, 11.6 per cent. of prisoners tested positive for drugs in 2001–02.

  An integrated range of drug treatment and support services is available to prisoners comprising:
  detoxification services available in all local and remand prisons;
  counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare (CARATs) available in all prisons;
  50 intensive treatment programmes; and
  voluntary drug testing programmes are available throughout the prison estate.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of prisoners had no fixed accommodation upon release from prison in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what services are available to find accommodation; [59626]

  (2) how many prisoners left prison and went directly into employment in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what services are available to prisoners to find employment upon release from prison. [59624]

  Hilary Benn
  The Prison Service undertook a large-scale survey in November and December 2001 of sentenced prisoners nearing release. 33 per cent. said they did not have accommodation arranged on release. 24 per cent. said they had a job to go to on release and six per cent. a training place.

  By comparison, in a prisoner resettlement survey conducted by the National Association for Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO) in 1992,48 per cent. said they needed help with long-term housing and 89 per cent. were likely to face unemployment on release.

  Many establishments provide services to help prisoners find accommodation and employment on release, often in partnership with Jobcentre Plus, the National Probation Service or voluntary sector organisations. These include housing advice centres, jobsearch training and support,

  1237W
  and the piloting in eight prisons from summer 2002 of new technology giving access to Jobcentre Plus information on employment vacancies across the country. The Prison Service Custody to Work programme, with £30 million earmarked over 2001–04, is geared towards increasing the number of prisoners getting jobs or training places after release through the development of such resettlement activity.

  Further impetus to improving the accommodation and employment services available to prisoners has been provided by the thematic review of resettlement published by the Inspectorates of Prisons and Probation in October 2001, and by the Social Exclusion Unit's current study on reducing re-offending by released prisoners, which is expected to report later in the year.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place for prisoners held in the high secure unit at HMP Belmarsh to take regular daily exercise; and how much fluid is available to each prisoner per day. [59867]

  Hilary Benn
  All prisoners in the High Secure Unit are able to have one hour of exercise in the open air each day. In addition they are also able, subject to staff availability, to attend the gymnasium three times each week. Each residential spur has either an exercise bike, rowing machine or step exerciser available for use by prisoners.

  Every cell contains a cold water tap providing drinking water. Each residential spur also has a water heater to provide prisoners with hot drinks. To cover those periods when prisoners are locked in their cells, each person is provided with a vacuum flask so as to enable them to make hot drinks, for which purpose they each receive a weekly allowance of tea, coffee and powdered milk. Every day each prisoner will also receive one 200m1 carton of milk.

  All prisoners are allowed to purchase items from the prison shop. Among items that are available are canned and bottled carbonated drinks as well as still drinks. Additional quantities of tea, coffee and hot drinks are also available for purchase.

  Television Licences
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prisoners are in prison in connection with non-payment of television licences. [58638]

  Hilary Benn
  The latest provisional data (representing 30 April 2002) show that there were no people in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for using a television without a licence at that time.

  Prisoner Suicides
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) attempted suicides and (b) suicides there were in prisons in England and Wales in each of the last 20 years; and what percentage of the prison population this represents; [58634]

  (2) how many (a) attempted suicides and (b) suicides there were in each prison in the UK in the last 20 years; and what percentage of the prison population in each prison this represents. [58633]
  1238W
  Hilary Benn
  The available information is set out in tables, which have been placed in the Library. Figures for "attempted suicide" (for which there is no separate definition) are subsumed within those for self-harm, which cover all acts of self-injury, however non-serious. The definition of self-harm and recording practices are under review. Information relating to prisons in Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. John Reid) respectively.

  HMP Belmarsh
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when and for what reasons the special secure unit at HMP Belmarsh was redesignated a high secure unit; and what the principal differences in prison regime are. [59866]

  Hilary Benn
  The high security unit at Belmarsh is a four spur, 48 cell facility holding both 'high' and 'standard' risk category A prisoners. In the event of a category A prisoner being received at Belmarsh with an 'exceptional' risk classification, then one spur of the unit will become a special secure unit. When this situation arises, the facility operates as a special secure unit.

  There are no principal differences in the regime offered to prisoners caused by change of designation. The main difference arising from the change of designation would be in respect of general security measures taken by staff.

  Hezb-e Tahrir
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has classified Hezb-e Tahrir as a terrorist organization; what changes have been made in its classification since January 1999; and if he will make a statement. [59685]

  Mr. Blunkett
  This organisation is not on the proscribed list of organisations contained in schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

  The list of proscribed organisations is kept under review and decisions to proscribe or deproscribe are taken after careful consideration of all relevant aspects.

  Animal Rights Protests
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions of animal rights activists have occurred since the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 came into force; and what sentences were handed down. [57014]

  Hilary Benn
  Information on prosecutions under the provisions of the 2001 Act relating to intimidatory assemblies and malicious communications will be published for the first time in 2003, although this will not distinguish between prosecutions of animal rights extremists and other people since the characteristics of court defendants are not collected centrally.

  Damilola Taylor
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 15 May 2002,Official Report, column 700W, on Damilola Taylor,

  1239W
  if he will define vulnerable or intimidated witnesses; what his criteria are for this definition; and which agents and agencies he consulted on this definition. [60080]

  Hilary Benn
  Sections 16 and 17 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 define vulnerable and intimidated witnesses in terms of their eligibility for assistance from special measures to achieve best evidence.

  Vulnerable witnesses are those (other than the defendant) who are eligible for assistance because they are under 17 at the time of the hearing or because the court considers that the quality of their evidence is likely to be diminished for reasons of physical disability, physical or mental disorder or a significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning.

  Intimidated witnesses are those who are eligible for assistance because the court is satisfied that the quality of their evidence is likely to be diminished by fear or distress about testifying. The court has to take into account the nature and alleged circumstances of the offence, the age of the witness and any views expressed by him or her, and any behaviour towards the witness on the part of the accused, members of the family or associates of the accused or any other person who is likely to be an accused or witness in the proceedings.

  Where relevant, the court must also take into account the witness's social and cultural background and ethnic origin, domestic and employment circumstances and religious beliefs or political opinions.

  A complainant in respect of a sexual offence who is a witness in proceedings relating to that offence is also eligible for assistance unless the witness has informed the court that he or she does not wish to be eligible.

  The definitions in sections 16 and 17 of the 1999 Act were based on the recommendations of 'Speaking Up for Justice', the report of the inter-departmental working group which is available in the Library and to which I referred in my earlier answer. This contains a literature review and a summary of representations received from organisations and individuals.

  Data Protection
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the draft codes of practice which relate to the use and retention of communications data as defined in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; if he has revised his estimates on the costs to industry of the retention of such data; and if he will make a statement as to why the draft code of practice which relates to retention of communications data has not yet been issued. [59265]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The codes of practice relating to the access and retention of communications data are being developed in consultation with communications providers, the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies and the Interception and Information Commissioners respectively. A draft of the access code will be laid before Parliament shortly, and a retention code will be issued for public consultation. Discussions with communications providers are forming the basis of the Government's assessment of the cost of retention.

  Youth Offending
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to tackle persistent youth offending. [57064]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: We have given the courts new secure remand and tagging powers for 12 to 16-year-olds who repeatedly offend on bail. Both started in the 10 street crime priority areas on 22 April. Tagging started in the rest of the country on I June 2002, and secure remands will start on 16 September 2002.

  We have also delivered the youth justice pledge by halving the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders; funding the Youth Justice Board's intensive supervision and surveillance programmes for the most prolific offenders; and we have introduced the detention and training order for persistent and more serious young offenders.

  Devolution
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to transfer the administration of reserved powers and functions of his Department, its executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies within its remit from his Department to the Scotland Office; [59513]

  (2) how many representations the Scottish Executive has made to his Department since May 1999, broken down by (a) Scottish Executive Department, (b) subject and (c) date; [59514]

  (3) how many times his office has made representations to the Scottish Executive since May 1999, broken down by (a) Department approached, (b) subject and (c) date. [59515]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister on 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 600W.

  Yarl's Wood
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) of those detainees who were present at Yarl's Wood Immigration Detention Centre on the evening of 14 February and who had been removed from Britain as of Tuesday 21 May, how many were due to be questioned by the police as part of the criminal investigation into the disturbances at Yarl's Wood but were not questioned before removal; [59218]

  (2) of those detainees who were present at Yarl's Wood Immigration Detention Centre on the evening of 14 February and who had been removed from Britain as of Tuesday 21 May, how many had been questioned by the police as part of the criminal investigation into the disturbances at Yarl's Wood. [59250]

  Beverley Hughes
  The questioning of detainees by the police as part of the criminal investigation into the disturbances at Yarl's Wood is a matter for Bedfordshire police.

  Information about subsequent removals is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by an examination of individual case files.

  Haslar Detention Centre
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the road signs directing the public to Haslar Detention Centre have been replaced by signs reading Immigration Removal Centre Haslar; and whether these changes reflect a change of purpose for the establishment. [60398]

  Beverley Hughes
  We announced our intention to redesignate existing detention centres as "Removal Centres" in the recent White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven: Integration with diversity in modern Britain. There is provision in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill currently before Parliament to amend references to detention centres in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and elsewhere so as to formally reflect their change of name to removal centres.

  This change will reinforce the key part these centres play in the removal of failed asylum seekers and others. There are no substantive changes to the provisions relating to the purpose and operation of these centres.

  Prison Service
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the fines imposed on private sector contractors within the Prison Service for not meeting targets have been(a) paid and (b) overturned on appeal in each of the last three years. [58389]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: The number of fines imposed in the last three years is as follows:
  1999–2000: 11
  2000–01: 7
  2001–02: 3.
  All of the fines have been paid and none have been overturned on appeal.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed by the Prison Service in each of the last five years. [58391]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: The information is contained the table:

  Prison Service staff in post

  31 March 1997

  39,629

  31 March 1998

  41,056

  31 March 1999

  42,683

  31 March 2000

  43,683

  31 March 2001

  43,800

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers have left the service within(a) one year and (b) two years of starting in each of the last five years. [58390]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: The information is contained the table. Reliable leavers information including date of recruitment is not available before June 1998.
  1242W

  Left within one year of recruitment

  Left within up to two years of recruitment

  1998–991

  41

  65

  1999–2000

  61

  98

  2000–01

  46

  93

  2001–02

  32

  107

  1June 1998 to March 1999 only.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff(a) were recruited to and (b) left the Prison Service in each of the last five years. [58392]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: The information, which includes casual staff, is contained in the table.

  Recruits

  Leavers

  1997–98

  4,732

  1—

  1998–99

  4,144

  2,817

  1999–2000

  4,419

  3,316

  2000–01

  3,466

  3,812

  2001–02

  4,337

  4,211

  1Reliable information on leavers during 1997–98 is not available.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is given to ease of access for family visits in placing prisoners. [58843]

  Hilary Benn
  All prison establishments are required to consider a number of factors when placing a prisoner, one of which is the home area of prisoners and their visitors.

  The Prison Service places great importance on prisoners having regular and productive visits in order to maintain close and meaningful ties with their families as part of their effective rehabilitation.

  However, high population levels throughout the prison estate can lead to prisoners being transferred from their home area to prison establishments with a greater number of vacancies to create capacity for remand prisoners within those prisons that serve the courts.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoners in each prison are(a) married or in long-term relationships, (b) have children under 18 and (c) both. [58842]

  Hilary Benn
  On reception into prison all prisoners are asked about their marital status. They cannot be required to provide this information. As of 24 May, 10,786 male prisoners and 571 female prisoners described themselves as married or cohabiting. This amounts to 16 per cent. of the prison population. The information is not available by individual establishment. Information about prisoners with children is not collated. However, surveys suggest that about 60 per cent. of prisoners have children of whom about half have dependent children.

  Wolds Prison
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the officially designated maximum prisoner capacity is for HMP Wolds. [57587]

  Hilary Benn
  Wolds prison has an operational capacity of 410.
  1243W
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities are available at HMP Wolds for prisoners with mental health problems. [57588]

  Hilary Benn
  Prisoners with mental health problems can be cared for in the health care centre at Wolds prison, which provides for up to 16 in-patients. A number of the nurses caring for these patients are specifically qualified to work with mentally ill prisoners. A psychiatrist visits the prison on a weekly basis to provide psychological and counsellor support to those within the health care centre and on normal location. Wolds prison also works very closely with agencies to provide secure hospital accommodation and mental health community support for those prisoners being discharged.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many positive drug tests were recorded at HMP Wolds in the past three years. [57586]

  Hilary Benn
  For the year ending 31 March 2000, 58 drug tests at Wolds prison were recorded as positive. The figures were 38 and 16 for the years ending 31 March 2001 and 2002 respectively.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults on staff there were at HMP Wolds in the last three years. [57585]

  Hilary Benn
  For the year ending 31 March 2000, there were 14 assaults by prisoners on staff. The figures were 16 and nine for the years ending 31 March 2001 and 2002 respectively.

  Coroners
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress of the review of the coroners' system. [57698]

  Hilary Benn
  The review has so far involved a number of regional visits to coroners and meetings with the public, as well as with the Department for Health, the Retained Organs Commission, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Judicial Studies Board and other relevant organisations. Time has also been spent in Northern Ireland, and review team members have attended Home Office-run coroner training events. The review team hope to issue a consultation on document shortly.

  Brixton Prison
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the staff employed in Brixton prison in each year since 1996 have formerly been members of the security services in Northern Ireland. [58280]

  Hilary Benn
  Information on the earlier careers of prison staff is not held in the form required and would necessitate examining around 1,300 files, and interviewing several hundred staff, many of whom no longer work for the Prison Service. This could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action has been taken to ensure that the sabotage of cell bell alarm systems identified by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in his inspection of HMP Brixton on 26 to 29 June 2000 is not repeated. [58277]
  1244W
  Hilary Benn
  New procedures were put in place following the inspection to ensure the cell call bells remain in working order. The cell call system is checked daily by wing staff and night orderlies. No reports of a failure of the system have been reported since the new procedure was introduced.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what disciplinary action has been taken against those involved in the sabotage of cell bell alarm systems identified in the inspection by the Chief Inspector of Prisons of HMP Brixton on 26 to 29 June 2000. [58276]

  Hilary Benn
  Despite investigation, no member of staff has been identified as being responsible for sabotaging the cell call bell system at Brixton prison. It has not, therefore been possible to take any disciplinary action.

  The Prison Service takes a very serious view of such matters and, should information come to light which is strong enough to support taking disciplinary action, this will be done.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the deaths of Irish citizens in Brixton prison since 1996. [58332]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend Minister of State, Home Office (Beverley Hughes) gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 21 May 2002,Official Report, column 268W, which explained that a review is to be conducted into the deaths of Irish prisoners at Brixton since 1998. There were no such deaths between 1996 and 1998.

  Prison Staff Deployment
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the deployment of prison staff now in charge of Irish prisoners who have served in the security forces in Northern Ireland. [58279]

  Hilary Benn
  None. Detailed information about earlier careers of members of staff is not collated and to do so would involve disproportionate cost.

  Irish Prisoners
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in the last six months from the Irish Government, Irish community organisations and individuals on the deaths of Irish prisoners in British prisons; and what action he has taken as a result. [58275]

  Hilary Benn
  Correspondence has been received from the Irish in Britain Representation Group. A reply will be sent shortly.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to include an Irish category based on CRE guidelines in the system for ethnic monitoring in Her Majesty's prisons. [58278]
  1245W
  Hilary Senn
  The Commission for Race Equality's (CRE) "Ethnic Monitoring—A Guide for Public Authorities" recommends adopting the ethnic categories used in the 2001 Census and this incorporates the use of an Irish category. All civil service Departments were required by the Cabinet Office to undertake an ethnicity re-classification exercise. The format for the classifications was provided to reflect the latest census classification. The Prison Service are in the process of adopting the Census 2001 categories.

  An ethnicity re-classification exercise of all Prison Service staff was undertaken in October 2001. Every member of staff was asked to complete a questionnaire which allowed their ethnic origin to be recorded in a category as provided for in the 2001 Census. Arrangements are also being made to update.

  Court Adjournments
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the trend in the number of court cases that are adjourned one or more times, and the effect that these adjournments have on other parts of the court service. [58858]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.
  1246W
  Sample surveys of magistrates court cases show that the proportion of defendants whose cases were adjourned in these courts fell from 50 per cent. in 1997 to 44 per cent. in 2001. In the magistrates courts a joint monitoring scheme with the Crown Prosecution Service and other criminal justice agencies began on 1 April 2002, to collect data for all adjourned trials, including the number of previous adjournments. The first quarterly figures will be published in July 2002. The Crown court also has a national monitoring scheme for adjourned trials. Data from both sources will inform a research project, planned to start later this year, into the effect of trial adjournments.

  Youth Justice
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what proportion of cases in magistrates courts involving young people as a defendant(a) went ahead at the first hearing, (b) were adjourned once before the case is heard and (c) were adjourned more than once before the case is heard in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [58859]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  During last year, 26 per cent. of young defendants had their cases completed at the first listing, 23 per cent. had one adjournment and 51 per cent. were adjourned more than once. These figures are taken from sample surveys, so total numbers are not available.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Medical Schools: Teaching Staff
Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their commitments on medical training are compatible with cuts in teaching staff at medical schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the additional costs of teaching the increased number of medical students were fully taken into account at the last spending review. The Department of Health and the Higher Education Funding Council are monitoring implementation of medical school expansion and will assess whether shortages of clinical academic staff are an issue.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I note the Minister's reply, but I hope that in monitoring the situation the Government will recognise that the current situation is extremely dire. Redundancies have taken place or are planned at a host of medical colleges including Bart's, Imperial College, King's, Leicester, Leeds and Newcastle. There are 300 unfilled academic posts in our medical schools, yet we anticipate a 63 per cent increase in medical students up to 2005. The Minister will undoubtedly be aware that this is in large part due to the vagaries of the research assessment exercise, which is grossly underfunded and operates against academic medicine. When will the Government get their act together and have genuinely joined-up government with the Higher Education Funding Council?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a number of comments. However, on the core question of universities' ability to handle the increase in medical school places, which is critical to implementation of the NHS Plan, I remind him that medical schools bid for extra places on the basis of their statement that they can recruit the required number of staff to teach the medical students admitted to their schools. In each of the past three years, despite the problems they have talked about, universities have in fact exceeded their targets. I am not complacent and the Government are not complacent—we are monitoring the situation—but I do not believe that the situation is as bleak as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a longstanding agreement under which clinical academic staff in medical schools
126
are expected to spend up to six half-clays a week in clinical work and up to five half-days in teaching and research? Is he aware that a recent survey has indicated that, because of pressure by NHS managers to see more and more patients, many clinical academic staff are spending between 40 and 58 hours a week in clinical work to the detriment of their teaching and their research productivity? Is this not a major disincentive to the recruitment of clinical academics, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said? What will the Government do to see that that longstanding agreement is implemented?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if there are pressures in the system in relation to the employment of clinical academics—both from the NHS in terms of teaching commitment and from universities in terms of research commitment—then that is clearly one of the issues that the Department of Health and the Higher Education Funding Council will have to explore and discuss. That is why we recently announced the establishment of a strategic alliance between those two organisations to pick up the very issues that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, talked, about.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact that training encompasses not only undergraduate training but postgraduate training? There is an impossible situation in which we have a severe shortage of medical consultant staff but people cannot find training places in order to become consultant staff. The National Health Service is suffering desperately as a result. What answer does the Minister have to the problem?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the NHS is increasing considerably the number of doctors it employs. As the noble Baroness suggests, to do that we shall have to expand the number of medical school places. At the same time, we are depending on our hard-pressed medical staff to make a major contribution to the teaching of those medical students, which inevitably produces pressure and bottlenecks in the system. The noble Baroness may well have been referring to an article in The Times on 7th June by Sir Peter Morris, president of the Royal College of Surgeons. Of course we are discussing with the Royal College and with other medical bodies how we should tackle those issues. They are not easy to deal with, but we are determined to tackle them.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that responsibility for the clear reduction in funding for medical schools lies with the Department for Education and Skills? Does he agree that coordination between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills might be worthy of greater effort?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes, this is a partnership between the education and the health sectors. It is clearly incumbent on my department, on the DFES and on the Higher Education Funding

127
Council to work together. That is why we formed the strategic alliance between the Department of Health and the HEFC. Later in the month, my right honourable friend Mr John Hutton is meeting with Mrs Margaret Hodge at the DIES and with the BMA to discuss some of these issues. We shall continue to ensure that both departments work together to monitor the situation.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a problem? Does he further accept that a whole new batch of medical students will start in September? Can the House be assured that all this co-ordination and the meetings later in the month will result in positive steps to deal with the problem by September?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the fact is that the medical schools that have taken part in our expansion programme have all given commitments that they will meet the demands being placed upon them. As I say, the record over the past three years is that not only have medical schools met those targets, they have exceeded them. Of course, some medical schools are currently facing certain issues and challenges. In the recent research assessment exercise, some medical schools did better than others. But, overall, there is no hard evidence to suggest that we shall not meet those medical education targets.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is not the simple answer to pay doctors who teach in hospitals rather more money than they receive at present?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not believe that it is simply a question of what doctors are paid. We have an independent pay review body. The Government have accepted the recommendations of the review bodies in each year that they have reported during our term of office. As I indicated, I believe that we need to examine the dual pressures placed on clinical academics by their responsibilities to both the NHS and the universities. However, I also believe that we are receiving tremendous support throughout the country for these expanded medical places and for the remarkable increase in doctors which will come about as a result of that expansion.

London Underground
2.44 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What prospect they now see of an end to the uncertainties and hazards experienced by passengers on the London Underground.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the recent announcement that London Underground has signed contracts for the modernisation of the Tube will end
128
the uncertainties over funding and deliver a massive, much-needed injection of resources into the Underground.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wonder whether I could gently inquire what on earth is going on. Would I be right to suppose that a kind of trench warfare is taking place with Mr Kiley and the Mayor on one side and the Department of Transport and the Treasury on the other, with ammunition being supplied to both sides by over-paid consultants? One begins to wonder what attention is being given to passengers. Are the Government satisfied about the safety of the system?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I always enjoy the definition given by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, of "gently". No trench warfare is going on between the Mayor and the Department of Transport. In fact, we are on target to transfer the assets to Transport for London later this year. The negotiations on that point are going well.
As to the question of over-paid consultants, the amounts spent have certainly not been comparable with the vast amounts of expenditure on consultants incurred by the previous government during the disastrous privatisation of the railway system. In fact, although the costs are high, they are always high. They always seem to me to be too high, but we have made considerable savings by using the same consultants for both the Government and London Transport.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, with regard to the issue of safety, to which noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred at the end of his question, is the noble Lord satisfied that all measures have been taken to ensure that full safety will be achieved under these new arrangements? Is he aware, for example, that yesterday an incident of poor maintenance of track involving a private contractor was reported from Wembley Park?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the issue of safety is paramount but it is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive, which will report shortly on the safety aspects of the public/private partnership. If it makes recommendations for changes, those changes will have to take place. As for the incident—or lack of incident because the defects were discovered before any incident took place—at Wembley Park, is it not rather a good thing that that discovery took place first?
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, did my noble friend see the editorial in the Independent on Sunday which listed winners and losers and described who did well and badly during the Jubilee celebrations? The clear winner was London Underground. The newspaper said that, when put to the test, it showed how it can handle large events because 1 million passengers used the Underground in an hour at the height of the celebrations. Would it not be a good idea if we spent a little time praising London

129
Underground when it does well, as clearly it did last week, rather than griping endlessly in the way that Fleet Street wants us to do?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Faulkner about what happened last week. But, of course, the change goes far wider than the events of a single week. The figure for train kilometres run—in other words, the capacity available for passengers—has been increasing yearly since 1999. Last year's figure was nearly 65.5 million as compared with just over 63 million in 1999–2000. Those are real increases in capacity.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord that the safety issues have not really been satisfied. The RMT, which has 9,000 members among London Underground staff, is holding a ballot on whether to strike in protest at key safety issues. The incident at Wembley Park on the Jubilee Line, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, came to light only because of a leaked e-mail from a manager at London Underground. Will the Minister assure us that the department will take up the matter with London Underground so that it addresses these key safety issues and, in particular, those relating to the incident at Wembley Park?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I made entirely clear, the issue of safety is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive. The Government will not lean on the Health and Safety Executive in any way. It is responsible for ensuring safety on the Underground. If it says something has to be done, it will be done.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, has the Minister or his officials given attention to the signalling problem on London Underground? I am a regular traveller, and trains sit in tunnels for hours, which is always due to the signalling breaking down. Why is the signalling on London Underground so inadequate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I served on the GLC transport committee for a number of years and am well aware of the financing difficulties of London Transport and London Underground over a considerable number of years. There are serious defects in signalling. There are also serious defects in the quality of the rolling stock and the track. That is why there will be £16 billion of investment over the next 15 years; nearly £8.5 billion on trains and signalling; nearly £4 billion on track and around £3.5 billion on stations. Nothing of that scale has been undertaken before.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did I hear the Minister correctly when he said that the same consultants were being used by the Government and the Mayor? Does not that seem quaint, if I am right, bearing in mind the profound differences between the two organisations?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it must be my fault that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, misheard
130
me. I did not say that the same consultants were being used by the Government and the Mayor; I said by the Government and London Transport. The Mayor's organisation is Transport for London.

House of Lords: Elected Members
2.51 p.m.
Lord Lucasasked the Leader of the House:
What accommodation, staff and other facilities will be offered to elected Members of the House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, this is a hypothetical question, and none the worse for that. We do not know whether there will be any elected Members. The Government have asked Parliament to consider further reform of the House of Lords. The terms of reference of the Joint Committee ask it to consider and report on a full range of options for composition. Therefore, the facilities available to new Members would be a matter for the House to decide.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. Does the noble and learned Lord, whose energy in reforming this House and in making it a more effective place is second to none, consider that matters would be greatly improved if research assistants were available, at least to the Front Bench, to enable it properly to prepare and execute its duties in Committee and at other stages of Bills in this House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is a reasonable point. Those matters are kept constantly under review.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord why lie thinks that that is a hypothetical Question. Is he unaware of the fact that there are already elected Members in this House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thought they were the elite of God, not elected.

Sexual Offences
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the law which makes it an offence for girls under the age of 16 to have sexual intercourse with men is working satisfactorily.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, as with all criminal charges, successful prosecution depends on the evidence that is brought before the courts. Tackling sexual offending is a top priority for this Government. We are currently reviewing the sex offence laws and considering a range of proposed new offences in relation to sexual activity

131
with children of both sexes under the age of 16. We intend to introduce modernised and strengthened legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. He will be aware of the recent case of a girl of 12 and a man of 22. Is he aware that the numbers of reported cases of intercourse with girls under the age of 16 in 1988 were some 2,552, and that that has fallen, 20 years later, to 1,133, and that the number of convictions has fallen from 339 in 1988 to 225 today? Does not that suggest that the law is not being enforced? Is not that a serious matter? Similar statistics apply in the case of girls under the age of 13, and I understand that in that case the offence qualifies as rape.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, first, I am aware of the case to which the noble Baroness referred. It would be wrong for me to comment on the details of that case. However, it is ultimately for the prosecuting authorities to decide whether or not a prosecution will be brought. That must be decided on an objective analysis of the evidence. It would not be in the interests of any child for a prosecution to be brought which the prosecuting authorities thought would fail. One should leave such decisions to the prosecuting authorities.
As regards the second point, I am aware of the figures to which the noble Baroness referred. It would not be useful for me to speculate on the reasons, but I do not think that they are just to do with the law not being enforced in the same way as it has been in the past. I think that it has quite a lot to do with a change in social attitudes. However, I reiterate that this Government take the view that protecting people under 16 is a vital aspect of the criminal law. We shall bring forward proposals in relation to that later.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, first, given that the sex offences review team published its recommendations for consultation nearly two years ago, can the Minister give the House a timetable for when new legislation will be brought before Parliament? Secondly, given the Government's commitment to joined-up government: the extremely high level of teenage pregnancy in this country, second only to the United States; and the increasing incidence of sexually transmitted diseases among young people, how will the noble and learned Lord's department liaise with the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills in order to approach this raft of inter-related issues in an integrated way?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as regards timing, I cannot go beyond saying that we intend to introduce strengthened legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. I cannot go further than that from where I stand at present. I agree with the proposition underlying the second part of the question asked by the noble Baroness. There must be very close liaison between the Home Office, the Department of
132
Health and other departments, in particular the Department for Education and Skills, in relation to all the issues to which the noble Baroness referred. I also refer to the fact that there was a Social Exclusion Unit report in relation to teenage pregnancies. We strive to join up as much as we can in relation to those issues.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that there is no general principle of law which requires the victim to give evidence in a prosecution case? That is evidenced, clearly, by the fact that if there were, we would never secure a conviction for murder.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the proposition advanced by my noble friend. It is not necessary as a matter of law for a victim to make a complaint before a prosecution can be brought. However, in a case which is not murder or manslaughter, the reality in many cases is that if the victim does not make a complaint, that may well give rise in practice to difficulty in obtaining a conviction.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that in the case of the 12 year-old girl, the police said that they were powerless to act? Are we accepting in that case that if they were powerless to act, the case of a child under the age of 12 who is abused cannot be investigated unless the child gives evidence? Does not the noble and learned Lord agree that the police have a duty to protect not only parents but children too?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the police certainly have a duty to protect children and they would be the first to accept that. As regards their powers, as the Director of Public Prosecutions made clear subsequently, the need for the victim to complain or give evidence is not a legal requirement. However, the police and the prosecuting authorities must analyse the evidence objectively in such cases. They must decide in a particular case whether the absence of evidence from the complainant will lead to a reduced chance of conviction. If they come to that conclusion—that is a matter for them—they should not bring the prosecution because it would be damaging for everyone involved.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that while law is clearly important, individual personal values are far more so? If he accepts that kind of thinking, will the Government, with the whole of their power, encourage education on abstinence from sex before marriage?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is absolutely clear that individual values are vitally important in this area. The role of education in relation to instilling values that we all regard as acceptable is absolutely vital.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, this is a very serious issue. We must feel for the families involved.

133
But does the noble and learned Lord agree that the law by itself cannot make us good and that the matter requires, as has already been indicated, not only education but a multi-pronged approach? Given the significance of the increase in sexually transmitted diseases and the possible problems of future infertility, can the Minister tell us whether education on values and information given to both children and parents will also be a priority for the Government?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I could not agree more with the right reverend Prelate's preliminary remark; namely, that the law cannot make us good and that individual values, education and instilling in children and adults alike the right values are incredibly important. I also thoroughly endorse what he said about the importance of education. We have made it clear that education in relation to the issues that we are discussing is a priority for the Department for Education and Skills.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that as long ago as 1984 the Criminal Law Revision Committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Lawton, published its recommendations on sexual offences? Chapter 5 of that report was concerned solely with intercourse with young girls. In paragraph 5.10 we recommended—I was a member of that committee—the abolition of the young man's defence. Perhaps the Minister will agree that it may be time for the Government to look again at the recommendations in that report.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was aware of that report. The noble and learned Lord will also be aware of the document published last year by the Home Office, entitled Setting the Boundaries, which takes up a number of ideas in the 1984 report. As I said, we hope to bring forward legislation at the earliest possible opportunity.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the answer to the Question of my noble friend Lady Young is not a matter of changing the law but of evidence? Since it is an offence to have intercourse with a girl under 16, whether or not she consents, if there is other evidence that the man has had intercourse with her, a prosecution can take place whether or not the girl is willing to give evidence. To that extent. her willingness to give evidence is, to some degree, irrelevant.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in the case to which the noble Baroness referred there was an issue about evidence. Plainly, there is an offence of unlawful sexual intercourse between a man and a woman under 16. The law already exists in relation to that. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, but I do not accept that the law is necessarily perfect in relation to that.Setting the Boundaries indicates the way in which the law can be changed in order to provide better protection. As I say, legislation will be brought forward at the first possible opportunity.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, how many girls under 16 who are at present in prison are pregnant or have babies?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not have that information to hand but I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell us—pursuant to his original reply to my noble friend Lady Young in which he said that this matter was a top priority for the Government—what matters of policy are not top priorities now?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Prime Minister has made clear that crime, transport, health and education are top priorities for the Government. The matter we are discussing concerns crime.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that an apology is owed to the parents of this girl? She supplied evidence to the police but they still said that without a complaint from the girl they were powerless to act.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it would be totally inappropriate for me to get involved with the issues in that case.

National Insurance Contributions Bill
3.4 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Public Trustee (Liability and Fees) Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Bill
3.5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

135
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 29 [Statutory dispute resolution procedures]:
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 34:
Page 35, line 23, at end insert "by provisions which do not make the statutory dispute resolution procedures less favourable to the employee"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment takes us back to the statutory dispute procedures where the Secretary of State is given a considerable amount of flexibility to change, alter, add, take away and reduce the procedures. He can modify them. He can amend them in the light of experience, in the light of caseload and indeed in the light of anything else. The amendment proposes that as a result of the power which the Secretary of State, has the statutory procedures should not become worse. It suggests that the modifications should not be less favourable to employees.
When this issue and clause were debated in Committee, I was unwise enough to say that the provisions in the statutory procedures were so bad that they could not be any worse. I have thought about that and that was clearly wrong. They could certainly be better. There could be something in the statutory procedures to say that one had to have an effective investigation before the employer took any decision. We would not be against that. There could be something in the statutory procedures—pwe hope that in time the Government might see that this is a good idea—about the suspension alternative. There could be something in the statutory procedures about taking into account the reasonableness of the decision. Indeed, we would not mind—in fact we would welcome it—if the Government decided to abolish the modified procedures which have never been fully explained.
Nevertheless, it could be worse. It could be much worse. I do not say that the Government intend to make the situation much worse. I do not say that the Government intend to make it worse. I say that the power in the regulations would enable them to do certain things. For example, the exemptions which we hope to see might be taken away. There might be no exemptions. The modified procedures could be extended to cover other issues that we presume that they would not cover now. The 28 days delay could rise to 35 days. More steps could be added to restrict the access to the tribunals.
When we raised these questions in Committee my noble friend Lord McIntosh began by reassuring us, but he said that our amendment at that time created several practical difficulties. He said that our amendment,
"raises issues about what constitutes treatment that is more or less favourable to the employee. Different views could reasonably be taken in many circumstances and the tests would be difficult to apply in practice. We might be"—
and this is the critical part I think—
"under certain circumstances, inviting judicial review … Amendment No. 162 … seeks to prevent us [the Government] from changing the admissibility criteria in any way that is less favourable to the employee".
136
Well, yes, of course; that is what we are trying to do. He continued:
"it could have uncertain results and invite applications for judicial review. The policy underlying the amendment is too restrictive. It is biased against employer interests".
It is an attempt to maintain a balance. Presumably, the Government have maintained the balance, and we are saying that they should not intervene to make the situation worse. My noble friend continued:
"If we are to create a fair and accepted system, it must meet the needs of both employers and employees".—[Official Report, 25/3/02; col. CWH 363.]
What he did not deny, as far as I can tell—I am asking whoever answers for the Government to deny it today—was that the Government may move in the direction that we seek to deny them and make the procedures worse.
Of course, I should like the Government to accept our amendment, but if they will not I should like them to say that they have no intention of moving in the direction that our amendment would preclude. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the statutory procedures represent a significant innovation. We have consulted on them. They have been scrutinised in detail both here and in another place and the procedures have been amended as a result. We are as confident as we can be that they will work in practice. However, experience, unforeseen events or changing circumstances may throw into question the use of particular words—or possibly whole sections of the procedures. It is therefore eminently sensible to build some flexibility into the Bill allowing us to change the procedures in the light of developments.
Clause 29(2)(a) contains an important order-making power enabling the Secretary of State to change the statutory procedures in Schedule 2. Before using those powers, the Secretary of State must consult the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Orders must be introduced following the affirmative resolution procedure. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform considers the power to be "appropriate". The amendment tabled by my noble friend would limit the use of the power to ensure that the procedures were not changed in a way which made them less favourable to the employee.
We have two problems with the amendment. First, it would seriously imbalance the power. As I stated, the power is there to deal with unforeseen circumstances— to correct any practical problems or difficulties in interpretation. If a problem emerged that mainly affected the employer, it might be difficult to use the power to make the necessary adjustments to the procedures because employees might incur some loss—however minor—as a result. That is simply inequitable and would ensure that known deficiencies in the procedure would remain in place much longer than necessary.
Secondly—this point was made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh in the passage cited by my noble friend Lord McCarthy—it is by no means easy in all circumstances to determine what is or is not

137
"favourable" to the employee. For example, it is far from clear whether employees would be advantaged or disadvantaged if the requirement to set out grievances in writing were replaced by an obligation to make the complaint orally. Some might benefit if they could not express themselves well in writing, whereas others might lose if they found it difficult to explain themselves clearly and unambiguously in the spoken word.
So I fear that we are not prepared to agree to the amendment and I hope that, in the light of my explanation, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I have two questions for him. First, is he not aware that the formula of what is not less favourable to employees appears frequently in other areas of statute law and has never caused a difficulty of the kind that he describes?
Secondly, my noble and learned friend suggests that the power to change things in a way that may be less favourable to employees is to deal with unforeseen events. This happens again and again in the Bill: the Government take powers and then say, "Oh, we cannot tell you to what they may apply; it is all unforeseen". Cannot he produce one example in which it would be reasonable to make a less favourable provision for employees? None of the examples that he gave was in fact of that kind. It is extraordinary that the Government want to take powers for events that are totally unforeseeable.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on the first point, yes, I am aware that there are provisions in employment law describing procedures no less favourable to a particular group. I am also aware, as is my noble friend, that almost all of those provisions have accreted a huge amount of case law around them as to what they mean.
On the second point, the starting point for the provision is that we think that we have the statutory procedures right. It follows that we do not at present identify changes that will be required. By their nature, the changes are unforeseeable at present. But, in the course of my remarks, I gave an example; namely, evidence to be given in writing as opposed to orally. I do not envisage that that change will be required, but it identifies the problem. I hope that I have adequately answered my noble friend's two questions.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I fear that I do not agree. There are several points to be made. Of course, we do not deny, and the amendment does not preclude, that the Government will from time to time want to make changes in the light of various developments. But on the question of what is less favourable to the employee, I thought that the Government had made a great deal in this House, in another place and in Routes to Resolution of the fact that this is a minimum procedure. It is not everything, for God's sake.
138
It is certainly not what is in the ACAS code. We have frequently said, "Why not include a little of what is in the ACAS code?" "No, no, no", the Government say, "It is a minimum. The employer—pespecially those poor employers who have never before had a procedure—could not possibly embrace more than what is in the minimum procedure". OK, I accept that, it is pretty minimum, but in fact it could get worse, In the example that my noble and learned friend gave, it is impossible to say whether the situation is worse or better. With respect, that is frivolous. M y examples of ways in which the situation could be made significantly worse are substantive and they were not challenged by my noble and learned friend.
Finally, I am not at this point saying that I expect the Government to accept the amendment. We have for a long time been used to tabling amendments that are not accepted. But we would be making some progress if only Ministers would say that some of the concerns that underlie the amendment are unjustified and unfair and that they do not intend to act in that way. They could say that they do not intend to make the minimum procedure worse. That is what I ask them to do, but they will not do it and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendonmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 35, line 33, at end insert—
"(4) Minor and inconsequential breach by an employer or employee of the requirements of Schedule 2 shall not result in his suffering any detriment in any proceedings before an employment tribunal and the employer shall not be deemed thereby to have wrongly dismissed the employee."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 29 introduces Schedule 2, which sets out the statutory dispute resolution procedure. Unlike other procedural clauses in the Bill—for example, Clauses 23 to 28—the schedule relates solely to claims under the Bill and does not alter employment tribunal procedure generally. The whole tenor of the Bill's procedure is one of informality, recognising that applicants may not have easy access to legal advice or support from a trade union and that employers will more often than not be small businesses—very small businesses, in many cases—the proprietor of which has neither the time nor, in many cases, the money to secure professional assistance.
Schedule 2 sets out the procedure in two-and-a-half pages containing three separate parts comprising a total of five chapters. It goes into minute detail, much of which is rightly designed to resolve the differences between the parties by agreement or discussion without recourse to the tribunal. When introducing the Bill, the Minister made it clear that it was a great attempt to make things much more informal and to try where possible to avoid employers and employees having to end up at tribunals.
Of course, we have absolutely no objection to that procedure. We think that it is fine. However, with no disrespect to employees or employers, who may be acting for themselves in person and without skilled

139
advice, it will be all too easy for one of the many procedural steps to be taken out of time, carried out incorrectly, or even missed altogether.
About 300 years ago English courts began to erode the rules of "strict pleading" under which the courts of common law sometimes dismissed cases, not on their merits, but because of some defect in the form of the documents presented to the court. There is a legal maxim de minimis non curat lex—the law does not concern itself with trifles—which has its origin back in Roman times where it was expressed as de minimis non curat praetor—a praetor does not occupy himself with petty matters. There is no reason why employment tribunals should be exempt from this long and persuasive line of precedent.
The Minister, in his reply to me at Committee stage, said that,
"as presently drafted, the procedures are clear and uncluttered".
I agree with that. He then said:
"Each action within them is simple to understand and apply".
I agree with that, too. He also said:
"There are no convoluted twists and turns".
I agree with that. He went on to say:
"I feel there is only limited scope for 'minor and inconsequential' breaches to occur".—[Official Report, 18/3/02; CWH.189]
I profoundly disagree with that. I do not believe that the Minister thinks that that is a serious argument. We know that millions of pounds of social security entitlement is unclaimed because those entitled do not know how to get their entitlement. There are many things that the average person does not know what to do with when filling in forms, and so on. Every government department can tell tales of forms—even those as simple as passports and driving licence applications—being rejected because they were incorrectly filled in.
If the Minister has attended as many counts as I have on election night, he would know how many voters do not seem to understand the simple process of putting a cross in a box next to the candidate's name. Those voters would not claim that—and I repeat my earlier quotation:
"There is only limited scope for minor and inconsequential breaches to occur".
I want to be careful not to be disrespectful to anyone or to over-generalise. However, it is a fact that many of the litigants before the tribunals, in person and without professional assistance, can often be employees with limited academic qualifications or, in many cases, with limited English. It is equally true that in the case of employers, many of them acting in haste may also not have the most excellent command of English. Surely there is no harm in protecting employers or employees from the consequences of what would only be a minor procedural error—and I emphasise the word "procedural"—which might otherwise wreck a perfectly valid case.
It is not a scope for cunning parties to avoid what the Minister called the "clear and uncluttered" procedures laid down in the second schedule. The
140
tribunal itself will decide whether an omission is minor and inconsequential, entirely within its own discretion, depending on the individual circumstances of each case.
The civil courts, which according to the Government the tribunals are supposed to mirror as far as possible, have what they call a "slip rule" which allows minor errors to be corrected or ignored. It is no assault on the "clear and uncluttered" provisions of the second schedule to allow the same leniency to unqualified parties to proceedings before the tribunal in cases under this Bill.
Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord who is to answer that, given that the aim is to try to take matters out of tribunals or make matters simpler, it can do no harm at all to the law and can only make it easier. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we debated an identical amendment in Grand Committee. The noble Baroness made her point forcefully and well there and has done so again today. She will forgive me if I rely on similar arguments to those which I relied on at that time.
The amendment is based on the premise that the procedures are complicated and contain obscure and minor requirements which parties of a whole range of types, which she has indicated, could easily fail to follow in full. That is simply not the case. The procedures are spare, simple and easy to understand. They represent the minimum core elements of any procedure. Some have referred to the procedures as "skeletal" or even "sub-minimal". Therefore, I believe that there is little scope for parties to misunderstand what they should do at each stage, even after a fairly swift reading. Minor slips should not occur.
Later, we shall be debating amendments regarding the sending of written communications. Those will permit parties to send either a copy or the original of any written communication which is required under the procedures. Those amendments will reduce further the possibility of minor slips arising.
The procedures are mainly drafted as a series of concrete steps. That is important because concrete steps are easy to verify if they have been undertaken. As far as possible, we have avoided references to any qualitative requirements in the procedures, which are intrinsically much more difficult to pin down. We have thereby reduced the scope for argument to arise about what the procedures require and what they entail.
It may help the noble Baroness if I say that minor and inconsequential breaches of the statutory procedures by employers would not entitle the employees to resign and claim, either in the ordinary courts or before tribunals, that they had been dismissed.
We are also concerned that the amendment would upset the simplicity of the procedures. As the noble Baroness explicitly says, it would encourage parties to debate and dispute whether failures to follow the procedures were "minor and inconsequential" or "more significant". That would in turn generate more

141
discussion about compliance with the procedures than the substantive issues at stake. That cannot be the right way forward to encourage legal debate about those issues.
With the greatest of respect to the noble Baroness, this amendment deals with a phantom problem. It would create rancour and confusion at the workplace and it would encourage disputes before the industrial tribunal, which I know the noble Baroness does not want to occur. Therefore, with the greatest of respect to the noble Baroness, I invite her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, it is most polite of the Minister to preface everything he says with "the greatest of respect" and to point out that I moved the same amendment actively and forcefully in Grand Committee. However, I would say to no effect, because the Minister has repeated exactly what he said then. I did not accept it then; had I done so I would not have tabled the amendment now.
I do not believe that the Minister was listening carefully to what I said. I did not suggest that the rules were not clear; I agreed that they were not convoluted; I agreed that most people could understand them. However, I pointed out to the Minister that, nevertheless, in filling in forms, as far as procedural error is concerned, sometimes people make errors because they do not understand. There would not be huge debate as to whether something was a minor infringement because, as I made quite clear, the tribunal would say whether it was. That would be the end of the discussion.
The Minister is nodding—I do beg the Minister's pardon, but I thought he was nodding as if to say, yes, he agreed. Now he is shaking his head in the other direction, so he clearly does not agree. However, I say to the Minister that if someone tables an amendment in the same tones, it does not mean that he or she did not listen to the answer: it means that the answer was not accepted. In my view, the Minister did not listen appropriately to the arguments.
The Minister may be 100 per cent correct, but perhaps he would like to clarify the point I made about minor and inconsequential matters. I did not understand or accept what he said. In my opinion, the matter should not be decided against one party because either party had made a minor or inconsequential error. I believe that in his last few words the Minister said that the matter would not be serious. Perhaps he would repeat what he said. Otherwise, I must say to the Minister that I do not accept his answer and we would move to a different conclusion.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I speak with great diffidence because of the ruthless attack that the noble Baroness made on my previous speech. However, perhaps I may help. My point about minor and inconsequential was that in tabling the amendment the noble Baroness was urging us to let industrial tribunals decide the issues. That would inevitably generate doubt and discussion about
142
compliance and it would encourage disputes in the tribunal. That was unjustified by what I described as a "phantom" problem.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify one point with the Minister. He was so polite to me at the beginning and spoke with respect and so forth, but he then suggested that I attacked him. Most definitely I did not. However, the amendment, which deals with minor and inconsequential breaches, should not result in suffering any detriment. That Was all it was about. The Minister then gave his explanation but I did not catch what he said. I ask for clarification.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I said that minor and inconsequential breaches of the statutory procedures would not entitle the employees to resign and to claim either in the ordinary courts or before tribunals that they had been dismissed.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, it is a complicated issue but this is such a minor matter that the Minister could have accepted it without any problem. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
3.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 35) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Fookes, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Geddes, L.

Avebury, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Goschen, V.

Biffen, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blatch, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Boardman, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Henley, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Howe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

1iowe of Aberavon, L.

Burnham, L.

jenkin of Roding, L.

Buscombe, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Caithness, E.

Kingsland, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Laird, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Lindsay, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lucas, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Lyell, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Croham, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Cuckney, L.

McNally, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Maddock, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Denham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Dundee, E.

Miller of Chilthome Domer, B.

Elton, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Erroll, E.

Montrose, D.

Falkland, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Feldman, L.

Moynihan, L.

143

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Russell, E.

Naseby, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Newby, L.

Sandberg, L.

Noakes, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Northesk, E.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Northover, B.

Selsdon, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Sharman, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Onslow, E.

Sharples, B.

Palmer, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Peel, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Razzall, L.

Taverne, L.

Redesdale, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Tebbit, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Rennard, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Renton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Vivian, L.

Roper, L.

Waddington, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Walmsley, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Alli, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Amos, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Andrews, B.

Goudie, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bach, L.

Grenfell, L.

Barnett, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Berkeley, L.

Harrison, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hayman, B.

Billingham, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Blease, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Boothroyd, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Borrie, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bragg, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Brennan, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Brookman, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Bruce of Donington, L.

Burlison, L.

Islwyn, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Chorley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Christopher, L.

Judd, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Layard, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Lipsey, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Crawley, B.

McCarthy, L.

David, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Desai, L.

Dixon, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Donoughue, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Dubs, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicol, B.

Filkin, L.

Orme, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Parekh, L.

Gale, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Paul, L.

144

Peston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Strabolgj, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Strange, B.

Radice, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Thornton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Turnberg, L.

Richard, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Varley, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Rooker, L.

Whitaker, B.

Sawyer, L.

Whitty, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Wilkins, B.

Serota, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sheldon, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Simon, V.

Stallard.L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 36:
Page 35, line 33, at end insert—
"(4) Nothing in this section or in Schedule 2 shall affect the operation of section 92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18) (right to written statement of reasons for dismissal)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the aim of the amendment is to make clear that Schedule 2 is not intended to undermine the right to a written statement of reasons for dismissal, as specified in Section 92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. We are asking the Government for the same kind of reassurance that we sought on the previous amendment. No doubt the Government will say that they do not intend to undermine Section 92 of the 1996 Act. Nevertheless, they could accept the amendment and make that clear. If they do not accept the amendment, they can say so.
Section 92 states that an employee,
"is entitled to…particulars of the reasons for…the dismissal",
in a form,
"admissible in evidence in any proceedings".
The terms of the statutory procedure do not clear that hurdle. The terms do not entitle the worker to be told the principal reason or reasons for dismissal—whether they are fair or unfair. They do not say that the employee is entitled to very much. All the employer has to give is his final decision—not the reasons.
The schedule states that the employer must set out in writing the employee's alleged conduct or characteristics or other circumstances that lead him to contemplate dismissal or disciplinary action against the employee. That relates to the view that the employer takes, to set the procedure in motion. At this point, the employer has not heard the worker's case. The employer must send a copy of the statement to the employee and invite him or her to attend a meeting to discuss the matter.
Under the normal statutory procedure, there follows a meeting or hearing—after which the employer must inform the employee of the decision. The employer does not necessarily have to provide the reasons or explain his reaction to the employee's case. The employer can simply say, "I have decided that you

145
are going" and notify the employee of his or her right to appeal. There is nothing about grounds or reasons—and not much to make it clear that the statement could be used in a court of law.
If I had time, f would explain why the modified procedure is even worse. It seems to be assumed that the employer can merely say, "I am dismissing you. That's it". The modified procedure does not even embody a proper appeal. Under the statutory procedure, contemplation is all. The employer contemplates unfair dismissal: "I contemplate dismissing you for the following reasons". What if the worker says, "It wasn't me. It was someone else. I was never warned that this might happen. I have been working for the company 10 years and have never received a formal correction. I was provoked. I am entitled to know what you think about the excuses and justification that I advanced"? Nothing in the statutory procedures states that the employee should have an answer.
The Government can deal with the matter in a number of ways. We would like them to accept the amendment—or they could say, "We can't do it today but we will ensure that the regulations will make clear that employees will have the kind or rights already available to them under Section 92 of the 1996 Act". I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, although Amendment No. 36 was not tabled in Grand Committee, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn sought and received assurance that the right to a written statement for dismissal—the Section 92 right, to which my noble friend Lord McCarthy has referred—was not adversely affected by the Bill and the statutory procedures. I repeat that assurance again today. Under Section 92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, an employer must supply, at the request of the employee, a written statement setting out the reasons for a dismissal. That right to a written statement applies to employees who have been employed for a year or more, although that condition is waived in certain special circumstances surrounding pregnancy and maternity arrangements.
That section of the 1996 Act is not changed by the Bill. If a qualifying employee requests a written statement, she or he must he provided with one as now. The existence of a pre-existing Step 1 letter from the employer in which the reasons for a proposed dismissal are set out does not change the position. When the employee requests the written statement, the employer must write again setting out the reasons. Even if the reasons are as set out in the Step 1 letter, the employer must still write again, although on such occasions the employer may choose to shorten the reply by enclosing a copy of the original Step 1 letter. Therefore, we agree with the proposition stated in the amendment—Section 92 is unaffected by the statutory procedures.
However, the amendment is unnecessary. Generally, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy will recognise, it is had practice to itemise aspects of preexisting legislation in a Bill which are left unaffected by the Bill. We would depart from that principle only
146
where there was good reason to doubt that the preexisting law was unaffected. We do not believe that there is room for any confusion or doubt of that kind here. Indeed, I am unaware that any organisation picked up this issue as a problem during consultations. In short, I do not believe that there is a need to introduce this amendment. In the light of those assurances, I hope that my noble friend Lord McCarthy will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I have no alternative, but I am not satisfied. I agree that the Government have said that what they are putting in the regulations will not adversely affect workers' rights under Section 92, but I do not see why the regulations cannot say that. I do not understand why that matter cannot be on the face of the Bill. I shall have to consider the issue again at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Statutory dispute resolution procedures]:
Lord Lea of Crondallmoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 65, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) When a disciplinary matter arises the employer should first establish the facts promptly."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak briefly. Since Committee stage, Ministers have, as they said they would, revisited this territory. Since we tabled this amendment, the Government have tabled Amendments Nos. 41 and 47 on the disciplinary side and Amendments Nos. 54 and 58 on the grievance side.
I am trying to anticipate what the Minister may say. The Government are saying that they will now pinpoint the basis for including in the statement the grounds given in it. Clearly, that goes some way to ensure that the whole of the relevant circumstances of' the case are put on the table. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether that form of words will be introduced shortly, along with the words of giving an employee,
"a reasonable opportunity to consider his response to that information".
That means that the facts of the case will be fully on the table. Other noble Lords may want to probe this matter. If the answer is that we have made progress we shall consider that in the light of the Minister's comments. I beg to move.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I want to draw attention to the word "promptly". I have read Amendment No. 41, but it does not include the word "promptly". The reason I feel strongly about this matter is that in a previous life I dealt with cases in which an employer threatened disciplinary proceedings against an employee, but the facts of the case were not gathered promptly. There is nothing, worse than continuing in an employment when it is

147
believed that one has done something wrong. If the facts are not gathered quickly enough, an employee can have such a matter hanging over his or her head to the knowledge of other employees. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House how such a matter will be dealt with.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 38 and 50. The amendments tabled by the Minister respond in some measure to the debate in Committee. Essentially the issue is whether or not a proper investigation has been conducted prior to the decision to dismiss. The purpose of adding the words,
"and detail the evidence upon which he relies",
is simply to ensure that that proper investigation has taken place prior to the decision. It is not only a matter of the protection of the employee—although that is important—but also of ensuring that the employer, who is given an additional hurdle in both the modified and the standard disciplinary procedures, is protected. Although the employer who complies with the additional procedures insures himself against a finding that the dismissal was automatically unfair, he is not protected against a finding that the dismissal was unfair for any other reason. It is important that the Government should go further and add more detail to their amendment to ensure that both the employee and the employer are protected by proper, full and detailed investigations prior to the decision to dismiss.
4 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lea. The amendments grouped with Amendment No. 37 mean that the Government—my noble and learned friend will correct me if I am wrong—will speak to Amendments Nos. 41, 47, 54 and 58 that raise entirely new matters. My noble and learned friend nods. Therefore, we have a quite inconvenient grouping which requires a debate within a debate. I want to speak to Amendments Nos. 41, 47, 54 and 58 and I want to know what they mean. The new matter introduced by the Government in those amendments does not answer the case put by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, but introduces a problem of an extremely delicate and serious nature. These amendments are what I may call the "basis" amendments.
I believe I understand what is meant in regard to the disciplinary procedure. The procedure must not continue unless,
"the employer has informed the employee what the basis was for including in the statement … the ground or grounds given in it".
I can see what that means. The statement may say, "You have broken your duty in some way and I now give you the basis of that allegation". But Amendments Nos. 54 and 58 on the grievance statement relate to quite a different position. Amendment No. 54 requires the same thing and
148
appears to be parallel to the disciplinary procedure. In my submission it is not. Amendment No. 54 states that the employee must inform the employer of the basis for the grievance. Amendment No. 58 states:
"The employee must—

(a) set out in writing—

(i) the grievance, and

(ii) the basis for it".

If we apply that provision to real life, we do not obtain the sort of answer that we received regarding discipline. What does the employee say? He sets out in his written statement, of which he sends a copy to the employer, "You treated me unfairly last Tuesday. You deprived me of my right to contractual overtime". Or he may say, "You have been threatening to treat me wrongly or dismiss me for exercising my rights to trade union activity". That is the grievance. What is the basis for the grievance? What else does he have to say? He has to say something else, because the new amendments require something more of the employee.
This is exactly the sort of problem Judge Prophet was worried about in the procedures being introduced. What can the employee say when he has already said, "My grievance is that you have stopped me exercising my trade union rights", or, "You have deprived me of my contractual overtime"? Does he have to set out the contract or put in a pleading? Does he have to ask, "What are the basis of my trade union rights"? Does he have to refer to Section 46 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992?
If he does not have to do that—I apprehend that my noble and learned friend will be aghast at the thought that he has to quote some legal basis; he nods, so I am right—what other basis will he make for his allegation that his trade union rights have been infringed? He has already said, "Last Tuesday you stopped me exercising my rights"; in the first case, a contractual right; in the second, a statutory right. What is the basis for that grievance? What do the Government mean by that requirement?
Let it not be said that this is something meaningless or trivial, because a tribunal or, particularly, the Employment Appeal Tribunal or the Court of Appeal, will have to give it some meaning. It will have to say, "You, the employee, have set out your grievance in writing, which you are required to, and sent it to the employer, but you have not set out its basis"—whatever that means. Will my noble and learned friend give me a precise and exact illustration of what the basis of a grievance would be for someone who has set out his grievance properly and fully, as one would hope, if it is not a reference to its legal origin; a right that he alleges has been contravened?
I appreciate why the Government introduced the amendment on grievance procedures. If I may say so with respect to those who authored the amendment, it is a slipshod attempt to look even-handed; they have put in "basis" on disciplinary procedures, so they have put it in on grievance procedures. With great respect, they have not thought it through. What does basis mean in the grievance procedure once you have set out your grievance?

149
That question needs answering rapidly, because if Amendments Nos. 54 and 58 slip through in a group of amendments that is about something else entirely, the courts will be faced with the deplorable situation of trying to find a basis where the basis has already been stated in the written document the employee is legally obliged to present. I hope that separate accounts will be given of Amendments Nos. 54 and 58 when my noble and learned friend replies. It is not like Committee stage; after his reply we cannot intervene. That is why I set out the problem at this stage.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment tabled by my noble friends Lord Lea of Crondall and Lady Gibson, but I have another reason for intervening. Government Amendment No. 47 raises the issue of misconduct. If accepted, it would pre-empt the amendments on misconduct which follow immediately in my name and the names of my noble friends.
It cannot be too heavily emphasised how serious it is for an employee to be dismissed on grounds of misconduct. It will not only affect his chances of obtaining comparable—perhaps any—employment, but it may also involve loss of benefit. I was for a number of years a member of a tribunal dealing with social security matters. We sometimes had to deal with appeals from dismissed ex-employees who had lost benefit. We used to rule that it was up to those who made the allegation of misconduct to establish it; the onus of proof was on them. If that obligation was not discharged to our satisfaction, the claimant succeeded. Nevertheless, it was a serious matter for the appellant.
Since the charge is so serious, every effort must be made to ensure that it is properly investigated. I am not at all certain that government Amendment No. 47 provides for such investigation. It can be difficult; there may have been disputes between employees; harassment and provocation; perhaps even allegations of sexual harassment. In certain circumstances it would clearly he unwise to take allegations at face value without investigation. It may not even be possible to come to a clear decision as to culpability, in which event a strong warning might be appropriate. In any event, suspension pending investigation would appear to be the wisest course.
Although the government amendment is an improvement on what was there before, it does not go far enough. I hope that when the Minister speaks to it he will set at rest some of my concerns and those of my noble friends. Amendment No. 47 does not provide for investigation and the possibility of warning and suspension. I hope that the Government will consider that point, at least before Third Reading. I shall not be able to move the amendments later on, which is why I am participating in the debate now.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before I begin to discuss this group of amendments, I should confirm that government Amendment No. 54 contains a drafting error. It deals only with the standard grievance procedure. Sub-paragraph (a) makes reference to "paragraph 4" of the modified dismissal
150
and disciplinary procedure. In fact, the correct cross reference is to "paragraph 6"—I know that noble Lords spotted the error for themselves—Which describes Step 1 of the standard grievance procedure. The error is self-evident. I would therefore ask for the reference to paragraph 4 to be treated as referring t o paragraph 6.
The amendments arise from the many debates on investigations that have taken place during the Bill's passage. In Grand Committee on 18th March, I indicated that the Government would explore whether we could devise amendments on the topic that met the concerns expressed but avoided the known pitfalls.
It is worth recalling some of the main problems with introducing into the statutory procedures a reference to investigations. The procedures are written as a series of concrete and verifiable actions. It is intrinsically difficult to define the investigatory process in similar terms and in a way which would generally apply to many different cases and circumstances. There is thus a difficulty in referring to the term "investigations" within the statutory procedures because it is unclear what it precisely entails in any particular case. None of the four government amendments uses the word "investigations". It is also worth noting that none of the other amendments in the group uses the term either. I take that to mean that there is at least a measure of common ground across these Benches on the nature of the problems.
Perhaps I may deal first with government Amendments Nos. 41, 47, 54 and 58. We believe that we have successfully navigated these difficult waters. We have therefore brought forward these four government amendments. We consider that we have tackled the issue in a broad enough way that it can be applied to each of the four statutory procedures. Amendments Nos. 41 and 47 relate respectively to the standard and modified dismissal and disciplinary procedures; and Amendments Nos. 54 and 58 deal with the standard and modified grievance procedures.
Knowing that it is problematic to mention "investigations" per se, we have therefore chosen to approach this issue from a different angle. Investigations aim to uncover information or evidence about the circumstances of the case or a matter of concern. These then constitute the basis for initiating the complaint or other action. With those thoughts in mind, we feel that there is no need to mention the investigatory process at all. Instead, we should refer to the outcome of the investigatory process—the information or evidence which it typically uncovers.
Accordingly, the procedures should place obligations on the parties to disclose the information on which they initiated their action against the other party. The requirement to assemble and convey information of this kind would in practice be a very strong encouragement to the parties to ensure that an investigation occurs; otherwise, they would not he able to divulge any information because none would exist.

151
Let me now describe how we applied this approach to each procedure. Amendment No. 41 deals with the standard dismissal and disciplinary procedure. It requires employers to ensure that employees are informed of the "basis" for initiating procedural action against them. The Step 1 letter serves the purpose of identifying the issue or allegation against the employee. This amendment would ensure that the employer is then required to provide the supporting information which led him to write that letter.
The information should be disclosed before the Step 2 meeting and sufficiently in advance of that meeting to ensure that the employee can consider his response to it. By this formulation, we ensure that employees are not "bounced" with important new information that the employer knew all along at or just before the Step 2 meeting.
We have deliberately not prescribed how the employee should be informed. This is desirable because it gives a helpful flexibility to employers. We should remember that the procedures will apply to virtually every employer in the country, including the many businesses which employ only one or two employees. Some may wish to convey this information in writing. They are free to do so. Indeed, they could include the information in the Step 1 letter, which will be an attractive idea for many larger employers. Others may wish to convey the information orally by telephone or at a meeting.
Investigations are usually associated with conduct cases. However, we believe that the gathering and prior disclosure of information can help in any dismissal or disciplinary matter. It can help to inform the dialogue between an employer and an employee, not only in conduct cases but also where the employee may be declared redundant or where he or she is thought to be under-performing at work. For example, in the case of an individual redundancy it would help the employee to know what were the redundancy criteria and how he or she scored in respect of them in advance of any Step 2 meeting. Our choice of wording in this amendment has therefore been deliberately chosen to apply to both conduct and non-conduct cases.
Amendment No. 47 deals with the position of the modified dismissal and disciplinary procedure which, as noble Lords will recall, the Government intend to apply to cases of instant dismissal for gross misconduct. As noble Lords know, there is no Step 2 meeting in this procedure. This amendment therefore obliges the employer to disclose the information in the Step 1 letter that he sends to the dismissed employee.
Amendments Nos. 54 and 58 assign the corresponding obligations to employees in grievance cases. We consider that there is great merit in this. Information about a complaint which is disclosed in advance helps the employer to respond more fully and constructively to the complaint; time is used more efficiently; and it might even prompt the employer to undertake investigations of his own into the matter.
152
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn asked, "What does 'basis' mean here? Does it have a different meaning in relation to grievance procedures from what it has in relation to disciplinary proceedings?" He gave as an example that if the grievance was that the employee had not been able to exercise his union rights, what "basis" would have to be provided by the employee in support of the grievance? It is unwise for me to go too heavily into what the precise requirements might be in a particular case but, in the example given, what more the employer would need to know and the employee would need to convey is when the employee was prevented from exercising the rights; the circumstances—
4.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend give way?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may finish. My noble friend can then intervene as he feels appropriate.
The circumstances in which he was prevented—for example, not being allowed time off for union activities; confirmation that he is a union member; and what exactly happened. My noble friend said that the complaint was, "Not being able to exercise my union rights"; and then he said, "What was the 'basis'?"
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. If he checks, he will see that I said that any worker who is faced with that kind of obstruction from the employer will say, "Last Tuesday you prevented me from exercising my right of carrying out trade union activities in the paint shop". What other basis for that complaint has to be set out? What has to be said that is extra to "Last Tuesday you prevented me from exercising my trade union activities in the paint shop and, of course, as a union member, I object to that"? What else has he got to say?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, subject to confirming that he is a union member and identifying shortly what happened in the paint shop, nothing more would be required. There would be an adequate basis there laid for such a complaint. Nothing more would be required. I do not believe that that would cause any difficulty in relation to resolving complaints by employees. Indeed, it would be helpful for such a short description to be given.
Perhaps I may deal with the point made by my noble friend Lady Gibson. She asked why not include the word "promptly". She emphasised, quite rightly, that time is important in relation to this. Under the heading "General Requirements", paragraph 12 of Schedule 2 to the Bill deals with this point. It states:
"Each step and action under the procedure must be taken without unreasonable delay".

153
It does not contain the word "promptly", but it seeks to achieve broadly the same result.
We have worked up practical proposals on this topic which are consistent with the style of the statutory procedures, which provide flexibility in their application and which apply to a wide range of issues and complaints. The statutory procedures are improved by these amendments as a result.
Of course it can be said that parties could still fail to undertake any investigation or review of a case. They could meet these new requirements of the statutory procedures by simply providing no or very little information. That would be a very foolish way to proceed for either the employer, in the case of a disciplinary matter, or the employee, in the case of a grievance. It would show that they had acted with no forethought or on no basis of fact. This would immediately suggest that their case was weak. Certainly tribunals would tend to draw that inference. We therefore believe that in practice we are creating sufficient and significant pressure on the parties to assemble full information on the issue.
Let me deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, in relation to Amendments Nos. 38 and 50. These amendments deal with the two types of dismissal and disciplinary procedures. They seek to ensure that the scope of the Step 1 letter is widened and must include the evidence on which the employer relies when initiating action against an employee. I do not believe that our approaches are very dissimilar, especially in respect of Amendment No. 50 dealing with the modified procedure. These amendments follow our approach in that they require the employer to disclose information of a type which will indirectly encourage the employer to investigate a case before proceeding.
I believe that our approach is to be preferred. Amendment No. 38 would always require information to be set down in writing as part of the Step I letter. This has the advantage of establishing a clear record of the employer's views and this might, in turn, assist the tribunal if a case is subsequently brought. However, on balance we believe that more scope should be given to the employer to convey information in different forms at different times. We believe that this particularly helps small business, a section of our economy which the noble Lord often seeks to champion. Indeed, we consulted the Small Business Council when constructing these amendments and it advised us unequivocally that we should try to create this flexibility.
We also believe that the wording of Amendment No. 38 is focused too much towards conduct cases. It is not clear to me how it would apply to the case of individual redundancy. The reference to all of the evidence is too inflexible and would lead to the possibility of technical failure. Amendment No. 50 achieves much the same effect as our Amendment No. 47. Our amendment has the advantage of using consistent wording across both the standard and modified procedures.
154
I deal finally with Amendment No. 37. My noble friend Lord Lea has indicated that he will not move it, subject to hearing what I have to say. He tabled a similar amendment at Grand Committee. His amendment draws on the wording used in the ACAS code. That was drafted as a means of providing guidance. I am not sure that it is sufficiently precise and unambiguous for a statute; for example, what facts should be established? Does that mean each and every one which might have some relevance or does it mean just the salient facts?
As I have stated, the Government seek to achieve a very similar aim to that of my noble friend Lord Lea. I believe that our amendments are to be preferred because they particularly apply to both conduct and non-conduct cases and also provide greater flexibility.
I hope that my remarks have dealt with the points made by my noble friend Lady Turner. I entirely agree with her that dismissal for misconduct is an extremely serious matter. Bearing that very much in mind, we have sought to ensure that there is a proper basis before the procedure is used. I apologise for a long explanation. I commend Amendments Nos. 41, 47, 54 and 58 to your Lordships and ask the movers of the other amendments in that group to consider withdrawing them.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, the past few minutes have provided some very useful clarification as to what the Government amendments mean. There has always been a degree of symmetry in this Bill between the discipline procedure on the one side and the grievance procedure on the other. Sometimes the symmetry does not really work. Nevertheless, the points made by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn and others have probed that matter. However, we are moderately satisfied with the Government's explanation. More work needs to be done before the regulations are published. In a later amendment we suggest that the realities of introducing these two historically important procedures for every firm, however small, in the country requires a great deal of detail for them to make sense in the workplace, whether large or small. With those remarks I withdraw Amendment No. 37.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 39:
Page 65, line 11, leave out "a copy of"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now move to a group of technical amendments which improve the drafting of the statutory procedures. In moving Amendment No. 39, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 40, 51, 52, 53, 59 and 60. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for identifying at Grand Committee an anomaly in the statutory procedures. In the Bill as drafted, the statutory procedures require the parties to write to each other by sending a copy of the letter, but not the original. We

155
have brought forward these amendments which ensure that the relevant party is allowed to send either the original or a copy of the written communication.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 achieve that effect for the standard dismissal and disciplinary procedure. Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 deal with the reference to a written communication in the standard grievance procedure. Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 deal with the second reference to a written communication in the modified grievance procedure.
For completeness I point out that Amendments Nos. 47 and 54, which we have just debated, achieve the corresponding effect for the modified dismissal and disciplinary procedure and the first reference to a written communication in the modified grievance procedure.
Amendment No. 53 removes inconsistent wording from the standard grievance procedure. Where the statutory procedures require parties to meet, they refer to the holding of "a" or "the" meeting. However, in step 2 of the standard grievance procedure the text refers to the holding of at least one meeting. This use of different wording is unintended and the amendment ensures that the meetings are described in a consistent fashion. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 65, line 11, after "statement" insert "or a copy of it"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 41:
Page 65, line 15, at end insert—
"( ) The meeting must not take place unless—

(a) the employer has informed the employee what the basis was for including in the statement under paragraph 1(1) the ground or grounds given in it, and

(b) the employee has had a reasonable opportunity to consider his response to that information.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 43 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 43A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 65, line 28, at end insert—
"3A
Where the employee does not accept the final decision of the employer, at his request the issue shall be referred to a mediator appointed in accordance with Part 3 (general requirements)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 56 and 65. The House will remember that in Grand Committee I moved eight amendments to provide forms of ex parte mediation or arbitration to cover all four forms of the statutory procedures. We covered
156
everything in those amendments at Grand Committee. But the Government could not accept any of them so we return with something which is more modest. We are simply asking for mediation; that is to say, for a third party to recommend that a dispute might be settled in a particular way. We argue that this is a way of not going forward to a tribunal. If one reaches the point where a worker refuses to accept what is on offer by the employer, one can go to the tribunal or add something at that point. We say that we should include not arbitration but mediation.
When dealing with those amendments in Grand Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—it is a pity that he is not in his place—used a series of bewhiskered arguments against all forms of third party intervention in dispute resolution. In fact, I counted five objections; namely, that third parties complicated disputes; they reduced the incentives of the two parties to reach a settlement; third parties are often thrown over by the stronger party; there are not enough skilled people to reach third party dispute settlements; and that such settlements cost a great deal of money.
I shall be most pleased to be corrected on this, but I know of no research in industrial relations which provides one single fact to support any of these ancient, bewhiskered excuses for external dispute resolution. I would like to have it because I would give it to my students. All they read are arguments to show that it works very well on the whole. In fact, it has been going on since the Greek city states. I dare say that most of the bewhiskered arguments were used by those who were against such a procedure when settling ancient quarrels. The procedure has been used since the 16th century to settle maritime disputes. There was a growth in commercial arbitration in the 18th century. In the 19th century the pioneers of arbitration and mediation in the cotton, iron and steel industries and in the mines avoided a whole series of industrial upsets. Most recently, third party involvement has been used as a much cheaper way, particularly in the United States, of settling family disputes. There is absolutely no evidence that it does any of the things that the noble and learned Lord trotted out to me in Committee.
Indeed, it is beginning to be accepted—I hope that the noble Lord who responds will be able to keep me up to date—that in the highest possible regions of this Government a change is taking place in regard to the notion of third party dispute resolution. The Prime Minister—who, as we know, has been against all forms of third party involvement since he was the Labour Opposition spokesman—said the other day that he thought it would be a very good idea if we could have arbitration in relation to the railways. Perhaps that is a sign. Perhaps it means that the Government will at last allow a reference to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal. So there is a sea change.
I want to draw to the attention of the noble Lord a point that I mentioned in our previous debate, so he cannot say that he does not know about it. I refer to the report of the Better Regulation Task Force—a body set up by the Government. It is a very interesting

157
body. It has, for example, 46 members. They include a few academics, a few consultants and an overwhelming proportion of employers and employer groups. There is one trade unionist, one general secretary, Mr. Simon Petch. This is a typical representative body.
The terms of reference of the Better Regulation Task Force are to examine the problems, particularly of small firms, in coming to terms with this legislation. The task force says nothing about the problems of workers who may or may not get their legal rights. It is concerned with employers, and particularly with small firms. After the usual rubbish about the SETA report, the task force states at page 28 of its report, under the heading "Access to mediation":
"The Task Force welcomes the proposals in the Employment Bill, but would like to see more done for employers and employees where there is no line management chain. This will often be the case in small businesses where the employee's manager may also be the most senior person in the business. When the manager is also the owner of the business there is no one higher"—
as we have said many times—
"to whom the complainant can appeal. In such small firms the only way of reaching a resolution without recourse to a tribunal would be lo provide an external mediator".
That is the statement of the task force, with dominant employer representation and one trade union representative. So those stakeholders who were consulted—who are, of course, employers—said that in such situations access to mediation would he welcome. The report goes on to state:
"ACAS should be brought into the dispute process before a tribunal application is made. In businesses with less than 50 employees, where there is no management chain, either party should be able"—
this is ex parte arbitration, or mediation—
"to call upon mediation services … the service should be piloted, and if successful either provided free of charge or subsidised. The mediation service should save on the tribunal service budget".
Of course it will save in that way. Recommendation 11 under the heading "Access to mediation" is as follows:
"ACAS should pilot a mediation service for businesses of less than 50 employees. If successful, the service should be either free or subsidised".
I ask the Government: what about it? I take it that the Minister has read the detail of the report. I take it that is has been read all over Downing Street. This a body set up by the Government. It looks after the interests of employers and has consulted with employers. The employers, particularly the small employers, say: "We do not want to go to tribunals, but we are sensible enough to realise that if we do not want workers to go to tribunals, they must have some alternative"—some alternative to the last word of management.
Finally, I understand that the Better Regulation Task Force has to have an answer by Christmas. So why do we not have the first indications of the answer now? I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, exceptionally, I think that we need to refer
158
back, because I omitted to call Amendment No. 43A standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord L ea of Crondall.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, in line with—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am not attempting to move the amendment; I am merely commenting.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. The amendment before the House is now Amendment No. 45. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, may have wanted to speak to Amendment No. 43A.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I have agreed that I shall enter the debate when we reach Amendment No. 55A rather than Amendment No. 43A. I thank the noble Lord.
Lord McCarthy: With respect, my Lords, are we on the wrong amendment? I understood that I was moving Amendment No. 4.5 and speaking also to Amendments Nos. 56 and 65.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, that is the amendment before the House.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, there are some issues of different jurisprudences on which I should have commented in speaking to Amendment No. 44 but which can be addressed equally in relation to Amendment No. 45.
A number of different procedures may now be arising. We have ACAS and the role of the ACAS code. We have the interesting and relevant proposition of my noble friend Lord McCarthy in relation to this amendment. We have the question as to how procedures under the 1996 Act dealing with unfair dismissal work. There will no doubt also be procedures dealing with legal challenges to the grievance and discipline procedures within the Bill.
It might be convenient if the Minister could clarify one matter in his response to the amendment; namely, how we are going to make sure that there is some reasonable dovetailing between the procedures. We understand that before regulation there will need to be talks between ACAS and the DTI about the relationship between the ACAS code and the DTI. This question is more generally relevant in the light of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord McCarthy in terms of making sure that there is a reasonable interface between the three or four sets of procedures which can be taken into account by an individual or by an employer. It would be useful to hear some comment on the matter at this stage. I believe that the House will be consulted at a later stage when regulations are introduced, but the question will arise of major points of the ACAS code being taken into account if someone wants to appeal

159
in relation to either the grievance or the displinary procedure. That is a relevant problem on which it would be useful to hear some clarification today.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall makes an important point. Later amendments will raise the question of where we stand with the ACAS code.
We were told in Committee in another place by my honourable friend Alan Johnson, the Minister of State, that the ACAS code would need to be rewritten once the Bill reaches the statute book. Therefore, it would be extremely useful, in the context of what my noble friend has just said, if the Minister could give us, either now or at some later stage, a conspectus of the changes which the Government's legislation will require in the ACAS code—not least in respect of the matter of mediation in the amendment moved by my noble friend.
I repeat what my noble friend said. This amendment is being debated with Amendments Nos. 56 and 65. The machinery that is proposed for mediation not only provides some step further than the employer's first and last word, which is what the Government leaves workers with; at the root of the unfairness of Schedule 2 is the fact that workers will be left with the employer's first and last word, especially in the modified procedures to which we shall come. My noble friend's amendments do not suggest some arbitrary or unilateral mediator. If one looks at Amendment No. 65, which deals with the machinery for the mediation, one finds that it suggests that employers should be encouraged to reach agreement with,
"a recognised trade union of which the employee was a member … [or] an agreement made between the employer and such a recognised trade union [generally] … [or] in the absence of such a person",
to abide by the suggestions of the "Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service"; in other words, the proposal is mediation by a machinery, or by a "person" who is agreed, or by someone who is put forward under an ACAS scheme.
It seems to me that my noble friend is proposing mediation as an added extra to the employer's "last word" on a most reasonable basis; namely, of agreement, or ACAS. Therefore, both points that I have made—the ACAS code and the place of ACAS in mediation—need to be made clear in respect of this group of amendments.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we spent time in Grand Committee debating whether the statutory procedures should be amended to give the employee unilateral access to third party involvement in the shape of mediation and arbitration. In this set of amendments, my noble friend is confining himself to the involvement of just the mediator.
As well as being an academic with unrivalled knowledge of this subject, which, as he says, goes back to the Greek city states, my noble friend is also an
160
expert mediator and arbitrator. I do not want anything that I say to undermine or undervalue either his skills or those of other mediators and arbitrators. We simply maintain the belief that mediation should remain a voluntary activity. It should be entered into only where both parties agree. That is the position adopted by the ACAS Code, which invites parties to consider the scope for third party intervention where problems seem intractable or involve very senior management within organisations.
The amendments now before the House would compel the employer to accept mediation. I remind my noble friend, as he reminded us, that the amendment he moved in Grand Committee (Amendment No. 102), was about an arbitrator rather than a mediator. In that sense, it goes well beyond the existing guidance of the ACAS Code, which stresses that both parties should agree to third party intervention.
My noble friend describes his amendments as representing the only real alternative to the tribunals for resolving disputes. However, I doubt whether it would work that way. Compulsion would make the mediator's job much more difficult. It is possible that the employer would not collaborate with the mediator in his examination of the issue. It would certainly mean that employers would feel under very little moral obligation to accept the mediator's recommendations. I suspect that issues would remain unresolved because the mediator's advice would not be readily accepted in those circumstances. Many cases would still go to the tribunal, and the mediator's intervention would be wasted. Indeed, the reputation of mediators might suffer as a result.
Moreover, as I mentioned at Grand Committee, unilateral access to a mediator may create perverse incentives in the system. For example, it might dissuade the parties from bilaterally resolving their differences. My noble friend made some play of the comments of the Better Regulation Task Force. We place considerable reliance on the task force. Indeed, we take its recommendations most seriously. It has made recommendations for increased access to mediation. We accept the value of mediation, but nothing in the report of the task force supports the proposal for compulsory mediation, as proposed in the amendment. It would not only be compulsory, it would also be unilateral.
Before I conclude, I should like to return to the point properly raised by my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall in Amendment No. 44, which we passed by rather rapidly. My noble friend's amendment would place a duty on employers to take the ACAS Code into account when arranging meetings under the statutory procedures, and when disciplining employees. Under Section 207 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, employers are not placed under any direct requirement to observe the code. However, the section does require employment tribunals to take the code into account if it is relevant to any question before them.
It follows that employers who disregard the code in circumstances where it is applicable may well damage their prospects of success in defending tribunal

161
proceedings. 1t is because of this that employers, and others, turn to the codes for guidance; they will do so whether or not there is a cross-reference in the schedule. For that reason, the cross-reference introduced by the amendment is unlikely to achieve anything that Section 207 does not already achieve.
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn pointed out that a Minister in another place had said that changes in ACAS may be needed as a result of this Bill. I do not deny that possibility. However, I believe that my noble friend asked me to give a "conspectus" of what changes would be required. It would be impertinent for me to do so. It is for ACAS to consider its code; it is not for the Government to suggest what changes might be made. No doubt ACAS will address that situation when it sees the Bill on the statute book.
The fundamental point is that the amendments would significantly change the approach adopted in these statutory procedures, which are being introduced into legislation for the first time. They are being made available to 6 million people who might not have access to them at present. They are meant to contain the basic core features of a dispute resolution system. These amendments would make the procedures much more prescriptive. We do not believe that we should move in that direction. The roles of mediation and arbitration should stay as they are.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him to read again the recommendation of the task force that is to be found on page 28 of its report:
"In businesses with less than 50 employees, where there is no management chain, either party"—
that is, ex parte mediation—
"should be able to call upon mediation services".
That is exactly what I am asking for—ex parte mediation—and that is what the task force has recommended.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that deals with the unilateral issue. The Better Regulation Task Force is entitled to its view in that respect. However, to me, it does not imply that it is compulsory.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am sorry that the Government take this view. It is no good inventing herds of bogus arguments against third party intervention, as my noble friend seemed to do. Mediators do not mind wasting their time; indeed, that is their job. They do not suffer from doing their business—they prosper, as do the parties involved. You cannot keep inventing possible situations. You must have facts. I repeat, there is no research known to me that supports any of this nonsense.
Despite the recommendations of the task force, the Government may say that they are still stuck in the bunker. I remind them that they will have to answer the people who are asking them to come out of the bunker, and that they must do so by the end of the year. I hope that they come forward with something better than my noble friend's response. The
162
fundamental point behind the amendment is something that is behind many of our amendments: we are not against statutory procedures, nor are we against trying to get people out of the tribunal habit and into the dispute settlement habit. We want that to happen—not because we want to get rid of 30,000 cases, but because we can see coming across the skyline an almost endless series of regulations from the EU, which, unless something is done to make dispute settlement outside the tribunals a real option for the worker, will place intolerable burdens upon tribunals.
There must be a real option for the worker, and it must be beneficial. As my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said, workers must know that they can get something other than the first and last word of the employer. The statutory procedures do not provide for anything but the employer's first and last word, which is why they will not work. That is why, sooner or later, the Government must think again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 46:
Page 65, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 66.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall also speak to Amendment N o. 57 which is parallel to it.
The effect of these amendments would be to take out of Schedule 2 the "modified procedures". That does not mean that we are wholly satisfied with the standard procedures, and other amendments explain why we are not wholly satisfied. However, these modified procedures are unfair in their effect. They encourage not the best but the worst of practices. To cap it all, they are highly uncertain whereas the Government's primary claim for their statutory, obligatory procedures is that they must be certain. They are uncertain beyond redemption in any regulations Moreover, the uncertainties and problems we have raised before are not cured by the government amendments elsewhere on the Marshalled List. Nor do the government amendments relieve the modified procedures of their unfairness—unfairness possibly as between different groups of employees, as I shall outline later.
I acknowledge that removal of the modified procedures might require some amendments to the standard procedures. The Government could easily do that on Third Reading. It would be a substantial change. However, it is worth noting the archaeology of the modified procedures. In the first government proposals, Routes to Resolution, the modified procedures were absent; we had only the standard procedures. They were suggested by someone in the consultation, but we have never been told who it was and we have never been told why it was. They appeared for the first time on page 14 of the Government's document Response to Consultation without any real explanation or justification. They were described there as modified standards in cases of gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal.

163
Nothing substantial was said about the innovation in the House of Commons. Indeed, with the greatest respect to another place, partly because they were not provided with the details of the research on which the Government said they relied, very little was said about these procedures in another place. Since then, there has been no justification of any substance. Very little has ever been said about the modified grievance procedure; but then there is very little in it. It is the crudest, most elementary procedure of all. The employee must write setting out a grievance and, as we are now told, the basis for it, whatever that means. Subsequently the employer has only to send a response. That is it. There is no meeting, discussion or appeal. The employer's last and first word is the end of the matter. When and how this supplants the statutory procedure—with a meeting and an appeal—is not made clear anywhere.
The modified disciplinary procedure is in some ways even worse, and it remains so despite forthcoming government amendments. On behalf of the Government, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton said of it:
"The modified procedure is necessary. It deals with special cases where it may not be appropriate to follow the full procedure, requiring former employees to attend hearings".—[Official Report, 20/03/02; CWH col. 225.]
The employees in question are employees who have been thrown out of their jobs. What is appropriate when one has been thrown out on one's ear depends on the angle from which one looks at the situation.
One might have thought that one would be careful when preparing to impose in Schedule 2 such crude and unfair procedures as the implied terms of every contract of employment in the land. I pause to say that they may be implied terms in even more contracts. In Clause 29, the Government have power to extend these provisions to those who are not technically employees. It would be interesting to know whether they intend to use that power soon after the Bill becomes an Act. Regardless, no such care was taken to avoid what is unfairness and uncertainty. The line has never been drawn in a meaningful way between standard and modified procedures.
In Committee, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer stated:
"The modified procedures will by regulations be applied in respect of cases where the dismissal has already occurred and therefore it is instant or near instant".
He went on to say:
"by the time one gets to the modified procedure, the employee has already been instantly, or near instantly, dismissed".—[Official Report, 20/03/02; CWH cols. 239–40.]
At one point in the debate, he was concerned about preserving the right of summary dismissal and "instant" or "near-instant" dismissal.
The suggestion that paragraph 4 of the modified procedure applies only to cases of "instant" or "near-instant" dismissal, just because it arises from gross
164
misconduct, may be thought to suffer from the logical defect of a defectively distributed middle in the argument. The modified procedure speaks of,
"alleged misconduct which has led to the dismissal",
of the worker. We do not know what is meant by "misconduct". As we shall hear later, in Committee, the Minister explained that the regulations are not going to define misconduct. However, on the Pelion of an uncertain "misconduct" is piled the Ossa of "near-instant dismissal"—which is even less meaningful legally.
Dismissal from employment is defined and described in Sections 95 to 97 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Dismissal includes any case—I summarise the three cases—where the employee is given notice of dismissal by the employer; or works out a fixed-term contract; or is summarily dismissed. So the words of paragraph 4 on modified disciplinary procedures on their face apply to cases of dismissal with notice, or to a case of non-renewal of a fixed-term employment, just as much as to instant or near-instant dismissal. When the employer says, "You've broken the works rules and that is misconduct. I am giving you three weeks' notice, to which you are perhaps entitled", what will apply—the modified procedure? On the face of it, it does apply. We should he told whether the regulations will make it clear whether it applies. So far, no one has told us whether it applies. One might think that, in introducing a whole new section of procedures, someone would have thought about when it will apply.
Moreover, three weeks' notice is not a near-instant dismissal. I ask my noble friend the Minister to answer the following example. Suppose that an employer dismisses for misconduct three employees. One he dismisses summarily, or instantly. To the second he gives one week's notice, which is less than the worker is entitled to. However, to the third he gives six weeks' notice, saying, "That's longer than you're entitled to but I like you. So you can have garden leave of absence for the period of the six weeks' notice". To which of these three examples does the standard procedure apply and the modified procedure apply? No one knows. And yet we shall be introducing this implied term into every contract of employment in the land.
The matter gets worse. Where the dismissal associates misconduct to another ground, life is not as simple as the authors of the Bill suggest. Suppose an employer says to a fourth employee, "You can get out now. You've been guilty of misconduct and you're also being made redundant. You can 'respond—the word in the Bill—"as much as you like, but you're out. Get off the premises". On Second Reading, my noble friend Lord McIntosh gave an example from his experience as an employer, when he had to say to an employee:
"'Clear your desk and be out in half an hour".—[Official Report, 26/02/02; col. 1407.]
If the employer in my example had not consulted properly about the individual redundancy, it would be an unfair dismissal. However, even if he has consulted in advance, the employee with two years' service is

165
entitled to his redundancy payment. Why should he have to go through some further procedure if that payment is refused? Which procedure applies to him when he is told that he is redundant as well as otiose? Is it the modified procedure? When he complains of a lack of warning, is it a grievance, or is it in the disciplinary procedure? Paragraph 48 of the ACAS code makes it abundantly clear that, in the middle of a disciplinary procedure, a grievance can arise.
I quoted paragraph 48 in Grand Committee. I shall not do so again. But, as I understood it, Ministers agreed that a grievance can arise in the middle of a disciplinary procedure. I can see that one might argue for the standard procedures, but some procedure of that kind should apply. However, I find it very difficult to imagine that the modified grievance procedure should be made to apply when the employer is trying to exercise and use the modified disciplinary procedure.
The lack of clarity is compounded by the fact that the procedures are inadequate. As the Law Society pointed out in its briefing sent to your Lordships:
"Where a sanction with the severity of summary dismissal is being contemplated, the highest standards of procedural fairness should be required".
That is not true under the modified procedure.
It gets worse. The Government Response to the consultation document stated three times that the modified procedure applied only to former employees. We asked them to use the words "former employees" in regard to the modified disciplinary procedure. However, they said, "Oh, no. We could not possibly do that". Yet, that is what was said in the response document. Does the procedure apply only to former employees? That question is important in relation to a point to which I shall come.
The Minister of State, my honourable friend Alan Johnson, said in another place:
"We are trying to set down what is necessary and to frame the measure in such a way as to encourage the resolution of disputes in the workplace".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 13/12/01; col. 167.]
How on earth does the modified procedure encourage resolution of disputes at the workplace? As my noble friend Lord McCarthy said, although misrepresented on this point several times, including in the Secretary of State's latest letter to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we have never objected to the idea of settling disputes in the workplace. However, we do say that the modified procedure will not help to do so.
The case against forcing an employee, on pain of limited access to a tribunal or on pain of reducing compensation even if he eventually wins a case, into the modified procedure is that it will not contribute to that goal and will work against it. The employer is able to say, "This is my answer. That is my first and last word. You can't have mediation because the Government have now said that they will not agree to it", despite the report to which my noble friend referred. Both the TUC and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux were very concerned about such a move away from the ACAS code in statutorily imposed procedures. The modified procedure moves furthest from the ACAS code.
166
There is a proper place in regulations for making clear what is unclear in statute so long as the statute sets out the broad framework of the principles. But there are no principles in the Bill to say when the modified or standard procedures will apply. It is the legislation of a madhouse run by janitors who are either lazy or obsessive in pursuit of objectives to which they insist their procedures will contribute when they will not.
It gets worse. The proposition that a summary dismissal or near-instant dismissal always terminates the contract of employment—it seems that that is what is involved in the Government's position—assumes an answer to a problem which, as the law stands, is currently of great complexity. The moment of termination of the employment contract has been affected by two competing principles. The old master and-servant principle of automatic dismissal says that whenever the employer dismisses, the contract of employment comes to an end.
A different principle from the law of contract, often dubbed the "elective" principle of termination, holds that termination of employment arises when the employee accepts, or elects within a reasonable time to accept, the repudiation of the employer or, in a sense, to resign. Recently, on 28th May, the Court of Appeal said:
"The right of an employee to resign when faced with repudiation of his contract by the employer,
is important. Lord Justice Sedley pointed out in the case of Cerberus Software v. Rowley in 2001 that the issue had not yet been finally resolved as to exactly when each principle applied to termination of employment contracts. It was what Lord Justice Ward called "murky waters".
For the Government to settle that the automatic principle applies, which, it seems, is what is meant by the modified procedure, in the schedule to the Bill, which does not face up, and has never done so, to the problems which exist in the law as it stands, is an extraordinary method of promoting sensible law reform, whichever of the principles applies. And there are other, equally difficult issues. I make no excuse for saying to your Lordships that they have to be faced today. If they are not faced today, they will never be faced. They were not faced in Grand Committee by the Government.
I shall take just one example, although I could quote many; that is, the problem of group dismissals. After the decision in Parr v. Whitbread & Co in 1990, where an employer dismisses a group of employees in circumstances in which all the employees could have committed the misconduct in question, and where each member of the group was capable of having committed the misconduct and the employer cannot identify the individual perpetrator, as the law stands, the employer is entitled, if he has solid grounds for his belief, to dismiss each and every member of the group. That will not be an unfair dismissal.

167
The principle is not limited to summary dismissals, but it arises most often where the employer has made investigations but despairs of ever finding the culprit and decides to get all of them off the premises. Does the modified procedure apply to group dismissals?
That is the last of my questions, which I shall summarise in this form. Does the modified procedure apply to group dismissals? Will the Government tell us whether the modified procedure applies only to summary dismissals or, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said more than twice, to near-instant dismissals? If it applies to near-instant dismissals, what length of notice makes it "near instant" and what length of notice places it in another category so that the standard procedure applies? It is no good to tell me that we shall find out when we read the regulations. The Government will have to tell us when they give notice of the regulations and they must have some idea now. If they do not, they should take the provision out of the Bill.
In addition, are the Government deciding the difference between the elective and automatic principles of termination of employment contracts? Will they tell us why, in all cases where an employer decides to use the modified procedure, it is necessary to allow him to use that privilege in a manoeuvre by saying that this is a dismissal for misconduct, which is more than likely to unbalance industrial relations at the workplace between different groups of work people, especially if he gives different notice to different groups where he alleges misconduct?
Why is that procedure, in which the employee has no right of appeal, no right to a meeting and no right to discussion but must accept the first and last word of the employer, appropriate? Whatever the employer's ultimate right to effect a summary dismissal, there is no need to encourage it in the way that the modified procedure does.
It would serve the Government's aims much better to swallow pride on this matter, whoever first thought of the modified procedure in the middle of the formulation of their Bill—it came in late—and to recognise that these unfair modified procedures are likely to cause more disruption and bad feeling at the place of work than almost anything else in the Bill, let alone causing many preliminary reviews in the tribunals. There will be argument as to whether the employer was entitled to apply the modified procedure. Do the Government believe that that will save tribunal hearings?
The need to investigate by the employer, which my noble friends have pressed, is totally lacking in the modified procedure. The best move that the Government could make to restore confidence in their approach to workers' rights and to save them from the charge that there is inherent in Schedule 2 an inroad upon the enforcement of employment rights in an unfair modified procedure would be to drop those procedures from the Bill. I beg the Government to reconsider this matter between now and Third
168
Reading and to consider seriously dispensing with this unnecessary provision—one which did not arise during their first thoughts on the Bill. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I must inform the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 47 to 50 inclusive.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of Amendment No. 46. The issue which concerns us most on these Benches is dismissal for gross misconduct. We accept that in a limited number of cases of dismissal an employee's behaviour may be both flagrant and unambiguous. But even in such apparently obvious cases, in our view there will remain an argument for proceeding with caution in taking the decision to dismiss. In any event, such considerations will not apply in the overwhelming majority of cases of gross misconduct. In most cases the opposite will be true.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, said, the severity of the sanction of summary dismissal requires that higher, not lower, standards of procedural fairness should be adopted before such procedures are followed and such action is taken.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this amendment deletes the modified dismissal and disciplinary procedure in its entirety. Amendment No. 57 would do the same for grievance procedures. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, moved an identical amendment in Grand Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, started by discussing what he described as "the archaeology" of this measure. He started by saying that the issue was not raised in Routes to Resolution. I have an in-built objection to referring to the archaeology because I want us to consider what is in the Bill, not the consultation procedure beforehand. However, since the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, made the point, perhaps I may say that paragraph 3·15 on page 18 of Routes to Resolution states:
"There will be cases, for example gross misconduct or harassment of an employee by a manager, where it would be unreasonable to expect all these actions",
that is, the actions in a standard procedure,
"to be completed. Tribunals would therefore be given some discretion when assessing whether the failure to follow these actions was reasonable in the circumstances or should lead to some enhancement or mitigation of the award".
Those are matters which we shall come to. However, it is not the case that the issue has arisen for the first time.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, also said that there is not any right of appeal under the modified agreement. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 2, Part 1, Chapter 2 specifically provides for appeal.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I hope that I said that there was no right of appeal in a grievance procedure. My noble friend said, correctly, that Routes to Resolution states that the tribunal would have a discretion to set aside some parts of the standard

169
procedure What I said—if the noble Lord looks at page 17 he will see that it is correct—is that no modified procedure, which is separate from the standard procedure, was proposed in Routes to Resolution, and that is true.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the modified procedure arises from an issue which was raised for debate in Routes to Resolution and referred to in the response to consultation.
I do not know why the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, keeps stating that the line is not clear. We have made clear from the beginning that the modified procedure deals with instant or near instant dismissal. Without anticipating in detail what the regulations will say, the difference between instant dismissal and near instant dismissal is fairly clear. Instant dismissal takes place when the person who is capable of taking the dismissal decision, the employer, or whoever it may be, is present when the incident takes place and says, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, "Get out". Near instant dismissal is when the employer is not immediately available. He has to be called from another part of the premises or from off the premises, but as soon as he returns he says, "Get out". There is nothing particularly significant about the difference there.
Clearly, those dismissals exist in real life. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, nor the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, suggested that there are no cases in which instant dismissal might not be justified. They both think that the number of cases should be limited as far as possible—of course they should—but neither of them say that they should not exist. They arise from cases of gross misconduct. Some are unfair—as few as possible should be unfair—but others are not. Tribunals consider the individual cases on their merits, but there is no blanket prohibition against instant dismissal.
So, under the existing law, it may be completely lawful for an employer to dismiss instantly in extreme situations without first suspending the employee or imposing some other disciplinary measure. It is our intention to leave the underlying law on unfair dismissal unchanged. When the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, says that that is an inroad into the enforcement of employment rights, I have to say that I believe he is wrong. I believe that the introduction of modified procedures as opposed to no procedures, which is the present situation, cannot fairly be described as an inroad into employment rights. The noble Lord says that they are unfair and crude. At present, an employer who summarily dismisses is not required to follow any minimum procedures.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, asked specific questions about cases which he described. He mentioned the three individuals who are given different periods of notice. He added to that a fourth individual who is made redundant at the same time. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord—I know that he does not like me saying it—that those matters will be
170
determined by regulations, and we shall consult fully on the regulations But we have stated our intentions—I am sure that this is what he wanted me to say—to apply the modified procedure to instant dismissals or near instant dismissals. I cannot be drawn on the specific examples given except to say that we consider that the standard procedures should apply to all other cases except instant dismissal.
Some noble Lords believe that the modified procedure will undermine the sound guidance provided by the ACAS code. As we know, the ACAS code advises that most cases of gross misconduct should not result in instant dismissal but should first be subject to an internal procedure before a decision is taken. I see no reason to believe that ACAS will or should change that advice. Employers should still take it into account when assessing what to do in individual circumstances.
The schedule does not change the obligation on the employer to act fairly when dismissing. As now, the ACAS code should be taken into account by the tribunals when assessing whether the employer has acted reasonably and fairly. That is the point of the quotation I gave from Routes to Resolution. If it is currently unfair to dismiss an employee instantly for certain types of gross misconduct or in particular circumstances, that will remain the case in the future.
The modified procedure sets a new procedural standard below which employers should not fall in any circumstances. But it does not absolve employers from the need to follow more elaborate procedures where necessary. That may well involve employers suspending employees while investigations take place. It may well involve meetings with the employee before a decision is taken. Despite what has been said, the modified procedure is necessary. It deals with the special case where it is not appropriate to demand the following of the full procedure because that would involve requiring ex-employees to attend hearings.. However, it does not reduce the standard against which tribunals will judge the fairness of employer actions in cases of instant dismissal. We recognise that such dismissals may or may not be fair. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, if he reads Hansard tomorrow he may agree that he seemed to be saying at one stage—and I should like to know whether he wants to be left on the record as saying this—.that whether or not the modified procedure is available to the employer depends on where he happens to be. If he happens to be there and sees this act there can be an instant dismissal. If he is half a mile away he does not have much chance. If he is 50 yards away, perhaps he would come back. It is bizarre to think that putting a provision on the statute will encourage those who have never had procedures in their lives to look at the Bill and say, "Oh, yes, I see". Why must we have

171
to have this big procedure at the top? Let us have this little procedure at the bottom where, in the case of grievances, there are no appeals.
The Minister seemed to be saying that the only aspect that will decide a court or tribunal is where the employer happens to be at the time. He cannot mean that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the reverse is the case. I was trying to be helpful by explaining the difference between instant and near-instant dismissals, as those were the words used by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. I tried as always to be helpful, but I made it clear that the chance of whether the employer happens to be on the spot, 50 yards or half-an-hour away, is not the significant factor between the standard and the modified procedure. That is why we have used the words "instant" or "near-instant" dismissal. The implication is the opposite to that which my noble friend Lord McCarthy seeks to draw.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I should like to say that I am grateful to my noble friend when he clarifies issues, but I wrote down what I thought he said in what was the first definition we have ever had of a "near-instant" dismissal. As I understood him, he said that the instant dismissal is when the employer is present and says, "Get out". That is a summary dismissal in law, but if the Government want to call it an instant one, I do not mind.
The noble Lord then said that the near instant dismissal is when the employer is not there but comes back. I wrote down, "When the employer comes back". If I have written that down wrongly, I apologise, but if he looks at his text I think he will find that that is what he said. The employer comes back and says, "Get out".
I imagine myself in the Court of Appeal where an unhappy employee who has been told to get out says, "I was wrongfully dismissed at common law". Someone says, "Well, you should not have been allowed to go to a tribunal because that was a near-instant dismissal". The employee says that the employer was nowhere around. He came back the next day and said, "Get out". Is that a near-instant dismissal? With the greatest respect to those who thought up this curious paradigm, that definition is absurd.
However, the Minister said something that was very important. He said that the modified procedure would apply to ex-employees. I notice that he did not say a word about the law on termination of contract. So he is adopting the automatic theory on termination. Is that what the Bill says? So the courts had better look at this deep area of what Lord Justice Ward called "murky waters" and realise that the Government are by a side wind legislating on that.
Then the Minister says that these are the cases to which the modified procedure will apply. So in all cases where notice is given the modified procedure will not apply. Therefore, an employee would be very sensible
172
when an employer says, "Get out", to ask, "Are you giving me notice?" If the employer says, "Well, all right, you can have a week's notice, but I want you off the premises anyway", that is not a near-instant dismissal.
I touched on a further point which the Minister did not seem to notice. The modified procedure applies to all summary dismissals whether or not they are justified at common law. So it applies even where the employer instantly or summarily dismisses wrongly. In other words, the modified procedure application is at the choice of the employer. Whether or not he is right in law, if he says "Get out", the modified procedure applies— especially if he is present because then we know it does. Just how far he has to be away to come back we are not sure.
So can he be sued in an employment tribunal? Every time he says, "Get out" the employee has to start his grievance procedure. He has to send that letter before he can get to a tribunal. That is the point where the Minister, with the greatest of respect to him, was most in error.
The Minister says that it is wrong to call this an inroad into employment rights enforcement. But if the employee has not done what Schedule 2 says that he must do, he is not allowed to go to a tribunal. Even if he has complied with it he has to wait 28 days. We shall come to that matter.
Therefore, the modified procedures encourage the worst practice. They encourage summary dismissal. Where it is a matter of a grievance they encourage the employer to give his first and last word and know that that is the end of it because there is no meeting and no appeal.
What possible contribution to what the research documents rightly call "the need for further dialogue at the workplace" can such crude and silly procedures possibly have? I hope that the Government will think again. If they cannot withdraw the modified procedures, at least at Third Reading they should come back with provisions that working people can recognise as having elementary fairness. At the moment there is no fairness. The worker is left vulnerable. I say that especially in view of the policies advanced by parties other than the Government. Those who are vulnerable need protection. The modified procedures deprive them of it. But at the moment there is nothing that we can do except to leave the Government wallowing in what is a terrible mess and which is opposed to their professed aims, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 47, which was spoken to with Amendment No. 37, I must advise the House that if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 inclusive.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 47:
Page 65, line 32, leave out paragraph 4 and insert—
"4 The employer must—

(a) set out in writing—

(i) the employee's alleged misconduct which has led to the dismissal,

(ii) what the basis was for thinking at the time of the dismissal that the employee was guilty of the alleged misconduct, and

(iii) the employee's right to appeal against dismissal, and

(b) send the statement, or a copy of it, to the employee."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 47 was spoken to with Amendment No. 37, or strictly with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.[Amendments Nos.48 to 50 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment Nos.51 to 53:
Page 66, line 13, after "send" insert "the statement or"
Page 66, line 13, after "copy" insert "of it"
Page 66, line 16, leave out "at least one" and insert "attend a"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendment No. 54 is defective. It should refer to paragraph 6 and not paragraph 4.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 54:
Page 66, line 17, at end insert—
"( )The meeting must not take place unless—

(a) the employee has informed the employer what the basis for the grievance was when he made the statement under paragraph 4, and

(b) the employer has had a reasonable opportunity to consider his response to that information."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.55 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasenmoved Amendment No. 55A:
Page 66, line 23, at end insert—
"( ) In the case of bullying, the appeal may be instituted by either the employee, the manager or the employer."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 55A refers to the grievance procedure. It is designed to be helpful. It is a simple but necessary amendment. Bullying arises on occasions and possibly will increasingly arise in the grievance procedures.
A fortnight ago I organised a meeting on bullying in this House. I had only 10 working days to advertise it. Over 90 people turned up at the meeting. They told horrendous tales about bullying from the point of view of employees, employers and middle management.
174
The Peers who were interested in coming to the meeting were not able to get into the meeting room because it was too small. Although it was very squashed and very hot, I appreciate the support of those who came.
Since then I have received numerous telephone calls and letters in which I have been inundated with examples of bullying. Obviously, with this meeting I touched the tip of an iceberg, one which certainly will not dissolve and most probably will grow. All of those who attended believed that, as the law stands, there is no adequate legislation to challenge bullying at work. I know that the Government do not take that view, but I merely say to them, "Try being a trade union representative and using the law as it stands and you will know how difficult it is".
We cannot ignore the fact that bullying exists in thousands of workplaces and that in many it is endemic: it has happened for years; it is the norm. At the meeting, instances were cited from the health service, teaching, the voluntary sector, engineering and, indeed, from the Post Office—perhaps I should speak to my honourable friend the Minister in another place about that because I am sure that he would be interested in those bullying cases.
All types of offices, including government offices, were involved and several Ministries were mentioned. I shall not embarrass any of my noble friends by naming them, but I urge all Ministers to look over their shoulder because bullying is occurring. Of course, it also takes place in many kinds of factories, in workplaces large and small and in all parts of the United Kingdom. People attended the meeting from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and all parts of England.
The Dignity at Work Bill recently passed through the House, for which I thank your Lordships. It is now scheduled for the other place but unfortunately, as I said, the Government are not backing it. Perhaps they will think again. It is an extremely popular piece of legislation with working people and good employers who were also present at the meeting stressed that good employers need not fear the Dignity at Work Bill. As they pointed out to me during the meeting and afterwards, when they remained behind to speak to me about it, they have had to face bullying at work and agreed that a specific law on bullying would have helped them.
We are now considering the Employment Bill, which sets out to be good legislation. The Government are rightly proud of having introduced it, but we need to encompass as much as possible in the Bill. Because it is a forward-thinking piece of legislation and one that should last for a good while, the amendment would add significantly to it. The amendment is a simple but sincere attempt. It covers employers, employees and managers because in many aspects of grievance procedures all three, or two out of those three, may be involved in bullying. My noble friend Lord Lea will speak a little more about that in a moment, but I ask the Government seriously to consider the amendment. It is intended to be helpful and could improve the Bill. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend. We are seeking to make an important clarification as regards a possible difference between bullying and other matters that may come under disciplinary or grievance procedures. The key issue, to which my noble friend just alluded, is that there are often three sides to such disputes, not two. The key point is that an appeal will in practice often relate to the manager's position in the line of command in relation to the ultimate employer. The manager in question will therefore not be taking the hearing, as he would in the case of an ordinary grievance. So the manager could either be the person being said to have done the bullying, which would constitute a grievance, or the person in a disciplinary hearing who was saying that the employee was doing the bullying. Would it then be right for the manager to be the person to take the case, as it were, instead of a third party?
I wonder whether Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry and the DTI corporately have yet shown sufficient ingenuity in addressing what I may call the variable geometry. We do not have to be Picasso to work out that the picture is different from a two-dimensional one. The manager is often the pig in the middle between the other two parties.
I thank my noble friend Lady Gibson for her work and refer briefly to the interesting meeting upstairs last week. As a trade union official of some years' experience, I can normally tell quite quickly whether there is a big head of steam behind an issue. There is a big head of steam worked up behind this one, which should be released without adding to the frustration by saying that it does not really come under this Bill or that perhaps it should come under my noble friend's Dignity at Work Bill. We do not know what will happen to that Bill. Something must be done.
We have narrowed down what is the proper connection between the broader ideas on bullying, which have been the basis of the campaign, and the unique, narrow opportunity presented by this Bill. We have made a modest suggestion that I hope will be accepted as useful: that the employee could be deemed to be a third party if the employer takes action under the disciplinary procedure.
The amendment may not represent the optimum formulation, but as we are nearly at the last stage of the Bill, our real request is to move forward, put some cards on the table and not just go round in circles arguing about what bullying is, because we have been doing that for as long as I can remember. We want some evidence that the right degree of intellectual agility is being shown to try to address the proposition for which my noble friend has been campaigning. We have started to crack the issue and I hope that my noble friend the Minister can say something positive about it today.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let me acknowledge from the outset that this is an important issue. To her great credit, my noble friend Lady Gibson has brought it to the House's attention more
176
than once. She has certainly proved to my satisfaction that there is what my noble friend Lord Lea calls a head of steam behind it. It is clearly something that deserves the Government's attention.
We do not normally oppose or support Private Member's Bills, but on Second Reading of my noble friend Lady Gibson's Dignity at Work Bill, I identified certain problems with the Bill, the definition of bullying and the extension of new types of protection that the Bill would entail. But that does not mean that we do not have to take the issue seriously.
Bullying is typically handled under internal procedures in two ways. Employees can raise allegations of bullying under grievance procedures, which is covered by Amendment No. 55A, and employers can use their disciplinary procedures against employees who are accused of bullying, with which Amendment No. 43, over which we passed somewhat rapidly, is concerned. The amendments seek to allow the employer or the manager to initiate an appeal against a Step 2 decision under the standard statutory procedures for both dismissal and discipline and grievances in cases involving bullying. The procedures currently permit only the employee to request the appeal.
I must say that there is something odd about the amendments, because they concern the appeal, which is an appeal against the employer's initial decision after the Step 2 meeting. It is odd to let the employer appeal against his or her own decision. I am not aware of any voluntary procedures that involve such an unusual arrangement.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. It is not as daft as the Minister has just implied because the employer and the manager are not necessarily the same person.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am coming to that matter. The amendment provides that the employer, the manager or the employee has the right to institute an appeal. I assure my noble friends that I have given the matter a great deal of consideration during the past few days because it is puzzling. It is a very difficult matter to define, a very difficult matter to legislate for, and it deserves proper consideration.
The amendment refers to the ability of a manager to initiate an appeal. I suspect that my noble friends are concerned about the position of a middle manager who is pronounced guilty of bullying by the employer when considering a grievance by a bullied employee. However, having listened to my noble friend Lady Gibson I believe that she raised a point which does deserve consideration; namely, where the appeal would go through a manager who is himself accused of bullying. That is certainly a consideration which I had not thought about before.
When my noble friend Lord Lea refers to the manager being the pig in the middle, I can see the argument that the middle manager should be entitled to appeal. Of course, a manager is simply another employee for the purpose of the statutory procedures.

177
Managers are entitled to use the statutory procedures, just as other employees are. Therefore, aggrieved managers are entitled to raise a separate grievance with the employer about the way that they have been treated by the employer's consideration of the other employee's complaint. I believe that that is a more sensible and logical way to deal with the issue because it avoids introducing unusual steps into the grievance procedure.
In practice, it may be unnecessary for the manager to lodge a grievance in those circumstances. Often, the employer will initiate separate disciplinary action against a bullying manager. This process will give ample scope to accused managers to put their side.
I have already referred to the difficulties in defining bullying. That is a problem that has dogged discussions of this difficult and sensitive issue over a number of years. There is no precise, accepted definition of bullying that could be used for legal purposes. That is why there is no legislation against bullying. I do not believe that introducing it without any attempt at definition, which the amendments would do, would avoid the problem of creating great practical difficulties of interpretation.
I have identified what I believe are real problems with the amendments, but I acknowledge the importance of the issue to a very large number of noble Lords, and the head of steam beside it. I believe that we should meet to discuss the matter between now and Third Reading and I invite my noble friends to do just that.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his speech. Having spoken to him informally, I know that he does recognise that bullying is increasingly becoming an issue in employment terms. I should like to offer a quick aside on the definition. When, over 25 years ago we were talking about racial harassment, sexual harassment and victimisation we were always told that they were difficult to define. Somehow we managed to get over that. Perhaps if we meet, which is an extremely helpful suggestion on the part of the Minister for which I thank him, we can deal with this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendments Nos. 58 to 60:
Page 66, line 32, leave out paragraph 9 and insert—"9
The employee must—

(a) set out in writing—

(i) the grievance, and

(ii) the basis for it, and

(b) send the statement, or a copy of it, to the employer."

Page 67, line2, after "send" insert "the statement or"
Page 67, line 2, after "copy" insert "of it"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondallmoved Amendment No. 61:
Page 67, line 11, at end insert—
"Procedure: consideration by employees
At the time of the introduction of the procedure, the employer should—

(a) issue to all employees in draft form the actual procedure which is to apply to the establishment,

(b) provide the opportunity for comments to be made by employees within one month, and

(c) issue the substantive version of the procedure after consideration has been given to the points submitted."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No.61 is to pinpoint some of the problems that we shall be facing as the relevant regulations are tabled. This is an opportune moment—we had one brief bite at it upstairs—because soon there will be intensive consideration of what is going to be a revolutionary impact on all companies in the country. We know that those companies will range between multi-plant companies, groups, public limited companies, and so on, down to very small companies. Within that spectrum there will be a whole variety of companies in terms of geography, size, employment hours and people.
As regards communicating important new procedures, we have been told that in industrial relations the communication would typically relate to the appropriate size of bargaining unit, or people with a particular logic, as to why they are the group being consulted.
I do not believe that it is too late to shed light on this matter because I suspect that it cannot be transposed into practice just by the best brains in the country sitting in a room. The matter needs to be carefully considered in order to ensure that we have a meaningful account of who has to do what in a particular environment.
It ties up with the fact that a useful cross-reference arises in government Amendment No. 64 on the night to be accompanied. I believe that that is relevant because it is important that firms and workers' representatives understand that there is a new chapter opening up here as to who is to be involved, and how, in various procedures. The ideal solution will be an explanatory note—not just a unilateral notice board signed Department of Trade and Industry—on how Mr Struthers in King's Lynn will deal with issues concerning the night shift in the transport depot. That is the degree of detail required of the domestic procedures which the Government wish to have credibility. That is why many issues will not need to go to industrial tribunals, as my noble friends Lord McCarthy, Lord Wedderburn and Lady Turner have stated on many occasions. All of that is true. However, it is also true that we have an opportunity to ensure that robust procedures are in place to ensure that the domestic environment is improved so that not only are such matters settled through procedures but the climate is improved so that the issues do not even arise. In my view new procedures will be required in almost every workplace as a result of this Bill.

179
On the opposite side of the argument, I know that there is a concern about too much regulation. The better that this matter is addressed in the initial stages—and we are talking about a procedure at the time of introduction—the longer it is likely to be before an issue will arise. Additionally, there would be worries about people's motives and about misrepresenting where people are coming from. If this can be got right from the start, however it is expressed, there will be a degree of joint ownership of the procedure. That is what we are aiming for. I do not necessarily intend a connection with trade unions, although I am a trade unionist and that is what I should like to see. However, I believe that there must be some degree of joint ownership of those procedures. That must be put in at the start.
In Grand Committee, my noble friend indicated that some important matters need to be examined but not necessarily put on the face of the Bill. It would be useful if he would indicate how the Government visualise these matters being taken forward. There must be an acceptance that procedures are not being parachuted in from Whitehall but that they make sense in the workplace. We believe that over time they will make a great deal of sense in the workplace and we want to get them correct from the outset. I beg to move.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Lea. The Minister in another place rightly spoke of the measure in terms not only of reducing the number of cases which go to employment tribunals but of introducing organisation, discipline, opportunities and rights to about 6 million workers. That is an innovative and exciting prospect and we do not want it buried. We need to have a clear explanation of how the Government intend to handle the matter.
They cannot handle it themselves, except by drawing attention to it. However, I believe that it is the responsibility of employers' organisations, trade unions and other bodies to ensure that when the Bill becomes law everyone knows of it and their rights. We know that the Government will not accept the amendment and we hope that provision will be contained in regulations. However, when will discussions take place on when these 6 million people will be told of their rights and who will be consulted?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what has been said and the thinking behind it. When we provide statutory procedures for the first time we want to ensure that they will work. I have a great deal of sympathy with much that has been said about the amendment because—and I have bored the House with this previously—as an employer of about 35 people in the only unionised market research company in the country, I did exactly what the amendment proposes. I produced a draft—or rather it was produced by the union because it was much better qualified to do so. We provided the opportunity for comments and we finally provided a substantive version.
180
However, when I consider the implications of writing such procedures into the Bill in the form suggested, I start to shudder. I was going to say that I could write a whole Bill on the subject, but I could not. I could give instructions to the departmental lawyers to give instructions to parliamentary counsel to write a Bill on the subject. It is enormously complicated and it requires a great deal more than what is provided in the amendment. Let us consider, for example, the issue of nominated individuals to whom complaints should be made. There is a wide variety of places of employment and of multi-plant organisations. I find it difficult to see how without injustice to a considerable number of employees one could produce a formula which could work for all of them.
However, we have the ACAS code. It provides guidance to employers about consulting their workforce before introducing their own procedures. That is what makes sense to me. I have no problem with that as guidance and we would encourage the parties to follow it voluntarily, as does ACAS. However, it is quite another matter to impose a new legislative requirement to consult. It would go beyond the effect of the ACAS code and it would take the Bill into different and controversial territory.
We have problems with the notion that employers of all sizes should be legally obliged to consult their workforce on their procedures. What would the cost be in terms of additional burdens on millions of employers, the majority of whom are in daily personal contact with their employees and do not need to go through statutory procedures for this purpose?
We are concerned with positioning the amendment within the statutory procedures. Schedule 2 specifies the statutory minima; it does not deal with the detailed application within voluntary procedures. The amendment takes the schedule into areas which it was not designed to cover.
The schedule does not provide an entitlement to employers to vary the procedures themselves. Yet the amendment seems to encourage employers to vary the procedures after consulting their employees—and quite right, too. It would even entitle employers to introduce procedures which were inferior to the minimum specified by the schedule, if their employees agreed. We had some difficulty with that when we considered Clause 39 in Grand Committee. Surely we do not want to open up that possibility.
We know that many employers already operate good procedures. We hope that many more will adopt their own procedures following the Bill's implementation and the introduction of statutory procedures. In many cases, employers will consult their workforce before introducing or changing the procedures. But we believe that such consultations are best taken on a voluntary basis without imposing any legal requirement to do so. We certainly do not want to cut across, for example, existing consultative arrangements with recognised unions, which might be the effect of these amendments.

181
I am sympathetic to a great deal of what was said but I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, these issues will not go away; we have not heard the last word on the subject. Indeed, although my noble friend said that he shuddered at the implications of my amendment, perhaps he was shuddering at some of the issues which must be examined before the Bill is enacted.
When speaking to the amendment he used the expression "one size fits all". We are not talking about a single currency or a single interest rate and I shall not say that the penny has dropped because I shall mix my metaphors. Clearly, "one size fits all" is the nature of the Bill. As regards certain procedures, one size does fit all and I could say the same about any aspect of the Bill. The fact is that large firms, small firms, geographically dispersed firms, electronically based firms and so forth must introduce a procedure.
I welcomed the Minister's reference to the ACAS code and for one moment thought that my noble friend was saying that it would be a generally agreed point of reference. It is inevitable that people will have a good look at the code, but in order to avoid disputes about how a procedure is introduced we cannot deny that this is a procedure. It is a procedure, and they appear in the Bill, so let us not use words as though they have no meaning. We are discussing the unique occasion on which they will be introduced.
This has been a useful opportunity to highlight these issues for discussion. When the brainstorming is up and running between the DTI and everyone else, I hope that something will have come out of our discussion today. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 67, line 19, at end insert and should as far as reasonably practicable further seek to agree with the employee, or with a recognised trade union, a mechanism for the conduct of appeals taking into account the recommendations of any relevant code issued by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a modest and minor amendment. We are dealing with the general requirements which apply to Schedule 2, the statutory dispute resolution procedures, and we are trying to add to what it proposes should be done in respect of appeal.
Part 3(13)(3) states:
"In the case of appeal meetings which are not the first meeting, the employer should, as far as is reasonably practicable, be represented by a more senior manager than attended the first meeting (unless the most senior manager attended that meeting)".
An element of an appeal mechanism is that the person taking the appeal was not involved in the first instance case. One must try to introduce an element of perceived independence or to bring a fresh mind to the issue. Part 3 is better than nothing but it is not enough— particularly for the millions of people who will never reach a tribunal.
182
The Government want to discourage people going to tribunals but say, "It will be all right. Tribunals will have the full rigour of the ACAS code". That is all very well but the overwhelming majority of employees do not get to a tribunal. The employer might know the law and be aware that he only has to observe what is said in the Bill. We want to insert in Part 3:
"and should as far as reasonably practicable further seek to agree with the employee, or with a recognised trade union, a mechanism for the conduct of appeals taking into account the recommendations of any relevant code issued by (he Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service".
The amendment specifies "any relevant code" because we are not certain what the Government will do about the present code, which they will have to change to take into account the Bill's provisions. The code that we know and can reasonably ask the Government to consider is paragraphs 27 to 31 of the ACAS code on discipline and grievances, which generally deal with appeals.
One would not necessarily have to take into account all those provisions but parts of the code are of particular importance. There is provision for time limits in the Bill but not for a hearing by a manager not previously involved. The Government may say that many small firms only have one manager but in most cases they could find someone within the organisation who was not previously involved—even if it is a member of the board. That will add to the feeling of equity.
If one does not want employees to go to tribunals, one must find an alternative to the employer's last word. The trouble is that the employer took the decision and was present. With an appeals procedure, one wants somebody who was not present and—says the ACAS code—someone who was not previously involved. If that proves impossible, the code says that one should seek an alternative form of perceived impartiality—which is recognised by the Better Regulation Task Force. The code states also that if new evidence emerges as a result of the appeal process, time should be allowed for investigation and comment. That might result in a slightly different decision.
I do not see why some, part or all of that should not be embodied in the Bill or regulations. I ask the Government to give me a friendly reply. I do not want them to say that we are trying to return to external dispute resolutions. We are not. We have given that up. We are saying that the employer should be asked to consider the possibility of bringing to the appeal process someone who was not previously involved because it would look better for the employer—who should investigate also getting agreement between the parties that the worker himself might accept. That would be in the spirit of the ACAS code but there would be no compulsion. The amendment is an attempt to focus the Government's attention on the need to engineer a shift, so that there will be an alternative to the employer's last word. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend describes this as a modest amendment. I suppose he means that it is heavily qualified, with it s reference to "reasonably practicable", "seek to agree" and "taking into account". I certainly would not accuse it of going over the top.

183
The amendment is meant to fit the general requirements in Schedule 2 and, in particular, appeal meetings that are not the first meeting. Part 3(13)(3) states that
"the employer should, as far as is reasonable practicable, be represented by a more senior manager than attended the first meeting".
I got the impression that my noble friend was not recognising that point.
The amendment proposes that the parties should seek to agree a mechanism for the conduct of appeals. I do not understand what is meant by "a mechanism". Is the intention to establish a joint system, whereby decisions about the conduct of appeals could be made—or about the rules of conduct themselves?
I find it difficult to understand the amendment and suspect that it is necessary. Part 3(13)(2) states that appeal meetings must be conducted in a manner that enables both the employer and employee to explain their cases. Is that not the amendment's objective?
I and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer have said several times this afternoon that use of the ACAS code should be encouraged even more than now. We agree with the Better Regulation Task Force in that regard but we have always resisted bringing the code into statute. The parties can draw on whatever guidance the ACAS code provides—the amendment does not add anything of substance.
We have tried to keep the statutory procedures as short and simple as possible. We resist all embellishments, unless there is an extremely good case for them. The amendment would complicate the procedures. Part 3(13) covers most of the points made by the amendment and many people, including me, would be confused about its meaning.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I cannot resist responding to the Minister. I said that the amendment is modest and that it does not ask for much. It is just a little broader. I pointed out the fact that "a more senior manager" was on the statute book and on the face of the Bill. But to echo the Minister, he could have been there; he was not far enough away. He could have been the person who told the inferior person to sack the worker. ACAS wants someone who is not directly involved. It is better if it is a senior person because it will be easier for such a person to reverse the decision. It will be no good using someone with no authority. You cannot bring out the man who looks after the cars; you need someone with authority to reverse a decision of managers. It should be someone who is not involved in the dispute, and that is not on the face of the Bill.
The Minister says that he does not know what is meant by "mechanism for conduct". Those are three words and I can explain them in one: procedure. All noble Lords know what a procedure is and we are talking about a mechanism for the conduct of an appeal. That is a procedure.
184
To reject this amendment will not do. The Government can continue to reject amendments, but I return to the point that there will be no reduction in tribunal hearings. This amendment is modest and it may induce a few people not to demand their day in court. If the Government will not accede to that, there will be no reduction in the number of tribunal hearings. When the results of the latest directives come in one will see that the figures will have risen and the Government will get around to introducing such a measure in the end. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 63 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 64:
Page 67, line 19, at end insert—
"PART 4
SUPPLEMENTARY
Status of meetings
A meeting held for the purposes of this Schedule is a hearing for the purposes of section 13(4) and (5) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (c. 26) (definition of "disciplinary hearing" and "grievance hearing" in relation to the right to be accompanied under section 10 of that Act)."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Grand Committee we discussed the case for including a reference to the right to be accompanied in the statutory procedures. That right was brought into being by the Employment Relations Act 1999. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, indicated that the Government were giving further consideration to the issue. We have done so and have come forward with this amendment.
Its effect is to make it explicit that the right to be accompanied will apply to meetings held under the statutory procedures in the same way as the right applies now to hearings held under voluntary disciplinary and grievance procedures. In other words, it will remain the case that the right will apply where a meeting under the statutory dismissal and disciplinary procedures could result in the administration of a formal warning or some other formal action against the employee or the confirmation of such actions at an appeal. It will remain the case that the right will apply to meetings held under the statutory grievance procedures where the grievance concerns the performance of a duty by the employer in relation to the employee.
In our judgment, it is highly likely that the right to be accompanied would apply in this way even without the amendment. But we have listened to the debates on this issue and we recognise that some individuals, including eminent employment lawyers, have raised questions about these matters. We have therefore

185
decided to place the matter beyond doubt by tabling this amendment. We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and to other noble Lords for giving their opinions on the issue in Grand Committee. Their contribution has helped to clarify our thinking. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I cannot let this welcome government amendment pass without saying how glad we are that the obdurate opposition to putting this matter on the face of the Bill in another place and the keenness to deal with it in procedures and regulations in this place have been supplanted by the excellent principle of putting fundamental matters on the face of the Bill. We congratulate the Government on doing so and hope that they will follow their own precedent on other occasions.
I hope that the Minister will not mind if I raise one matter. By importing, as this amendment does, the welcome definition of meetings as hearings under Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act, which is specifically mentioned as part of Schedule 2 procedures, does it mean that the definition of "grievance hearing" in the Employment Relations Act applies to the meaning of "grievance"? I ask that especially in relation to "grievance"; otherwise there is no definition of "grievance" in the Bill. It is important to know what is a grievance or it will be when the matter is argued in a procedure. One will need to know whether an employee should use the first step in the grievance procedure. If he does not use the first step he will not be able to go to a tribunal, and if he does he cannot go to a tribunal for 28 days.
This amendment, in a most welcome manner, rightly applies the meaning of "grievance hearing" in Sections 10, 12 and 13 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 for the purposes of what is a meeting in this Bill. Of course, in doing so the question arises whether, for the first time, the Government are defining "grievance". If they are defining "grievance" in precisely the same way as it is defined in Sections 10, 12 and 13 of the 1999 Act, that has important consequences, not only for understanding generally, but also in relation to the amendments that they have moved today about what an employee has to do in regard to the grievance procedure. I believe that we are entitled to know how far this amendment imports the other parts of those sections that go with Section 10 in the 1999 Act.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have two immediate reactions to that. First, the word "grievance" is used widely in Schedule 2 and, secondly, as I understand it the amendment is tightly drawn. I believe the wisest course would be for me to write to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn on this matter in good time before Third Reading.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 64A:
Page 67, line 19, at end insert—
"Scope of grievance procedures
(1) The procedures set out in Part 2 are only applicable to matters raised by an employee with his employer as a grievance.
(2) Accordingly, those procedures are only applicable to the kind of disclosure dealt with in Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosures of information) if information is disclosed by an employee to his employer in circumstances where—

(a) the information relates to a matter which the employee could raise as a grievance with his employer, and

(b) it is the intention of the employee that the disclosure should constitute the raising of the matter with his employer as a grievance."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, both at Second Reading and in Grand Committee, my noble friends Lord Borrie and Lord Gladwin discussed the interaction between the statutory procedures and the system for making and protecting public interest disclosures. That system was introduced by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which inserted new sections about public interest disclosures into the Employment Rights Act 1996.
My noble friends voiced concerns that the statutory grievance procedure may undermine, or be thought to cut across, the Act. It was felt in some quarters that employees may, rightly or wrongly, feel compelled to use the statutory grievance procedure when they wanted to make a public interest disclosure relating to their own personal treatment. In other words, they may feel constrained from raising their concern in a less formal way with their employer or via dedicated disclosure procedures. They may also think that they could not make the disclosure to third parties.
Ministers have stressed that we do not want the statutory procedures to undermine the Act. At Second Reading I said that the Bill and the regulations would secure that that was the case. But the doubts remained and in Grand Committee on 11th April my noble friend Lord Sainsbury announced that the Government intended to table an amendment that would remove any lingering uncertainty that the Bill would carry with it such unintended effects. He also indicated that officials would consult Public Concern at Work on the amendment.
We have therefore tabled this amendment to remove all doubt on the matter. 'We have consulted Public Concern at Work on drafts of the amendment. We are grateful for its helpful input and I want to place on public record our thanks for its support in this work and for the letter that Guy Dehn of Public Concern at Work sent to all noble Lords yesterday.
His letter confirms my belief that our amendment satisfies its concerns. It makes it clear that employees are free to decide how they wish to pursue a concern which could be treated either as a public interest disclosure or as a grievance. If they wish to take up an issue as a grievance, they can do so. If they wish to disclose their concern in other ways consistent with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, then they are free

187
to pursue that course of action either as an alternative to raising the matter as a grievance or, indeed, as an addition to raising it as a grievance.
I hope that the amendment will satisfy all the concerns expressed and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I welcome the amendment, particularly on behalf of Public Concern at Work, of which I am a patron. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said, the amendment fulfils the assurances given in Grand Committee by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville in response to an amendment I moved. Public Concern at Work is grateful also for the consultation that followed the Minister's response to the suggestion made in Grand Committee by my noble friend Lord Gladwin of Clee.
The amendment makes it clear that the Bill's grievance procedure does not undermine the legislative framework for whistleblowing in the public interest contained in the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The Act encourages employees to raise public interest concerns internally, but it is important for obvious reasons that there should also be an option for employees to raise matters externally; for example, with appropriate regulators.
That option is preserved through the amendment, so long as it is not the employee's intention to raise the matter as a grievance. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton mentioned in another context the remaining deficiency that the Bill contains no definition of "grievance". I raise this point as a fact, not as an objection to the amendment, because consultations can take place before regulations are drafted to fill that deficiency and to define what is a grievance.
The view of Public Concern at Work is that the key element of a grievance procedure is that its purpose is to remedy or redress some harm or damage suffered by an employee. That differs from whistleblowing, where the purpose is to alert or to put on notice the employer or the relevant authority so that they can assess what action, if any, is needed. As the new statutory dispute regime is concerned only with grievances which may ground a tribunal claim, a definition of grievance that recognises the essential element of remedy for personal harm is appropriate. That is because the pre-eminent reason claims are brought to a tribunal is to seek a personal redress, especially, and usually, compensation for a detriment or harm the employee believes that he has suffered at the employer's hands.
We trust that Her Majesty's Government will confirm that there will now be full and open consultation on what is a grievance before regulations are introduced. We trust too that they will confirm that the key element of a grievance in the new regime will be that the employee is seeking a remedy or redress for harm or detriment.
When the Bill becomes an Act, the new statutory regime will be explained in various ways to employers and employees, who can all usefully be reminded of the
188
nature and value of whistleblowing. If an employee is concerned about wrongdoing in his workplace, be it fraud, public danger, danger to public health or cover up of wrongdoing, he should feel able to raise that matter as a witness and be seen as such by managers and fellow employees rather than as a complainant who may have a personal interest in the outcome.
If, sadly, as we all know happens only too frequently, an employee is victimised as a result of blowing the whistle perfectly legitimately within the public interest disclosure regime and seeks a personal remedy, the grievance procedure set out in Schedule 2 will apply as it does to any other kind of grievance. I warmly welcome the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I welcome the amendment. The comments of my noble friend Lord Borrie are right. But I have a problem, and I want to help the Government in its solution. As my noble friend Lord Borrie said, it relates to what was said about the previous amendment. He suggested—and I understand what he was saying—that a grievance concerns harm, damage or detriment to the employee. If that is to be used as the definition or near-definition of "grievance", it will be different from the definition in the Employment Relations Act 1999.
The Minister might pay some regard to the different definition in Section 13(5) of that Act, where a grievance hearing is defined as,
"a hearing which concerns the performance of a duty by an employer in relation to a worker".
If grievances relate only to the performance of a legal duty by the employer, that is rather narrower than the definition suggested by my noble friend Lord Borrie, where harm or detriment to the worker is the distinguishing point. It may seem a small point, but it would be critical in evaluating when whistleblowing is properly preserved by the amendment. Perhaps the Minister could indicate, if he is going to write to me, that he will write also to my noble friend Lord Borrie, and perhaps to all noble Lords concerned, telling us which of those definitions is likely to be adopted.
I suggest that the Minister should take seriously the definition in Section 13(5) of the Employment Relations Act and consider whether it should apply to both the Section 10 amendment we have just debated and the amendment under consideration.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Borrie and Lord Wedderburn for their support. I confirm that when I write to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn on the issue—and my reply will be informed by his further helpful comments—I shall write also to my noble friend Lord Borrie, to the other Front Benches and all other Members of my party who have taken part in the debate; my noble friend Lord Gladwin is particularly associated with Public Concern at Work.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No.66:
Page 67, line 19, at end insert—
Interpretation
14 Where a party states that a statement or copy of it has been sent to another party it shall be presumed that he has sent it.
15 In the interpretation of this Schedule, any relevant code of practice or statement of guidance issued by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service shall be taken into account."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to incorporate a clause dealing with interpretation. Both in the standard and modified procedures there is a requirement to set out grievances in writing and to send a copy to the employer. That effectively starts the procedure. The amendment ensures that there is as little delay as possible in commencing procedures. Therefore, if a party states that a statement or a copy of it has been sent to another party, it shall be presumed—a word I emphasise—that it has been sent. Surely this is sensible. Is the worker expected to prove that he has sent it? Why should proceedings be delayed by arguments about whether or not it has been sent?
The legislation ought to be user-friendly. We have to remember that the workforce is becoming increasingly multi—ethnic—the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned this and I am sure that it is agreed in all parts of the —Houseand there may be language difficulties or cultural misunderstandings. Giving the employee the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances would appear to be eminently sensible. Employment tribunal proceedings are intended to be simple and easily accessible. Many of the people seeking to use the procedures will be relatively poor and it is the duty of politicians, as we have repeatedly said in the House, to be helpful to the vulnerable.
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn raised this issue in an earlier, differently worded, amendment in Grand Committee. Unfortunately, because my noble friends and I were not particularly happy with the response that we received from our noble and learned friend the Minister at that stage, we are bringing back the matter with slightly different wording.
The second part of the amendment provides that,
"In the interpretation of this Schedule, any relevant code of practice or statement of guidance issued by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service shall be taken into account".
The Government have repeatedly acknowledged that ACAS is the organisation with the relevant expertise. Undoubtedly it will be called upon to provide advice and assistance in what, for many, will be an entirely new field of operation. The intention of the Bill is to get employers with no procedures to adopt at least a minimal level. But they may well need assistance, and ACAS is the right place to go for it. Interpretation may be difficult for some. The amendment makes it clear that guidance must be available and taken into account.
I hope that the Government will accept that the amendment is intended to be constructive. In Grand Committee we asked the Government to take away
190
what we were saying and to look at the issue again. I had hoped that they had done so, but that does not so far appear to be the case. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree that the amendment is intended to be constructive. I can assure my noble friend Lady Turner that we did take away the amendment and that we did think about it again. But the result of that further thought is that we have not changed the view that we took when we debated a similar amendment in Grand Committee.
As my noble friend said, there are two issues here. The first concerns disputes between parties about the sending of written communications under the statutory procedures—Step 1 letters, for example. Of course disputes do arise in practice; letters get lost in the post and people pretend that letters have been sent when they have not been. This part of the amendment tries to cut through such disagreement by entering a presumption in the procedures that the sender is always right if he or she asserts that a communication has been sent. My noble friend is concerned about the implications of this kind of dispute for an employee's access to the tribunal system. We do not believe that these issues will cause problems for tribunals and therefore, by extension, for employees.
In our judgment, it would be extremely difficult for the employer to prove that a communication was never sent, especially if a dated copy was retained by the sender. So any disputes on these points would not detain the tribunals for long. However, there may be cases where the employer has valid evidence that a communication was not sent. For example, the employer's computer records may provide evidence about the alleged use of internal e-mail systems to send written communications. We should not discount the existence of that possibility by introducing a presumption of this kind. That would bring the procedures into disrepute.
The second point introduces a cross-reference to the guidance given by any relevant ACAS code or other statement of guidance when interpreting the schedule. We have discussed this matter on a number of occasions, both in Grand Committee and today. In particular, I responded to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lea, Amendment No. 44, on this point.
To repeat the issue, the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures would of course be relevant to the use of statutory procedures. The only question is whether a specific reference to the code is necessary here. As I said before, I am confident that it is not. When considering "any question" to which an ACAS code may be relevant, tribunals must already take the code into account under Section 207 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992.
The amendment also refers to other "statements of guidance" issued by ACAS. At present, statute does not require tribunals to take into account other such ACAS documents. Indeed, I am not quite sure what

191
other ACAS documents would be covered by the term. I am therefore reluctant to introduce a novel reference of this kind into the Bill.
While confirming that the amendment is intended to be constructive, I would ask my noble friend Lady Turner not to press it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. I am glad that he acknowledged that we intend to be constructive with these amendments. However, I am rather disappointed that the Government have not found it possible to come back more sympathetically to the submissions that we made in Grand Committee.
My noble friend said that the procedures could be brought into disrepute. That was one of the statements made on behalf of the Government in Grand Committee. We believe that if proceedings are delayed because of arguments about whether or not documents have been sent, that of itself is likely to bring the procedures into disrepute. It was to avoid that kind of incident that the amendment was drafted yet again for Report stage.
As to the reference to ACAS, as I said earlier, ACAS undoubtedly will be asked to advise on these new procedures. It seems appropriate that it should be clearly stated on the face of the Bill that if any matter of interpretation is to be discussed or investigated, then the guidance from ACAS should be looked at. Undoubtedly ACAS will issue guidance. This is a new set of procedures and I am sure that ACAS will be asked to provide, if not a code, at least some notes of guidance for people operating procedures of this kind for the first time.
There is no point in proceeding any further with this issue at this stage. That being the case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 67:
Page 36, line 38, leave out "exceptional"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 31 deals with the non-completion of statutory procedures and specifies adjustment of awards where procedures have not been completed. Subsection (2) states that where there has been non-completion wholly or mainly due to failure by the employee, the ET must reduce any award to the employee by 10 per cent and, if it considers it just and equitable, it can reduce it by a further amount but not so as to make a total reduction of more than 50 per cent.
In subsection (3) it states that if the non-completion is wholly or mainly due to a failure by the employer, the ET must increase any award made to the employee by 10 per cent, or, if it believes it just and equitable, increase it by a further amount but not so as to make a total increase of more than 50 per cent.
However, subsection (4) allows the tribunal some flexibility. It states that in exceptional circumstances which would make a reduction or an increase unjust or
192
inequitable, the ET may make no reduction or increase. My amendment seeks to remove the word "exceptional" from this clause. I do not understand the need for it. If it is unjust or inequitable in the view of the tribunal not to make an increase or a reduction in an award, surely that is a matter for the employment tribunal. What is meant by the word "exceptional" in this context? It can simply add to uncertainty. The ET's view of what is just and equitable should be sufficient. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, this may seem to be a very small amendment, but it is rather important. There are places in the legislation on these matters where special circumstances are mentioned as regards, for example, the employer's duty to consult. That has given rise to a great deal of litigation. Exceptional circumstances will do the same. Either there are circumstances where it is unjust and inequitable to make no reduction or increase in the awards, or there are not.
Exceptional circumstances pose a question which the tribunals and the courts will have to answer. As we have seen with the interpretation of special circumstances, that can be a matter of very great difficulty. I cannot understand why the Government insist on introducing these words especially as the matter was dealt with in the 12th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, dated 25th February, which commented on Clause 31(4). It states,
"In our view it would have been preferable had it been possible to draft clause 31(4) in a way which ensured that it would have operated proportionately without the need to resort to external aids to interpretation in the form of the Human Rights Act and a judicial decision in an unconnected area of the law. This might have been achieved, for example, by giving tribunals a single discretion in clause 31(4) to reduce or increase an amount of any enhancement or restriction of the award, allowing a tribunal to fix an amount of between zero and 50 per cent 'if it considers it just and equitable in all the circumstances to do so'. This would have reduced the complexity of clause 31, improved its transparency, and reduced the risk of tribunals behaving in a way which might be disproportionate. We draw this to the attention of each House".
Like some other passages in the 12th report, no one has drawn that passage to the attention of this House or any other House.
The comments on Clause 31(4) almost led us to move a much longer amendment to try to incorporate the precise proposal of the Joint Committee, but we did not do so because we thought that the removal of the word "exceptional" would go a long way in the direction of that proposal. I put it to the Minister that paragraph 16, which I have partially read, of the 12th report of the Joint Committee supports the simplification of Clause 31(4) in a way which it would not be very sensible of the Government to resist.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the purpose of Clause 31 is to encourage the use of statutory procedures. It does that by providing that an employment tribunal must reduce or increase any award if the statutory procedures have not been completed according to whether the fault lies with the employee or the employer.

193
Because of the importance that we attach to the completion of procedures, we have stipulated that the minimum adjustment for non-compliance must be 10 per cent although there may be an adjustment of up to 50 per cent if the tribunal considers it just and equitable in all the circumstances. However, we do recognise that there may be times when a 10 per cent penalty will be disproportionate, so subsection (4) provides that the duty to make an adjustment of 10 per cent does not apply if there are exceptional circumstances which would make such an adjustment unjust or inequitable. In that case the tribunal may make an adjustment of less than 10 per cent or even make no adjustment at all. It will be for the tribunal to decide when this discretion should be exercised. The amendment would remove the word "exceptional" and would therefore weaken the principle that there will be a 10 per cent minimum adjustment, and hence reduce the incentive to complete the procedures.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has quite properly raised the issue of the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. He has quoted the views of that committee. In her letter to it, the Secretary of State argued that even if Article 6(1) does impose requirements as to the way in which compensation is to be calculated, the obligations require no more than that any restrictions on compensation are imposed for a purpose which is in the public interest, that any restriction is proportionate and that it is in accordance with the law. She further argued that the restriction on compensation provided in Clause 31 is proportionate. In line with Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, Clause 31(4) would have to be read and given effect so far as is possible in a manner compatible with human rights.
I know, and the House has been told, that the committee would have preferred Clause 31(4) to have been drafted in a way which ensured that it would operate proportionately without the need to resort to external aid to interpretation such as the Human Rights Act 1998. But in conclusion, the committee found that the Government's approach was legitimate. It found that the approach was unlikely to give rise to incompatibility with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, from the point of view of the Joint Committee, there is no need to remove the word "exceptional". That word is included because we want to have the principle as strongly as possible that there will be an adjustment of an award in order to strengthen the encouragement to use the statutory procedures available.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I note what my noble friend has said, but I do not believe that the Minister has adequately answered the plea from myself and my noble friend that the presence of the word "exceptional" will lead to a great deal of uncertainty. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Wedderburn that he believes that it will lead to a great deal more. However, I do not believe that there is much point in pressing the amendment at this stage and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 68:
Page 36, line 42, at end insert—
"( ) Where an award falls to be adjusted under this section and under section 38, the adjustment under this section shall be made before the adjustment under that section."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a difficulty of presentation about this group of amendments, which includes Amendment No. 68 and Amendments Nos. 97 to 106. The difficulty is that the substantive amendments are Amendments Nos. 97 to 106 which refer to Clause 38. I have to include in the group Amendment No. 68 because the others do not make sense without it. In effect it is a paving amendment.
Amendments Nos. 97 to 106 arise because of the huge difficulty that we all had in Grand Committee in understanding Clause 38: it was exceptionally complicated. It was generally felt in the Committee that something had to be done to simplify it. It is the penalty structure for non-compliance with the written statement of employment provisions in certain circumstances.
During consideration of Clause 38, the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, in particular drew attention to the complexity of the system of penalties set out. As currently drafted, where an employee brings a successful claim of one of the types listed in Schedule 5, and it is evident that the employer has failed to meet his obligations under the written statute provisions, the tribunal will increase the award between 5 per cent and 25 per cent. The award uplift will be subject to a floor of one or two weeks' pay depending on whether the statement was absent or just incomplete or inaccurate.
We are confident that the general principle behind this measure is right and that it will help employers to recognise how crucial is the written statement to clarity in the employment relationship and how important it is, therefore, that all employers should meet their obligations to provide the statement. The general principle of encouraging compliance in this way was welcomed by most respondents to the consultation. However, as I said in Grand Committee, on reflection we agree with those who have commented that the penalty regime is unnecessarily complex.
Therefore, we have introduced these amendments which have a fixed-rate penalty in place of the current percentage-based approach. We believe that this will do the job just as well and will be simpler for tribunals to administer. Taken together they will substitute an award of two or four weeks' pay for the current system of compensation. Just as in the current drafting, the award will be payable if the statement is incomplete, inaccurate or absent, or if a notification of any change to the particulars has not been given. The award will be a flat rate rather than a percentage uplift.
Perhaps it would help if I outlined how the amendments will work. Amendments Nos. 97 to 100 reword subsection (2) of Clause 38 to direct the tribunals that even where an employee has not received a financial reward they may make an award of two weeks' pay or, if the tribunal considers it just and

195
equitable, a higher amount of four weeks' pay. Amendments Nos. 101 to 104 make a similar change to subsection (3), so that the same regime applies where there is a financial award in the first place. Amendment No. 105 rewords subsections (4) to (6), effectively replacing the original awards structure with the more straightforward options of two or four weeks' pay. Finally, Amendment No. 106 removes the now unnecessary cap of 50 per cent on the combined increase in awards under Clauses 31 and 38.
Whether the tribunals make the higher or lower award will be at their discretion. It will not necessarily be tied to the type of failure. So, for example, tribunals will have discretion to decide that an employer's failure to issue a statement in certain circumstances is not as serious as its inaccuracy in others and hence give the lower award.
I hope that the House will agree that, taken together, these changes can only be for the good because the revised remedy will serve the intended purpose of putting employers on notice that they ignore their written statement obligations at their peril; and it is now a simpler and more readily understandable formula for calculating the penalty.
I turn now to Amendment No. 68, which is a technical amendment. The change that we are making by substituting an award of two or four weeks' pay for the current system of compensation in Clause 38 would have the effect, without this amendment, that the overall amount awarded would vary according to whether the Clause 31 adjustment or the Clause 38 adjustment was made first. If I am forced to do so, I can illustrate that with an example, but I would much rather not. As Clause 38 is currently drafted, the order of adjustment does not matter because the increase in the overall amount awarded is the same in either case.
Tribunals now need to know in what order the adjustments should be made. This amendment makes it clear that the Clause 31 adjustment should be made first. If it were not, the effect would be that the penalty for failure to supply a written statement would vary according to whether the Clause 31 adjustment or the Clause 38 adjustment was made first—and that is not our intention. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Complaints about grievances]:
[Amendment No. 69 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 70:
Page 37, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) An employer shall not present a notice of appearance to an employment tribunal under a jurisdiction to which this section applies ifx2014;

(a) it concerns a matter in relation to which the requirement in paragraph 7(1) or 10 of Schedule 2 applies, and

(b) the requirement has not been complied with."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, having discussed Clauses 31 and 38, we now come to Clause 32.This is at the core and centre of the apparatus introduced
196
concerning the procedures dealt with in Schedule 2. This clause is concerned, as we saw in Grand Committee, with the limitations on access to justice in the tribunals.
We had a rather unsatisfactory debate on a similar amendment in Grand Committee. That was partly because our amendment was too widely drawn. We have corrected that in order to aim at what I take to be an agreed central objective. In the regulations for employment tribunals in 2001, a new overriding principle was introduced in Rule 10. The rule states:
"The overriding objective of the Rules in Schedules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6"—
which are the relevant rules on employment tribunals—
"is to enable tribunals to deal with cases justly".
In dealing with cases justly—as those familiar with seminars on jurisprudence will perhaps accept—dealing with equal situations equally, and being evenhanded, is a fundamental manner of approaching a just administration.
Under subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 32 the employee is obliged to take the first step under the grievance procedure if he is to be allowed admissibility to the tribunal. I deal with his wish to go to the tribunal—which is how "access to justice" is defined. In the debate in Grand Committee all kinds of problems were introduced—for example, that he might have a second chance to go. But principles on access to justice, as the discussions of the European convention make very clear, are not concerned with second chances; they are concerned with primary access to justice. Under Clause 32(2), the employee is prohibited, as I put it, from presenting his complaint to the employment tribunal. Government Ministers tend to say that he will find that his complaint is not admissible to the employment tribunal if,
"it concerns a matter in relation to which the requirement in paragraph 6 or 9 of Schedule 2 applies, andֵ the requirement has not been complied with".
So, if he has not complied with the first step under the grievance procedure, he cannot go to the tribunal.
This amendment applies a rule to the employer which is as even-handed as that which is applied to the employee. If the employer has not complied with his first step in the grievance procedure, the amendment would say that he is not permitted to enter a notice of appearance, which in general terms would mean that he is under a precisely parallel limitation to justice as that applied to the employee. If he has not complied with the first steps that he is obliged to take before inviting the employee to a meeting and, in the modified procedure, setting out his written response—the amendment would say that he is under precisely the same sanction as the employee who has failed in precisely the same way. It is a breach of the statute, and it is a breach of his contractual obligations by reason of the provisions of Clause 30.
If the Government really mean to be even-handed and to promote their own objectives, they must say something to the employer who fails in his obligations in a precisely parallel way to that in which the

197
employee is spoken to when he fails to undertake his first obligation in the statutory procedures under Schedule 2. Without such a provision, there is no substance in the Government's claim that the provisions of Schedule 2 will promote dialogue and settlement at the place of work.
The employee must take his first steps, or he cannot go to the tribunal. Even if he does take the first steps his case is held up for 28 days. We have not included the second point, only the first. This is a most modest proposal; namely, that when the employer fails to take the first steps that he should take under his statutory and contractual obligations, he should be under precisely parallel sanctions to those on the employee. In that way, he would be encouraged to get on with the procedure, to do what he ought to do. He would have a sanction against him if he did not do that. At the moment, he has absolutely none so far as concerns access to justice—presumably only the remedy of' the employee, who can sue him for breach of contract. But the Government wish not to encourage litigation, so they could introduce an automatic penalty, just as they have done for the employer. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn pointed out, the admissibility regime in Clause 32 relates directly to employees. Where it applies, the regime ensures that the employees must at least initiate the statutory grievance procedure, and then wait 28 days before applying to a tribunal. My noble friend's amendment seeks to establish a parallel set of obligations on employers. In order to defend an application at a tribunal, the amendment would impose a requirement on employers to take certain acts under the grievance procedures.
We debated a similar amendment in Grand Committee on 25th March. On that occasion, as my noble friend acknowledges, amendments were tabled that sought to require employers to complete all their obligations under the procedures as a pre-condition for defending cases at a tribunal. This latest amendment pares down that obligation to some extent; for example, under the standard grievance procedure, the pre-condition is limited to the obligation on the employer to invite the employee to a meeting.
The idea as advanced by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn is to establish, as he would put it, an "even-handed" system. I believe that we have already done so. If one looks at Part 3 of the Bill in its entirety, it will be seen that Clauses 31 and 34 provide clear incentives to employers to use the procedures. If they do not, increased awards will be made against them, and there will be automatic findings of unfair dismissal. Clauses 31 and 32 provide the corresponding incentives to employees—reduced awards and a procedural bar to bringing proceedings, until the procedure is satisfied. That is the parallel incentive and disincentive, depending on which way one looks at it.
198
Therefore, when considering the Bill overall, we can see that obligations are placed upon both parties. It would seriously imbalance the position if fresh obligations were placed on employers under Clause 32, as proposed in my noble friend's amendment. On that basis, we are unable to accept the amendment. It would upset the balance of the Bill and unnecessarily restrict the ability of employers to defend themselves at tribunals. In the light of my explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his response. It proves that the Law Society was right in its view; namely, that Clause 32 (formerly Clause 33) should be struck out of the Bill. The Law Society says that Clause 31 is sufficient. The answer to this amendment from my noble and learned friend is to advise us to look at Clause 31. Very well, he is absolutely right to point out that Clause 31 imposes sanctions on both sides—that is, on employees and on employers. Indeed, that is the sanction under the clause where the tribunal exercises it various powers and discretions to increase or decrease awards, and it applies to both sides.
The trouble with Clause 32 is that there is a sanction on workers but no sanction on employers. I hear someone muttering a reference to Clause 34. We shall deal with that clause later, although I am not sure at what time of night. My noble and learned friend need have no fear. We shall deal with that clause, which is even worse. Clause 34 will reverse a fundamental principle of procedural justice. Therefore, to rely on Clause 34 to justify Clause 32 when you have Clause 31, which the Law Society says is totally adequate for the Government's objectives, is most extraordinary.
My noble and learned friend does not take account of a very simple point. We all like to appear to be reasonable and not mention unfortunate possibilities. However, I have to tell my noble and learned friend that among working people and their representatives, especially recently, there is a belief that the Government have given in to the pressure of employers' organisations to make the procedures under Schedule 2 and Clause 32 unfair to working people. The imposition of a sanction upon workers under Clause 32 with no corresponding sanction upon employers when the Law Society has said that Clause 31 is adequate, coupled with the response by my noble and learned friend to the case that I put forward in which he cited Clause 31 as a justification, will give them good reason to conclude that that pressure has succeeded.
Before Third Reading, the Government must come forward with a further provision in relation to Schedule 2 and Clause 32 that will somehow make fairer the standard of modified procedures; otherwise, when the first cases reach the tribunals and the courts and this unfortunate set of principles applied to workers in Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill comes to light, the Government will have to face an explosion of wrath because that will be seen as the price for gaining

199
acceptance by employers' organisations of union learning representatives and increased maternity and family rights.
It just will not do to tell me that no sanction can be placed upon employers in Clause 32, simply because equal sanctions are placed on workers and employers in Clause 31. However, there is not much that we can do about the situation. The Bill was sent upstairs to a Grand Committee; it received little notice; and it is now being pushed through in an extraordinary Report stage. All we can do is ask the Government to put aside the pressures that have been placed upon them. They must reconsider the way in which Clause 32 operates before we reach Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 71:
Page 37, line 36, leave out "28" and insert "14"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 32 deals with complaints about grievances, something about which we have, I suppose, the most criticism. The clause states that you cannot start to redress your grievance—in other words, you cannot get on your journey to a hearing—unless the statutory conditions are fulfilled. The worker must present the written grievance. He has then to wait for the employer to reply, after which he has to attend a meeting. Thereafter, if he so desires, he can take the matter to appeal. If he receives a reply to the appeal, he must wait for 28 days.
We discussed this issue at length in Grand Committee, but we have been unable to understand why this fifth restriction on access should be imposed. If there are four restrictions on access, why does there need to be a fifth? We are being extremely modest here, because we are only asking for 14 days. Indeed, we might as well ask, "Why not?" We put that question in Grand Committee and received a reply from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. Unfortunately, we were perhaps a little provocative because we suggested that the Government had gleaned their information from the CBI. Alternatively, we thought that the Government had some reason for stipulating the 28-day period. We wondered whether there was something that we had not really appreciated which made the 28 days the most appropriate time-scale.
In his reply in Grand Committee on 25th March, my noble and learned friend asked himself a rhetorical question:
"Why did we set the 28 day period? Not because the CBI asked us to; there is no particular research"—
so we received an answer to our question about research—
"that says that 28 days is the right course. In setting the 28 day period, we had to balance two considerations".
I thought we were getting somewhere at that point.
"First, we did not want to set a period that was too long and which would unnecessarily delay an employee's access to the tribunal system. We think that 28 days is not too long to wait. Secondly, we wanted to ensure that there was a sufficiently long period to provide a window of opportunity".
200
So 28 days turns out to be not too long, not too short, but just right; and it provides a window of opportunity. However, we are not told why the 28-day period will provide this "window of opportunity".
My noble and learned friend went on to say:
"Within our proposed 28 day period, it should be possible in many cases—obviously, however, I accept that this is not possible in every case, as my noble friend Lord McCarthy rightly said—for the parties to meet at least once and to establish a dialogue. They may also take other steps, outside the statutory procedure, to try to clarify and unravel their problems. In our judgment, a 14-day period would be too short".—[Official Report, 25/03/02; col. CWH 325.]
This is a very strange type of defence. It is as though people cannot talk to each other once ACAS arrives. It is as though the parties separate once ACAS arrives. It also does not seem good enough to provide for an arrangement telling ACAS to come back. The Government seem to be saying that the parties can talk to each other only when no one is around.
So we have raised our various objections and said that we do not think the "window of opportunity" was a very good argument. What the Government have never dealt with is the delay affecting applicants after they fill in the ET1. The Government give the impression that those involved in running tribunals sit around waiting for work and fire off an ET3, ring up ACAS and start acting as soon as they receive an ET1. But that is not what happens. As I tried to say in Committee—but I did not receive any further figures from the Government—the tribunal system is extremely cagey about how long cases take. One cannot obtain that information. Those involved in the system say that they have a target of 26 weeks, and that 77 per cent of cases are heard within 26 weeks whereas the other 23 per cent take a bit longer. However, that is not what we want to know. We want to know the proportion of cases settled in one week, two weeks, three weeks and so on, but we have not been told. When one asks, one is simply told, "The information would just confuse you. You do not really want to know. Anyway, we do not like to look too closely into it; 77 per cent of cases get a hearing within 26 weeks. If we could get that up to 80 or 85 per cent, we would be cooking with gas". That does not really help.
On the hearsay evidence of those I know who work on tribunals or act as side-persons in tribunals and even chair tribunals, it seems that all sorts of cases take six weeks, seven weeks or eight weeks to go to tribunal after the case is lodged. Why the dickens do the Government want to impose an arbitrary 28 days on top of all that? That has never been explained. Of course the Government say that they will not necessarily apply this to everyone. However, we are not told for whom it will not work. We have therefore tabled subsequent amendments to address that issue.
We are making a very modest proposal. We are simply saying that if the Government cannot justify the 28-day proposal or accept that ACAS ceases its involvement as soon as it cannot proceed any further, after which the parties will again negotiate, we do not need that 28-day dead period in which nothing will happen. Other methods of facilitating a settlement should operate as and when they are required and

201
useful. If a poor worker has to wait five or six weeks before he gets to a tribunal, I fail to see why he should be subject to another 28 days of delay. So if the period cannot be eliminated entirely, let us make it 14 days. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I have a few brief remarks to support the case made by my noble friend Lord McCarthy for Amendment No. 71. This amendment interrelates with the problem to which we shall come in Schedule 4 as to the ambit of Clause 32. Clause 32 applies to a vast number of situations, as we shall see when we come to Schedule 4. There is much to be said about Schedule 4 and its interrelationship with Clause 32. For example, this 28-day period in which the worker has to return to work applies to sex discrimination cases, race discrimination cases and disability discrimination cases, during which time the worker has to go back to work and continue to suffer for 28 days if the employer does not deal with the matter in dialogue, as some employers will and others will not. What is the point of that? Why do the Government not say, "You must go back for 28 days, but that does not apply unless the employer gives a guarantee that he will negotiate"?
The Government do not say that. They do not put any obligation on the employer during those 28 days. They just say, "It may happen that there is dialogue during those 28 days". It may happen and it may not. What kind of guarantee to workers is that? Do they not understand why workers are not satisfied with this structure, in which they are told to work and suffer discrimination before they can get anywhere near the doors of a tribunal? It really will not do. The list in Schedule 4, as we shall see, goes much further than that, listing cases in which workers have been victimised. Those workers will have to go back and be victimised again, for 28 days. It is a quite preposterous idea.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy is of course right that, in proposing 14 days, we are questioning why the period should exist at all. In Grand Committee, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton said:
"Ultimately, it is a matter of judgment. In considering the correct period, the Government and those advising them have sought to take a balanced view in relation to all sorts of cases ֵIn some cases, the effect of promoting the use of the grievance procedure in this way will be to bring the detriment to an end more quickly than would otherwise have been the case".—[Official Report, 25/03/02; col. CWH 326.]
We accept that in some cases. But what about the other cases? The worker will have to suffer for 28 days more, and that is not reasonable.
My noble and learned friend really must face up to that fact. Whatever guarantees have been given about this limitation on access to justice really should be reviewed, and my noble friend's arguments for this amendment should be seriously considered before Third Reading.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We debated an identical amendment in Grand Committee. The arguments then
202
advanced were similar, and the Government's response is inevitably similar. The overriding objective of Part 3 is to encourage a dialogue between employer and employee. We consider that the existence of a tribunal application complicates that dialogue and in some cases completely sours it. That point largely deals with the point made by my noble friend Lord McCarthy that, after the application, there are inevitably delays before a case is heard.
In our judgment, a period of 28 days is needed to give time for the parties to consider the grievance and act upon it. It provides enough time for them to meet and communicate directly with one another without the extra pressures, complications and., in some cases, sourness imposed by a tribunal application. A shorter period would be insufficient. In our judgment, a longer period would be excessive and unnecessarily delay access to the tribunal. To our knowledge, there is no recent survey evidence showing how much time is taken up by grievance procedures. However, the ACAS code gives some guidance on the time that should be taken by the parties when undertaking parts of procedures. For example, employers should give their response to a grievance within five working days of meeting the employee to discuss the grievance. Likewise, after an appeal hearing, managers should communicate their final decision within 10 working days. When one factors in this advice by ACAS. a total period of 28 calendar days does not seem excessive.
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn cited cases in which there was harassment and difficulty. As we have said, there will be some special cases, and the threat of violence or other forms of serious harassment fall into this category. Likewise, we do not want to force employees to raise a grievance as an individual complaint if it has already been addressed as a collective issue by a union on their behalf. We intend to cover these two main categories of exemptions in the regulations. There may be others which it would be sensible to add by consulting fully on the draft regulations. Interested parties can give us their own views on this key subject.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn will feel able to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, this is simply a dialogue with the deaf, is it not? We have tried to explain—it has not been contradicted—what goes on in disputes of this kind. It begins with action by the employer. The worker then reacts by taking out a grievance. He goes to see the employer and, from that moment on, they can, if they wish, negotiate. They can, if they wish, make a settlement. If there is no settlement, the worker may decide in desperation that he will make an application to a tribunal. This is the type of case to which I am referring; there may be others when a worker decides to go straight to a tribunal.
The Government now insist that it cannot be as simple as that. The moment that a worker decides that he wants to apply to a tribunal, he must go through a new statutory procedure. The operation, or completion, of this procedure is not decided by the

203
worker; it depends on the employer replying. If, at that moment, the employer wants further negotiation to take place, there is nothing to stop that happening.
But then the employer may say, "All right, I'll send you back the form. We'll start a hearing and we'll let you complete the procedure". At that point, perhaps six or seven weeks will have passed. We do not know as no research has taken place. Then the Government say that a period of 28 days will be allowed.
In Grand Committee we moved an amendment relating to that point. In that amendment we sought to ask why ACAS should not be allowed to be brought in during the 28-day period. We asked why there should be absolutely no guarantee that anything was going on. The employer could very well say—if I wanted to be nasty about it, I should say that the Government know this all too well—"Ah, now we have a 28-day dead period. During that period, the chances are that he will give up. He might get another job. He might go away. But let's stick him in a bin for 28 days".
As my noble friend said a moment ago, if the Government were genuine and wanted something to happen, they would make it happen. In Grand Committee the Government told us that, if it wished, ACAS could enter the procedure during the 28-day period because it has general provisions. We asked the Government how ACAS would know what was going on, but there was no reply. The only thing which, in the real world, can activate ACAS is the receipt of the necessary forms.
If the Government wished, they could legislate so that certain sanctions were placed on the employer during the 28-day period. However, they do not want to do that and we can come to only one conclusion. They believe that people will not be active during the 28-day period. Why should they be active? It is one more cue that the worker must observe. However, the Government will do nothing about the matter this evening. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 72:
Page 37, line 37, at end insert ", and
(c) the employer has informed the employee within 7 days of receipt of the written statement of the investigations which he has made into the grievance".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, an applicant is told that he must carry out various procedures and, if he fails to observe them, he will experience a delay in the process. However, if the employer fails or prevaricates in relation to the procedures, nothing will happen. We are saying that some sanction should be imposed on the employer. If the employer has informed the employee within seven days of receipt of the written statement of the investigations, that is all right. But the employer must do something and, if he does nothing,
204
the worker will be free to go forward to a tribunal. This is another very small amendment which improves the situation a little. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I want to make one point before my noble and learned friend replies. I hope that nothing will be said here about investigations being uncertain. The employer must only say what investigations he has made, and therefore there is no question of uncertainty here. That point was raised previously.
The amendment concerns a simple matter of fairness. The employee must commence the procedure and then wait for 28 days. We say that if the Government insist that he waits for 28 days, at least he should be entitled to know what is going on. Therefore, in the first week, his disability or inadmissibility to present a case to the tribunal will not apply if the employer does not tell him what steps he is taking to investigate the matter. What is wrong with that? As my noble friend suggested, some obligation should be placed on the employer. This is a minimum obligation and it is surely just.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this amendment takes us back to our earlier debate about investigations. I do not want to repeat the same arguments here that we dealt with in relation to that. Suffice it to say that we feel that our amendments to Schedule 2 deal effectively with that issue while avoiding the use of the term "investigation". I believe that that is at the heart of what my noble friend is submitting here.
As a separate issue, I believe that the amendment seeks to impose obligations on the employer as part of the admissibility regime. Both my noble friends are nodding in that respect. As I argued earlier, it is not our intention to use this section of Part 3 to impose obligations of this kind. Therefore, we oppose it on that ground.
However, the way in which the amendment is drafted puts up another barrier to an employee bringing a claim. If my reading is correct, the criterion imposes a limitation on an employee bringing a claim and that limitation is wholly dependent on the actions of the employer; namely, the employee could not access the tribunal unless the employer, within seven days of receipt of the Step 1 letter, had informed the employee of the results of an investigation into the issue. On the face of it, it would seem that an employee could never access the tribunal if the employer did nothing during that period. I cannot believe that that is the desired result. Therefore, even within its own terms, the amendment appears to be defective.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, my noble and learned friend will remember that we experienced a problem in relation to one of our amendments in Grand Committee when he interpreted it as meaning the exact opposite of what it did mean. With the greatest respect to my noble and learned friend, he is now doing the same with this amendment. I may be wrong but I believe that that is the case.

205
In order to make the matter clear, perhaps I may read the subsection as it would read with our amendment:
"An employee shall not present a complaint to an employment tribunal under a jurisdiction to which this section applies if—
(a) it concerns a matter in relation to which the requirement in paragraph 6 or 9 of Schedule 2 applies"—
that is, the grievance procedure; and,
"the requirement has not been complied with",
and,
"the employer has informed the employee within 7 days of receipt of the written statement of the investigations which he has made into the grievance".
If the employer has informed the employee of his investigations, then the proposed new paragraph will apply. If the employer has failed to say what investigations he has made, the employee can go to a tribunal. That is what the amendment means and not what my noble and learned friend suggested.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I obviously treat with great respect what my noble friend said. However, with regard to the wording, it is utterly clear that the consequence of not carrying out the action set out in proposed new paragraph (c) is, as my noble friend read out:
"An employee shall not present a complaint to an employment tribunal".
Therefore, the consequence of the amendment is that the employer must do something before the employee can present a complaint. I believe that the wording is fairly clear.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I believe that the Minister now understands what we intend to do. We could argue all night about whether the amendment contains the right words. But he is right; we do not want to do the reverse. We want to do that terrible thing, as he told us at one point: we want to benefit the worker by putting a little restriction on the employer. That is what we want to do. That is often what we want to do. If we have used the wrong words, there is a long tradition in this House in which the Government says, "We see what you want to do but it is not properly drafted. Take it away. We shall write a proper amendment and you will hear from us in due course". The Minister could say that, if that is what he wanted to say, but we are benefiting the worker, and he does not want to say that.
I shall ask the Minister again. Let us assume that the Minister or a member of his staff had drafted the amendment. Can he tell the House whether he is likely to accept a small amendment which puts some kind of pressure on the employer? That is what we want to do. We feel that this matter is so one-sided that the employer can sabotage the procedure by refusing to act. If he refuses to act, there should be some way in which the worker can say, "As I have not heard from you; as you were not present; as you had gone away, I take it that I can now go to the tribunal". That seems to us to be perfectly fair.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I accept the chiding of my noble friend Lord McCarthy, because of
206
the points that I took. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn made such a tempting series of remarks about the meaning of the amendment that I responded vigorously. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is right. I should address the substance, which I did in my submissions.
First, we feel that we have dealt with the investigations provision by way of amendment to Schedule 2. Secondly, we do not think it appropriate to have restrictions on the employer's right to bring claims in this particular section. On both those grounds we are not minded to accept the substance of the amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I understand the Minister to say that our amendment, if re-written, would be beneficial to the worker, and that that is no good. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begins again not before 8.33 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Funding
7.33 p.m.
Lord Smith of Leighrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to redistribute health funding towards the areas of greatest health need.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that this is regarded as a fairly straightforward Unstarred Question. My noble friend on the Front Bench is perhaps fulfilling her first duty in her new role. I congratulate her on her new role and wish her well. I hope that she can give us a clear and straightforward answer.
The NHS Plan promised investments and reform to deliver a better health service. I am delighted to see that the Government have responded with the investment announced so dramatically in the Budget. I am also pleased about the structural reform. I welcome PCTs, which will focus on local issues. They are the right organisations to create a better health service for improvement. Those are necessary but insufficient conditions to achieve the Government's commitments and targets. The third element must be to direct resources to those parts of the NHS which so far have been neglected. My contention tonight will be that despite attempts by the Government to redistribute resources, such resources are still not being sufficiently targeted towards areas of greatest need.
The geography of health needs, both in terms of care and funding, is a real issue for this country. I hope that we can discuss that tonight. In illustrating points I

207
want to make, I make no apology for the fact that, as noble Lords might expect, examples will be from my own local area, Wigan. Perhaps I should remind noble Lords of my interest as leader of Wigan Council.
The conclusion I shall draw from some of the evidence in Wigan is valid for many other parts of the country which share similar social and economic backgrounds. The crux of the issue is perhaps to define health need. Although there may be some criteria which we think are objective, it is the way in which such factors are weighted which becomes the subjective part of the analysis.
Health data may be the obvious starting point when considering health need. In terms of raw data, Wigan has a standard mortality rate of 118, which is well above average. For potentially avoidable deaths it is 122; for the specific areas in which the Government are targeting reduction, lung cancer and coronary heart disease, the rates rise to 124 and 131 respectively. Life expectancy in Wigan stands at 73·6 for men, which is 1·6 years less than the average for England, and for women, 77·3 years, which is 1·8 years less than the average for England. That demonstrates real evidence of need.
We are all aware that health need may also rise with age. Obviously, elderly people need greater provision and have a greater dependency on health services. However, we need to be cautious in dealing with age as a factor in health. Many places, certainly my own area, would be an example of where life expectancy levels are lower than average, and levels of ill health and dependency rise earlier. In my area, many people who are under the age at which additional funding becomes available are having the same needs met as those for people over the age of 75, 80 and so forth. We need to remind ourselves that resources may be required for people of a younger age.
A further point arises in terms of social factors. The Acheson report recognised that it is necessary to address the social determinants that result in inequalities in the health of the population. With a current rate of 90 per cent of our wards in the worst 20 per cent in the country as regards social deprivation, there is high social need in my area. Poverty is not just a factor in terms of determining prevalence towards ill health. We need to remind ourselves that poverty means that people may well be unable to afford alternative private treatments, which may be available to people who are better off.
A further area, which is probably the least subjective, is that of historical factors. Perhaps I may demonstrate that. One factor would be the pattern of current provision, which is determined by past and current activities. In my area again, 70 per cent of general practice is carried out in single or double-handed practices. That is a high proportion. Many such practices are still housed in inadequate premises. Many are in terraced properties which have been in the doctors' hands for many years. The ability of those individuals to provide up-to-date treatment in the 21st century is some way off. As regards e-medicine, the
208
idea of some of those people using computers to aid diagnosis to speed data exchange, and so forth is some way away.
The next historical factor is our industrial heritage. I think my noble friend would agree that in areas with mining or textile backgrounds, industrial diseases, caused by the hard labour in those particular industries, are still prevalent. One subjective factor is what I would call chronic disadvantage, where in terms of health the cumulative impact of a number of factors in an area creates a particular population need. A recent survey, conducted by the health authority in my area, and which had a high response, asked people about their level of health. The results were depressing: people feel they are unhealthy.
With my background I have always thought that local government finances were impenetrable, but health finances are even more mysterious. I still would not claim to understand much. It is difficult to compare the outcomes of the funding methods. The easiest way that I have found is to look at the weighted allocations per head of population to health authorities. Those, I remind your Lordships, were meant to take account of some of those health needs so that we ended up in a perfect world, with an equal amount to spend per head of population.
In the allocation for 2002–03, the average amount for England stands at £817 per head, but in my area, Wigan and Bolton, the health allocation is only £799 per head. That shortfall multiplied by the population means that the local health economy is short of at least £10 million, which is quite a significant amount. That gets translated down into other matters—in my area the number of GPs per 100,000 of population is 42. Even Greater Manchester, which probably has fewer GPs than average, has more. If we had the same as the rest of Greater Manchester we would actually get 20 more GPs. If we had the same as the average for England we would get 50 more GPs.
This is an area where the figures show that there is a great deal of health need. One can imagine the extra workload on each of those doctors. They have a large patient list and a great deal of activity with which to deal. The quality of service must obviously emphasise cure rather than prevention. We also find that because people get frustrated waiting to see GPs there is a greater use of accident and emergency departments at local infirmaries because they can get treated relatively quickly.
The problems in my area, and I think nationally, are compounded by the rise in the prescribing budget. In the Wigan and Bolton Health Authority it has risen by 39 per cent over four years. It reflects the workload of the GPs and the health needs of the area. If it rose by the same rate this year as last year, it would cost the local primary care trust £8 million—a huge amount of money.
I agree that money is not the only solution in health. When speaking on health matters in your Lordships' House I have consistently spoken of the need for partnerships. My authority has a good track record on that issue. We are one of the best authorities in terms

209
of delayed discharges and we have the greatest use of the flexibilities under the Health Act in the North West of England.
The problem is that underfunding of health is compounded by underfunding in social services. These days, in relation to social services, the extreme pressure is on children's services. Those allied to the health authority are likely, if funding is difficult, to be most under threat.
My message to the Government in winding-up is twofold. First, while the Government have made some effort at redirection, it is not enough. They need to be much bolder. It is always easier to be bolder if there is more money in the pot. So if we have growth in health we can use it to redistribute. Secondly, I hope that the Government will change some of their methods in terms of penalising authorities which perform well and simply feeling that the money must go into those areas which do not perform well.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, on securing this debate focusing on health funding for areas of greatest health needs in England.
That focus is necessary because the implementation of the NHS Plan 2000 has so far not made significant impact in regions of great health needs defined by high death rates and increased morbidity of coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer and mental illness in the local population. One reason put forward to explain this is the so-called inverse care law where people from lower socio-economic groups, including some ethnic minority communities, have less access to care facilities; they present at a later stage of disease development; and are less demanding of doctors.
Sir Donald Acheson's report, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health, published by the Department of Health in 1998 identified possible steps to improve the health of the less well off. Three areas regarded by the report as crucial were the following. First, all policies likely to have an impact on health should be evaluated in terms of their impact on health inequalities; secondly, a high priority should be given to the health of families with children; and, thirdly, further steps should be taken to reduce income inequalities and improve the living standards of poor households.
Clearly, areas of greatest health needs should be identified by the broader definitions of the Acheson report rather than by the clinical yardstick currently used by the Department of Health on coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer and mental illness.
I am not dismissing the impact of those major diseases on the lives of people. But to use them as the main indicators of health needs would ignore health inequalities associated with poverty in rural communities as well as the effect of poverty on children. Those diseases do not commonly affect children and young families. Unhealthy lifestyles of poverty, including heavy cigarette smoking, increased
210
fatty food intake and inadequate fresh fruit and vegetables in the diet will lead to those diseases in later life.
The way forward is to concentrate on local communities and local issues. Here I declare my interest as chairman of a local community association, the Wirral Multicultural Organisation based in Birkenhead. I am also a non-executive director and vice-chairman of the Birkenhead and Wallasey Primary Care Trust.
I begin with local statistics on death and disease used as indicators of health needs. They should be collected and analysed according to districts and local wards. Interventions can then be more effectively targeted to vulnerable people in local wards. Public health services delivered through primary care trusts would be more effectively targeted to people in local wards, with better chances of their benefits being identified, than to larger populations. Improvement in delivery of services is more likely to be achieved locally for specific groups of people than for the general population. Health funding for those wards is also more likely to be available for specific interventions.
The Government have shifted the balance of power and resources from the centre to local primary care trusts in order to improve their delivery of services according to the needs of local people. That change is an improvement in the way the NHS is funded and is welcomed by local people. But for the current financial year 2002–03, most primary care trusts in England have been asked to accept and to work with less funding than they need according to budgets worked out last year. That resource problem exists paradoxically when several sources of regeneration and community development funds from central government are becoming available in areas of deprivation particularly in metropolitan districts.
A plethora of funds exist for specific target groups such as Surestart for pre-school children, Pathways for deprived inner-city locations and, of course, the Community Fund. Those resources are targeted at community groups in the voluntary sector. But community groups need the help of public agencies as equal partners in order for these grants to make a difference in their lives and the lives of their children. Partnership working between voluntary community groups and public agencies such as the primary care trust and local authorities is still in need of development and support.
The NHS Plan has emphasised the need for patients to be represented in decision-making on delivery of care and monitoring of services. But community groups are equally important participants in order to improve standards. In that regard, the Government are to be congratulated on introducing the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 to cover all public bodies including the NHS. One result of that Act is the introduction of racial equality schemes for all NHS trusts.
Redistribution of health funding for areas of greatest health need is an issue to be considered at the local level of primary care trusts. To make a difference

211
funding must be targeted at vulnerable people in local wards where a baseline of economic, health and social welfare indicators has been collected and analysed. The problem is that no additional resources are available for this year. Other sources of community funding should be allocated especially for the benefit of children and young families in deprived communities.
Partnership working is needed between local community groups, the voluntary sector, NHS trusts, local authorities and the private sector. Such partnership would encourage community development and the participation of local people in health promoting activities. Participation of local people with different needs and from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds should be encouraged and developed so that no minority group is marginalised. Finally, achievable health improvement targets must be set and monitored annually. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to those proposals.
7.51 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh for giving us the opportunity to debate health funding once again. I am especially pleased to be speaking in the first debate to which my noble friend Lady Andrews will reply.
As poor health is largely associated with poverty, we can chart where the pockets of poor health are likely to be by indices of deprivation, as my noble friend reminds us. Where we have poverty, poor housing, lack of employment and fewer people taking up educational opportunities, health needs are greatest.
Those areas are also associated with deaths from diseases resulting from poor diet, lack of exercise, lack of knowledge about what contributes to good health and so on. Of course, those include diseases that are high on the Government's targeted priority list: cancers, coronary heart disease and strokes. The Government are to be congratulated on making those targets of special attention, which will undoubtedly have the effect of redistributing some resources.
Nor should we forget that poverty is also associated with those diseases that are not killers but none the less have a devastating effect on families and communities, such as depression and other forms of mental illness. The establishment of health action zones by the Government shortly after they came to power was and is a major step forward in addressing inequalities in health.
However, we need most of all to spend more resources on prevention and public health. The modernisation agenda that the Government have set for the NHS, together with the vastly increased amount of funding now available, will have an effect on that in two ways. First, it will focus the main delivery of healthcare at the place where it really matters—the primary care level, as the noble Lord, Lord Chan, reminded us; as near to the patient and his or her family as possible. Secondly, it will make public
212
health a more important focus for the NHS than it has thus far been. Of course, that will take time, but I travel hopefully.
But the most important change that we can bring about in that area is to educate patients and potential patients about how best to care for their own health. The importance of the patient's role in his or her care has hitherto never been fully recognised and I want to celebrate the Government's commitment to encouraging real patient and public involvement in health through their latest health reforms.
In that regard, I want to draw attention to an important programme run by the New Opportunities Fund, the lottery distributor of which I have been chair since 1998: our healthy living centres programme. Healthy living centres promote good health in the widest possible context. They target groups and areas that represent the most disadvantaged sections of the population. By the time the programme ends, we should have targeted the most disadvantaged 20 per cent of the population throughout the United Kingdom. Healthy living centres will reduce differences in the quality of health between individuals and improve the health of the worst-off in society.
There is no standard blueprint for the healthy living centres that we are funding. Priority areas were identified using deprivation indices relating to unemployment, low income health status and educational participation and attainment. We also ensured that rural areas and pockets of deprivation within affluent areas were identified.
The centres are developing innovative ways to provide solutions to the many challenges that we face when addressing healthcare needs. An important aspect of the programme is that it has been targeted at active local partnerships, including businesses, health authorities, local authorities and other lottery distributors. The voluntary sector, which has the advantage of being closely in touch with the needs of communities, has in many cases taken the lead in putting together those partnerships. The application process is now almost complete and by the time the programme is fully up and running, we anticipate that there will be about 400 healthy living centres throughout the United Kingdom.
To give your Lordships some specific examples, in Tooting, almost £1 million has been allocated to target health inequalities with a particular focus on the health of ethnic minorities. The incidence of health problems such as diabetes, chronic heart disease, stroke and mental illness is higher among those groups, as your Lordships will know. In East Yorkshire, £1 million has gone to a project that targets young people and rurally isolated and excluded people. The award will fund a driver for a bus to bring people to the healthy living centre, a community cafe, a youth project to combat homelessness, a rural advice worker, a credit union, the youth empowerment project and a learning activity project. The richness of the ideas and the variety of approaches taken are amazing, especially with regard to the local partnerships that had been established,

213
such as the one in Sheffield that will include the local library services in its provision with the full cooperation of the local authority.
Lest your Lordships imagine that I am using my time as a commercial for the New Opportunities Fund—well, I am, but I hope that I am doing more than that. Lottery funding is by its nature time-limited, although in the case of healthy living centres, it can continue for five years. All of the programmes are most stringently evaluated and I am certain that some of the programmes that I have mentioned and others on which I have not had time to touch will provide exemplars for the Government—and, indeed for future governments—to show that the more resources that we devote to encouraging people to care for their own health, the better will be the health of our whole population.
Deprivation in health is largely the result of social and economic deprivation, as is well documented. Those are the issues that we must address—promoting good health as well as treating sickness—if real progress is to be made in improving the health of our nation.
7.57 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, for allowing us this opportunity to debate health funding priorities. I am also delighted to be taking part in the first debate to which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, will respond.
I will concentrate on child and adolescent mental health services, especially as they apply to looked-after children. I welcome the introduction of the child mental health service framework and the additional funds that it has brought with it. There is a great shortage of mental health professionals. I have been told by Mind, and we heard yesterday, that 66 per cent of foster children and 98 per cent of children in care have mental health problems.
I am especially concerned about the problems faced by looked-after children, children in public care, when they are placed out of their local authority, out of county. Those children have complex needs, whatever placement they are given, whether fostering, residential care or an alternative to secure accommodation. My concern is, first, that they are not overlooked or neglected, as I hear that they occasionally are and, secondly, that they do not incur such expense on the child and adolescent mental health service of the locality that other children in need are overlooked as a consequence. I should appreciate some reassurance from the Minister about what steps are being taken to avoid that.
There is a great shortage of mental health professionals. To cite one example of what the mental health professions can achieve, several sources have told me that since the Government, under Quality Protects, have been supporting fostering, there has been a significant reduction in breakdowns of foster placements. We need more mental health professionals. I am advised that one important means
214
of recruiting them is ensuring that medical students are well exposed to work with children and adolescents with mental health problems during their training and that that work is well mediated. As a consequence of that experience, more medical students are likely to choose to enter the field of psychiatry. However, those who choose not to do so will also have benefited from that experience, so that later in their career they can make more informed referrals for children and young people. Therefore, I would appreciate the Minister giving information on what steps are being taken to achieve that goal.
Perhaps I may return to the child national service framework. Does the Minister anticipate that the children's mental health and emotional well-being module will ensure that children and adolescents will be able to access appropriate developmentally trained, multi-disciplinary teams which will provide a timely, locally based and highly responsive service for acute psychiatric problems when they arise? Can the Minister assure the House that additional resources will be made available to enable those teams to carry out their work if they are likely to need greater resources than are currently available locally?
Those are detailed questions and if the Minister wants to write to me about them, I should be very grateful for her response.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I apologise for missing the opening speech of my noble friend and a number of other speakers too, owing to a solid traffic jam at. King's Cross which kept me waiting for 25 minutes. I moved approximately 300 yards during that time. Anticipating my Whip, I shall say I should not 'have been out of the House, and that has shown me.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, deserves congratulations on raising a fundamental issue. As a former NHS GP with a special interest in public health, I recognise that reduction of health inequalities is the top priority in improving the nation's health. In fact, that was the topic for my maiden speech nearly 20 years ago in which—disobeying the non-controversial rule—I asked the government when and whether they were going to implement the recommendations of the Black report. Needless to say I got a fairly dusty answer which downgraded the importance of the report and said that its recommendations would be far too expensive.
We had to wait 15 years before that government even recognised that inequalities existed—even then using the term "health variations". However, since 1977 the Government have been clear in their understanding of the link between health and socioeconomic factors. The noble Lord in his Question speaks about the equitable distribution of health funding, but I am sure that he would be the first to recognise that the main determinants of health— perhaps he said it in his speech, I apologise—lie outside the health service, with genetic factors and the environment each playing a role.

215
Genetically determined ill health is mainly "neutral" from a socio-economic point of view, but not so ill health which is due to environmental factors. From before conception to old age the dice are loaded against the poor, the less educated and the less skilled. The work of Professor David Barker and colleagues in Southampton has shown that poor maternal nutrition can lead to a greater likelihood of babies growing into adults who are more susceptible to diabetes or heart disease.
There a range of factors operating from childhood into adult life which can lead to worse health later; namely, faulty nutrition, poor housing, poor working conditions and stress. That is not the prerogative of the busy executive; it is actually much worse among less privileged people where money is short, housing overcrowded and work characterised by lack of control—by having to conform to someone else's timetable and pace. The well-known study by Professor Michael Marmot in Whitehall has drawn attention to that. Perhaps it is not surprising that addiction to tobacco and drugs, which calm uncomfortable emotions, is higher among the less well off.
Dealing with all those factors will involve a longterm haul. I believe that some of us feel that the Chancellor could move a little faster in that. In the meantime, the National Health Service has to pick up the pieces. The Acheson independent inquiry of December 1998 into inequalities in health made it clear that not only premature death but chronic ill health preceding death were more common among the less privileged. That leads to additional work for the providers of both primary and secondary healthcare, particularly if the less privileged are to be cared for as well as they should be. Unfortunately, instead of having extra health facilities with more GPs, nurses and other care workers in the community and higher bed ratios in hospitals, too often the reverse is the case. Provision has improved since 1971 when Dr Julian Tudor Hart described the inverse care law, but Professor Acheson still found it necessary to recommend that:
"providing equitable access to effective care in relation to need"—
and I emphasise that—
"should be a governing principle of all policies in the National Health Service".
He further recommended:
"extending the remit of NICE to include equity of access to effective health care",
and,
"developing the National Service Frameworks to address inequities in access to effective primary care".
I would like to ask my noble friend, in congratulating her on her elevation to the Front Bench, how far those recommendations have been implemented or what plans there are to implement them.
One of the problems with providing equitable care according to need is that those who need it do not always take it up and demand is strongest from those
216
who are articulate but generally in less need. I suggest that when funds are more available, as they are now, it is a good time to do both—to expand services for those in real need, as well as going some way to meet the more politically demanding changes; namely, waiting lists, for instance. I would put that quite a lot lower down in the priority list than seeing to the needs of the underprivileged.
The two main mechanisms which the Department of Health uses to channel funds to less privileged populations are, first, the weighted capitation formula for allocating funds to health authorities, which is called ACRA—the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation; and, secondly, deprivation payments to general practitioners. Could my noble friend give details on the various changes that have taken place or are proposed to the ACRA formula? Those are not only to take account of the shift to PCT funding of general medical services and GP deprivation payments, but could involve the formula itself, which may need to be adjusted so as more sensitively to allow for the increased overall care needs (rather than demands) of relatively deprived populations in the catchment areas of PCTs. Implementing the Acheson recommendations that I mentioned may require that.
I have two final points. Will my noble friend give any details of the formula which I gather is now being worked on in York to replace and improve the current system of determining deprivation payments to GPs which, though an excellent concept, has been subject to much criticism?
Finally, will my noble friend briefly describe the role of PMS pilot projects in bringing healthcare to hard to reach but needy sections of the population, and any other roles for PMS schemes in the provision of healthcare to those in greatest need that are now being considered? I recognise that my noble friend may have to write to me on some of those points because they are rather detailed.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, perhaps I may also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Smith, on initiating this bite-sized debate—alas too short—and also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, to the Front Bench.
As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, the Acheson report remains at the core of the public health debate. It performed a valuable role in reminding us of the reasons for health inequalities and of what action should be taken. The public health White Paper published the following spring in 1999 said that the story of health inequality was clear—the poorer a person is, the more likely he or she is to be ill and die younger. That is still starkly true.
Subsequently, the NHS Plan published targets on infant mortality and life expectancy and the child poverty target was adopted by the Government. Now we have the Government's consultation on a plan for delivery, Tackling Health Inequalities, published last year on the action needed to achieve the targets. It sets six priority areas related to childhood health;

217
opportunity for children and young people; improving NHS primary care services; tackling coronary heart disease and cancer; strengthening communities; and tackling the wider determinants of health inequalities such as poverty and material disadvantage.
That paper inevitably raises a great range of issues. There are problems with some of them, not least our doubts about the new structures, or lack of them, for public health services and whether the necessary resource will he available. In terms of major diseases, should we not be looking at diabetes too? We are all well aware of the knock-on effects of childhood obesity, too, and we have debated it often in this House.
In terms of rebuilding communities, how are we spreading best practice in the health field from health action zones and health improvement plans? Looking at the structures for partnership between local authorities, we have argued about the problems of shifting the balance of power proposals which were, and regrettably are, enshrined in the NHS reform Bill.
We on these Benches would much prefer to have the health strategy created on an integrated region-by-region basis at the strategic level. That was recognised in recent government proposals for everything else but health. We welcome the creation of a health inequalities and public taskforce. But what does that consist of? Who sits on the body and what is its work programme?
A cost-cutting spending review on health inequalities is also mentioned in the paper and was recently reported on as indicating that the NHS could be saved £850 million if health gaps were reduced. But what is the status of that review? Has it yet been officially published? Moreover, how will PCTs and strategic health authorities fit with local strategic partnerships and align with local authority planning processes? In all of this, we have the overarching need for proper public participation in health policy and public health and the need to promote preventive health measures.
Finally, we have the issue of indicators which arise from the paper. We also have the third annual report of the Social Exclusion Unit. One has only to weigh it to understand the seriousness of the intent, but how concrete are the indicators set out in it? I say that it describes the actions taken but it does not describe the outcomes in anything like sufficient detail.
Peter Mandelson recently said that we are all Thatcherites now. Your Lordships can take it for granted that I thoroughly disagree with him—and I see nods from the other Benches. He does not even appear to understand the motives of his former colleagues in government, such as Frank Dobson, immediately on coming into office. The legacy of the Thatcher years may have been a more enterprising economy but a great many people were left by the wayside during the Conservatives' 18 years in power, particularly in terms of differences in life expectancy and in infant mortality.
218
Some progress appears to be being made by this Government. It appears that differences in life expectancy between the top and bottom social classes has across the UK been reduced for both men and women. But a huge amount remains to be done, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, rightly claimed. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, published in December 2001, emphasises the scale of the continuing problems. Some health indicators have improved but the proportion of babies of low birth weight has not changed over the past five years and the rates of teenage conception remain much higher than elsewhere in western Europe. And, as we are all well aware, mental health is worse.
In September last year, the London Health Observatory pointed out that in London health inequalities in life expectancy and infant mortality are widening not narrowing In fact, London's infant mortality rate compares badly with nearly all other EU capital cities.
It is quite clear that whatever the national spin on the initiatives being taken and the action plans being published, resources are not reaching the deprived areas. Last November, the very well respected chairman of the former east London and City Health Authority wrote to MPs, GLA members and others stating:
"As you know last year we received no additional funding for health inequalities, despite the glaring needs locally".
If they are not receiving the money, who is? If the resource allocation formula does not benefit deprived areas such as East London, then who will it benefit? Perhaps the noble Baroness will say whether the formula has changed for 2002–03 in order to benefit these deprived areas to a greater extent.
We recognise the good intentions of the Government but above all they need to be straight about the indicators, straight about what is happening on the ground, and redouble their efforts. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, they need to be bolder. Above all, they need to ensure that adequate resources are directed to areas of greatest need.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I start by welcoming on behalf of these Benches the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, to the Dispatch Box for her first contribution in a health debate. We look forward to her response and hope that it will be the first of many. I think she will find that the natives are friendly on health matters!
Secondly, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, for initiating this important debate. There has been insufficient public debate about the mechanics and principles of resource distribution, which is why I in particular welcome this debate.
The distribution of NHS funding is one of the most arcane areas within the NHS—and I say that bearing scars as a former director of finance for the NHS. I shall not go over the long history of funding mechanisms in the NHS. Suffice it to say that by 1976 the principle of equal opportunity of access for equal

219
need became established in financial terms with weighted capitation formulae which embedded health need into resource allocation; and while the formulae have been improved over the years, that basic approach has stood the test of time for the past 25 years.
Those weighted capitation formulae are used to arrive at target allocations which show how much each health body, now PCTs, should get to allow it to meet the health needs of its population. But we have never actually achieved parity; that is, health bodies getting their fair shares—and no more, no less.
Those distances from target are fundamentally unfair. Quite simply, some PCTs do not receive their fair share of the available funding to meet the health needs of their population. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, recently said that the current figures in relation to PCTs,
"reveal a range from minus 14 per cent to plus 14 per cent".—[Official Report, 18/3/02; col. 1210.]
That may not sound very much, but it means that the most advantaged PCT is 33 per cent better off than the least advantaged.
Every year there is a calculation called "pace of change", which is the amount that health bodies receive towards their target allocation. It is a highly subjective amount and it is never debated; and yet that is what determines how close allocations actually come to funding on the basis of health need.
About 17 per cent of PCTs are at least 5 per cent from their target—and in health authority budgeting terms, 5 per cent is a lot of money. I should like to issue a call to arms for all PCTs to get both pace of change and fairness in funding out into the open.
The Secretary of State said that when next year's allocations are announced this autumn, they will be accompanied by a further two years of allocations to give three years of funding indication. Will the Minister say what approach the Government intend to take to pace of change within the three-year period? Will the distances from target be eliminated by the end of the period? If parity is not to be achieved with the extra resources being put in, will she say why not?
The allocation process has now started to move away from equal opportunity of access to healthcare on the basis of relative need. It has started to incorporate health inequalities more explicitly. In 1999, Mr John Denham, the then Minister of State for Health, told the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation to produce a new approach which should,
"support the Government's wider social agenda and in particular our policies on social exclusion, fairness and reducing health inequalities".
The objective of the new formula is to,
"contribute to the reduction in avoidable health inequalities".
It is far from clear that producing a new allocation formula that has health money following health inequality will reduce health inequality. I see no such evidence or argumentation from the Government. The Government's belief in the power of money to solve the problems of the NHS is not one that we share.
220
When will the report of the advisory committee be available? We look forward to debating how health inequality money will be calculated and whether it can be used to achieve better outcomes.
How will health action zones—themselves targeted at health inequality—fit into the new scheme? Will responsibility for reducing health inequality be with PCTs or health action zones? Who is to say whether health funding has reduced inequalities rather than other essential policy areas, such as housing and employment?
In the last two allocation rounds, some money was devoted specifically to remedying health inequality in certain authorities, including Wigan, thanks to a new bit of magic in the formulae—the loss-of-life years adjustment. Do PCTs know what to do with the extra funding? Can the Minister be sure that when £70 million was handed out last year, it did not disappear into the black hole of NHS funding used to fend off deficits and reduce waiting lists? If it is too difficult to answer that question in respect of last year, perhaps the Minister will say what health inequality outcomes PCTs are expected to work towards with this year's allocation?
We have expressed considerable reservations about the capacity of PCTs with regard to many of their functions—including public health and the delivery of health improvement plans. Is the Minister sure that PCTs, even when funded, can and will contribute to the Government's health inequality agenda?
8.22 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful for your Lordships' warm welcome—particularly in view of the expertise that is gathered around me. I am glad to know that the natives are friendly and particularly pleased that my first appearance at the Dispatch Box is to respond to a debate on such an important topic and one close to my heart. My noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh, in his excellent overview, described the geography of health in a way that is totally familiar to me, coming from Wales, and to many others in the Chamber.
I am grateful for all the contributions this evening. The biggest health improvement that our country can make is to be serious about tackling health inequality. I take the point made by the Rowntree Trust report to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred.
There has been a consensus over many years that different parts of the country have different health needs, which have been reflected in the formula that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, described. The very young and the elderly are not evenly distributed. The age factor accounts for much of the weighting that makes a difference—although I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Smith that it is not necessarily age that determines illness or immobility. The formula includes some reference to sickness levels, as well as to contextual factors such as unemployment, pensioners living alone and lone parents.
We recognised that the existing formula was not sufficient. It was criticised for failing to get health services to the greatest areas of need, so the

221
Government undertook a wide-ranging review of the allocation formula. By 2003, following a review of the existing weighted capitation formula used to distribute NHS funding, reducing avoidable inequalities will be a key criterion. I am glad that so many of your Lordships have welcomed the NHS Plan. I emphasise that it is not separate from inequality policy but is central to it.
Good progress is being made. A new formula will be ready for the next round of allocations which will be announced in the autumn. ACRA will report to the Secretary of State in September. The allocations will cover the three years from 2003–04. I have no information about second and third round funding levels. Perhaps we can keep in touch about that. Most significantly, subject to Parliament, allocations will be made direct to the new locally based primary care trusts instead of through health authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, mentioned the important new role of PCTs in delivering on highly local health needs. We are optimistic that that will work. The balance of power will be devolved to reflect local needs and funds will be managed locally, which will significantly assist the resource allocation process in achieving a fairer and more responsive outcome. That must be put against an increase in health authority allocations, which are £2·7 billion higher than last year.
My noble friend Lord Smith described the serious health needs of Wigan and Bolton and gave some striking statistics. The Government have been able to ensure that in the current financial year, Wigan and Bolton health authority will receive an increase of £45 million over last year— a real terms increase of 7·48 per cent. That is the largest in the North West and means that Wigan and Bolton are near the top of the list in terms of extra cash this year. I hope that that improvement, together with the anticipated change of formula, will make a difference to the North West and to Wigan and Bolton in particular.
Under the pace of change policy to which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred, local decisions are responsive and reflect NHS guidance. We remain committed to bringing health authorities and PCTs to their target fair shares as soon as practicable. However, we must be fair and consistent across the country. Those are difficult decisions. The Secretary of State takes a long time to consider them. It is a question of maintaining continuity and balance in targeting resources. I reiterate that our objective is securing faster health improvement among the poorest people in society. It is important to ensure that health cash goes to those in greatest need.
Apart from the review, we are making good progress. In the 2001–02 allocation, we introduced a health inequality adjustment based on the concept of years of life lost—which itself reflects the greatest disparities in mortality rates and generates a ranking system. We have added an extension to infant mortality. It is not perfect but is a first step. The health inequalities adjustment targets resources at the most deprived areas in the North, Midlands and South of England. An additional £18 million was put in this year, which brought the target to £148 million.
222
Turning to primary care, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, whom I am pleased to see arrived despite a horrific journey, was kind enough to give us warning of some of his questions. Even so, I cannot answer them in sufficient detail, but I shall be happy to write to him. He referred to how to attract doctors into deprived areas and how to create incentives. A £55 million package is being invested to improve primary care premises in deprived parts of the country. We are also giving golden hellos to doctors to encourage them to work in under-doctored areas. We are making progress; for example, there is the personal medical services pilot scheme that has been positively evaluated and which is designed to provide additional, flexible support in areas where we need more direct services to vulnerable groups such as the homeless and ethnic minorities. At the moment there are 26 PMS pilots out of 1,300 in Wigan and Bolton.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the noble Lord, Lord Chan, spoke tellingly of the importance of devolving healthcare to ensure that it is the responsibility of the individual. The healthy living centres will certainly promote that. It is essential also that we work in partnership with the local and voluntary communities. The example of libraries has been mentioned and much can be done there.
Health inequalities are avoidable and they are fundamentally unfair. The Government are committed to tackling them. In February 2001 the Secretary of State for Health announced two new health inequalities targets. The first gives a commitment to narrow the gap between a fifth of the areas with the lowest life expectancy and the population as a whole and the second most important is to narrow the gap in infant mortality across the social groups.
Many noble Lords mentioned the relationship between medical needs and environmental factors. When one considers the range of policies that have been introduced—everything from Sure Start to our poverty targets for children, to environmental policies, and to the neighbourhood renewal schemes —we are approaching the problem fully focused with a coherent set of policies. The Social Exclusion Unit's report plays its part in that. That is why the Government undertook a major national consultation exercise, which has prompted 600 written responses alone and has been positive in elucidating from people what they believe is the most important matter. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, referred to the voice of the people. We expect to publish the interim document on that consultation shortly. It will inform the cost-cutting review, which is of additional significance because it enables us to look across the policies. We expect the outcome of the cost-cutting review this year.
It is extremely important to put everything into the context of the additional funding that has gone into the NHS. It will make such a difference to the problems to which noble Lords have referred. In 2001–02 we have already seen an addition of £5 billion in the NHS. Those increases are having a major impact on waiting times. I recommend the annual report of

223
the chief executive of the NHS for an encouraging list of improvements and historic, real increases over the next five years.
We want to build capacity. We would not invest in PCTs unless we believed that there was the capacity. We want to ensure that the many descriptions of need that have been identified stand a better chance of solution than they have had in the past. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, for raising the Question.
Employment Bill
8.34 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 32.
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 73:
Page 37, line 45, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 73, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 74. My noble friends and I do not much like Clause 32, nor does the Law Society, as we have heard. In fact, it has said that the clause should be deleted and the purpose of their recommendation is to prevent the exclusion of claims where applicants have failed to take specified steps under the statutory procedure. My noble friends and I have not gone that far. I hope the Minister will agree that we have tried to be constructive. We have tried to make the clause more user-friendly.
Amendment No. 73 is a simple amendment. It seeks to delete "may" and substitute "shall", thus committing the Secretary of State to specify by regulation that subsection (4) should not apply in a particular matter. Subsection (4) seeks to prevent claimants raising cases with a tribunal.
Amendment No. 74 is extremely important. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) specify situations in which an employee may not present a complaint to a tribunal. The three subsections all relate to the requirements in paragraphs 6 and 9 of Schedule 2. They state that the employee must set out the grievance in writing and send a copy to the employer. Paragraph 6 relates to the standard procedure and paragraph 9 to the modified procedure.
As we have heard in relation to previous amendments, other conditions relate to time limits, a matter that has already been dealt with by my noble friend Lord McCarthy. Those conditions appear absolute. Subsection (5) appears to give the Secretary of State the ability to make regulations that may stipulate that those conditions shall not apply in relation to a particular matter, but the employment tribunal itself appears to have no powers.
My amendment gives the employment tribunal power not to apply subsections (2), (3) or (4) if that appears just and equitable to it. It appears to me that
224
that is sensible. The employment tribunal is the specialist body concerned. It has experience of dealing with past cases. There may well be situations in which it is fair and reasonable not to insist precisely on the requirements of Schedule 2. The workforce in the UK, as we have known, is becoming increasingly multiethnic. Of course, we want such workers to become fully integrated, but there may well be problems of language and culture. Such people need assistance but it may not always be readily forthcoming. Therefore, it seems sensible to give the employment tribunal power to override some legislative requirements such as those in Schedule 2 where it seems fair for it to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Amendment No. 73 deals with the regulation-making powers in subsection (5) of the clause. Those powers are designed to give some discretion to the tribunals when applying the third admissibility criterion, which is defined in subsection (4). The third criterion deals with the case where an initial application has been made within the normal period for making applications but has failed one or both of the first two admissibility criteria. As we have stated repeatedly, we want to give such individuals another chance to make an admissible application. Such individuals will need extra time to carry out the necessary steps. In some cases, this will carry them beyond the three-month period for making applications to tribunals.
We intend to allow for that by using the powers in Clause 33 to extend the time limit for making applications to tribunals. However, we wish to place some modest pressure on applicants to start using the relevant grievance procedure at an early point; otherwise, memories of the circumstances surrounding a case fade and the chances of sorting out a problem diminish. We therefore specify at subsection (4) that the employee should have taken the step 1 action no later than one month following the normal period for making applications to tribunals. In most cases, that will mean four months.
Generally speaking, that should not be difficult for employees to achieve. However, there may be some circumstances where it would be unjust or unfair to apply the third criterion rigidly. For example, the tribunal may take some time to decide that the initial application was inadmissible. Indeed, that decision may not be taken within the four-month period. The regulation-making power at subsection (5) provides the flexibility which tribunals need to deal with such cases. The regulations would define the types of situation where the tribunals should consider waiving the third criterion.
Amendment No. 73 would make it a duty on the Secretary of State to introduce such regulations. We have inserted various order-making and regulation-making powers throughout Part 3 of the Bill. None places a duty on the Secretary of State to introduce orders or regulations. I cannot see any reason to depart from that approach in this case. It is highly likely that regulations would be introduced. But there is no need to pre-empt the outcome of consultations with

225
interested parties by imposing a requirement that regulations must be introduced. I hope that goes some way to satisfy my noble friend Lady Turner.
Amendment No. 74 gives a wide power to the tribunals not to apply the admissibility criteria in individual cases if they consider it "just and equitable" to do so. Such powers might be appropriate if we did not allow for special cases within the admissibility regime. But the clause already contains a variety of regulation-making powers allowing the Secretary of State to specify how the criteria could be applied to different cases.
We will use those regulation-making powers to identify the circumstances where the criteria can in effect be waived or modified to meet special circumstances. In devising the regulations, we will of course be trying to deal with special cases in a just and equitable way. For example, we can use the powers to deal with the position of disabled people who cannot write. Of course, it will be a matter for the tribunals to decide how the regulations apply to individual cases.
I should remind noble Lords that our proposed use of regulation-making powers has been accepted as justifiable by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We therefore do not need a further over-arching power giving extra discretion to the tribunals to decide whether to apply the criteria. That would create extra uncertainty and undermine the purpose of our proposed regulations. I hope that in the light of my explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble and learned friend for his explanation, but I am not at all happy about it. I do not understand why the amendment should import extra uncertainty to the present situation. I do not understand why it should not be possible to give employment tribunals the powers to deal with the situation under subsections (2), (3) and (4). Those subsections are of great importance to the applicant because they provide the basis on which he will not be able to get the case to the tribunal.
The tribunal is the appropriate body to say whether subsections (2), (3) or (4) should apply. I do not believe that our proposal would add extra uncertainty to what is not a happy situation anyway. I pointed out at the beginning that we do not particularly care for Clause 32 and we are not alone in that view. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 75:
Page 38, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall make regulations specifying complaints to which this section shall not apply which shall include complaints connected with discrimination on grounds of sex, race or disability, and of violence, intimidation, bullying, redundancy and collective grievances."
226
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are still on complaints about grievances. This is a probing amendment in the sense that you probe where you do not believe you will gain any concessions but you would like to find out what the Government have to say.
No doubt we shall be told that we have done it before. It is another attempt to get the Government to define why they want to exclude certain types of grievance from the restrictions on access in Clause 32. We are hoping to discover some numbers. Seventy-five per cent of hearings are on grievances. It is a dominant part of the tribunals' work. Are the Government going to exclude 10, 20 or 30 per cent? They must know. How much exclusion will there be? Perhaps the Minister would say what proportion of the various types of grievances will be excluded.
Sometimes the Government talk as though when we see the regulations governing these provisions, a type of grievance will be totally excluded; it may not go anywhere near a tribunal. Sometimes they suggest that there may be an element of discretion, although where is left unclear.
Most of all, we are hoping for some principles on the logic of why the Government have put in barriers to access, then taken certain—as yet not completely specified—types of case out, or why they say that they will do so when the regulations are made. Why do they take some out and leave some in, and why have they not said a word about certain other types?
We tried previously to obtain Government comment. We tried, in framing our amendment in Committee, to look at what people had said; for example, the Minister in the Commons made frequent references to certain possible types of grievance that might be excluded. He said that minimum wages and harassment grievances and routes to resolution might not be covered. He said that exclusions might come about on reasonable grounds, mentioning bullying or intimidation as reasonable grounds for not applying the limitations on access.
In Committee, we sought to collect everything that had been said on the Internet and by Ministers. We wrote it all down: violence and intimidation; race; unlawful wage statements; and collective grievances. So as not to make the amendment negative, at the end we added any other exclusions decided by the Secretary of State.
But in Committee, my noble friend Lord McIntosh did not help us much. He said on 25th March:
"It is our intention to be sparing in setting exemptions. As we have argued with other amendments, most employees should have little difficulty in fulfilling their obligations under this clause … we need to ask ourselves what special grounds may arise w here it would be unreasonable to expect an employee to set out his complaint to the employer a little earlier".
Of course, that is just setting out his complaint, not the 28-day wait. He continued:
"We think that there will be some special cases"—
here comes another list—
"The threat of violence or other forms of serious harassment fall into this category. We do not want to force employees to raise a grievance as an individual complaint, if it has already been addressed as a collective issue by a union"—

227
so he takes on board what we say about unions. He continues,
"That is the second broad category. We intend to cover these two main categories of exemption in the regulations. There may be others which it would be sensible to add. For example, the amendment about interim relief may raise the need to exempt a particular set of cases. However, we cannot accept that the scope of the exemptions should be drawn as widely as this amendment implies. If we followed this approach, an exemption could be claimed in a large proportion of cases"—
which is the nearest we get to figures.
"It would mean that the admissibility regime would never apply, for example"—
here are some specific exclusions from exclusions—
"to any cases involving race or sex discrimination. It would seriously diminish the purpose of the clause".—[Official Report, 25th March 2002; col. 351.]
That seems to suggest that you have to put the big ones in.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh seems to be saying, "Out violence, harassment, collective bargaining and interim relief'—they will not be covered by the restrictions on access; no race and sex cases. Disability does not seem to be featured anywhere.
We are still asking for some sets of principles. The Minister has failed to say what other kinds of discrimination will be out or in, or why they will be out or in. Nothing has been said about disputes over terms and conditions, about failures to consult on redundancy, transfers and so on. But he did say something rather Delphic at the end—at least, he could have said it in a Delphic manner but it could have been that Hansard was misbehaving at the time. It was not the fault of Hansard; there were problems with the machinery when we were upstairs. He said:
"If there is any opportunity to compare the matters which I have listed as being exemptions we are prepared to accept with the list in this amendment between now and Report stage"—
I could not quite follow that—
"I should be very happy to do that".
But I am not clear what it was.
"If that means that we should be putting an agreed list"—
that sounds good—
"or a list which is acceptable to the Government, on the face of the Bill in this form—in other words, as a constraint on the regulation-making power—I am prepared to consider that as well"— [Official Report, 25/3/02; col. CWH 351.]
I should like to know whether that has been considered. We welcome the possibility of being asked to put forward a list; we welcome the possibility of discussing an agreed list.
At the end of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I asked him about principles. He said:
"One could explore the possibility of looking for principles, but looking at this list"—
that is the list in our amendment—
"and looking at the things which the Government intend to put into the regulation—
so somewhere they have got a list—
"I am not sure that I can see a principle behind them".
228
So the Government do not have any principles. Where do you get the ones you put in and the ones you take out if you have not got any principles?
I said:
"Here we have a Bill with no principles. The Minister said that. not me".— [Official Report, 25/3/02; CWH 352.]
At that point I withdrew the amendment. We are putting a list in our amendments—it may be the wrong list—but the Minister seemed to be saying that.
My final question is to ask desperately whether there is any logic to this; whether there is any kind of sense. I have looked at the main headings of grievances in the ES annual report. The Government seem to be saying that they are not going to apply the access procedures to violence, harassment, collective bargaining or interim relief. However, it seems that they will put in race and sex. They leave in a kind of limbo wages cases, breach of contract cases, redundancy pay, working time, equal pay, minimum wage, disability and discrimination cases. I ask again: what is the guiding set of factors, if not principles, that the Government will use to move matters in and out of the procedure? I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, in supporting the amendment I shall speak especially to the issue of collective grievances.
The Government earlier adopted the most welcome position of putting on the face of the Bill the general principles on which the right to be accompanied will be accorded. They are not leaving the issue—as they previously insisted that they must—to regulations. In my submission, that same principle applies, in particular, to what are sometimes referred to as "collective grievances".
In terms purely of exposition of the subject of employment law, it is often convenient to divide individual rights from collective rights or collective grievances. But that is, in a sense, formalistic. Individual grievances relate very often to groups of workers and, although they are expressed in law as individual grievances, they frequently relate to grievances which are felt by a group of workers. Therefore it is a matter of basic principle when one introduces this fundamental division into an Act of Parliament to tell the House something at least about what it means. Of course the petty details may be dealt with in regulations, but not to tell us anything about how the division is envisaged borders on negligence or idleness.
In another place, my honourable friend Mr Alan Johnson repeated this on many occasions. He said, for example,
"We also intend that in cases where fewer redundancies arise"—
that is, fewer than 20—
"and the matter has been dealt with as a collective issue between the employer and the union"—
Schedule 2 shall not apply. The matter has been dealt with.
He then said:
"Nor do we envisage that the statutory procedures should be used when the issue has been handled as a collective process".

229
I take it that those words were carefully chosen; not "could be handled" but "has been handled".
He then said:
"We do not want to duplicate the process and force employers to go through a procedure several times when the issue is collective" —[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 18/12/01; col. 180.]
That is a different formulation. The issue is collective in concept; in a sense, it is a platonic idea of the collective process.
He went on at col. 181:
"If there were a collective issue about the absence of a proper catering facility and the union was addressing that collectively with the employer, it would be unfair … to insist that the employer should deal with complaints"—
he meant individual complaints—
"about the absence of facilities individually as well".
At col. 183, he then expanded the range—this is very important—and said:
"it is unlikely to be possible to apply the statutory procedures to unfair dismissals arising out of industrial action because they arise out of a collective dispute".
I ask my noble and learned friend whether he meant "lawful industrial action" or "industrial action". If he meant "lawful industrial action", do we have to await the result of an interlocutory injunction application by the employer to know whether it is lawful or not?
In other words, some indication must be given as to what is meant by "collective issues" and "collective handling of grievances", especially in the light of the fact that at one point in the documents the Government have adopted the CBI notion that "exceptions must be narrowly drawn". What is the narrow drawing of a collective issue?
I appreciate that my noble and learned friend will probably say that we will know all about this when we see the regulations. The regulations are an Alice-in-Wonderland provision that none of us will see until we see the drafts some days before they are introduced. There is an obligation on the Government to tell the House something at this stage about what they mean by "collective issues" and "individual issues". I support the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord McCarthy said that the purpose of the amendment was to probe what exemptions there would be. He asked what principles would be applied; what would be the width of the exemptions; would they cover the matters referred to in his amendment or would they cover other matters. He then read a long extract from the speech of my noble friend Lord McIntosh in Grand Committee, in which my noble friend set out what the approach would be. The noble Lord referred to my noble friend saying that it is the Government's intention to be sparing in setting exemptions. It is the fact that most employees should have very little difficulty in fulfilling their obligations tinder this clause. They just have to raise a grievance in writing and wait 28 days. Anyway, they would have to set out their grievance in writing when application is made to the tribunal. No one is suggesting that they
230
should be exempt from meeting that requirement of the tribunal system. The employer would soon find out the grievance in any case.
Therefore, we need to ask ourselves what special grounds may arise where it would be unreasonable to expect an employee to set out his complaint to the employer a little earlier. That sets out a basic principle, but my noble friend Lord McIntosh went further and indicated that there would be some special cases. My noble friend Lord McCarthy has gone through what my noble friend said. He referred to the threat of violence or other forms of serious harassment falling into the category of special cases. Likewise, we do not want to force employees to raise a grievance as an individual complaint if it has already been addressed as a collective issue by a union on their behalf. That is the point dealt with by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. What is being referred to there is that if the matter has already been raised as a grievance collectively, and it is the same issue on which the individual is making a complaint, there is not much point in using the grievance procedure. That seems to me to be a perfectly clear principle. How it works in practice will depend on the individual case.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh also referred to interim relief. He made it clear that it is those kinds of things which would be referred to in the exemptions contained in the regulations. He also made it clear that there may be others which it would be sensible to add and by consulting fully on the draft regulations interested parties could give their views on this key subject.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy then asked whether we had considered putting them all into one list. The answer is that we do not want to set out a list until we have had a proper and full consultation on what should be in the exemptions. That appears to me to be extremely sensible and something which I know my noble friend Lord McCarthy, who throughout his career has emphasised the importance of consultation, would regard as a very important approach to these matters.
9 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I ask the noble and learned Lord to give way. I did not ask for a list but for the principles by which it was decided to put in some measures, exclude others and deal with others which we could not be told about. That is not a list, but a set of logical constructions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am very sorry. At the end of the speech of my noble friend Lord McCarthy, he referred to what he described as the "delphic remarks" of my noble friend Lord McIntosh. I am sorry that I did not make the matter clear. As regards principle, my noble friend Lord McIntosh indicated the basis on which we would decide what the exemptions would be, but he made it clear that we would consult fully. My noble friend Lord McCarthy

231
shakes his head. I have failed, as ever, to satisfy him. But he should not get us wrong. We have made clear the basis on which we have approached the issue.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord says that the principles and their basis have been set out. Would he tell us now what they are?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I could repeat for the third time the speech that was made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh, but I believe that other noble Lords would be wearied by it. We could not accept that the scope of the exemptions should be drawn as widely as my noble friend's amendment implies. If we followed that approach, exemption could be claimed in a large proportion of cases. For example, it would mean that the admissibility regime would never apply to any case involving sex or race discrimination. It would largely negate the purpose of the clause. For the reasons that I have given, I hope that my noble friend Lord McCarthy will now accept that we have set out the approach that we will take to the exemptions and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I may say that perhaps I misheard. As I understand it, he said that a collective issue is one which has been handled collectively. Is that correct?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I said that we do not want to force employees to raise a grievance as an individual complaint if it has already been addressed as a collective issue by a union on their behalf.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we are not getting anywhere again. I have just a few points. I do not know why the noble and learned Lord keeps saying that all one has to do and the only kind of disability that one suffers if one is caught by the access restriction procedure, is that one has to write a letter. If it were only that one could say that it is only those people who cannot write letters who will be excluded. But the noble and learned Lord has given me all kinds of other people who could write letters. Far more restrictions apply to this access procedure, as he knows very well. One has to wait 28 days as we keep on saying. It is nothing to do with writing letters.
If I understand him correctly, he says that it is reasonable to ask people to write a little earlier. I do not know what that means. Is one to be excluded if one has to write a little early or left out if one writes earlier? And once again, what about the 28 days? Why should some people be left an additional 28 days when others are let in without the 28 days? What is the distinction which says that race and sex will be on one side of the divide, but other forms of discrimination will be on the other? We do not want lists and we do not want "blah", but principles and the Government never give
232
them to us. I suspect that that is because they have not the slightest idea themselves. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 77:
Page 38, line 13, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 78. Amendment No. 77 relates to Clause 32(7) as set out in the Bill.
Subsections (6) or (9) require the employee to take the first step in the grievance procedure. It is a provision of an Act of Parliament which states that before one can go to the tribunal one must take the required steps. As a matter of fact, it also states that even if one has taken the required steps one is still a disabled person because one cannot go to the tribunal for 28 days.
I take the first point. If an Act of Parliament says to me, as a citizen, "This is a step which you are required to take on pain of limited access to justice", that is very clear as long as the step is set out clearly. I fully accept that my noble and learned friend and my noble friend Lord McIntosh have said that they want to be clear. Now that they have cleared up the matter regarding a copy of the statement, they are clear that the employee must send the statement of the grievance, or a copy of it, to the employer. Nothing could be clearer than that.
So when an Act of Parliament says, "This is the step that you are required to take before you can get to the court", I expect that to be interpreted by those whose job it is to interpret it—and those whose job it is to interpret, first, the legal meaning of a provision in an Act of Parliament and, secondly, whether or not the facts that are before them cause that provision to apply are the courts, or in this case the tribunals. In the old days—and, theoretically, in a sense today—the question of law is for the court and the question of fact is for the jury. Neither question is for the executive. Yet the Bill says that it is for the Minister to decide what constitutes compliance with the requirements.
In Grand Committee, we suggested that this provision had the tones of a Henry VIII clause. There are many definitions of a Henry VIII clause. I have looked them all up and will quote them if my noble and learned friend wishes, but that would be tedious. I shall simply say that if it is not like a Henry VIII clause in the old sense, it has distinctly Tudor overtones. It is the Minister insisting that he is going to decide what is compliance, not the courts—not the tribunal.
Indeed, the clause goes on to say that not only will the Minister introduce regulations stating what constitutes compliance with the requirement to send a letter, but he will make provision in relation to circumstances in which a person is treated as having complied—that is, he has not really complied, but the Minister will set out the circumstances in which the

233
tribunal must deal with the person as if he had complied—there is no other meaning to the phrase "treated as having complied".
In Grand Committee, we understood that the Government may wish to comment on this provision. We said that we thought it proper, not that the executive should take over the functions of the courts, but that it should give guidance as to its views on compliance. But that was regarded as totally unacceptable on grounds which, without repeating the speeches made in Committee, were extremely arrogant. They verged on an insistence that the judicial functions of the court—in this case the tribunal—must be overridden by the views of the executive on what constitutes compliance in the first case or, in the second case, where there has not really been compliance but on what should be treated as compliance—and, inferentially, what should not. "What constitutes compliance" obviously implies that certain things will not be treated as compliance.
I cannot understand why the Government want to take this step of trespassing on the judicial functions of the tribunals. I just do not understand it. We offered them the idea of a code of practice. Obviously, any government can introduce such a code, introducing their ideas on what should be taken into account by the tribunal, judicially, in deciding on whether there has been compliance, on the facts, with the rules of the statute. But to say that the Minister is to decide what is compliance, and, more particularly, what is to be treated as compliance or not treated as compliance really does offend principles which I thought were established following the Donoughmore committee on Ministers' powers in 1932. I thought that that report had been accepted by governments of both parties since that time. It is extraordinary to see such a provision in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 32(7) —which we suggest should be removed, and which the Government could easily replace on Third Reading in what might he termed a graceful acknowledgement of the judicial functions of the tribunals and the courts. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, these amendments seek to delete the regulation-making powers in subsection (7)(b) and (c) respectively. Both powers are most important. However, it is also important to emphasise that they do not relate to individual cases; they deal with categories of cases. They do not remotely seek to replace the view of the tribunal with the view of the executive.
Under the first power, we can make allowance for the case where English is not the language of the employee; under the second power, regulations can be used to exempt certain categories of grievance—say, cases involving the threat of violence—from the admissibility regime.
We have argued throughout all our discussions that we want to create as much certainty as we can in the application of the statutory procedures. We do not wish to leave too many questions to the discretion of the tribunals; that would create uncertainty. Hence
234
our policy is to use regulations to define the detail of how the statutory procedures should be applied across different circumstances.
This does not trespass on the decision-making powers of the tribunal any more than any other regulations; for example, the tribunal rules. Therefore, we believe that the regulation-making powers provide a feasible, desirable and sensible means of providing certainty where it is appropriate to do so. I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Minister for that reply, but I do not think that he will be very proud of it when he reads it in Hansard. Paragraph (b) does not say that the provisions in the regulations will set out what constitutes "compliance" in categories of cases; it spells out what constitutes "compliance". It can go as far as the Minister concerned likes. It is nothing to do with the exceptions for violence, intimidation, sex discrimination, and so on, because they were all dealt with under previous amendments; and, indeed, as my noble and learned friend knows perfectly well, they arise under different parts of the legislation.
Similarly, it is nothing to do with certainty, except in so far as the Secretary of State wants certainty on his say so; nor is it anything to do with the discretion of the tribunals. Indeed, I have never previously heard the judicial function of courts described as "discretion". I thought that that was fundamental and not a matter of discretion. The courts apply what the law says: what the law says here will be what the Secretary of State says, not what the courts find.
However my noble and learned friend dresses it up, this is a trespass on the judicial function of the tribunals. It would be perfectly simple for the Government to avoid that trespass by inserting into the legislation a code of guidance as to what they believe should be taken into account in deciding what is "compliance"—and, more particularly, what should be treated as compliance. I noticed that my noble and learned friend did not say much about the latter.
I am speaking to paragraph (c)—Amendment No. 89—as much as to paragraph (b) in this respect. Paragraph (c) is even more to be deplored in the structure of the clause: what is to be treated as compliance is an "as if" proposition. The Government are using the notion of certainty in order to take complete control of excluding workers from the tribunals. It is not concerned with certainty: it is concerned with the judicial function. Therefore, paragraphs (b) and (c) should be deleted. The Government should reconsider the position before we reach Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 79:
Page 38, line 30, at end insert—
"( ) This section does not apply to cases of constructive dismissal."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now turn to what I agree is a difficult issue; namely, constructive dismissal. We discussed the issue in Committee, but both I and my noble friends did say that we would return to it on Report.
Constructive dismissal occurs when work and working conditions are deliberately made so difficult for an employee that he feels there is no alternative but to resign. It is a device sometimes used by unscrupulous employers who wish to get rid of someone as cheaply as possible. It can take many forms. Demands may be made on a worker that he feels cannot possibly be met; for example, a series of demotions or transfers to unsuitable work. There can be bullying, possibly harassment—even sexual harassment—which management does nothing to prevent and perhaps even covertly encourages. There could be a failure to pay wages or deductions from wages. There may be health and safety issues, perhaps on a construction site where working conditions can be hazardous anyway and inadequate precautions are taken.
Of course, we do now have legislation in place that seeks to protect whistle-blowers in such circumstances. However, workers—particularly in a non-union environment—may feel too intimidated to use the protective legislation. There are industries where the presence of so-called "illegals", who are willing to work for low rates and to take risks, can act as a pressure on existing workforces.
If there is a union environment, then protection can normally be afforded to employees suffering in some of the ways that I have outlined. Sometimes the individual concerned, who may feel that he has no one to whom to turn, may feel so stressed that the only course open is to leave the job. I agree that such cases may be uncommon, but they do happen, often to very vulnerable people.
The objective of my amendment is to ensure that constructive dismissal is treated differently and that an employee in such a situation should not be expected to go through the various procedures laid down in the Bill before the case can be heard by a tribunal. It would be unrealistic anyway since relationships have usually broken down in such circumstances. In Committee, my noble friend the Minister expressed some sympathy with the case I made. However, the Government's position, as I understood it then, was that it was a matter best dealt with via regulations concerning which there will in any event be consultation. Nevertheless, I do think that there is a strong case for having such provision on the face of the Bill. Constructive dismissal is a term that is already widely understood, and it should be made clear to all concerned that in the face of this type of behaviour by unscrupulous employers to vulnerable people, an
236
employee will be able to take his or her case off to an employment tribunal virtually on a fast-track procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the point which my noble friend Lady Turner raises is an important and difficult one, as she acknowledges. The underlying principle behind Part 3 of the Bill is to encourage some dialogue between employee and employer about serious workplace problems. It is our deeply held belief that dialogue is a good thing in itself. It can help to define issues and resolve misunderstandings before litigation is undertaken.
In some respects, constructive dismissals are unlike other cases. They follow from the resignation of the employee. Often, the employee does not give the true reason to their employer before resigning. The resignation issue can be hidden. Employers may think with some justification that the employee has resigned—as hundreds of thousands do each year —for reasons totally unconnected with their individual treatment at work; for example, because the former employee wants a change, to move on to full-time education or to start a career elsewhere.
In some constructive dismissal cases, the employer may be totally unaware that there is a problem before they are sent a copy of the tribunal application. We want to avoid that outcome if we can. We want to give the parties a chance to exchange information first before going to a tribunal. We believe that that will be beneficial to both sides. It may even resolve the issue. We are therefore convinced that there is particularly good reason to apply the admissibility criteria to these cases.
Nevertheless, we know that the issue is complex, for precisely the reasons to which my noble friend has referred. We shall have to think hard about exempting certain categories of constructive dismissal case from the admissibility regime. Harassment and bullying at work, as my noble friend rightly said, are connected to significant numbers of constructive dismissal cases. People resign rather than suffer the continuing pain and humiliation of such cases. We need to look at the case for exempting people exposed to such serious ill-treatment from having to pursue the matter with the employer before going to a tribunal, even though the admissibility criteria do not require the parties to meet. Therefore, such cases, for precisely the reasons given by my noble friend, require special consideration. As I have said, however, they are not the only cases that give rise to constructive dismissal.
We shall also have to look at the interaction between the statutory disciplinary and grievance procedures in these cases. A person may resign and claim constructive dismissal where the employer has unfairly disciplined him or her. In such cases, it is usually obvious to both parties why the employee has resigned. They may even have discussed the possibility during a recent disciplinary hearing. It may be wasteful and unfair in such circumstances to require the employee in effect to initiate a grievance.

237
The Government cannot accept this amendment. However, we recognise the need to draft the regulations under Clause 32 with care to ensure that we exempt deserving cases from the application of the admissibility regime. We shall of course consult in full on the draft regulations. This should give all parties a good opportunity to help us to identify the exemptions required. In the light of what I have said, I hope that I have reassured my noble friend on the basic concerns she raised.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that response. I am particularly glad to note that the Government clearly have some sympathy with the case that we have been making. As I said in my initial submissions, I still believe that there is a case for placing something on the face of the Bill. If a provision is put into the legislation, at least that will be a warning to employers who feel inclined to exercise power over vulnerable people that they may have to face a tribunal without the employee having to go through all the procedures.
However, I accept that there is recognition that a very strong case exists here. Although I should much prefer something to be placed on the face of the Bill rather than in regulations, I am glad to note that the Government at least accept that we have a strong case. I am pleased that they accept that there are situations in which it is simply not reasonable for a worker in this type of situation to try to enter into a form of dialogue with an employer who may be victimising him or may be prepared to accept a situation in which the employee is harassed or bullied. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCarthymoved Amendment No. 80:
Page 38, line 34, at end insert—
"(11) The Secretary of State shall make provision by regulations to ensure that, where a complaint is communicated to an employment tribunal but falls within any of subsections (1) to (3), copies of the communication and notices relating to it shall he sent to a conciliation officer for the purpose of giving an opportunity for the complaint to be settled by way of conciliation."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble and learned friend will find that, once again, we are going over the same ground. However, it is the last time that I shall be doing so tonight, and that may be some consolation.
This amendment concerns the activities of ACAS during the dead period—that is, during the operation of the restriction of access in the statutory procedure for dealing with grievances. It is perfectly true that we tabled an amendment on this subject in Grand Committee. I argued that Routes to Resolution advanced the case for the statutory procedure because the Government wanted to promote non-legal settlements. Much was made of that.
We had some difficulty in understanding how the organisation with a great reputation for facilitating settlements—indeed, it was created and founded in
238
order to facilitate settlements—could be excluded for 28 days. We could not understand it then and we cannot understand it now. The object of our amendment was to create a situation in which ACAS could be active throughout the period. We said that the 28-day period should be left alone and asked why ACAS was being put into a box. To that, my noble friend Lord McIntosh replied in Grand Committee that the Government were wrong to say that; they were not keeping ACAS out. He said:
"ACAS can … provide conciliation … in advance of a tribunal application in certain circumstances … that facility will remain".—[Official Report, 26/3/02; col. CWH 377.]
Subsequently, when challenged, my noble friend referred to Section 18(3) of the Employment Tribunals Act. We said that that was a general provision which applied only where the proceedings could be brought by the applicant. But it might be possible for someone to argue subsequently that the applicant could not bring a case before a tribunal now because he was excluded by the provisions of the statutory procedure. That was enacted before these restrictions were to be imposed in this Bill.
We also put forward the idea that an applicant who could ask for ACAS to be brought in might not know that he was able to use ACAS. Most people in business and probably most people in this House know all about ACAS and perhaps avidly read its annual reports, but out there people do not know of it. My friends in ACAS tell me that, when they telephone people, they are asked, "Who are you?". Of course, that is the case. Therefore, how are people to know, in the middle of the 28 days of purdah, that they can use ACAS? I am assuming that they can, although that has not been made absolutely clear to us. Let us suppose that ACAS does not know. ACAS is structured in such a way that it will wait to receive the ETs. When it receives the forms, it starts the process. That is how it works. How can we know that ACAS will know? ACAS is not exactly looking for work; it is overworked. It does not go around saying, "Have you heard of some cases we can do?".
We were not satisfied. We said, "Why not send the new form as soon as it is available? As soon as you get the completed form, do not wait for 28 days; send it round to ACAS". The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said:
"Because we want first to encourage settlements of the kind which nearly all settlements are—that is, settlements between employer and employee—and we want to do that first" — [official Report, 26/3/02; col. 381.]
So, now we have this admission, as we have had subsequently. We have to ask yet again at this time of night, "What makes you think that ACAS will discourage the settlement of disputes between employers and employees?". What an insult to that: great institution to say that, in order to make it more likely that there will be a settlement, ACAS cannot come in. If that were true, we could close down ACAS and then we would have more settlements. That is nonsense and the Government know that it is

239
nonsense. Therefore, I want to see what they can conceivably find to justify themselves tonight. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, my noble friend's case is surely grounded on a most important reason in Clause 32, which must take account of Section 19 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. Section 19 states:
"Employment tribunal procedure regulations shall include in relation to employment tribunal proceedings in the case of which any enactment makes provision for conciliation—
(a) provisions requiring a copy of the application by which the proceedings are instituted, and a copy of any notice relating to it which is lodged by or on behalf of the person against whom the proceedings are brought, to be sent to a conciliation officer".
That is how ACAS gets to know about the case. Every application is sent to an ACAS conciliation officer. If the employee is prevented from making an application, for which Clause 32(2) provides, if he has not completed the first step in a grievance procedure, or if he has completed even the first step in a grievance procedure after waiting 28 days, how does ACAS get to know about the case? It may read about it in the local newspaper or someone may send ACAS a letter. There is no automatic notification to ACAS. As my noble friend said, we want ACAS to know about cases even if they fall within Clause 32(2), (3) or (4). That is the point of the amendment, as my noble friend said. That is a case which I do not believe the Government can reasonably resist.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we fully share the high opinion of ACAS held by my noble friend Lord McCarthy. We also acknowledge his remarks about ACAS being overworked at present. ACAS conciliation is a finite resource. It is important that that resource is deployed in the best possible way to assist employers and employees when they most need it. In other words, we want to promote the effective use of conciliation.
Generally speaking, when parties are addressing issues through internal procedures, they are likely to sort out their problems between themselves without assistance. It is therefore relatively rare for ACAS to become involved when parties are actively discussing their concerns, even though they can intervene at this point under Section 18(3) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996.
The Bill will ensure that all employees have access to procedures. That is a major advance. It follows that we want people to use those procedures to sort out their problems. Employees who fail to meet the admissibility criteria are individuals who have never raised and then pursued their complaint through internal procedures. No serious discussions have therefore occurred. Clause 32 will prompt employees and employers to use the procedures which the Bill provides. That is, in our view, unquestionably a good thing to do.
240
The amendment would invite or even require ACAS to conciliate even though the admissibility criteria had not been met, even though procedures had not been instigated or used properly. That seems to us to be an unnecessary and inefficient arrangement. It is far better to concentrate ACAS's resources on cases where procedures have been used and have failed.
As I have mentioned, ACAS already has the power to provide conciliation to parties in advance of a tribunal application in some circumstances. ACAS therefore has the flexibility it needs to intervene at an earlier point, where necessary. That facility will remain in place. How will they find out, my noble friends ask in their speeches? It is up to the parties to approach ACAS. That is what happens now when ACAS intervenes before an application is made. It works well and ensures that ACAS's assistance is available where needed. As my noble friends know, the ACAS helpline receives three-quarters of a million calls per year from individuals and employers seeking advice. So ACAS is well sited on a large number of employment problems.
We think that that is the right approach. That is the approach that is set out in the Bill. In the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friends feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, we are all getting tired now. The Minister has just had four own goals in a row. He says that we cannot do it because ACAS is overworked. It does not have the resources. Everyone knows that it is much cheaper to have an ACAS settlement than it is to have a court settlement. If it were the case that ACAS could do constructive work and that it was being held up by not having enough money, it would be quite lunatic for a government to come along and say, "We are doing that so that we reduce the demands on the tribunal". It would not reduce the demands, it would increase them, and, settlement for settlement, a settlement using the courts or the tribunals is five or six times more expensive than a settlement by ACAS. So it is an own goal to tell me about an overworked ACAS.
Secondly, the Minister says that it is rare for ACAS to come in. There is no problem because it does not come in very much in the early stage. If it is rare for it to come in, why does one have to legislate to prevent it coming in?
The Minister says that they do not require ACAS to conciliate. Why should we force ACAS to conciliate? When did we ever say that we would make it essential and necessary for ACAS to conciliate? We never said that. We say, "Give it a chance to conciliate". If it wants to conciliate, it can. That is another own goal.
The Minister says that it is up to the parties to decide whether to bring ACAS in. We made this point before: how is the average "irk", who has been unfairly dismissed—I am sorry that the Minister cannot listen. I will speak a little louder. Perhaps he will listen then. I am sorry; I do not think that I have the Minister's attention. I do have the Minister's attention now.

241
I was trying to say that the Minister says that it is up to the parties to bring in ACAS. The employer might know, but the worker will not know that, so it is another own goal. That is four own goals. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sharmanmoved Amendment No. 80A:
Leave out Clause 32.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 80A standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Razzall seeks to leave out Clause 32.
We have spent between one and-a-half to two hours debating the perceived frailties of the clause in the eyes of the noble Lords opposite who are, unlike me, somewhat more expert in matters of employment law. If I needed any convincing that, as they said, the view of the Law Society that the clause is fundamentally flawed is right, the past one-and-a-half to two hours has provided it.
I should be remiss if I did not congratulate the Minister on his defence. He reminds me of Boycott at his worst: absolutely resolute; keeping out the bowling at all costs; and not scoring any runs. Nevertheless, I ask him to reconsider the clause. During the past hour-and-a-half to two hours, we on these Benches have felt that we have been intruding on the private grief between the Government and their supporters on the Back Benches. Please do something about it. Take the clause back to the drawing board; reconsider it. It is fundamentally flawed; it needs to be reconsidered. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, in the debate, if only because his is a fresh voice.
This is an important clause of the Bill. Discussion of it took up a great deal of time in Grand Committee; it has taken up a great deal of time this afternoon and this evening; and I am sure that we shall discuss it for even longer. As a result of the Bill, all employees will have access to a reasonable dispute procedure. That should be seen as a major breakthrough in developing a modern and fair system of employment relations. Millions of people stand to benefit from it.
But procedures are of little use in themselves. They must be used. I hope that we can all agree to the proposition that dialogue is better than confrontation. We want to encourage reasoned and structured discussion at the workplace. Problems are resolved earlier and less acrimoniously as a result and relationships are preserved. We have therefore constructed a series of measures in Part 3 that provide incentives to employers and employees to use those procedures.
Clause 32 sets a simple set of criteria—I emphasise the word "simple"—that employees must follow in order to access a tribunal. They have simply to convey their complaint in writing to the employer and wait for a month. Those are not onerous requirements; they are not cumbersome; and they are easily verifiable.
242
First, the clause provides safeguards to deal with every difficulty that may arise when the admissibility criteria are applied. The criteria will apply only where the initiative rests with the employee. They will not apply to cases where the employer in fact initiates the complaint. We cannot make access to the tribunal contingent on the actions of the employer. Therefore, the admissibility criteria will not apply to unfair dismissal cases. That takes a large number of cases outside the admissibility regime.
Secondly, we believe that the criteria should not generally apply to ex-employees. Thirdly, we have ensured that employees will not lose their right of access to tribunals through ignorance. Fourthly, we recognise that in extreme cases it would be unacceptable to expect employees to raise a complaint with their employer before going to a tribunal. That use of regulation to deal with exceptional cases is proper. It allows us to consult on their detail. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded that that represented an acceptable power for the Government to take.
Of course it is not unreasonable to attach some preconditions to accessing a legal system. We have long applied time limits to the bringing of complaints to tribunals. We now propose to add several admissibility criteria. They are proportionate, well targeted and serve a sound public purpose. The Joint Committee on Human Rights was therefore satisfied that the Bill can be implemented in a manner compatible with the Convention on Human Rights.
Clause 32 has been wrongly depicted as intended to debar tribunal applications. That is certainly not our intention. Instead, we want to ensure that in a particular and limited set of circumstances, employees must meet a few simple tests before their applications can be accepted by the tribunals. That will encourage dialogue where dialogue can help. Where dialogue does not work, then those cases will move on to the tribunals.
The clause will reduce tribunal caseloads below the level that they would otherwise be. That effect is not achieved by deterring or prohibiting applications. It is achieved because parties will increasingly sort out their difficulties between themselves, removing the need to go to a tribunal. I believe that that is an extremely laudable aim and that it is an aim that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, would unquestionably share. In the light of that explanation I know that the noble Lord will feel obliged to withdraw his amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, will he answer two questions? First, he has mentioned the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. He will know that the Joint Committee is again considering the matter of compatibility and various aspects of the Government's case on which it asked the Secretary of State a series of questions. Will he tell the House when he expects the second report of the Joint Committee to be before the House?

243
Secondly, perhaps I may refer to a specific point. As I understand it—I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong—the Minister has said in the course of his reply that Clause 32 and Schedule 2 will not apply to former employees. In discussing the modified procedure, he explained that workers who had already been dismissed for misconduct would have the modified procedure of Schedule 2 applied to them. Therefore, Clause 32 would apply to them.
Which is it? Are former employees all excluded, or are employees already dismissed for misconduct within the scope of Schedule 2 and Clause 32? I would be very grateful if he would answer both those questions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in relation to the first point, the Human Rights Joint Committee clerk has indicated that he would expect the report to be available next week. I do not know what the report will say. We will have to wait until then.
Secondly, in relation to whether the admissibility criteria under Clause 32 would apply to former employees, I said that it would not generally apply to former employees. For such people the maintenance of the relationship with the employer is not an issue. Therefore, there is less benefit in applying the admissibility regime to such situations. The one exception to that rule is constructive dismissal. We went into some detail with noble Lords when we were discussing the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Turner. We were debating the treatment of constructive dismissal at Amendment No. 79. Therefore, we need to consider precisely how it would apply in those circumstances.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, the Minister was right in two aspects of his response. First, Clause 32 is a critical and important clause of the Bill. I would not disagree with him on that. Secondly, I would not disagree with him as to the Government's aims in that matter. I believe that they are entirely laudable. The issue between us is whether Clause 32 achieves those aims. On that matter I would like to reserve my position until I have read fully what he said in Hansard. We may want to come back to this at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 81.
Page 68, leave out lines 16 to 20.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am deeply disappointed that the Government and the usual channels have insisted that we take Amendment No. 81 tonight. With Amendment No. 81 I have to speak—and I intend to do so because this is out last opportunity—to Amendments Nos. 82, 84, 85, 86, 89 and 90. They are all about Schedule 4. I shall do so as briefly as I can. However, since it concerns the whole schedule which applies to the whole of Clause 32, it would be wrong of me not to put a case whereby
244
workers are very unfairly treated in the conspectus of Schedule 4. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, must appreciate from what he has just been dealing with, it is a matter of primary importance.
Schedule 4 sets out the range of employment protection statutes under which the enforcement of certain rights will become conditionally inadmissible under the terms of Clause 32, either because they are not complied with or because they have been complied with and the applicant must wait 28 days.
The statutory rights in Schedule 4 which describe the ambit of Clause 32 fall into three groups. They are all covered in the various lines which we would challenge in Schedule 4. The first group are statutes dealing with sex, race and disability discrimination. The second group are provisions relating to workers who have been victimised for proposing or seeking to enforce their basic rights. The third group are provisions that derive from rights under European Union law.
Of course we appreciate that the Government's primary aim—they say it is—in these provisions is to encourage settlement at workplace level. There is no complaint about that and as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, said, the question is whether the ambit and the method of their trying to do so is at all reasonable or proportionate. As to the third group—the European Union rights—I say no more today than that grave doubts have been raised in many quarters whether it is proper to limit the enforcement of these rights in a manner proposed when the directives require an adequate, effective and deterrent method of enforcement. That applies to the Equal Pay Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, the Working Time Regulations and the European Works Council Regulations. The Government have said that they believe that is nothing to which European law would object. I wish they would set out their reasons for that and I expect them to do so today.
As regards discrimination, the limitations are applied to two gender protections, unequal pay and sex discrimination; to race discrimination; and to disability discrimination. Is it reasonable or proportionate to the mischief to be avoided to say to a disabled worker against whom an employee has illegally discriminated, "Send the employer a letter. Oh, perhaps you have done that and you are still being discriminated against at work illegally. Well, wait 28 days and see what happens"? And is it so to say the same to a worker being discriminated against on grounds of race? Today I picked up in the Printed Paper Office a new code of practice on the duty to promote race equality. I found nothing in it that suggested that those suffering racial discrimination should be barred from the tribunals for 28 days even if they had sent the necessary letter to their employers.
Why should the Government's legislation say to a woman subjected to gender discrimination in pay or conditions, "Yes, you sent a copy of your statement to the manager who did this. Of course the record shows there is next to no prospect of his acting any differently in the future but you must go back to work for a month with the same manager, see what he says, put aside

245
your dignity at work and suffer the illegal low pay or degrading discrimination for another month before you can get to a tribunal. If they dismiss you for your supposed misconduct, you can have all the advantages of the modified procedure and hear the employer's last word, but you cannot go to a tribunal for a month. Oh, and my goodness, if you wait another month you will never be able to go to a tribunal"? What kind of proportionate response is that to the aim of bringing down tribunal applications by 34,000 or to the aim of settling problems at work?
What kind of proportionate response is that especially when the chief executive of ACAS said in April this year,
"There is still a significant rise in discrimination cases passed to ACAS. This is a very worrying trend in today's increasingly diverse labour market"?
The CBI has stated that the number of employment tribunal cases must be reduced to save costs in business and that therefore Clause 32 and its ambit in Schedule 4 is,
"one of the most important clauses in the Bill".
The logic of the final category of statutes in Schedule 4 is even more doubtful. These six enactments cover the right to complain to tribunals for workers who have been subjected by unscrupulous employers—they are a minority but nevertheless exist as the cases illustrate very well—to victimisation which has been imposed for no reason other than having dared to enforce or propose to enforce their rights in the tribunals. The grounds that relate to victimisation—detriment in the statutes—include being victimised for complaining about discrimination against them for being a trade union member; voting in a union recognition ballot or campaigning for or against union recognition; proposing to claim the minimum wage or tax credit; acting as a member of a European works council or standing as a candidate; carrying out the functions of a safety representative; or complaining to or taking action against the employer over serious imminent danger to life and limb at the workplace. That in a year when the number of deaths at work has increased for the first time in many years. The grounds include also acting as a workers' representative for consultation and taking proper time off for training, maternity or family reasons.
If a worker is victimised for any of those reasons and proposes action to enforce his rights, under Clause 32 as applied by Schedule 4, he cannot go to the tribunal. Even if a worker has been punished for proposing to enforce his rights and notified his grievance, he is barred from the doors of the tribunal for another 28 days. The Government say, "If you do what we want, you can have a second chance". What kind of protection does the worker have against non-payment of wages, victimisation or harassment at work during those 28 days? Why do not the Government pass a special protection during that period?
Ministers said, in response to our propositions in regard to victimisation, that they will make an exception for bullying. Not all victimisation will count as bullying—as my noble friend Lady Gibson will be the first to say under her Dignity at Work Bill. The
246
Government say that the bully might be someone other than the manager. In every case where the worker is subjected to victimisation or detriment by the manager, he or she is being bullied or victimised just for proposing to enforce his or her rights.
I am astonished that the Official Opposition cannot even be bothered to take up the case of those vulnerable people. Although victimised, under Clause 32 and Schedule 4, they will not have the right to the tribunal.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I certainly do not intend to sit here and be attacked in that way. The noble Lord says that he is surprised at the way in which the Official Opposition is behaving. He said exactly that in Committee. I thought that he had got that issue out of his system. It was unnecessary to repeat that comment tonight.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, what is necessary in moving this amendment is not, with great respect, for the Opposition to judge. I am astonished that none of the Front Benchers—perhaps other than the Liberal Democrats—appears to think that it is disgraceful that people who are victimised at their place of work will be barred from the doors of the tribunal simply for proposing to enforce their rights.
It gets worse. The list in Schedule 4 produces extraordinary inconsistencies. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend can justify them. A worker who is victimised for saying that he will enforce his minimum wage and make the employer pay it is not allowed to go to the tribunal unless he begs the employer to set the matter right in a letter. Even then, the employee cannot go before the tribunal for a month. The Law Society and others pointed out long ago that under Section 20 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, an enforcement officer can go to the tribunal whether or not the worker has sent a letter and enforce the worker's rights to a minimum wage What kind of consistency is that? The worker cannot go, but the enforcement officer can.
Similarly, my noble friend must take account of the fact that the list in Schedule 4 includes various cases of detriment or victimisation, but it does not include Section 12 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. Section 12 is a case where a worker has been victimised on the ground that he has taken part in asking for a union representative to accompany him—one has a right to be accompanied—at a hearing. If that is his complaint he can go to the tribunal. But if he has been victimised because of an unfair dismissal complaint or because he has not received a proper wage, or even if he has complained about health and safety dereliction on the part of the employer, he cannot go to a tribunal. What kind of sense and consistency is that?
The arrangements for Clause 32 and Schedule 4 are furthermore quite disproportionate to the problem identified by the Government. The Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6, which prohibit disproportionate limitations on access to justice to enforce rights are very much at the centre of the 12th report of the Joint Committee on

247
Human Rights. I appreciate that its conclusion on that occasion was that the Government scraped by on Article 6. However, it is sitting again because, with great respect to the Secretary of State, she misled the Joint Committee by citing the SETA survey results as justification of the Government's case for Clause 32 as it now stands.
Indeed, that was the Government's position, although I appreciate that subsequently they have retreated from it to some extent. I quote from the Department of Trade and Industry press notice of the speech of the Minister of State in July 2001 to which I hope my noble and learned friend will pay attention. The Minister said:
"The Government is convinced that many disagreements can be successfully resolved through better procedures in the workplace between an individual and their employer but equally a tribunal system designed to cope with increasing caseloads is essential".
Then he said:
"Over three in five of applications to tribunals come from applicants who have not attempted to resolve the problem directly with their employer in the first instance".
That is my honourable friend Mr Alan Johnson speaking in July 2001. That remained the basis of government policy while they drew up the Bill and throughout their case in Committee in another place. When we finally received the SETA survey, it showed nothing of the kind. The House of Commons was deprived of the information in the SETA survey, which was not published until deep in the Recess, two days before our Second Reading.
Here I am in some difficulty. My noble friend Lord McIntosh gave a somewhat different account of that. I must quote my noble friend in extensor because the Secretary of State has alleged that the Joint Committee on Human Rights quoted him out of context. That is a serious accusation by the Secretary of State and as a labour law scholar I resent it very much. Therefore, I have to quote my noble friend Lord McIntosh completely, as I did at Second Reading, so that we do not have more of such nonsense about context.
On 26th February I put to him the question of whether workers had attempted to solve the problems of the workplace and whether there was a compensation culture, as has been alleged by the CBI and all other employers' organisations, and he said:
"As regards the word 'attempted', I cannot tell from the wording of the survey whether such attempts took place or not. I imagine that in a large number of cases if a meeting had been attempted it would have been achieved, or certainly if written communication had been attempted it would have been achieved. I do not believe that significant numbers are involved in that regard … Frankly, the issue of this survey has been taken as far as it can be taken. It has little significance in policy making terms and I do not think that we should spend any more time on it.
Of course, there are all kinds of reasons why there should be no communication between employees and employers. As Judge Prophet said, that could be because some people left employment before they had an opportunity to start any communication. That is a legitimate reason for not entering communication. I am not saying, and the Government are not saying, and never have said, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, claimed we had said, that 62 per cent of cases could have been resolved outside tribunals. That is not the case that we are making. We are making the case that communication between employees and employers is greatly
248
lacking and that if we could find ways to encourage communication between employees and employers that would be to the benefit of employees and employers and may also have the effect of influencing the number of cases which come before tribunals".—[Official Report, 26/02/02; col. 1404.]
I entirely agree with that, but it was not the case on which the Government built Clause 32—as it now is—and Schedule 4. I will quote further if the Minister believes it is out of context, but I have done enough—especially at this time of night—to sustain the fact that the Government have retreated from their explanation in July 2001 and have now not relied on the SETA survey for Clause 32 and Schedule 4.
When the Secretary of State wrote again to the Joint Committee—I believe that the letter is in the Library; I was kindly sent a copy—she did not rely on the research of Burgess and his colleagues, which is well known to be the explanation of why employment tribunal applications have increased regularly since 1972 from five social causes and also an increase in jurisdictions; she relied upon what she called the "admittedly imperfect" SETA—the Survey of Employment Tribunal Applications—which,
"did not ask a direct question on this subject".
She said that SETA was just "one indicator" of preexisting opinion and fact:
"The way we have chosen to enforce the statutory procedures is through the adjustment to awards under clause 31 and restrictions on admissibility under clause 33",
as it was, now Clause 32. This was simply part of a commonly-held view that it was necessary. But there is not a single piece of relevant specific evidence in the Secretary of State's second letter to justify that method of enforcement against the employees whose situation I described under Schedule 4.
The use of limiting employees' access to justice over the range of statutes set out in Schedule 4 is disproportionate and proportionality is, as the European Court of Human Rights insisted last year in the Fogarty case, essential to the enforcement of limitations on access to justice. It said that if the limitation,
"does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved",
then it is wrong.
Schedule 4 shows how many employees will be barred from access to justice in regard to Clause 32. It has three types of case. I say to my noble and learned friend that as you go through them they are less and less justifiable. They involve workers' European rights; workers who are sent back to work to suffer discrimination for 28 days on racial, disability, or sex grounds; and who are victimised by employers even for proposing to enforce their rights under existing statutes.
I seek that Schedule 4 be amended by cutting out those categories in their entirety. I beg to move.
Lord Sharman: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 83, 87, 88 and 90, which are in this group. These parts of Schedule 4 all deal with claims of detriment where an employee has claimed that he has

249
suffered a detriment already. This seems a simple issue of principle: where an employee is claiming a statutory right—as there would be in this case—it is difficult to see how one should prevent that employee from further pursuing a claim where the basis for the claim is that the employer has responded badly to the claim of that statutory right in the first place. It is a straightforward, simple principle. I support the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the arguments made in support of this large group of amendments. I agree with my noble friend on one point at least: this is a very important schedule. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, that it raises very important points.
The admissibility policy and, to that extent, our whole dispute resolution policy, rests on getting this schedule right. So I will attempt, as I did in Grand Committee, to explain why the Government will resist any attempts to cut down the number of jurisdictions listed in it.
But first I must return to a point which has been made many times before by the Government. It bears any amount of repeating. Clause 32 simply does not have the drastic effects that my noble friends say that it has. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn said in Grand Committee that when one limits the right to the extent that Clause 33—which has now become Clause 32—limits it and prohibits any access to the tribunal, one is coming very close to destroying the right altogether.
Let me repeat, once again, for the whole House, what the admissibility criteria—these limitations which we are told come very close to destroying the right altogether—actually are. An employee with a grievance must write to his employer telling him what the grievance is. He must then wait 28 days to see if his employer responds. After that he is free to take the case to a tribunal.
We want people in all the jurisdictions that my noble friend has listed to tell their employer about the problem before they take him to a tribunal. We are not ashamed of that requirement. My noble friend alerts the House to all the important employee rights which we are covering in the schedule. We agree. Of course these are important rights and, yes, we do want them to be covered.
In our view it is perfectly sensible—indeed, it is right—that any employee who thinks that his employer has breached one of these rights should be required to tell his employer of this grievance and ask for a response to that complaint. I know that my noble friends are not alone in disagreeing with our view. I have read the Law Society's brief just as they clearly have, but the opponents are in a minority. We have been out to consultation on this and we have talked to all sides of industry.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, have brought to the attention of the House, in particular, the case of an employee who has suffered detriment at the hands of his employer. As the noble Lord and my noble friends will know, detriment can
250
take many forms. It can take the form of bullying and harassment; it can also take the form of being passed over for promotion, being given dirty and unpleasant tasks or not being given a good set of benefits and so on.
There seems to be an assumption in the arguments that we have heard that it is unreasonable to expect someone who has suffered from detrimental action to write to their employer. Why? You have a grievance. It may be legitimate or it may not, but why on earth should it not be brought to the employer's attention before he is taken to a tribunal? He might be able to resolve the problem at a stroke. It could be based on a misunderstanding.
Of course the grievance may be real and the employer a thoroughly bad one. He will not reply or will give a dismissive reply to the Step 1 letter, and the case may go to the tribunal and be resolved in that way; or ACAS may be able to conciliate. All these routes are important and remain open. But talking to the employer first has got to be worth a try.
The premise of those who oppose our policy seems to be that people who have suffered detriment at work are rendered incapable or should not be expected further to communicate with the person who employs them. It is a false premise. Of course—and we have acknowledged this time and time again—there will be cases where the detriment, harassment or discrimination which has been suffered is so extreme that it makes the employee fearful of any further contact with his employer—and understandably and rightly so. As my noble friends acknowledged, the Government have promised complete exemptions in the regulations for those who have been subject to serious bullying, harassment and threats of violence. We will consult on the detail, but such exemptions will cut across all jurisdictions, not just those dependent on victimisation or detriment.
But exemptions from the statutory requirement will not he the norm and nor should they be. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn asked in Committee,
"Why on earth should special rules apply to a person's ability to go to a tribunal and say, 'That's not fair'? Some workers will say, 'I'm not going near that employer again. Look what he did to me last week"'.—[Official Report, 21/3/02; col. CWH 309.]
The question is revealing for it seems to assume that the employment relationship has already ended, but as the employee still works there, how can he possibly say that he is not going near that employer again? In most cases, but not in all—and -this we accept—we believe that someone who is employed ought to be able to communicate their concerns to the employer, and that is all we are requiring them to do.
My noble friend Lord Wedderburn raised a question on Europe. It is claimed that the Government are watering down rights which emanate from there. We heard in Committee that working time rights and other rights which stem from the EU directive should be taken out of the Schedule 4 list. We are accused of failing to provide effective and appropriate remedies because of the admissibility rule. But there are already rules about procedures for getting to a tribunal. All countries have them. There are time limits and forms

251
to be filled in. Failure to meet the three-months' time limit in the United Kingdom means in most cases that the case cannot be heard. The worker would then be denied his day in court. I presume that that is accepted by my noble friend as not watering down European rights. We are adding another requirement, to raise the issue first with the employer in most cases. That is reasonable and proportionate. We have no reason to believe that we are in breach of any of our obligations in doing so.
Finally, my noble friend raised the human rights issue. He knows that the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has concluded that the provisions of the Bill serve legitimate public interest objectives. My noble friend Lord Wedderburn has raised particular concerns with the Joint Committee. My noble friend touched in some detail on those in the remarks he made this evening. I am sure that the right course is to wait to see what the committee says in relation to the particular points that he raised.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I cannot say that I am very happy with that reply. It was more or less the one given in Grand Committee. Indeed, my noble and learned friend seemed to be quoting mainly from what I said at that stage and not what I said tonight.
As regards the exemptions in the regulations, we will see them when we see them. The CBI has said that the exemptions must be very limited. The Government seem to agree so I doubt very much whether they will deal with the issue. In respect of all other countries having the kind of provision which is in Clause 32 and Schedule 4, that is a travesty of comparative employment law. I do not know which examples my noble and learned friend would like to cite, but if he looks at the French, Italian or German procedures he will not find anything like Schedule 4 and Clause 32; indeed, that would apply to most other western countries.
As regards victimisation, the noble and learned Lord gave some very good examples. The worker comes home and he says to his wife, "I complained because I raised a question about health and safety as I thought someone was going to be killed. In reply the manager"—the worker would add an epithet—"put me on dirty tasks or he will pass me over for promotion". His wife says: "What are you going to do about that?". He says: "Oh, I can't do anything about that. I've got to spend another 28 days on dirty jobs".
252
What kind of justice and fairness do the Government think there is in that? Do they really think, sitting in comfortable offices, that workers who are put on dirty jobs as a response from unreasonable managers for daring to say that they wish to enforce their right to complain about derelections of duty in terms of health and safety will accept that without complaint? No wonder they say that they want to exclude collective issues—because, if workers cannot take issues up in the tribunals, they will take them up as collective issues; and a new generation of trade union officers will encourage them to do so, because a new generation of trade union officers is concerned above all with the interests of their members and not with loyalty to this or that schedule or to the curious philosophy that tells us that being put on dirty jobs for 28 days does not matter.
Schedule 4, plus Clause 32, is a disgrace. It is a disgrace for those who should know better. It is a disgrace for a Labour Government. It is very sad that we should have to debate this matter with some 15 or 20 people instead of the 400 who turn out to protect blood sports against animals rather than Schedule 4's blood sports against workers. But there is nothing I can do except beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, is Amendment No. 82 not moved?
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thought there was an agreement that we should stop at this point. Would the Government like to say something?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, we have an agreement through the usual channels—which has been agreed explicitly with the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy and Lord Wedderburn—that we should finish on the group beginning with Amendment No. 81. That group includes Amendments Nos. 81 to 90.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, Amendment No. 82 is not moved.
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 90 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
  Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill

    The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
    [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
    I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber, which is likely this afternoon I understand, while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
    I understand that the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House would like to say a few words before I proceed with the business of the Committee.
    The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): I am grateful, my Lord Chairman. It is simply to indicate, I hope for the assistance of the Committee, that we have taken the view that this is an extremely important Bill. I have discussed matters with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General, and it has been agreed, therefore, that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, as the Minister from the Lord Chancellor's department, will deal with Part 1 and the Attorney-General will deal with Part 2. I hope that that is helpful.
    Title postponed.
    Lord Smith of Cliftonmoved Amendment No. 1:
    Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
    "THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
    Aims of the Criminal Justice System

    AIMS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
    (1) The principal aim of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland is to protect the public by reducing crime and the fear of crime.

    (2) All persons and bodies exercising functions in relation to the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland must have regard to that principal aim in exercising their functions.

    CWH 2

    (3) With a view to promoting confidence in the administration of the criminal justice system, all such persons and bodies must also have regard to the need to operate a system which is independent, fair, accessible, open, inclusive, effective and protective of human rights.

    (4) Each agency working in the criminal justice system shall publish statements of ethics covering all those employed or holding office in that agency."

    The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland. The reason for so doing is that there is some disappointment that the Bill does not put human rights at the centre of the reforms in the way in which the criminal justice review recommended.
    [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 3.32 to 3.42 p.m.]
    Lord Smith of Clifton: It is a disappointment that the Bill does not put human rights at the centre of the reforms in the way in which the criminal justice review recommended. The first 16 recommendations of that review, all on human rights, have not been reflected in the Bill at all. A glance at the index on page 151 of the implementation plan, which accompanied the publication of the Bill, makes that clear. The plan states, in relation to almost all of those recommendations, that their implementation is ongoing but, in nearly every instance, it provides no timetable, however imprecise. At several other points in the Bill, the opportunity has been missed to include references to relevant international standards on human rights.
    Perhaps the most glaring omission in the Bill is the failure to include any statement of the aims of the criminal justice system. While the review did not actually recommend that those aims should be contained in the legislation, we see no good reason why they should not be. After all, the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 already contains a section stating the functions of the police service and Clause 52 of the Bill sets out the aims of the youth justice system. We propose that the Bill as a whole be amended to set out clearly the aims of the adult criminal justice system. One of those aims should be at the forefront—the promotion and protection of human rights. I beg to move.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): I hope Members of the Committee will be pleased to know that we are publishing a revised implementation plan with more detail, especially on timetables after Royal Assent. Members of the Committee will know that the review did not recommend, as the noble Lord indicated, that the aims of the criminal justice system should be put in statute. We do not believe that the review group felt that that was necessary. While this Bill is extensive, it does not attempt to cover all areas of the criminal justice system; moreover, the Government are not convinced that there is a need to place those general aims on the face of the Bill. We are not convinced either that the amendment adequately covers all we would want to say, which does not mean that we do not have sympathy with the sentiments

    CWH 3
    expressed by the noble Lord. The review recommended that we publish a set of purpose and aims for the criminal justice system; that was published at the end of last year.
    That publication states that our purpose is to support the administration of justice, to promote confidence in the criminal justice system and to contribute to the reduction of crime and the fear of crime. It also sets out the following aims: first, to provide an independent, fair and effective criminal justice system for the community; secondly, to work together to help reduce crime and the fear of crime; thirdly, to make the criminal justice system as open, inclusive and accessible as possible and to promote confidence in the administration of justice; and, fourthly, to improve service delivery by enhancing levels of effectiveness, efficiency and co-operation within the criminal justice system.
    As I said earlier, that publication demonstrates that we have sympathy with the sentiments expressed by Members of the Committee but the review also recommended that the Bill should include a clear statement of the aims and principles of the youth justice system. That is referred to in Clause 52. I hope that Members of the Committee will be comforted by what I have said and agree to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Glentoran: I start by welcoming the noble Baroness to Northern Ireland affairs. I believe that this is the first occasion in which she has taken part directly in that regard. I have previously been known to say that if there is one person whose side I always want to be on, with regard to advocates, it is that of the noble Baroness. Unfortunately, on this occasion, that is not the case.
    I have only one substantive point to make on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Smith. It concerns subsection (4) of the amendment, which goes a little over the top. To publish aims is fine but to go to the extent that each agency working in the criminal justice system has to publish statements of ethics and so on is neither necessary nor appropriate in the Bill. Furthermore, so far as human rights are concerned, that is dealt with on the front page of the Bill anyway.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I do not quarrel with the principal aim of the amendment but, as other provisions in the Bill tend to weaken the capacity of the judicial system, it is probably somewhat unrealistic to expect the judiciary to "protect the public". Nor is the new police service, in its much weakened position, capable of protecting the public, given that public protection is deteriorating with every day that passes. However, the intention is that the Bill will not be implemented for a year—until after the Assembly elections next year. It may therefore be that the new proposed Army-based counter-terrorist Anglo-Irish task force—whatever it is going to be—may be
    CWH 4
    effective by that time in giving real protection to the public, provided that that new task force is not weakened.
    Lord Glentoran: The noble Lord said that the Bill is not due for implementation until after the next election. As I understand the situation, from Clause 86, it will not be implemented until such time as the Government decide that the situation is such that it may be implemented. I seek clarification from the noble Baroness.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is right when he expresses that view.
    Lord Smith of Clifton: I shall read carefully what the Minister has said in Hansard and may well come back to this on Report. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 1 [Guarantee of continued judicial independence]:
    Lord Desaimoved Amendment No. 2:
    Page 1, line 6, leave out "continued
    The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 2 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4 which is grouped with it. These amendments relate to the issue of independence. Amendment No. 4 derives from the definition of independence of the judiciary from the United Nations principles of independence of the judiciary. It is a straightforward quotation from that document and therefore is self-explanatory.
    With Amendment No. 2 I seek to remove the word "continued" because it is not necessary when talking about independence. I apologise to the Committee because I did not speak on Second Reading, but during that debate many noble Lords paid tribute to all those who have worked in the justice system in Northern Ireland, and I join them in paying that tribute. But as the Criminal Justice Review Group made clear, there are some differences of opinion about the question of independence. It is not necessary to bring forward those problems here; the past is past and the word "continued" is not strictly necessary. I beg to move.
    Lord Glentoran: I have no argument with Amendment No. 2, but Amendment No. 4 is perhaps unfortunate. The legal profession—the judiciary—is one element in Northern Ireland that has never been criticized—never is probably too strong a word, but virtually never—for its findings and performance over the past 30 years. To suggest that we need to include in the Bill a direction to the judiciary to decide matters before them impartially is, perhaps I may say, tactless—without wishing in any way to be rude to the noble Lord.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I part company in the most gentle way from my noble friend Lord Glentoran because I do believe Amendment No. 2 presents a problem. When speaking to the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, justified it on the ground that the

    CWH 5
    word "continued" is unnecessary. I had thought, therefore, that the noble Lord would argue the point on the basis of drafting eloquence.
    However, the substantial reason for the amendment became clear a moment later when the noble Lord said that there are some differences of opinion, or words to that effect, as to whether judges are independent in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. I had rather gathered from the noble Lord that he too had no doubts about that. To the extent that there may be some doubt, then it is all the more important that Parliament should dismiss it by expressing its confidence in the continued independence of the judiciary: that is, in expressing its confidence that judges in Northern Ireland are independent at the moment.
    With regard to Amendment No. 4, I very much endorse what my noble friend has just said. This is the very stuff of the judicial function and it would be otiose and verging upon the odious should we see fit to set them out for a judiciary in whom we have such confidence. I hope very much that this amendment in turn will be withdrawn.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I endorse many of the comments made by the noble Lord, and would say to my noble friend that it is right that this is a very sensitive issue. There is no doubt that, to date, the independence of the judiciary has stood Northern Ireland in very good stead. We certainly would do nothing and say nothing that could undermine or in any way detract from that. The purpose of the clause making specific reference to the "continued" independence of the judiciary is precisely because the judiciary is currently independent and must be seen to continue so to be. We respectfully suggest that in that context the word has some pertinence and added significance.
    The clause already includes a duty on those responsible for the administration of justice to uphold the independence of the judiciary. The Bill also includes an oath in Clause 19 in which the judges promise to
    "do right to all manner of people without fear or favour".
    The amendment seems to cover all that ground again, but in different and perhaps rather less precise language. I recognise that the wording comes from the UN principles on the independence of the judiciary, but these principles are just that—they are not supposed to be binding legal wording. Of course, judges must act without bias or the appearance of bias. That is already the law and the amendment is not needed to ensure it, although I understand the reason why my noble friend Lord Desai tabled it. I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Desai: I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken on the amendment. My purpose was to highlight one or two issues. It hardly needs to be said that these are all sensitive issues when we speak on Northern Ireland and I recognise the sensitivities. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 3:
    Page 1, line 6, at end insert "and the legal profession"
    The noble Lord said: I tabled the amendment principally because of significant lobbying from the Law Society of Northern Ireland. The amendment simply affirms the importance of a genuinely independent legal profession as a whole. The existence of an independent legal profession is vital in the protection of human rights, not only in so far as this involves the framing of just laws and procedures, but also in the robust and independent application and defence of those laws and procedures.
    This point has been made repeatedly by the Law Society of Northern Ireland and I have been struck by the strength of its case. It seems clear that an independent judiciary should be able to rely on an independent legal profession.
    I am equally struck, reading Commons Hansard, by the flimsiness of the Government's case opposing this. I hope that I am correct in saying that the Government's principal objection to the amendment is that the implications for the regulation of a profession that is currently self-regulating are too far-reaching. On that basis they say that they will not give it serious consideration.
    I do not see in the amendment the pitfalls perceived by the Government. These pitfalls rest on the assumption that there is some kind of absolute independence—that the legal profession is somehow independent from the law. Members of the legal profession in the UK are subject to the discipline of criminal law in the same way as any other profession.
    The Bill includes a statutory guarantee of judicial and prosecutorial independence. The Government have rightly identified the independence of the judiciary and the prosecution process as a key issue in maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice, but I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why the legal profession has been excluded from this guarantee. Is there not a parallel need for the independence of the legal profession to be affirmed? I beg to move.
    4 p.m.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am more than happy to see if I can assist the noble Lord in relation to this matter. The Bill currently requires those with responsibility for the administration of justice to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary. This was recommended by the review because of the paramount importance of an independent judiciary. The idea of extending this provision beyond what the review recommended to include the legal professions has been debated in the other place, as noble Lords will know. The debate did not clarify what the effect of the amendment would be and the Government are reluctant to add provisions to the statute hook when neither we nor anyone else are clear on what they will mean in practice. Perhaps If may explore a few of our potential concerns on the amendment.

    CWH 7
    The first is the concept of independence, which the noble Lord has already touched on. The independence of the legal profession is different from the independence of the judiciary. We think it would be confusing to combine them. Secondly, a statutory provision could have unforeseen side-effects, possibly interfering with the profession's self-regulation by introducing a degree of government regulation. I am not clear how those responsible for the administration of justice would be able to protect independence in this case. If I might ask rhetorically, what does independence mean in the context, for example, of solicitors working on litigation between two private sector clients?
    I can understand, to some extent, the motivation for the amendment. The legal professions in Northern Ireland operate sometimes in very difficult circumstances. I can also see why noble Lords are suggesting that we offer some form of protection. However, we are wary about putting through Parliament legislation that commits us to an idea that has not been tested. One of the duties of government is critically to assess changes that are proposed by interested groups. In our view, the amendment does not pass that test.
    I would be grateful if noble Lords would bear in mind that this clause should be seen in the context of Part 1 of the Bill, which makes radical changes to the means of appointment and removal of judges. In that context, Clause 1 has special resonance and we make no comparable changes to the structure of the legal professions. We believe that, at the moment, the independence of both professions is properly guarded by their respective bodies. There is no basis at the moment for an indication that we should make a significant change in that regard and bring greater distinction between the professions in the other part of Great Britain.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: The noble Baroness touched on a sensitive nerve when she said "at the moment", as the Committee is probably in some difficulty, given that later clauses provide for interference and contamination of the judiciary. The amendment seems a sensible precaution, because, hopefully, we may be able to reduce the hideous danger of what I call the contamination of the judiciary and subjecting the judiciary to unwarranted political interference.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not know whether I can help a little further. Noble Lords will know that the legal profession at the moment is drawn from a wide pool both in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland—a pool from which there is no restriction. The independence of the profession, therefore, is very much supported by the rules and regulations that are operated by the independent monitoring bodies for both parts of the profession—solicitors and barristers. None of that is proposed to change, so their intrinsic independence will be maintained. At the moment, there seems no reason to change the status quo. I say "at the moment". There has not been any reason to
    CWH 8
    change the position for the past 200 years. I cannot say there will be no reason for the next 200 years, but let us wait and see.
    Lord Glentoran: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2 [Introductory]:
    Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 5:
    Page 1, line 10, after "Appeal" insert "or judge of the High Court"
    The noble Lord said: This is the first time I have spoken in a Grand Committee—indeed, it is the first time I have been present in Grand Committee. If I should stray from the straight and narrow or fail to obey the rules and conventions, no doubt the Deputy Chairman will correct me so that I may do better in future.
    The Bill seems to divide judicial appointments into two categories—the list of judicial offices contained in Schedule 1 and what other parts of the Bill refer to as "most senior judicial offices". The amendment would remove the office of judge of the High Court from the list in Schedule 1 and place it with the other most senior judicial offices. The Bill seems rather confused on that issue. Bearing in mind that there are only seven judges of the High Court in Northern Ireland, one must ask whether such judges should be bracketed with Lords Justices of Appeal, or with magistrates and members of the Land Tribunal.
    The implication for judges of the High Court of that relegation in status is that they will fall under the proposed Judicial Appointments Commission. Given recent events in relation to the appointment of the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland, those political appointment panels inevitably prove controversial. Members of the Committee should note that although the Judicial Appointments Commission will not involve Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly—Members of the Assembly are appointed to the Policing Board—nevertheless representatives to the Judicial Appointments Commission will be made by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
    Under the old Stormont regime, the appointment of High Court judges was reserved to Westminster. The line was drawn below the High Court level. The notion of the appointments procedure is accepted but I have described the way in which lines are drawn. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In relation to the devolution process, it is intended that a greater number of matters will be devolved than was anticipated in 1972 because we are dealing with a fresh situation. The amendments were considered in another place and the intention is to give High Court judges the same appointment procedures and tenure as the Lord Chief Justice and Lords Justices of Appeal. We do not accept that that is a necessary amendment. The review makes it clear that the Judicial

    CWH 9
    Appointments Commission should appoint all judges, up to and including High Court judges. This is what the Bill provides for and that is what the noble Lord's amendment would remove.
    The Government agree with the review that it is appropriate to differentiate at this level. We are very much in agreement with the line that was taken in relation to Scotland, where appointments and removal to the equivalent level are devolved. We do not see any basis at the moment to differentiate between the judgment made by the review and the position taken in relation to the Scottish model.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I support, perhaps tentatively, the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, who moved the amendment. At present, High Court judges are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Becoming a High Court judge is always regarded as a significant step up in the hierarchy of seniority from being a county court judge. It is very important that that should be maintained and recognised—a High Court judge, in his criminal jurisdiction, has, after all, jurisdiction to try the most serious criminal offences and to impose the most serious criminal sentences. In his civil jurisdiction, he has power under the judicial review procedure to make orders of the most far-reaching consequence. In his civil jurisdiction, there is no limit to the value of the cases that may be tried. The fact that there are only seven High Court judges in Northern Ireland seems to highlight the crucial importance of appointing judges by reference, explicitly and patently, to their merit. It is more important that they should be of such merit than that many of those who appear in the list in Schedule 1 should be of that merit, by reason of the fact that their jurisdiction is so much more important. The Government need to ask themselves—and share with us the answer—why a separate procedure is envisaged in the Bill for Court of Appeal judges. I suggest that the answer is because they have very much greater authority in the sense that with them lies—subject to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords—ultimate appeal within Northern Ireland.
    That is a question of balance and of hunch. I see the importance of following, where possible, the recommendations of the excellent review. That is a weighty matter. In this regard, there is a substantial case for excluding from the appointment of the Judicial Appointments Commission the appointments of the seven High Court judges. I do not wish to say more at the moment. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain why the break point should be between High Court judge and Court of Appeal judge rather than between county court judge and High Court judge.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord in relation to the importance of the role played by all High Court judges. He rightly said that the appointment of a High Court judge is an indication of the highest possible merit. If I may respectively say so, however, that is as true of England and Wales as it is of Northern Ireland. It has to be borne in mind that the seven High Court judges in
    CWH 10
    Northern Ireland are responsible for 1.5 million people. The judges in England and Wales—they are equally important and equally discharging weighty matters—are responsible for an equal if not greater number of citizens of our country.
    The real reason—the review recognises this—is that the Lord Chief Justice and Lords Justices of Appeal are Privy Counsellors with wider UK responsibilities. At the level of a High Court judge, of course, the High Court judge's jurisdiction is in relation to Northern Ireland or England and Wales. At that stage, there is a separation. One has to look at a situation where devolution will mean that justice should properly be entrusted to the new devolved administration. It was, therefore, thought right and proper that the line should be drawn at the level below that at which the judges become Privy Counsellors with UK-wide responsibility. That was the line drawn in relation to Scotland. It was thought right that a similar line should be drawn in relation to Northern Ireland so that it will be given the same trust and confidence if in due course that all appears to be merited and may enable the devolution of justice matters to them to take place.
    It is always going to be difficult to draw the line at the right place. Arguments will doubtless be made either way. Some would perhaps have urged that the line be drawn higher and some—as they do today—that it should be lower. The review got it about right and it should, therefore, be supported. There is some sense in the way in which the matter has been put forward. We would, therefore, respectfully adopt it and invite those Members of the Committee to be more comfortable with it than they have perhaps been hitherto.
    Viscount Brookeborough: I am fearful of venturing into this debate because I am a lay person in judicial matters. However, I must own up to being a member of the Policing Board in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, referred to the Policing Board and the recent appointment of a Chief Constable for Northern Ireland.
    As I understand it, the High Court Judges are the highest part of our internal judicial system in Northern Ireland. The Policing Board has appointed a new Chief Constable. I was not on the sub-committee that did it, but he was appointed by the board and ultimately by the Secretary of State. However, there is a tremendous row going on at the moment about that appointment.
    We are all aware that the Policing Board consists of political and independent members. I am an independent member of it. I am as independent as the other independent members, but every one of them is labelled in the public's view as being on one side or the other, with the possible exception of one person from an ethnic minority in Northern Ireland. There is no question about the public perception of the make-up of the Policing Board or any committee of it. That is why we are having a row.
    As a member of the board, I have no doubt about the integrity of the people who took part in that choice of Chief Constable. However, it is not what happened

    CWH 11
    within the confidentiality of that meeting or series of meetings that is perhaps having a detrimental effect on the person who may be taking up that post and the people who were rejected; it is what the public perceive.
    If that system works in Scotland, that is okay for Scotland. We are talking about justice within Northern Ireland. We are trying to do something far sooner than many of us would have expected four or five years ago or even last year. Therefore, the perception of this is going to be all-important. I honestly do not think it is the right time to do it at present.
    Secondly, the Minister has twice already hidden behind this review and what the review says. Later on we will find that the Government will disagree with the review. I beg to suggest that the review is not a Bible on what is right and what is wrong. This could have very serious consequences in Northern Ireland if it is perceived by the public to be wrong. I have no doubt that when the commission is appointed it will be made up of people of the utmost integrity who will not permit their background—whatever it may be—to interfere with their decision.
    4.15 p.m.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: May I take advantage of the rules of this Grand Committee to come back again, I hope not at undue length? What we have just heard is very much from the noble horse's mouth, and I suggest that we should take it very much to heart. In the whole of my time dealing with Irish affairs—which of course is minuscule compared with that of many who sit opposite, but it goes back ministerially for a period of nine or more years—I have never heard it seriously suggested that the judges were other than completely impartial.
    As it happens, it was a matter of felicity that in the High Court at least the judges from the main minority—the Catholic community—represented the demographic proportion of their religion, and sometimes a shade more. The point was that they were appointed not by machinery originating within Northern Ireland, but by the Lord Chancellor—of course, by reference to the judges in Northern Ireland and other proper sources, I do not doubt. I hasten to add, however, that they never included the Executive, nor should they have done so.
    We have just heard a cogent explanation of why it is important that that should not be disturbed and how readily foreseeable it is that suspicion will arise if it is disturbed. That should be taken very much to heart. From my standpoint, I certainly see it as soundly and realistically based.
    The Minister said that the distinction between a High Court judge and a Court of Appeal judge was that the latter was a member of the Privy Council. That, of course, is true—it is a formal distinction. However, I would like the Minister to help the Committee—if not now, perhaps at a later stage—with such instances as are recorded of the extent to which, by virtue of being members of the Privy Council, Court
    CWH 12
    of Appeal judges in Northern Ireland have exercised UK responsibilities. It may be that they have, but I cannot call any instance to mind. It may be that they sit, not infrequently, in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but I do not think so. If that is to be the ground of the distinction, perhaps we could be told— if not now, at a later stage—how often the extra jurisdiction is exercised.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am certainly willing to try to help the Committee on that matter. The importance, of course, is the ability or eligibility to exercise it on a UK-wide basis, as opposed to restricting it to a jurisdictional basis. The noble and learned Lord will fully understand that, whether it is discharged or not—or exercised or not—the distinction is that there is residual power or discretion to so exercise. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept that that is, indeed, a material distinction between the two.
    The Government will devolve the powers only when we are confident that the structures will bear it and that the parties are ready. For example, there will need to be a cross-community vote in the Assembly in favour, so it will not happen before everyone is ready.
    We must also bear in mind several further points. First, we do not treat the review as a Bible from which we cannot detract any jot; we take it seriously. Only if there is good cause to depart from the reasoning of the review do we think that it is right to do so. The Committee will know the amount of work, effort and commitment that brought the review into being. It would almost be an act of vandalism, if I may respectfully say so, to dismiss the recommendations made by the review body, without giving them the most careful and the most judicious consideration. We have made that balance in the way in which we have sought to respond to the recommendations.
    Members of the Committee will also be aware that Clause 5(8) provides that the selection of persons for appointment to the office must be done solely on the basis of merit. That merit-based test will continue to apply to High Court judges, and it is simply not right to say that the High Court judges in Northern Ireland, of whom there are in fact eight and not seven—we do not want to displease the eighth member, who may think that they have somehow been neglected—will in some way be the final point of recourse for the citizens of Northern Ireland. The citizens of Northern Ireland will continue to have access to the higher judiciary above the High Court judge, so it is not the end of the road, so far as the citizen in Northern Ireland is concerned.
    The important thing is deciding where to draw the line. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, is absolutely right to say that there has never been a suggestion that those who discharge that onerous but honourable duty have done it in anything other than a totally honourable and independent way, without fear or favour for either or both parts of the community. There is no indication that the pool of talented lawyers from whom the High Court judiciary in Northern Ireland has traditionally been drawn has

    CWH 13
    in any way shrunk. I am sure that Members of the Committee know better than I do the courage, determination and fortitude that it takes to be a really first-class professional lawyer in Northern Ireland. It is from that pool that we have taken our judges in the past, and it is from the same pool that we shall take them in the future. As the noble and learned Lord rightly says, we have had judges from both sides of the divide and all have discharged their duties in a way that we would commend.
    I understand that this is difficult for noble Lords, but there comes a time when we have to invest a certain element of trust and confidence. If, in due course, we believe that the structures will bear it and the parties are ready, that will be the time when this matter will have to be handed over. Noble Lords know far better than I do that one can never guarantee when that time will be.
    It may be important for me to clarify something that was said in response to an earlier question from the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. It is not correct to say that the Bill is not to be implemented until after the next Assembly elections. Many of the provisions will certainly be commenced before Assembly elections and others may be commenced before any Act or devolution of justice functions. The main target relates solely to the devolution of justice functions, on which some of the Bill's provisions are dependent. Some of those justice provisions may take a little longer.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Is her interpretation that the parts which will be implemented will be those that would result from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister being unable or unwilling to act jointly in terms of the wording of the Bill? Will that be the dividing factor timewise for the devolution of the most important powers in the Bill? As the Bill stands, decisions on the appointment or, believe it or not, the dismissal of judges have to be taken by the two Ministers acting jointly. The laws and the constitution of the Assembly require the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to be of different political parties and of different religions.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord's contribution aptly demonstrates the complexity of this issue. The best I can do is to reply in the way I replied earlier, namely that we shall devolve only when we are confident that the structures will bear it and the parties are ready for it. That judgement will have to be made in due course, but we understand the importance and delicacy of that judgment and the need to be proportionate and balanced.
    Lord Glentoran: I have nothing much to add except to say that my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, have made strong and clear arguments as to why we believe that the Government have got it wrong on this occasion. That is my position as the spokesman for my party.
    Lord Rogan: Could the Minister give me guidance on what criteria the Government would use in deciding that such functions could be transferred to Northern Ireland?
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I can do no better than quote what was said by my right honourable friend John Reid in relation to the Criminal Justice Review Implementation Plan. On page 2 he says,
    "Once the devolved institutions are working effectively, the Government intend to devolve responsibility for policing and justice functions, as set out in the Belfast Agreement. We need first to take some major steps to implement the Criminal Justice Review and to make some more progress on detailed implementation of the Patten report. A final decision to devolve these functions can only be taken at the time taking account of security and other relevant considerations. But the Government's target is to devolve policing and justice after the Assembly elections scheduled for May 2003".
    4.30 p.m.
    Lord Fitt: I would be very apprehensive of the involvement of any political figures in Northern Ireland with regard to judicial appointments. Throughout the debate in another place, we were told that the target date is after the Assembly elections of 2003—next year. Again, we have been asked what criteria the Government will set down or abide by and whether or not to devolve the institutions. At the moment, the Assembly seems to have cross-community support. What happens, however, if the elections in Northern Ireland in 2003 throw up a different set of candidates, who will not have the support of the majority of Members in this House?
    Those Members who will be elected then, whether we like it or not, will have been elected by the democratic process of voting in Northern Ireland. We are putting ourselves in the position of saying, "We don't like the result of this election, we don't like what the electorate has tried to do so we will not devolve these powers". We are in fact overarching the decision that will have been taken by people in Northern Ireland. Unless we agree with the composition of the political Assembly which is going to be established, those powers will not be devolved.
    Perhaps I have been around the House for longer than most. We are talking of political influence in the appointment of judges. Other judges, in this House and in another place, have said that there has never been any political influence. I do not believe that for one moment. There was and always has been political influence in the appointment of judges in Northern Ireland.
    I shall illustrate the case. In the early 1970s I was approached by certain members of the legal profession in Northern Ireland to see what I could do to secure the appointment of a particular judge, who was then a QC. He had a fantastic war record in every respect but he had something against him: he was a Catholic. There was no way, in the opinion of the lawyers who approached me, that he was going to get the job. I took it upon myself to go to the then Lord Chancellor, Gerald Gardiner, and the Attorney-General, Elwyn Jones, and I gave the CV of the QC to them. They

    CWH 15
    agreed wholeheartedly with me that he was a very suitable person for the appointment. They then told me on the Terrace of the House that they were having great difficulty with the Northern Ireland government, who wanted to appoint someone who had been a former Unionist MP as the judge. An argument waged between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Northern Ireland government about whether the person should be appointed. The relatives of the judge could give their own evidence on that. At the end of the day, the Lord Chancellor said to me, "We cannot overcome all the objections that had been raised by the Northern Ireland government, who want to appoint this particular judge because he was a former Unionist MP. Do you know what we will do to find the easiest way out of this? We will appoint two judges".
    I put that case to Members of the Committee to illustrate the fact that there has always been political influence in Northern Ireland. As the noble Viscount said, the Policing Board had a tremendous row about the appointment of the new Chief Constable of Northern Ireland. The nationalists wanted a particular person whom the Unionists did not, and it finished up in an unmerciful row. It will be exactly the same if there is any political influence—cross-community or otherwise—in the appointment of senior judges in Northern Ireland.
    To the Minister, I pose again a question that has already been asked: what happens if the First Minister and his deputy cannot find agreement on a recommendation? Such appointments will be riddled with difficulties of all sorts if there is any political element in the appointment of members of the judiciary.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand the noble Lord's concern about those matters. Of course, we are considering the difficulties that will arise if there is conflict between the two. We believe that the model outlined in the Bill will deal with the situation, and we must keep the issue in perspective. The Judicial Appointments Commission will have 13 members, including the Lord Chief Justice. It is only the five lay members—a minority—who will be appointed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and they must be appointed jointly.
    The way in which the commission has been structured creates the balance that should make sure that merit is put first and becomes the only criterion that will determine appointment. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the inclusion of the Lord Chief Justice as the chairperson of the commission will be a powerful instrument for independence and will ensure that the right importance is given to merit as the appropriate criterion for making that decision.
    Viscount Brookeborough: The appointment of the Chief Constable was mention—not, in the first place, by me—and it has been emphasised by the Minister that the appointment of the judiciary will be
    CWH 16
    by merit only. I can assure the Committee that the decision on the appointment of the new Chief Constable was based on merit only.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I cast no aspersions in relation to that matter. The only point that I sought to make was that the balance was different. Within that membership, there is an overwhelming independent element. We are not suggesting that the independent members are not independent but, as the noble Viscount said, it is perhaps easier to identify certain members of the community with a view, whether they hold it or not. The way in which this has been structured helps to mitigate any such concern.
    Viscount Brookeborough: The independents are in the minority. There are 10 political appointments and nine independents.
    Lord Tebbit: What moves the Minister to think that, say, Mr Paisley and Mr Adams would have the same ideas about the merit of individuals as I or the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, or even the Minister herself might have?
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is an enticing thought for us to consider. There are some solutions for cases on which the First Minister and Deputy First Minister cannot agree. Clause 5(7) provides that,
    "The First Minister and deputy First Minister must, on being informed by the Commission of the outcome of the reconsideration of its decision, appoint, or recommend for appointment, the person selected by the Commission after the reconsideration".
    So, although they can send it back, the second recommendation made by the commission must be accepted. I hope that that provides a means out of the conundrum that the noble Lord so delighted us by suggesting.
    Lord Rogan: If I have understood the Minister correctly, she was arguing that the impartiality and fairness of the Judicial Appointments Commission will be guaranteed by its professional make-up, with those members from the legal profession. If that is the case and if that is what she meant, why bother having five or six lay persons at all?
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is all a question of balance. The decision will be made on the criterion of merit and merit alone, but it is right that those who come to make the decision should listen to all parts of the debate so that they can weigh it appropriately before coming to a well and properly informed decision, as opposed to one that may be seen to be influenced by prejudice or lack of balance. We think that the current balance of 13 members, five of whom are lay, is about right. It allows the commission to consider the issues that are important across the board, but it enables decisions to be based on the needs and qualities that will be of the utmost importance in appointing the right judicial officer for a post of this gravity.
    Lord Rogan: I have heard the arguments and at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
    Clause 2 agreed to.
    Lord Desaimoved Amendment No. 7:
    After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
    "JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
    Those responsible for making appointments under this Part shall as far as practicable ensure that the judiciary, as a group, are representative of the community in Northern Ireland."
    The noble Lord said: The amendment was in effect discussed when we debated the merits of the representativeness of these bodies. The principle of independence has been recognised, but the other important principle was the representativeness of this institution. Many of the institutions said that in consequence of the Belfast agreement this principle has been followed in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Parades Commission and the Policing Board. It is important that we have representativeness in the Judicial Appointments Commission. Whatever else we may have a problem with, under-representation on the Judicial Appointments Commission would be very bad. I do not think that anybody can disagree with that. Although I recognise from the discussion that having a representative commission does not necessarily solve all political differences—and I would be very surprised if the appointment of the chief of police was an uncontroversial decision in Northern Ireland in any case—the important point is that communities are represented and have had their say and at the end of that we have a decision. Representativeness is an important principle and I therefore urge the Grand Committee to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
    Lord Tebbit: I hate to find myself in any sort of conflict with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, but I think that there is a problem with the amendment. The amendment itself has great merit, but Clause 5(8) says:
    "The selection of a person by the Commission to be appointed, or recommended for appointment, to an office … must be made solely on the basis of merit."
    That seems to he in conflict with a requirement to take into account which community they represent. The new clause does not seem to be compatible with Clause 5(8).
    4.45 p.m.
    Lord Desai: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. In other institutions, such as the Policing Board, where the same principle has been followed, no one has said that those who have been appointed are not people of merit. It will not appoint people who lack merit just because they are representative but, from the large pool of people of merit that we have available, we should look to the element of representation as an important principle.
    Lord Glentoran: It is with some sadness that I find, in such debates, that I am never in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Desai. We can be good friends elsewhere, but we rarely seem to agree on Northern Ireland matters. Once again, I have to disagree with the noble Lord on his amendment.
    The business of being "representative of the community" has become such a loose, almost journalistic phrase that it would be inappropriate to incorporate it into a Bill as important and objective as this one must be.
    Lord Laird: While I have some sympathy with the concept behind the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. These are loose words. Let us take the example of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which is supposed to be representative of the entire community. Despite that, large sections of the community are left out.
    A further example, which I know well, is that there is no representative of the Unionist "No" community, no representative of the Evangelical community, and no representative of the Ulster-Scots community. This is an issue on which I, along with the human rights groups with which I am associated, am totally in synch with the Pat Finucane Centre in Londonderry. We have jointly made representations to the Northern Ireland Office to see whether we can achieve better representation. The phrase "representative of the community" means what anyone wants it to mean.
    Lord Shutt of Greetland: I should like to speak to this amendment. While I am happy with the spirit behind it, there are difficulties with the word "representative". In Northern Ireland, if five people are together and the word "representative" is mentioned, there would be one from the DUP, one from Sinn Fein, one from the SDLP, one from the UUP and a person whose children go to an integrated school. If it is not, someone will say, "Our lot are not represented". That is the problem with the word "representative".
    If the word "reflective" rather than "representative" were to be used, that would be a far more acceptable amendment to the Bill. Perhaps what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has suggested is this: if one stands back and considers that group of five people, do they look like a group who, by and large, are reflective of the community of Northern Ireland?
    Lord Hylton: The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, may perhaps have a point about the precise wording of this amendment. I am sure that Members of the Committee agree that appointments at this level should be made entirely on merit. Nevertheless, in the past there have been far too many instances of accused persons being brought before the court and then refusing to accept the jurisdiction of that court. That is probably what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is trying to counter. I believe that he seeks to make the judiciary

    CWH 19
    as representative of the whole as possible. I hope that the Government will look with a sympathetic eye on the spirit and intention of his amendment.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I recognise the good intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, but it is extremely difficult to incorporate this kind of language into the statute book.
    In paragraph 6.87 of the report of the review, which I do not propose to quote, it is clear that while careful consideration was given to using the word "representative", the group actually preferred the word "reflective". However, in my view, it is not capable of meaning anything in practical terms—in the real and practical interpretation that has been given to it in Northern Ireland—other than that it is probably representative of the religious split. That is what is meant by the community. We have all tried to insist for years on referring to "the community". The reality is that there are two communities, and various sub-communities as well.
    It is important that we do not give legislative encouragement to the notion that the principal division is always going to be by reference to religion. I cannot see any other criterion by reference to which representation of the community is going to be made in Ireland. How can it be made by reference to political allegiance? Judges are not expected to have any political allegiance. Certainly barristers or solicitors who are being considered for appointments to the Bench ought not to be considered by reference to their political allegiance, if any.
    We should take advantage here of the consideration and advice given by the review body, and, while acknowledging that it would be very nice if nobody could ever say, "Well, of course, that chap who tried my case has nothing in common with me", the truth of the matter is that one will always get that. When people in the past refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the court, it had nothing to do with the religion of the judge or what part of the community he came from. There were other reasons for that, as we all know.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for tabling the amendment, and for the comments that have been made by a number of noble Lords. In relation to the exercise of judicial office, it is right that we should all bear in mind that all judges represent the impartial rule of law as opposed to any particular community. The oath in Clause 19 that we are going to invite each of our judges to take makes it clear that they will do,
    "right to all manner of people without fear of favour, affection or ill-will according to the laws and usages of this realm".
    The idea of a statutory requirement to secure a reflective judiciary has been discussed in another place, where the notion was resisted because of the fears that appointing a judiciary with regard to reflectiveness could undermine the merit principle, which could lead to the undesirable criticism that judges were appointed to even up the numbers rather than on merit.
    CWH 20
    That is clearly not the intention of the review, which recommended that merit should remain paramount. Everyone present in the Committee today would agree with that sentiment.
    It is also right for us to bear in mind the situation in Northern Ireland as it is today, not as it was 30 years ago. We all know that there is a very good pool of candidates from both communities and of both sexes who would be capable of being appointed to judicial office. Provided that people apply for these posts from both parts of the community, we are confident that the judiciary will reflect the wider community. We believe that strict application of the merit principle will ensure that that happens.
    It is also right for us to emphasise that, whether we say "representative" or "reflective", this does not just cover the two religious communities in Northern Ireland; it also covers gender, ethnicity and community background, both when used in this context and elsewhere on the statute book.
    Bearing in mind the sensitivity that exists around this issue, it would not be right to accept the amendment, even if it were amended to say "reflective", because it may then lead to the suggestion that we are inviting our judges to dispense justice in accordance with the precepts upon which their community is run. I know that no-one in this Committee would wish to do that. As we said, the judges have done a robust and brave job. To the best of my knowledge and belief—I am sure that noble Lords will correct me if I am wrong—all judges, irrespective of where they hail from, have, to date, dispensed justice in the cases that have come before them with the same degree of impartiality, regardless of whether they are Unionist or Catholic.
    Lord Desai: I thank everyone who has spoken. I see the dilemma: we do not want to think that the judges are, in some sense, delegates of the community. I did not suggest that they should be. I did not even set down what constituencies they would be representative of; I just suggested that they,
    "are representative of the community".
    I recognise that there is a problem, and we must live with it. It seems that, by some mysterious process, those appointed will eventually be reflective—or whatever word we use—of the community without our putting down any stipulation to ensure it. No matter how good those people are, we shall have problems if the community does not consider that they reflect it. For the time being, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule 1 [Listed judicial offices]:
    [Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
    Schedule 1 agreed to.
    Clause 3 [Judicial Appointments Commission]:
    [Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 10:
    Page 2, line 30, leave out "five" and insert "six"

    CWH 21
    The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 10, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 11 and the others. The amendments concern the make-up of the appointments commission. The first two deal with the membership of the Judicial Appointments Commission and propose a re-balancing of the numbers. The others deal with the qualifications of the lay members.
    I am rather loath to say what I am going to say, but I shall do so nonetheless. We are talking about the review as if it were the Bible, which it is not. The review did not recommend a precise figure for the membership of the commission. It says:
    "In total the Commission might consist of around five judicial members, two from the professions and four or five lay members".
    My amendment would ensure that there was a majority on the commission of members of the judiciary. It seems to me, from the many discussions that I have had about the topic, that the appointments for which the commission is responsible are objectively judicial-legal. If we are to stay with the merit principle throughout—I sincerely hope that we will—we must have a majority of people on the appointments commission who are able to assess, balance and judge the merit of the various lawyers who will come before them for promotion and appointment.
    It can be argued one way or another, but I am assured by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden that a barrister is certainly not a member of the judiciary. If we examine the numbers, we will find that there are seven lay and six judiciary members, including the chairman. That balance is wrong, and there should be a clear majority of members of the judiciary on the appointments commission.
    I propose to change the figures from five to six, in one case, and from five to four, in the lay case. That creates a clear balance. Our debate on the previous amendment is relevant. If we stand over the fact that these people will be independent human beings and will be there on merit, I believe that there would be a much better chance of maintaining the merit principle and of maintaining the exceptionally high standards of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, than if we were to allow the balance to drift. Whether it involved a 50:50 split or perhaps a barrister tying in with the Lord Chief Justice or the chairman to make a deal—which is the way in Northern Ireland—that potentially would lead us into difficulties of a serious order.
    Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 relate to the qualification regarding the lay people. Here and throughout the Bill, the Minister will find that I have tabled amendments with only one clear objective; namely, that the judiciary, along with all those who have anything to do with the judiciary in Northern Ireland, should not only be seen, but be perceived to be totally whiter than white. At this point in our history we cannot have former terrorists, former con men, former criminals, former prisoners and the like involved in any part of our judicial system. That is the purpose of the amendments. I beg to move.
    5 p.m.
    Lord Rogan: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 and, if it aids the speed of debate, to speak also to Amendment No. 19 standing in my name. The whole of Clause 3 provides for the Judicial Appointments Commission. There is widespread acceptance of a global shift towards the use of such commissions. One cannot oppose the concept of such a commission and I do not seek to do so. However, I am troubled by certain issues with respect to its make-up.
    The use of lay members is questionable in itself, but at least the balance of the commission should favour more strongly the expert judicial members than any others. How could a lay member—one who specifically should not have held and had never held a protected judicial office, who has never been trained as a barrister or a solicitor—be competent to judge on the merits or otherwise of persons to be appointed? The only way I would be able to judge whether a judge was good or bad would be whether or not he found me guilty, should I be before him in a court.
    It must be remembered that lay members are to be restricted to those who have at no time qualified as lawyers or held judicial offices, excluding many academics and other professionals with a legal background. If we insist that lay members should be selected by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and if they are charged with making these appointments, perhaps I may suggest that appointing an even rather than an odd number would produce a better chance of agreement.
    Lord Glentoran: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 14, as the Minister noticed rather sooner than I did. I did not intend to move Amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As noble Lords have rightly pointed out, Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 seek to restrict involvement in the new Judicial Appointments Commission. During the consultation exercise, the review struck a careful balance in its recommendation. Some argued that lay involvement went too far—a view which may be reflected in our Committee—while others felt that it did not go far enough. I believe that the provisions in the Bill are about right. One could almost assume that if no one is happy, then we must have got it right. Amendments Nos. 10 to 13 would amend the membership of the commission in favour of the judiciary and legal professions. They would increase the number of judicial members and decrease the lay membership, opening it to solicitors, barristers and former judges. We believe the review was right to identify the useful contribution that lay members could make to the appointment process. Noble Lords will be aware that a very similar process is well under way in Scotland. Lay members will bring a valuable perspective and alternative skills to this difficult process. I would be the last to suggest that lawyers lack omnificence, but I hear it rumoured elsewhere that this is in fact so. The lay involvement is important for public confidence. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.

    CWH 23
    Similarly Amendment No. 18 would remove the lay magistrate representative of the Judicial Appointments Commission and replace this with a magistrate representative. I am not clear why that is preferable to the resident magistrate, as is already provided for.
    Amendment No. 19 would add a deputy county court judge to the judicial membership of the commission. That would go against the review, which recommended one judicial member from each tier of the judiciary and carefully balanced the number of legal representatives against the number of lay representatives. A deputy county court judge would come from the same tier as a full judge, so they should not be included.
    It may be helpful if I outline the way in which the total of 13 will be made up because I am not sure whether all Members of the Committee are aware of it. The Lord Chief Justice will be in the chair. There will also be one Lord Justice of Appeal, a High Court judge, a county court judge, a resident magistrate and a lay magistrate. Then there are five lay member representatives of the community, one barrister and one solicitor. We think we have the balance right. Looking at models that are being adopted across the board, not just in relation to judicial appointments, it is felt that those who do not come from that particular discipline but may be subject to the acts and omissions of that discipline should participate or have a contribution to make in the selection process, because it enriches the knowledge of those who come to make the selection. The five lay members may add something of real value. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
    Viscount Bridgeman: I have a general point to raise under Clause 5(8), which runs through many of the clauses we have discussed. I would like clarification. This subsection appears to be unconditional and therefore, as I read it, does not permit any other subjective judgment such as reflectivity or representation. Let us consider the case of six candidates for three posts, three from party A and three from party B. The order of merit, as assessed by this clause, puts those from party A at positions one, two and three and those from party B at four, five and six. Is the Minister prepared to live with that situation if my interpretation of the clause is correct?
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Merit would dictate that the best people should be appointed to the post. However, perhaps I should have drawn the Committee's attention to the Government's comments in the Criminal Justice Review Implementation Plan on recommendation 69, which deals with the judiciary being reflective of society. We said:
    "The Government supports the principles of equal opportunity and outreach which seek to stimulate interest in judicial office from sectors that may have been historically under-represented, thus encouraging a greater number of applications from a broader range of candidates suitable for judicial office".
    The Northern Ireland Court Service will take these issues forward in consultation with the Equality Commission.
    CWH 24
    The Judicial Appointments Commission in Northern Ireland, to be appointed in early 2002—referring to recommendation 95—will also have a monitoring role in this area and will be consulted as the systems and policies are developed further. The Government welcome the review's acknowledgement of the continued primacy of the merit principle.
    There will be an active engagement of all parts of the community to apply for these posts. Noble Lords will know that it is rare indeed for merit to be absolutely identical for each candidate. I shall say that there is an active recruitment policy across the board. As I said earlier in my remarks, there is today a pool of talented lawyers from both sides of the community available in Northern Ireland, which was not the case many years ago. It was said then that there was an imbalance in the talent available. We can reasonably anticipate that if there is an active recruitment policy across the board, and if one then applies the merit principle, it is difficult to see how the situation envisaged by the noble Viscount—that of candidates from one group taking positions one, two or three—could arise.
    There will be a monitoring role. However, noble Lords know that in relation to other parts of legislation, such as discrimination on the grounds of sex or race, by monitoring a system it is possible to see whether any systemic discrimination is in operation, to the disadvantage of one group or another. Of course we shall bear that in mind. However, we are confident that there is a sufficiently large pool of talented lawyers from which the selections can be made to ensure that the fear voiced by the noble Viscount is not grounded in fact, although I understand completely his concern.
    Viscount Bridgeman: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that full explanation.
    Lord Glentoran: This has been an interesting debate. I apologise for speaking to an amendment in the following grouping. I give notice to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, that we shall certainly return on Report with Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. For the present, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.]
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 14:
    Page 2, line 39, at end insert—
    "() Any person who has, at any time, been sentenced to a term of imprisonment whether suspended or otherwise for a term in excess of six months shall not be permitted to be appointed as a member under subsection (5)."
    The noble Lord said: I have already spoken briefly to Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: This is where we come to the words "reflective" and "perception". I do not feel that a perception of the greater number of people—whatever their religion or political outlook—would condone the idea of appointing to these bodies people who had been convicted and had served sentences. There is a stipulation here because it does

    CWH 25
    not discriminate against someone who inadvertently committed a crime. We are talking about a fairly serious crime.
    Again, the word "reflective" has been used in another sense. I do not think that it would be reflective to suggest that we should do other than embody in the Bill the amendment just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. I believe that a far greater number of people would feel that that would be monstrously unacceptable. I cannot imagine that there would be practically any support for such a thing.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: Briefly, I should like to make a minor point. When we discussed "reflectiveness" and so forth, what we really sought was a formula that would have,
    "the confidence of all parts of the community".
    I quote from the Belfast agreement. It seems to me that, if a clause of the kind proposed by my noble friend Lord Glentoran is not included, there will be a lack of confidence among the community.
    5.15 p.m.
    Lord Smith of Clifton: In speaking to this amendment. I shall also speak to Amendment No. 38, which is preferable to the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has moved. There are cases of people who have been involved in violence and criminal activity redeeming themselves and making considerable contributions to the community and to the peace process. I agree that were they to continue in that violent vein, it would be inappropriate for them to be members of the commission, but past records must be expunged if there is evidence of subsequent redeeming conduct.
    My amendment requires people to make a commitment to peaceful and democratic processes, but it does not exclude those who may have previous convictions.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: It is entirely acceptable for people who have tried to expunge their past to serve the community again, and there are many ways in which they can. However, this is not an appropriate one.
    Viscount Brookeborough: I support the first amendment but not the second. We are talking about all sorts of crimes, not necessarily terrorist crimes. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland—of both the religious communities—are law-abiding. The judiciary should support the law-abiding community.
    Lord Smith of Clifton: May I make a correction? I was speaking to Amendment No. 17, and not, of course, Amendment No. 38.
    Lord Hylton: I am aware that there is a review going on of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. I apologise for not having given notice of my question, but I would like to ask the Minister to say something
    CWH 26
    about how that review is going and how the Act might affect anything that would be done by the amendments.
    Lord Fitt: I hesitate to speak to the amendment. It is said outside the House that, once you become a Member, there is a danger of losing your memory. That must have affected me. I stand here as a convict. In 1969, I took part in a Civil Rights demonstration in Derry and, later on, in Newry. Those Civil Rights demonstrations were banned by the Northern Ireland Government. Anyone who took part in them was sentenced to a mandatory six months' imprisonment. I was part of it, so were John Hume and Seamus Mallon, and all the political figures who took part in the Civil Rights demonstrations. We did not go to gaol because there was an amnesty.
    The proposed provision would disqualify me from being part of any of the political establishments in Northern Ireland. I was sentenced to six months, even if the sentence was later done away with by way of an amnesty. There are certain eminent people who have a past in that context but who, I am sure, are accepted as part of the peace process in Northern Ireland.
    Lord Glentoran: I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that my amendment says:
    "in excess of six months".
    I support the thinking behind Amendment No. 17. I wonder whether it might not be a useful addendum to my amendment to ask the person selected to make a declaration to the effect of the principle set out in Amendment No. 17.
    Lord Tebbit: It does not particularly matter whether the figure is in excess of six months—that, as my noble friend says, has the merit of keeping Gerry Fitt on the side of justice and the angels, which is where he usually is, of course—or whether the figure is less than that. It seems to me and to many others that it would be highly offensive if convicted terrorists, murderers, blackmailers, extortionists, bombers and the like were qualified to take up those offices and not to be disqualified from doing so. I speak for a very large number of people when I point out how grossly offensive it would be if people of that kind qualified under this legislation and if the Minister opposed the amendment that was moved by my noble friend. I would regard that as quite disgraceful.
    Lord Laird: If this is the correct procedure, I would like to speak to Amendment No. 38. It would have the same effect; that is, of excluding people from the commission and the committee who have criminal convictions.
    I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and others, that this issue is a watershed. The Bill will either fall or stand in terms of its credibility in Northern Ireland. The importance of this issue cannot be over-emphasised. We have a heavy duty in this regard. We have a process that many people find unsatisfactory and most of us are working with it to the best of our ability. However, there is a stage at which the ordinary person in the street will not have any confidence in the

    CWH 27
    Belfast agreement and all the other sundry items that have been introduced. I caution the Government in relation to this group of amendments.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: We have heard two powerful speeches that invite us to pay attention to what the ordinary person, if he exists—the man in the street or however we describe them—would think. It may be argued that there is no bar, with reference to criminal convictions, to being a Member of the legislature of Northern Ireland. However, there is a distinction to be made. Such persons, by definition, have had to be elected—chosen—in the full knowledge of their past. What are we speaking about here? Something very different—the appointment by Ministers of the Crown to a body that will choose a commission that will choose the judges. That is a very different matter indeed.
    I respectfully endorse what was first said by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth and which was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Laird; that is, that what we are after is confidence. When we were talking about the merits or demerits of the judiciary representing or reflecting the community, we were really talking about the judiciary having the confidence of the community. One cannot legislate for such confidence but one can legislate for certain criteria that will lead to confidence being enjoyed. Similarly, one can legislate for certain matters if one is misguided, which will ensure that confidence is withheld.
    If we included in Clause 1—perhaps along the lines of the amendment that we discussed at the start of our proceedings—a statement that persons who have criminal convictions, notwithstanding the fact that they may extent to sentences of more than six months' imprisonment, shall none the less be entitled to be members of this commission, that would be a fairly unattractive beginning to the Bill. That is what one would hope the Government and anyone else with sense would have thought. However, if we resist the amendment of my noble friend, we should secure exactly that result. We should not lose sight of what everyday people think. We should not lose sight of the distinction between persons who, notwithstanding their record, are elected to a position in the legislature and those who are appointed on behalf of the Crown to choose the judges. My noble friend's amendment should be supported by the Government. I greatly hope that it will be.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is with the greatest concern that I say that I am not able to fulfil that expectation because the Government do not feel able to support these amendments.
    Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 seek to prevent those with prison sentences of more than six months or those who have been members of proscribed organisations from becoming members of the Judicial Appointments Commission. It was important when the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said that in effect he would be disqualified. If the period had been for more than six months he
    CWH 28
    would have been disqualified. A number of people may not be in quite as fortunate a position as he found himself.
    Amendment No. 14 would impose a more stringent test for members of the commission than for MPs or MLAs. I of course hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said in relation to the distinction that should properly be drawn between those who are elected and those who are appointed. However, it is important to recognise that that difference in approach has been part of the experience of Northern Ireland, which has had to rehabilitate itself as a result of emerging from the troubled times that it has experienced.
    Amendment No. 15 appears to apply not only to those convicted of membership but to anyone who has ever been a member of a proscribed organisation. It is not quite clear how that would be demonstrated.
    Amendment No. 17 seeks to exclude any person who is not committed to non-violence and democratic means. Again, if I may respectfully say so, this is not entirely necessary. The matter boils down to a situation of trust. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the professional bodies and the Lord Chief Justice are going to take considerable care in making these important appointments. It is almost inconceivable that they are going to agree on disreputable candidates with criminal records because confidence is what Northern Ireland desperately needs. If any Members of the Committee have any doubts about that, they have only to look at the history. Everyone is fully aware that if this experiment—I stress that it is an experiment—is going to succeed, everyone is going to have to discharge their duty in relation to the choices that they make responsibly and robustly. Therefore, the issue boils down to whether we are going to trust the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister, the Lord Chief Justice and others to make the choice and to do so judiciously.
    The Government are prepared to trust the devolved institutions to act responsibly in relation to these important matters. The Government are confident that the devolved institutions will perform their duties diligently. If we were not so confident, we could not go down this path. I therefore urge the Committee to think carefully about what we are saying about the confidence, integrity and good judgment and about the ability of the devolved institutions and the arrangements that we are making. We either decide to trust them or we do not. I should also emphasise that, again, in relation to these issues, they will not be devolved unless and until we are confident that the institutions are sufficiently robust to deal with them.
    I anticipate that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, may regale us once more with the different personalities of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. However, we need to look to the future, it is hoped with a degree of confidence, and with a degree of trust. The Government are willing to do that.
    5.30 p.m.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am grateful for the care with which the noble Baroness has responded. I see that the amendment dealing with membership of a proscribed organisation has difficulties that are all its own— relating to proof of membership and so forth. That is why there have been so few prosecutions. We cannot get the evidence. Perhaps that point should be put to one side.
    Can the Minister say a word about the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Glentoran at the conclusion of his speech; that is, at least for a declaration to be made by those who are selected stating that they are wholly committed to non-violent methods and so forth? The wording is already in place.
    That would chime with rather a successful requirement for participation in the all-party talks that took place a few years ago under the chairmanship of Senator Mitchell. All participants had to sign up by way of a declaration. That was very good for the purpose of instilling confidence in those outside in the bona fides of those taking part and in the propriety of their participation. That suggestion might meet many of the anxieties which have been expressed in various speeches in support of this group of amendments.
    Baroness Park of Monmouth: Before the noble Baroness replies, I should like to put a further question. She talked about the need to show trust, but throughout we have been showing trust at the expense of ordinary people who have not been able to convince us that sometimes that trust has been misplaced. What would be wrong about giving the First and Deputy First Ministers the security that would be afforded by including in the Bill an express statement to the effect that the people named under Amendment No. 14—I do not refer to Amendment No. 15—should be automatically excluded from consideration?
    If the noble Baroness believes that the First and Deputy First Ministers will secure and keep the trust of the people, they would never appoint people like that. Nevertheless, pressure will be brought to bear on them to do so—very great pressure, as we all know. What would be wrong with safeguarding the position and sending a signal to the public that this issue has been thought about and provided against?
    Viscount Brookeborough: All legislation concerning Northern Ireland is about taking it forward. We are trying to produce something that is acceptable but, at the same tune, will ensure that it does not go off the rails through perception or anything else. By leaving in the possibility—when the Minister states that she does not like the requirement to be committed to non-violence, that automatically accepts that it is possible for somebody who is committed to violence to be acceptable within the law—if the occasion should arise, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has mentioned, with various personalities—unmentionable or otherwise—being split between the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister, then that, plus the perception as it could be seen by the public, is just what might push the Assembly apart.
    CWH 30
    If it is not an option at all, and because of the general feeling among nationalists and Unionists that they want to take it forward—other than those who are at the moment actively involved in terrorist offences—they will not question the fact that this provision has been put in. I say that from my experience of what goes on in Northern Ireland. It is simply not true that they would expect anything other than that.
    Lord Smith of Clifton: Before the noble Baroness replies, I urge the Government to reflect on the emerging consensus around Amendment No. 17. As the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, reinforced the point—a declaration that embodied those sentiments would give some reassurance if the Government feel that they cannot accept the other amendments. I ask her to consider that.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: This has been a very interesting and important debate and it would be wrong for me to say that the Government will not reflect on what has been said. We believe that it is very important to retain a degree of flexibility. Perhaps I should touch on Amendment No. 38, which I have not dealt with. It would disqualify anyone convicted of a criminal offence from being appointed a lay member of the commission. I understand the noble Lord's position on this issue, but such an amendment would remove the flexibility that is required to set aside relatively minor or outdated criminal convictions held by an otherwise excellent candidate.
    The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made a point about the rehabilitation of offenders. As those provisions currently operate, many who committed minor offences as juveniles now have the right to have those in effect expunged, so that they are treated once again as reputable and decent members of the community. One has to bear that in mind.
    We understand the anxieties that Members of the Committee have expressed, but we have to be realistic in our approach. Professional rules in the appointments procedures for the judiciary and the legal profession already debar people who have committed certain serious offences that have been mentioned in the debate from any appointment. The pool of people who can be appointed to judicial office is already automatically restricted, because a person has to hold a valid certificate.
    The position for the commission is different. I understand that noble Lords are concerned that some of the five lay members, who may not have that probity and integrity, may participate in the choice. There does have to be some flexibility and trust on those matters and the appointments that are made. Of course, we will think very carefully about what has been said in the debate, not least in relation to the issue of a declaration. However, as currently advised, our position is that the flexibility that we need is contained in the way in which we have currently phrased the Bill.
    Lord Tebbit: I thought the noble Baroness understood that we understand that the Government want flexibility, but a number of us do not wish the

    CWH 31
    Government to have that flexibility, and for very good reason. It is no good the noble Baroness talking about people who in their youth have committed some minor offence—I do not know what she has in mind; perhaps shoplifting in Woolworth's—and then gone on to lead a blameless life. We are not talking about people who were shoplifting in Woolworth's; we are talking about people who were murdering, bombing and wounding.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I certainly understand that that is the intent and the import of the amendments, but the current technical language includes many people who do not fall into the category that the noble Lord has just described, but would fall quite easily into the category of more minor and less serious offences. The amendment would cut them all out.
    Of course, we have listened to everything that has been said. We will reflect on it and we will return to the issue on Report.
    Lord Rogan: Does the Minister agree that, for the reason that she gave—namely that the persons who will put themselves forward for positions will have been well vetted and will have exemplary backgrounds—it will, in fact, be demeaning and offensive to them to be judged on their merit by people who, we know, come from less than proper backgrounds?
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is where the divide is. The Government would argue that, if we put trust in the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and those who will be entrusted with the devolved administration, it would be highly unlikely—indeed incredible—that they should choose persons with that type of history to fulfil the role. There is, of course, a division between us about that.
    Lord Glentoran: With respect to the Minister, I must say that it is very much on the cards that either the Deputy First Minister or the First Minister will be a murderer.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I will spare the Minister the responsibility of answering that point immediately by asking whether she would be kind enough to tell the Committee what conceivable objection there could be to requiring a lay person to make the declaration with which we have been dealing? In what respect could flexibility be diminished, were that to be a requirement? After all, the judges, in whose appointment such a person will play a part, must take the oath, which embraces what would be included in the declaration, by definition. If a judge is to be required—at the expense of flexibility—to take an oath to do justly and so forth and, by implication, to avoid injustice and violence, what is wrong with requiring a person who will play a part in his or her appointment merely to declare, when notified of the First Minister's intention to appoint them, that they are opposed to violence?
    CWH 32
    The declaration is the key to the Government's thinking. We all understand the concept of flexibility, and, in our time, we have all taken refuge in it. What does it actually mean here that justifies declining to write into the Bill a requirement for a declaration?
    Lord Scotland of Asthal: We have had an interesting debate. The matter has arisen as a result of our discussion, and we will take it back. I hear what the noble Lord said, and I can anticipate a screed of responses that I may be invited to make but which I would rather not make at this stage. I will consider the matter quietly, having gone through the issues and come back with a more cogent and well argued position. I can think of, perhaps, seven things that I might be invited to say, none of which would necessarily be judicious at this stage.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for her patience. I have no doubt that she has sensed the feelings and the temperature of the Committee on the matter. Had we been in the Chamber and not in Grand Committee, I would not have withdrawn the amendment but would have sought the opinion of the House. Here, I do not have that option, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 15 to 20 not moved.]
    Lord Smith of Cliftonmoved Amendment No. 21:
    Page 3, line 1, at end insert—
    "() The Lord Chief Justice shall consult each tier of the judiciary before appointing the judicial members."
    The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Desai asked me to offer his apologies. He has had to appear before your Lordships' Select Committee on Economic Affairs and therefore seeks to withdraw Amendment No. 20. However, the amendment is almost identical to the one standing in my name. I therefore wish to move Amendment No. 21.
    The judicial review indicated that the Lord Chief Justice should consult with each tier of the judiciary before appointing the relevant representatives; namely, the judicial members. We cannot find any provision in the Bill for such consultations to take place. If the proposals go through as they stand, we believe that the process will be completely dominated by the Lord Chief Justice and that he should be protected against any charges of cronyism. We think that he should consult with all levels of the judiciary. Not only would it be prudent to do so, but also it would protect his own position. I beg to move.
    5.45 p.m.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Given that I have knowledge of three Lord Chief Justices, past and present, I would suggest with respect that it would be otiose to incorporate this into the Bill. I cannot imagine that any Lord Chief Justice would fail to consult with the judiciary in this context. It is important to ensure that, in drafting legislation, one

    CWH 33
    does not seek to teach highly distinguished judicial officers—or, indeed, anyone else—to suck elementary eggs. That is my objection to the amendment.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I could not have put it better than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew.
    Lord Smith of Clifton: When lawyers get together they all turn into cronies. The case for this amendment has been validated beyond my wildest expectations.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord would feel the benefit of a lay member.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): If Amendment No. 22 is agreed to, I must inform the Committee that Amendments Nos. 23 to 27 could not be called because of pre-emption.
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 22:
    Page 3, line 2, leave out subsection (7).
    The noble Lord said: Here we return to the "representative" debate. The amendment would strike out the subsection requiring the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to ensure that the lay members of the commission,
    "are representative of the community in Northern Ireland".
    I do not believe that a duty should be placed on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister with respect to appointments to the commission. They are already under a discipline to come to an agreement about whom they will propose as lay members. I am not convinced that the responsibility for "representation" should rest on the shoulders of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
    I understand the current provision to imply that the appointment of lay members should be used to provide some kind of balance in the membership of the commission. By "balance", I believe that we mean political balance, either this way or that. I beg to move.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: It has been made abundantly clear—at least it is the accepted wisdom of anyone listening—that none of this is going to happen anyway. Whatever happens in the election—some of us have a fair idea of what a disaster that is going to be—aside from the provision to enable the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to secure as far as possible lay members who taken together represent the community in Northern Ireland, the second part is like saying "God is good". It is not something that we should get excited about, given that the whole subsection and its meaning will be deleted after the Assembly election.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand that the premise of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, on Amendment No. 22 is that there should not be lay members, and if there are lay members, they should not he appointed by the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister. The proposal is that there should he such lay members and an important part of the
    CWH 34
    arrangements is that they should be representative of the community. Therefore, it is important that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should secure that the lay members are representative of the community.
    To do otherwise would run contrary to the review recommendation, which requires the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to secure such representativeness. The review even specified that this should be achieved through legislative provision. That is why we have incorporated it in this way. A representative lay membership on the commission is central to securing public confidence in its procedures. The amendment would undermine the recommendation of the review and the foundation of that public confidence. I invite noble Lords to think again.
    Lord Glentoran: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Desaihad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 23:
    Page 3, line 3, after "Minister" insert "and Lord Chief Justice"
    The noble Lord said: I apologise for being out of the Committee for a while. I was testifying before another Committee of your Lordship's House.
    [Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
    [Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
    Lord Shutt of Greetlandmoved Amendment No. 25:
    Page 3, line 4, leave out "representative" and insert "reflective"
    The noble Lord said: The debate is the same as we have had previously about the words "representative" and "reflective".
    I do not need to repeat what I said earlier about the word "representative", which has certain connotations in Northern Ireland. I think that "reflective" would be a far better word. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We have canvassed this issue. The review drew a clear distinction between the judiciary, which it said should be reflective of the community, and the lay members of the JAC, which it said should be representative. In this context, the word "representative" has been used for numerous public bodies, including the Human Rights Commission and the Parades Commission. "Representative" does not mean that members will represent specific constituent parts of the community, but it means that an element there will represent each part.
    We say that it would be preferable to retain the current definition of "representative", because it provides clarity on what we are talking about. Changing the language may cause greater confusion.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: We cannot deal with the issue now, but when we return to this, will the noble Baroness provide us with the Government's definition of the distinction between "representative of" and "reflective of"? We are trying to achieve the appointment of sensible people in whom the rest of us

    CWH 35
    will have confidence. We cannot legislate for that and say that nobody should be appointed unless they have confidence. The Government are striving for a word.
    To distinguish between "representative" and "reflective" and say that one is more serviceable than the other does not hold water. If I hold up a mirror, I get a reflection. If I hold it in the right place, I get a reflection of the Minister, and very nice it is too, but it is an accurate reflection that permits of no flexibility or adjustment. "Representative" has the disadvantages that we have already discussed. If we are to rely on either of these words, will the Minister tell us what each of them is intended to mean and why one is better or worse than the other?
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am inclined to say—I speak entirely for myself at the moment—that "reflective" and "representative" are absolutely interchangeable. The review separated the two out. It used "reflective" in relation to the judiciary probably because it would be anathema to suggest that judges would represent certain parts of the community. Because of the confusion in that regard, I judge that it is likely that it used "reflective" and is more comfortable in relating to "reflective" than to "representative".
    The reason why "representative" is preferred is because that word has been used elsewhere and become a term of art. If we now start introducing a different term, there is likely to be a semantic debate about when something is reflective or representative. In view of our earlier discussion, I understand why we were talking of the judiciary being reflective of a community—that is a more sensitive word to use when describing where a judicial officer may come from but not what he will in fact do. We say that "representative" should remain because there is a degree of clarity about the way in which that word has been interpreted and we would like to avoid semantics if at all possible.
    Lord Smith of Clifton: Semantics is largely what Northern Ireland is all about! Moreover, "representative" across the Irish Sea means something rather different from what it means in Great Britain.
    I would like to speak to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27, which are similar although there is a slight difference. The amendment standing in my name adds "and ethnicity" whereas that standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, says "and religion". While we agree on the inclusion of "agenda" in this context, it is important to remind people—not just those appointing the lay members—that there is much more to Northern Irish society than religious groupings. It is all too easy to leave out significant sections of the population. While it is good that we and the Ulster Unionist Party agree that lay members should be reflected in terms of gender, we would not agree to the addition of the word "religion" because
    CWH 36
    the whole point of the amendment we are putting forward is to demonstrate that there is more to Northern Irish society than religion.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord rightly highlights the distinction between Amendments No. 26 and 27. The review recommended a provision similar to that used by the Human Rights Commission; that is what the Government have implemented in the Bill. The Government have always been clear that representativeness covered all of those issues, although there is a limit to how much can be achieved by a group of only five people. The comments that I made earlier about "representative" being an inclusive term relate directly to this amendment as well.
    Lord Rogan: On reflection, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved.]
    6 p.m.
    Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 28:
    Page 3, line 4, at end insert—
    "(8) In appointing persons to be lay members, the First Minister and deputy First Minister must so as far as possible secure that the lay members have a sophisticated understanding of legal issues as well as proven experience in selection procedure."
    The noble Lord said: I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis— the sophisticated Lord Maginnis—would move the amendment but unfortunately he is not here.
    I am struggling to put into words what we mean when we say "sophisticated understanding" and "proven experience", although "proven experience" of selection procedure is easier. Patently, those lay persons need to have some understanding of legal matters and of the kind of persons over whom they are sitting in judgment. The amendment simply seeks to highlight the necessity for that kind of person to be chosen. I beg to move.
    Lord Glentoran: In that regard, who would be the judge?
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That demands a sophistication of understanding. That begs a very large question indeed!
    The importance of having a lay element is to bring into the equation those who do not necessarily have an in-depth understanding of legal issues but who bring different perspectives. In the appointment procedures that are adopted in many other fields, many eminent people are invited to become lay members who do not have an expertise in that field but they are able to ask some fundamental questions, such as, "Why?". Those of us who have been subject to that piercing, "Why?" have often found it a salutary question to be asked. Therefore, we believe that lay members who do not have a particular expertise have a valuable contribution to make. How much lay members can contribute was graphically demonstrated in an earlier

    CWH 37
    interchange, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and I were in total union on a point; the noble Lord who moved the amendment could well have benefited from a lay member's input.
    Lord Rogan: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 3 agreed to.
    Schedule 2 [Judicial Appointments Commission]:
    Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 29:
    Page 72, line 22, leave out "may" and insert "must"
    The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 29, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 30.
    Amendment No. 29 removes the discretion of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to terminate a judicial appointee's membership on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice. The issue is whether the Lord Chief Justice should make a recommendation to terminate or whether it would be inappropriate to do so.
    This matter involves an issue that we shall discuss in more detail when we consider acting jointly. As the Bill is currently drafted, either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister has a veto on removal even if the Lord Chief Justice recommends that removal action should be taken. That is plainly ludicrous.
    Amendment No. 30 makes a similar change in respect of lay members. In particular, I am concerned with paragraph 2(4)(b), which is the criminal offence clause. As the Bill stands, either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister may veto the removal of a person who has been convicted of a serious offence. I do not believe that that is what was intended.
    Further, questions arise in relation to the provision in paragraph 2(4)(a) relating to a person "without reasonable excuse". If such a person has,
    "failed to exercise his functions for a … period",
    should he he permitted to stay? Again, there is a de facto veto by the First Minister or Deputy First Minister. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As the noble Lord indicated, Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 seek to remove any discretion from the First and Deputy First Ministers in the case of dismissing lay or judicial members of the Judicial Appointments Commission.
    With regard to judicial members, the Bill provides that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister may remove a member on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice. With regard to lay members, the Bill provides for a dismissal in certain cases. Government policy is clear. In these cases we would expect the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to act, but we need to trust them and not to tie their hands by compelling them to dismiss a member automatically.
    There are a number of reasons for dismissal of lay members, which could differ in their seriousness. For instance, if a lay member had been convicted of a serious offence, no doubt everyone would agree that he
    CWH 38
    or she should no longer be a member of the commission. However, being convicted of a minor driving offence—for instance a defective headlamp— would be unlikely to merit a removal from the commission. We should leave the First Minister and Deputy First Minister some discretion in such matters. I hope that explains why some limited flexibility is necessary in this regard.
    Viscount Brookeborough: I support the amendments because retaining the current situation means accepting that perhaps the Lord Chief Justice will be the most extraordinary person who, as a chairman of a committee and holding the post he has, has not good reason for trying to run the commission, and he will only suggest that if the running of that commission is really unworkable. For the First Minister or Deputy First Minister not to support him would be plainly ludicrous and, should the Chief Justice put it forward, I think he must do it.
    Lord Rogan: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
    Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 31:
    Page 74, line 10, leave out from "Commission" to end of line.
    The noble Baroness said: This is a minor and technical amendment. The words we propose to delete are unnecessary, as the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will only ever be able to acquire money appropriated under the Assembly Act. They crept into the Bill by error, although they of course do no harm.
    We are also tabling an amendment to Clause 22, which will make further provision about money being provided by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. That provision does not repeat the unnecessary words. We therefore think it right and sensible to delete these words in order to ensure that the two provisions dealing with funding by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are consistent. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 32:
    Page 74, line 33, at end insert—
    "() Committees or sub-committees may not include persons who would not be eligible to be members of the Commission."
    The noble Lord said: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 32 and 33. Committees and sub-committees may have the powers of the committee delegated to them, and they do not need to contain members of the superior committee. Therefore, the amendment to exclude convicted criminals would have no effect unless the same restriction applied to members of these sub-committees. We have heard numerous arguments—I will not allude to them again—why we do not want to have criminals holding judicial office or appointing persons to judicial offices.

    CWH 39
    Amendment No. 33 is aimed at curtailing the rather extensive powers to delegate by the commission. It seems extraordinary to me that sub-committees made up of non-members may in effect circumvent the appointments commission. What is the purpose of the commission if its members may be uninvolved in selection? Who would be involved in that selection? I beg to move.
    Lord Glentoran: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and to speak to Amendment No. 34, tabled in my name. I am puzzled as to why the Government feel the need to give any delegation authority to the commission. It does not have a particularly big task; not that many judges and people are to be appointed. We have demonstrated our concern about the members of the commission in our debates this afternoon.
    If those debates, and whatever ultimately is legislated for in this Bill, can be thrown over by the Commission, by dint of the authority to delegate functions conferred on it by this Schedule, I wonder what the Government are doing. I had not given this matter sufficient thought ahead of our deliberations, but I am extremely concerned about the whole matter of delegation. I shall return to it on Report.
    Turning to Amendment No. 34, I can see no logic at all in Clause 12 and I do not understand what it is doing in the Bill. Why is there a duty to have a lay member of a committee or sub-committee, but no parallel duty to have a judicial member, or someone who is eligible to be a member? Frankly, and with due respect to the department and the draftsman, I think that Clauses 11 and 12—clause 12 in particular—are a nonsense. They should not be a part of the Bill because there is no need for them. I shall be interested in the Minister's explanation as to why Clause 12 is so worded and what it is intended to mean.
    Baroness O'Cathain: As a matter of clarification, what do these sub-committees do?
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The provision to provide the sub-committees is permissive; it does not demand that such sub-committees should be set up. It is important to note that the system will not deal simply with a small number of judicial appointments. It will also deal with the appointment of tribunal and other chairmen; those are quasi-judicial tribunals. Therefore if we are seeking to construct a system which, in due course, will undertake the appointment of the whole of the judicial system below the level of High Court judge, then we have to build in a degree of flexibility to enable the commission, if it so chooses, to establish committees or sub-committees to deal with specific issues.
    It also enables specialists in matters of employment, appointments or other specialist provisions, to be invited on to the Judicial Appointments Commission in order to help them by giving advice in relation to a specialist area. That will not necessarily be drawn upon, but it creates a capacity for them so to do. The
    CWH 40
    Bill provides a permissive provision that the commission may establish committees or subcommittees which may include persons who are not members of the commission.
    The Bill also states that where committees deal with appointments, they must include a member of the commission and, unless the person is a lay member, a person who is eligible to be a lay member as well. This latter amendment was made in the light of Members' views that it was appropriate for there to be a member of the commission on all committees dealing with appointments.
    Amendment No. 32 appears to go considerably further in that it requires committees of the Judicial Appointments Commission to operate the same membership criteria as that of the full commission. In practice, however, the only persons who would be prevented from membership of committees would seem to be retired judges, barristers or solicitors. I am not sure why such lengths have been pursued to achieve that aim. Given that we have already sought to put in place an appropriate relationship between the full commission and its committees, I would invite noble Lords to consider that the amendments should be withdrawn because they are not necessary.
    Perhaps I may turn to Amendment No. 33. The amendment would prevent the commission from delegating any of its functions,
    "unless approved by the majority of the judicial members of the Commission".
    Other amendments sought to increase the judicial membership of the commission and, in this amendment, noble Lords are, perhaps, displaying a similar wariness about the role played by lay members. I do not want to go back to the review, but it is important to remember that the review went into some detail in striking the right balance between lay and judicial members of the commission and was clear about the benefit that lay people could bring to the appointments process. Those benefits apply across all the functions of the commission, and we are not convinced that lay members should play a lesser role in deciding what functions the commission should delegate. I ask that this amendment should also be withdrawn.
    We are a little surprised that noble Lords should seek to remove paragraph 12 with Amendment No. 34. In Committee in another place, honourable Members expressed concern about the fact that sub-committees of the Judicial Appointments Commission could be made up entirely of persons who were not members of the commission. We sought to address that issue. The schedule was originally drafted without a requirement for commission members to sit on committees and subcommittees, as it was felt that that could be an unfair imposition on their time. We are now in a better position to assess the likely workload of the commission and accept that the degree of flexibility envisaged in the original drafting may not now be required. As a result, we took on board the view of the other place and amended paragraph 12 to make it clear that, when the commission delegated the power to select or recommend a person for appointment to a

    CWH 41
    committee or sub-committee, such committees must always include a member of the commission, unless he or she is a lay member or a person eligible to be a lay member.
    In many selection processes, sub-committees do the first sift, and the full committee or commission makes the decision. We hope that there will be a large number of applications to the commission for the posts, that there will be a deal of competition and that it will not be just a narrow selection process. If that happens—particularly as a result of the work that we hope that the commission will do on outreach to make sure that there is gender and community balance—it may be that the working practices of the commission will demand that certain sifting and certain preliminary work is undertaken by committees, as opposed to the full commission sitting together. It was only for that reason that we felt it might be necessary. If we consider the appointment of tribunal chairpersons and all the more minor—that is not meant to be derogatory—judicial appointments, we can see that there will be a considerable body of work for the commission.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I shall not press my amendment.
    Lord Rogan: I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 33 to 38 not moved.]
    6.15 p.m.
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 39:
    Page 75, line 38, leave out paragraph 18.
    The noble Lord said: The amendment concerns the principle of devolution. If judicial appointments and the whole judicial system are to be devolved to Northern Ireland, it is consistent that members of the Legislative Assembly should not have a role on the Judicial Appointments Commission. When those functions have been devolved by this Parliament, the Assembly will have a role in exercising them through its direct election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. However, it strikes me as slightly odd that a Member of the House of Commons should be disqualified from serving on the Judicial Appointments Commission. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Of course, I hear what the noble Lord says about it being odd, but we respectfully suggest that it would be rather odd if MPs were to sit. The amendment would allow members of the Judicial Appointments Commission to sit as MPs, which is unprecedented for lay members of public bodies. Furthermore, of all the areas to bring into politics, the judicial appointments process looks one of the least likely. Of course, we appreciate the view articulated in another place that once we devolve justice matters to Stormont, there is no conflict of interest for Westminster MPs, but we must respectfully say that we do not agree.
    CWH 42
    The review states specifically that there is a greater need than ever to insulate the appointments process from any possible suspicion of political influence. Creating an independent Judicial Appointments Commission is one way of doing that. The amendment would remove the independence that the review sought to create, leading to all sorts of potential forms of political mischief and questionable appointments. I am sad to disagree with the noble Lord on this matter.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 4 [Appointment to most senior judicial offices]:
    Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 40:
    Page 3, line 20, leave out "First Minister and deputy First Minister" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
    The noble Lord said: I will speak to Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 44, 45, 46 and 47. These amendments come to the nub of the unease that we feel about aspects of the Bill. This whole aspect of Clause 4 is concerned with the appointment of the most senior judicial officers, including the judges of the High Court, which we debated at length earlier. The amendments would remove the role for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the appointments procedure either as consultees or as persons making recommendations.
    As has been mentioned several times this evening, there is a real concern in Northern Ireland about the politicisation of the judicial appointments process. It seems excessive and unnecessary for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to make a recommendation to the Prime Minister. What real advice could those politicians provide to the Prime Minister on appointing the Lord Chief Justice or Lord Justice of Appeal, other than their perceived political opinion or religious background? Given the numerous legal challenges to decisions made in the light of the agreement already, including the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the process of selection poses obvious problems.
    The review said:
    "In the Northern Ireland context it is important to keep any hint of political input out of the appointments process."
    Devolution does not necessitate the devolution of the judicial appointments process. One does not follow the other. Devolution relates to the legislature, the Executive and the Government, which is quite a separate branch of the state.
    Again I refer to subsection (5), which provides that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister must act jointly in making their recommendations. That provides either of those two MLAs with a power of veto over any individual appointment.
    The Belfast agreement itself does not indicate or dictate that all decisions that are to be made by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister must he joint ones. Such language crept in and was the creation of the draftsmen of the Northern Ireland Act.

    CWH 43
    Our proposition involves opposition to the devolution of judicial appointment functions, as distinct from the functions of criminal justice to which we look forward.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that Members of the Committee are content with taking this rather large group of amendments together; I thank them for so doing. Overall, the effect seems to be turn over the roles of the First Minister and the Deputy First Ministers in the process of appointing judges to the Lord Chancellor. In the Bill, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have the role recommended for them in the review, which recognised the importance of a carefully managed degree of political accountability. The importance of the role was discussed at length in another place. In the devolved scenario, the Government feel that we must give the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Belfast the same trust that we extend to the Lord Chancellor in Westminster.
    I am sure that Members of the Committee agree that devolving justice matters, including judicial appointments, to the Northern Ireland Assembly would be a positive and welcome development, which would help to underpin the stability of that institution.
    Amendment No. 41 seeks to remove the duty to consult the Lord Chief Justice in making senior judicial appointments. If I may respectfully say so, that seems odd. As the senior judicial figure in Northern Ireland, the Lord Chief Justice is bound to have a valuable insight into the candidates. It would surely be unheard of for him not to be consulted. We seek to be transparent about his role by placing it in the Bill.
    We invite the noble Lord to consider withdrawing the amendment because it will do violence to the import of what we seek to do in terms of devolving appropriate responsibilities to the First Minister and First Deputy Minister.
    Lord Glentoran: A few weeks ago, when I started working on this matter, I went through the same process as did the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and his Ulster Unionist colleagues, and I considered tabling similar amendments. However, I later came to the conclusion that if we were to devolve, we had to do so. I scratched out those amendments and never tabled them.
    I am afraid that I am now going to be party political. The fact that the amendments have been tabled by the Ulster Unionist Party and the fact that a considerable number of those amendments are of significant import, shows the confidence—or lack of confidence—in the Government's handling of the Northern Ireland situation and the peace agreement. Steadily over the past few years, the Government have lost the confidence of the Unionist party. I hope and believe that they realise that and I hope that they will attempt to find ways of recovering it—perhaps they have been doing so during the past few months. I hope
    CWH 44
    hat the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and his colleagues will forgive me, but this is a clear demonstration of where we are in that regard.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that there is an important distinction between the appointing Minister in the present situation—the Lord Chancellor—and the appointing Ministers under what is proposed by the Bill.
    The Lord Chancellor wears three hats as we know. In his capacity as minister for justice, he is required to separate himself entirely from partisan considerations. By reason of his background—not to mention the momentum of many centuries of precedent—he has the training to do that. It is asking a great deal more of politicians, who will become the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, to take that on. That is why I understand what lies behind these amendments and why I hope that the Minister will express some sympathy with them, particularly in light of the significance that is attached in the review to the overriding importance of avoiding any imputation of political taint or bias in this procedure.
    If one has experience of the Northern Ireland scene, it is all too easy to foresee that some quarters in Northern Ireland will perceive it to be an impossible task for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to be able to achieve that separation from partisan concerns. That is what lies behind the proposal, with which I have a good deal of sympathy. I have just enough enthusiasm for demonstrating confidence in the whole process to go along with what is proposed in this regard but I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that there is an important distinction to be made between the two sets of Ministers. That is what gives rise to the anxiety that lies behind the amendments.
    6.30 p.m.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we recognise those sensitivities and the anxiety. It would be easy to say that the Lord Chancellor should simply retain the responsibility that he currently has and that there should be no change. One sees the temptation in that argument.
    We face a challenging choice about whether or not to put confidence in the devolution process. We have to resist an understandable temptation to take a path that would not enable the process to be successful; I know that all Members of the Committee desire that very much.
    Therefore, the position that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will be put in is significantly different from that which the Lord Chancellor enjoys in relation to England and Wales. It is for that reason that we believe that it is important that the role of the Lord Chief Justice should be transparent, open and clearly stated, and that the commission should play a role in the appointment process. Members of the Committee will know that that is a clear difference between what is proposed for Northern Ireland and what is proposed to be retained in England and Wales.

    CWH 45
    The future, of course, has to be provided for. We believe that the balance of the Bill, as currently framed, provides that safety net which enables the political responsibility to be exercised judiciously by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Appropriate safeguards are provided elsewhere by the commission and the Lord Chief Justice. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I very well remember the period when the legislature was broadly under the remit and influence of Stormont. I was serving at that time as a magistrate. There was a general perception on both sides of the community that the judiciary at all levels was somehow or other manipulated by the Unionist government. We did our best to point out that that was not really the case, but it was difficult entirely to refute the allegation that, even at my humble level, I was not somehow or other under pressure. It may horrify some of my former colleagues if I say that there was a degree of subtle pressure, which I resisted all along. I simply said, "I am sorry. I am not responsible to you. I was appointed by the Lord Chancellor". That made me unpopular.
    The problem was that, rightly or wrongly, there built up a kind of perception, belief or understanding—or misunderstanding—that the operation of the judiciary was under the control of the then Stormont Government. It was one of the main causes of the downfall of Stormont. I would not want to see that happen again. I was taught a lesson in that period and would not willingly advocate or support the return of judicial functions to any Northern Ireland politician, whether at Stormont or Westminster.
    Lord Desai: What is desirable about the proposition is that two people—the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister—whom no one expects to agree must take part in the procedure. That is the double-lock system that satisfies me, at least, that it may be a bipartisan process, rather than simply a partisan process.
    Someone said earlier that Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams would never agree on anything. What if they did? This way, we can be sure that, if politics plays a part in the procedure, it will do so across party lines. The fear is that a single party will dominate, rather than that there will be agreement across parties. That is why there is something to be said for the double-lock of involving the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
    Lord Smith of Clifton: In speaking to the amendment. I must say that it is clear that the process in Northern Ireland is fragile. One is either an optimist or a pessimist. If the process is to carry on, one must be an optimist—almost against the odds. Therefore, I agree with what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Glentoran, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden—who is aware of the sensitivities—and by the Minister.
    CWH 46
    We cannot have partial devolution. There can be no clawing back. We must move forward, and that is why I oppose the amendment.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I remind them that we have the security that the Judicial Appointments Commission will make the recommendation to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. If they cannot agree, the second recommendation by the commission is binding on the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. An opportunity is given for an agreement, but, in the event of no agreement, the commission's second recommendation becomes binding. I hope that that reminder will give some comfort.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: It has been said that there is an onus on all of us in Northern Ireland to move forward. I agree with that entirely. However, on this issue, we are not moving forward; we are going back 50 years.
    Lord Rogan: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
    Lord Desaimoved Amendment No. 42:
    Page 3, line 23, at end insert ", and
    (c) the Judicial Appointments Commission"
    The noble Lord said: This amendment goes the other way. Basically, it makes sure of things, like a belt and suspenders. Although it is true that the Judicial Appointments Commission will recommend to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the amendment asks for a separate and independent role for the Judicial Appointments Commission to be consulted by the Prime Minister. Basically, this is another cautionary provision to be added to the process. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As my noble friend Lord Desai has said, Amendment No. 42 seeks to place a duty on the Prime Minister when making recommendations to the Queen on appointments to the office of Lord Chief Justice or Lord Justice of Appeal to consult with the Judicial Appointments Commission, in addition to the First and Deputy First Ministers and Lord Chief Justice. Earlier in Committee we covered in detail the reasons why there should be a distinction between those appointments made up to the level of the High Court and those made above.
    The review made it clear that the commission's direct involvement in appointments should cease at the level of High Court judge. The review further recommended that it would be appropriate to retain a role for Westminster in the appointment of the most senior judicial officers. The Government agreed with the rationale proposed by the review, as well as with the proposal. The Bill adheres faithfully to those recommendations.

    CWH 47
    As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the arrangements also reflect the procedures for such appointments in the devolved administration in Scotland. However, the Bill does provide a role for the Judicial Appointments Commission. It will be consulted on the procedures to be adopted when making recommendations at the most senior level. We are satisfied that this will ensure that best practice on appointment procedures at this judicial level will be observed, while making sure that we are implementing the review recommendation in full. I hope that that explanation will satisfy my noble friend that we have addressed this issue.
    Lord Desai: I am grateful to my noble friend for that clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 43:
    Page 3, line 24, leave out subsection (4).
    The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 43, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 48 and 49. Amendments Nos. 43 and 49 come together under a general, collective description; we feel that the provisions are all too cumbersome. These amendments would strike out new Section 12(4) and (5) of the 1978 Act so as to remove the duty on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to determine the procedure—as yet unknown—that they are to adopt for the consultation process.
    The appointment will be made by the Queen. We believe that it is far too prescriptive to place a duty on the Prime Minister to consult and then to tell the Judicial Appointments Commission to advise the consultees on the procedure to adopt. That is extremely prescriptive and cumbersome and we feel that there is room for considerable improvement. This is a probing amendment and seeks to make suggestions.
    Amendment No. 48—tabled on the assumption that the clause is not removed by the Government, but may be improved to a considerable extent—seeks to involve the government of Northern Ireland; namely,
    "subject to the approval of the Assembly".
    That is, I believe, a reasonable insertion at the end of line 28. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The review specifically recommended that the commission should be involved in the procedure, which is in line with international best practice. The Bill as drafted accurately reflects the role described by the review. It is consistent with what should be expected. Amendment No. 48 proposes that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should clear the procedures for making senior judicial appointments with the Assembly. Given that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are the head of the Northern Ireland Executive and represent the major parties in the Assembly, this would be an unnecessary procedure. It would be unusual in Westminster terms
    CWH 48
    and we see no reason why it is needed in Belfast either. We invite the noble Lords not to press those three amendments.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 44 to 56 not moved.]
    Clause 4 agreed to.
    Clause 5 [Appointment to listed judicial offices]:
    6.45 p.m.
    Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 57:
    Page 3, line 42, leave out subsection (1).
    The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 58 to 65. Clause 5 makes provision for the appointment of the listed judicial officers by virtue of the Judicial Appointments Commission making recommendations to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Schedule 3 is concerned with the transfer of functions in respect of these appointments from the Lord Chancellor to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. As I have said before, that does not have to take place as part of the process of devolution or the devolution of the criminal justice functions.
    The judicial appointments functions are and should remain quite separate. Further to that, there is the consequence of the perceived politicisation of the appointments process. I submit that Clause 5 is flawed. The point at which the selection process for listed judicial officers is initiated is governed by Clause 5(3), by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly in serving notice on the commission to select a person for a vacancy. It is not inconceivable that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will in future exercise a de facto veto over the process. Think for a moment of the consequences of Northern Ireland being short of one or even two High Court judges and no appointment or appointments being made.
    When this matter was debated in another place, the Government said that they were not planning for failure in relation to this obvious potential problem. Frankly, that is an inadequate response. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I think I have already spoken to this amendment, which was grouped together with Amendment No. 40. The answers I gave before remain the same.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: Perhaps I might come to the rescue of my colleague.
    Lord Rogan: Please do.
    Lord Molyneaux of Killead: He sought my advice and I advised him not to indulge in moving his other amendments, because they were to Clause 5, not to Clause 4. If I was incorrect, I plead guilty.
    Lord Rogan: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 58 to 65 not moved.]
    Clause 5 agreed to.
    Lord Desaimoved Amendment No. 66:
    After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
    "CRITERIA FOR JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT
    THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS UNDER SECTIONS 4 AND 5 SHALL HAVE REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING FACTORS WHEN MAKING APPOINTMENTS—

    (a) legal knowledge and expertise,

    (b) intellectual and analytical ability,

    (c) decisiveness,

    (d) communication skills,

    (e) authority,

    (f) integrity,

    (g) fairness,

    (h) understanding of people and society,

    (i) maturity and sound judgement,

    (j) courtesy and humanity,

    (k) commitment to public service, and

    (l) understanding of and commitment to human rights principles."

    The noble Lord said: This new clause sets out the criteria for judicial appointment which should be used by the commission. It reflects more or less what was said by the review in paragraph 6.20, with the addition only of the last criterion,
    "understanding of and commitment to human rights principles".
    These are obvious and good criteria to adopt. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government do not take issue with the criteria specified. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Desai is right to say that largely they reflect the criteria listed in paragraph 6.20 of the review as being the typical selection criteria which are currently applied.
    However, the review did not recommend that these criteria should be made statutory, presumably for the good reason that such matters are normally dealt with administratively. We believe that they should continue to be dealt with in that way. Including these criteria in statute would remove the element of flexibility which is essential to the successful operation of any appointments procedure.
    However, I repeat that my noble friend Lord Desai is quite right; these are precisely the skills and abilities that we seek to have inculcated into our judiciary.
    Baroness O'Cathain: I could agree with the amendment, but if a list of this kind is put on the face of the Bill, someone will seek to include a stupid criterion, such as having blue eyes instead of green eyes. That may seem ridiculous, but it is my experience that noble Lords try to remove anything of this nature from the face of a Bill. That is absolutely right because to include it would be silly. It would not allow the
    CWH 50
    flexibility necessary for people making judgments. Furthermore, there could be other essential qualities which might crop up and which would not be covered.
    Lord Desai: I thank my noble friend and the noble Baroness for their interventions. In my view, I am sure that both of them would satisfy all these criteria.
    Lord Dubs: And more.
    Lord Desai: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule 3 [Appointment to listed judicial offices]:
    Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 67:
    Page 82, line 30, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert—
    "(2) In subsection (2), after "2(2)(b)" insert "or 9(4)".
    (3) In subsection (4), omit "9(4),"."
    The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical and consequential amendment. The report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee accepted that 16 powers to amend the Bill or other legislation were appropriate. The Committee, however, recommended four changes in favour of the affirmative procedure. As always, I am grateful for the sterling work which is carried out by the committee. It has almost become the norm that we pay careful attention to its recommendations.
    Government Amendment No. 250—as it will become—to Clause 89 will bring about the changes that were recommended. This means the introduction of a new Clause 89. As a result, this paragraph of Schedule 3, which referred to Clause 89, has been amended. I stress that it is purely to accept a protective recommendation by the relevant committee. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    On Question, Whether Schedule 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Lord Rogan: On behalf of my noble friends Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, Lord Laird and Lord Kilclooney, I give notice that it is our intention to oppose the Question that Schedule 3 shall be the third schedule to the Bill?
    Lord Glentoran: I did not fully understand the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. Did I understand him to have put the Question that Schedule 3 shall not stand part of the Bill?
    Lord Williams of mostyn: the noble lord Rogan Was attempting to assist us by indicating that on Report —though not at this stage—he will raise his Question on Schedule 3.
    Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 6 [Removal from most senior judicial offices]:
    [Amendments Nos 68 to 72 not moved.]
    Lord Glentoranmoved Amendment No. 73:
    Page 5, line 28, after "office" insert "for a maximum of three months"
    The noble Lord said: The amendment concerns the potential happenings should the Lord Chief Justice be suspended. As I understand the Bill, if the tribunal recommends that the Lord Chief Justice should be suspended, he could be suspended and parked for the rest of his life without anything further happening. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that, were a tribunal to recommend the suspension of the Lord Chief Justice, somebody would have to do something about it within three months. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Clause 6 provides for the removal of judges from the most senior judicial offices. Amendment No. 73 would place a time limit of three months on the suspension of the Lord Chief Justice while the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor consider making motions for the presentation of an address to Her Majesty for his removal.
    We expect action under this clause to be extremely rare. If it were ever taken, we hope it would be over quickly, but we cannot know for sure how much time a tribunal might take to report. For this reason, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I support the amendment. Of course, it is virtually inconceivable that the provision will ever be acted upon, but if it is, everybody concerned will jolly well have to get on with it. It is essential that confidence be restored to the administration in those circumstances. In my view, which I respectfully urge on my colleagues, three months is a reasonable limit to impose and to ensure that people do not put this in some pigeonhole totally inappropriately in such desperate circumstances.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Of course I hear what the noble and learned Lord says, but one can think of many scenarios that would involve adherence to the human rights provisions which would enable one to say that a longer period may be necessary. For example, if the judge were accused of a most heinous offence, such as paedophilia, it may be of the utmost importance that he or she be removed swiftly, but the investigation of those issues may well require longer than three months.
    We know that if such circumstances arose, time and speed would be of the essence, but it would be wholly impossible to prescribe that all that should be done in order to meet the obligations under the Human Rights Act could be done within that timetable. Of course it should be done as speedily as reasonably practicable. I fully understand the importance of a decision being made. In the old-fashioned way, many people facing that situation would simply resign without prejudice, and we would not be left in the situation of having to impose time limits. However, it would be foolish in the
    CWH 52
    extreme to prescribe in the Bill a time limit for suspension to which we could not adhere without transgressing other pieces of legislation.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I may find that, not for the first time or the last, I have completely misunderstood the point. Surely, a tribunal that has recommended that a motion be presented will not have made that recommendation without having carried out the most scrupulous investigation to secure it. Is that not the case?
    7 p.m.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As I understand the provision, it enables there to be a suspension. It says:
    "If the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor are considering the making of motions for the presentation of an address to Her Majesty in relation to the Lord Chief Justice, the Prime Minister may suspend him from office; and if they are considering the making of such motions in relation to a Lord Justice of Appeal or a judge of the High Court the Prime Minister may suspend him from office with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice".
    The Prime Minister has that ability before hearing the recommendations from the tribunal. The case may relate to bribery and corruption in public office: there is a plethora of possibilities. There are two possible situations. The Prime Minister may wish to suspend, pending receipt of the recommendation. We do not know whether the recommendation will come back within or without a three-month or other period, and it is for that reason that no time has been specified.
    Members of the Committee are absolutely right in saying that the need for speed is clear. However, one would have to exercise that discretion in accordance with the law as currently enunciated and take into account the Human Rights Act 1998 and other provisions that may have an impact upon such matters. One knows the consequences of acting to the detriment of an individual who may be accused of the most heinous act. It is right to say that, bearing in mind the unusual nature of the court, it is likely to be only the most dire sort of issues that would cause us to activate the provisions in any event.
    Lord Glentoran: I thank the Minister, but I am not satisfied. I do not say that three months is the right prescription in any way, but the Minister made the point herself when she read the clause. It starts with the words "If the Prime Minister". While many other things are happening, the Prime Minister may suspend the Lord Chief Justice. Nobody in our constitutional system can put any pressure on the government of the day to take further action if they choose not to for various reasons. It is not beyond the wit of man to insert some form of phraseology that allows the government of the day to be called to account for their actions, even if it is only to oblige them to come to the House, explain what they are doing and satisfy the system.
    Clause 8 as it stands, with no pressure on anybody other than that in the Human Rights Act—goodness knows what might happen to that in years to come—is not good legislation and will not give confidence. I ask the Minister and the noble and learned Lord the

    CWH 53
    Lord Privy Seal, who is working with her, to give the matter further consideration and see whether some redrafting can achieve what we are trying to achieve.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We shall certainly take the matter back and consider it. I would of course pray in aid the fact that, as sub-paragraph (8) makes clear, the Prime Minister has the power to suspend from office with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. There are already provisions in the Bill for that but we will certainly take the matter away and consider whether there is anything further that we can do to allay the concerns of noble Lords. However, I issue a caution in that regard because of the extreme difficulty that we may find in prescribing precise time limits.
    Lord Glentoran: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 not moved.]
    Clause 6 agreed to.
    Clause 7 [Removal from listed judicial offices]:
    [Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
    Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 77:
    Page 5, line 43, leave out from second "the" to end of line 44 and insert "Lord Chief Justice"
    The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 78 to 81.
    Clause 7 is concerned with the removal of persons from listed judicial offices. As the Bill is currently drafted, that includes the downgraded office of judge of the High Court. The power to remove or suspend, however, is retained by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, who again act jointly with the approval of the Lord Chief Justice. That provides a measure of protection but it does not protect from the scenario in which the Lord Chief Justice believes a person should be removed. The tribunal, under Clause 8, recommends removal if either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister desires removal. The holder of the office of either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister again has a de facto veto on removal.
    The amendments place the power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor on the recommendation of the tribunal, but without parliamentary oversight. That reflects the different status of the listed judicial offices. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Amendments Nos. 77 and 79 place the power to remove or suspend a person from a listed judicial office in the hands of the Lord Chief Justice, rather than those of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. I understand that that amendment is very much in line with the general thrust of the amendments that have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. However, the Bill currently provides for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to perform that function only on the basis of a recommendation from a judicial tribunal and with the agreement—I stress "with the agreement"—of the Lord Chief Justice. That role reflects the position held by the First Minister in Scotland.
    CWH 54
    We expect action under the clause to he a rare event. The process of removal from judicial office is very much linked to the process of appointment. The review recommended a role for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in appointments to provide political accountability, as we said earlier this afternoon. The same holds true for the removal procedure. Amendments Nos. 77 and 79 merely achieve the removal of the element of political accountability that was advocated by the review. Members of the Committee should be reassured that he Bill also provides the safeguard that any removal—I stress that—can take place only on the recommendation of the tribunal and with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice. We therefore have a safety net in relation to removal.
    None the less, we consider it appropriate that the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, in his capacity as head of the judiciary in Northern Ireland, to the removal of the holder of a listed judicial office, should be sought. We are content that the provisions, as drafted, achieve an appropriate balance. We therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Rogan: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 78 to 81 not moved.]
    Clause 7 agreed to.
    Clause 8 [Tribunals for considering removal]:
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): There is a misprint in Amendment No. 82 on the Marshalled List. The words to be deleted should read:
    "First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly".
    Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 82:
    Page 6, line 19, leave out "First Minister and deputy First Minister, acting jointly" and insert "Lord Chancellor"
    The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 84 and 85. Clause 8 deals with tribunals for removal from judicial offices. There are two types of tribunal in terms of composition, the distinction being made below the level of judge of the High Court. It seems somewhat perverse to place High Court judges within listed judicial offices in Clause 7 rather than Clause 8, yet within Clause 8(4) rather than Clause 8(5). Our amendments are consistent with removing the veto of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
    As the Bill stands, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister must act jointly in convening a tribunal for removing the Lord Chief Justice. Again it is only this office who may convene a tribunal and at no point are they obliged to do so, thus again enabling either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister to stifle the removal process at the outset. I beg to move.
    Lord Glentoran: I shall speak to Amendment No. 83, which would simply add, "with the agreement of the Prime Minister" to Clause 8(1). The tribunal to consider the removal of the Lord Chief Justice may be

    CWH 55
    convened by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. As I understand it, the Prime Minister has considerable input into the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice. It seems to me that he or she should be kept in the loop for the firing of the same Lord Chief Justice.
    Lord Desai: It may be helpful if I include my Amendments Nos. 87 to 90, which are on the same clause, because in a sense my worry is exactly the opposite of that of other noble Lords. The committee on the administration of justice drew my attention to the issue. In setting up the tribunal, there is a great dominance of the judicial element, judging itself, more or less. I would like a greater lay element. I am going in the opposite direction to other noble Lords. I want to make sure that these tribunals do not seem like a closed shop judging itself. There should be a greater element of ordinary solicitors and barristers or more of a lay element in deciding these matters. It may be helpful for the Committee to consider all of these amendments together.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: There may be some misunderstanding as to how the system would operate, so I shall go through my understanding of what the amendments would do and how I think it plays in. It may be important for us to take some of this slowly. Amendment No. 82 would remove the power of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to convene a tribunal to consider the removal of the Lord Chief Justice and would place that power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. Amendments Nos. 83 and 86 would alter the procedures for the removal of judges. Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 would remove the role of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in convening tribunals to consider the removal of any other judicial post holder.
    Lord Glentoran: Amendment No. 83 refers to page 6, line 19, which is about,
    "A tribunal to consider the removal of the Lord Chief Justice".
    The noble Baroness said "judges".
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Amendments Nos. 83 and 86 would alter the removal of judges. I understand, therefore, that the noble Lord seeks simply to relate this to the Lord Chief Justice.
    If we look at how the system will work, as we understand it, the review recommends that,
    "The removal from office of a judge or lay magistrate should only be possible on the basis of a finding of a judicial tribunal constituted under statutory authority and convened by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister or the Lord Chief Justice, that a magistrate or judge was unfit for office by reason of incapacity or misbehaviour".
    That is to be found in paragraph 6.136.
    By removing the role envisaged for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister from this process, these amendments are directly contrary to the review. They also remove the local political accountability which the review was careful to inject into both the appointment and the removal process.
    CWH 56
    From other amendments tabled to Clauses 4 and 5, both in this Committee and by others in another place, it is clear that noble Lords are wary of the role to be played by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in the appointment and removal process. Perhaps noble Lords would prefer these powers to remain in the hands of the Lord Chancellor at Westminster with an equal role for the Lord Chief Justice as a nod to devolution. All the comments that I made earlier about trust and truly taking on board that we are moving forward apply equally here. I have to say that, if we were to move along this line, it would be a backward step.
    More important, Amendment No. 83, taken with Clause 8(3), requires the Prime Minister to give his agreement and to be consulted before a tribunal can be convened to consider the removal of the Lord Chief Justice. In addition to that, although the First Minister and Deputy First Minister can convene a tribunal to consider the removal of the Lord Chief Justice in this clause, Clause 6 makes it clear that they cannot in fact remove a Lord Chief Justice on the basis of this tribunal. Only the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor can do that under Clause 6 by making a Motion for the presentation of an Address to Her Majesty. Therefore, what the noble Lord seeks is already in place in Clause 6.
    I hope that that reassures the noble Lord. While it is sensible for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to consult the Prime Minister when considering convening a tribunal to remove a senior judge in Northern Ireland, it is unnecessary to require his approval at this stage as well as when a Motion is made, because one would be double-banking it, to use the colloquial expression. As I pointed out earlier, we must have a little faith in the new institution and give every opportunity for devolution to work. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
    Lord Rogan: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 83 to 90 not moved.]
    Clause 8 agreed to.
    7.15 p.m.
    Clause 9 [Lay magistrates]:
    [Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 not moved.]
    Lord Roganmoved Amendment No. 93:
    Page 8, line I. leave out paragraph (d).
    The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 95 and 96. Clause 9 relates to the introduction of lay magistrates in Northern Ireland. At the outset, it is worth highlighting the fact that these persons will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor—and the Lord Chancellor alone. However, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister must have a role to play in the appointment, for example, of judges in the High Court.

    CWH 57
    The three amendments aim to address the weak provisions on eligibility. As the Bill stands, the Lord Chancellor may, by virtue of subsection (4), relegate eligibility.
    Amendment No. 93 seeks to remove subsection (5)(d), which suggests that an order may list prescribed offences whereby a person, if convicted, may be ineligible. "Prescribed" in that context, however, by subsection (6) means, "prescribed in the order". That permits an exclusory role for persons convicted of theft but the inclusion of those convicted of terrorist offences.
    Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 would replace that provision with a strict prohibition of persons convicted of criminal offences and dictates that persons convicted whilst lay magistrates must be removed. Just as we do not wish to have criminals involved in judicial appointments, we similarly do not wish criminals to be appointed lay magistrates—such persons will have an important role dealing with youth justice and reprimanding offending juveniles. I beg to move.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: These important amendments deal with the issue of qualification for lay magistrates. Amendment No. 93 seeks to remove from the list of disqualification provision for lay magistrates—which can be waived by the Lord Chancellor—the subsection which states that candidates who have been convicted of a prescribed offence are disqualified.
    The review recommended that the criminal justice functions of justices of the peace should be undertaken by a new office of lay magistrate. The Bill accordingly sets out the likely qualification requirements for that post.
    Amendment No. 94 seeks to remove the Lord Chancellor's discretion in applying those qualifications. The Lord Chancellor has that discretion in making justice of the peace appointments in England and Wales. If the amendment were agreed to, the Lord Chancellor would not, for example, be able to appoint candidates who depart even in the smallest way from the eligibility criteria. That would exclude a candidate, for example, who lived just five miles beyond the prescribed distance. The Government believe that such flexibility is essential and we therefore hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
    Amendment No. 95 seeks to reinstate the prescribed offence disqualification provision, but it inserts it in a new subsection without the caveat that it may be waived by the Lord Chancellor.
    Amendment No. 96 requires the Lord Chancellor to remove a lay magistrate if he is convicted of a criminal offence. The effect of the provisions would be to remove any discretion the Lord Chancellor had to set aside convictions for certain prescribed offences and to decide to appoint such an individual as a lay magistrate anyway.
    I understand where the noble Lord is coming from in relation to the amendments. However, we do not think that the Bill is wrong. We think that the right
    CWH 58
    balance has been struck. Lay magistrates play a relatively modest, if important, role in the justice system and it would be regrettable if there were no flexibility to set aside relatively minor criminal convictions if the case for appointing an individual were otherwise overwhelming.
    The Leader of the Opposition in the other place noted that just because a person has a past, it does not mean that he cannot play a role in the future. We support that sentiment and disagree with the amendments, which seek to remove that possibility. Members of the Committee said earlier that redemption should not be ruled out. I respectfully agree with that sentiment.
    Lord Glentoran: I was interested to hear what the Minister said. It is strange that we have a seriously thought-out prescription—paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection 5 are seriously prescriptive—but that they can be made as nothing by the Lord Chancellor. The Bill is a serious mixture of over-prescription and under-prescription.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We would say that this would be appropriate prescription where the need arose. The functions, which are currently discharged by the Lord Chancellor, would, after devolution, be exercised by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as provided for by Schedule 3, paragraphs 40 to 42. That discretion has been judiciously used in the past, and we anticipate that it would be judiciously used in the future.
    Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before we return to the matter, would the Minister consider a slight variation of the amendment with which we are dealing? The purpose of this section of the Bill is to secure public confidence in the justice system. I agree with the Minister's description of the role of lay magistrates as modest but important, and it is plain that there is an important need for subsections 5(a) to (d).
    The problem about the reference to "a prescribed offence" in paragraph (d), in which "prescribed" means prescribed in the order, is that it is difficult to draw up a satisfactory list of offences and to prescribe them in an order about which one can be confident that it is sufficiently comprehensive but not too comprehensive.
    Would it not be better if paragraph (d) were to read:
    "if he has been convicted of a criminal offence"?
    We should then leave the words,
    "unless the Lord Chancellor otherwise determines in the case of a particular person",
    to provide the necessary flexibility". There is an infinite variety of culpabilities in criminal offences, and I know that the Minister recognises that. One may have an offence on the prescribed list that is not particularly culpable and something which is outside the prescribed list which is culpable to a degree warranting exclusion from appointment.

    CWH 59
    If the Minister sees merit in what I suggest, perhaps she will think about it and adopt the first part of the amendment, relying upon the flexibility conferred by the words,
    "unless the Lord Chancellor otherwise determines in the case of a particular person".
    Perhaps the Minister will think there is some merit in that.
    Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We will certainly consider that. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for that suggestion. I would say, in addition, that if someone has committed an offence that is not on the prescribed list,
    CWH 60
    that does not mean that the commission of other offences would not prevent them from being appointed a lay magistrate.
    Lord Rogan: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 94 to 97 not moved.]
    Clause 9 agreed to.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Thursday at 4 p.m.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until Thursday 13th June at 4 p.m.
    The Committee adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past seven o'clock.

  EU Flag
  EU Flag
  Black Sea and Adriatic: Land Communications
  Black Sea and Adriatic: Land Communications
  Turkey and Iraq
  Turkey and Iraq
  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Inter-Congolese Dialogue
  Inter-Congolese Dialogue
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  European Union: Forthcoming Council Business
  Drug Use in Prisons
  Drug Use in Prisons
  Sexual Offences
  Sexual Offences
  Child Pornography on the Internet
  Child Pornography on the Internet
  Prisons: Purposeful Activity
  Prisons: Purposeful Activity
  Immigration Service: Race Relations Act 1976
  Immigration Service: Race Relations Act 1976
  House Buying
  House Buying
  Small Business Category
  Small Business Category
  Illegal Distilling of Liquor
  Illegal Distilling of Liquor
  House of Lords Membership
  House of Lords Membership
  Ballot Papers
  Ballot Papers
  Elections: Personation
  Elections: Personation
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  NHS Trusts: Level 3 EPRs
  NHS Trusts: Level 3 EPRs
  Learning to Listen Action Plans
  Learning to Listen Action Plans
  Revenue Raised from Sport
  Revenue Raised from Sport
  Labour Party Manifesto Commitments
  Labour Party Manifesto Commitments
  Downing Street Apartments
  Downing Street Apartments
  e-Government: Civil Service Numbers
  e-Government: Civil Service Numbers