Sitting of 24 June 2002

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

    Regional Theatres
    Paul Farrelly: What steps the Government are taking to support theatre in the regions. [61216]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): Following an extensive review of the needs of regional theatre throughout England, the Arts Council of England is, from 1 April this year, investing an additional £12 million in supporting nearly 200 theatre organisations. This figure will rise to £25 million in 2003–04 and after, bringing the total grant-in-aid figure for theatre to £70 million a year.
    Paul Farrelly: I thank the Minister for his reply. Perhaps he is aware that the New Victoria theatre in my constituency, a magnificent theatre-in-the-round, is one of the regional organisations to benefit from the largesse of the Arts Council and the Government, with an increase of 50 per cent. over the next three years. Can we expect that commitment to regional arts to continue into the future, silencing those miserable moaners who say that we are doing nothing for the arts outside London?
    Dr. Howells: As my hon. Friend points out, the figures represent considerable increases in support for the arts, in particular for theatres. I assure him that the need to continue to support the arts, which is such an important part of investment in this country, will continue.
    Ms Dari Taylor: In warmly welcoming the Minister's statement, may I ask whether the Arc, Stockton is included in the announcement? Arc was closed last autumn in a most unfortunate way. Will the Arts Council and my right hon. Friend's Department offer safety-net options for theatres that are closed in such an untimely way?
    Dr. Howells: I understand that the theatre in question is receiving a considerable increase in funding and a good deal of financial help. I am certain that if the case is put to the Arts Council, it will receive sympathetic consideration.

    Euro 2008
    Angus Robertson: What recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive regarding the Euro 2008 bid. [61217]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I discussed the bid with interested Scottish Ministers at the devolved Administrations sports cabinet on 18 June last week. My right hon. Friend had previously met the Scottish Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport on 18 March to discuss how the Department for Culture, Media and Sport may best support the bid. Officials in my Department have been working closely since then with the Scottish Executive.
    Angus Robertson: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure he will join me in welcoming the England football team home following their excellent performances in the World cup in Korea and Japan. Does he agree with me and the majority of people in Scotland that the hosting of a major football competition would have enormous benefits for sport and tourism in Scotland and throughout the rest of these islands? If so, can he assure the House that his Department will give its full and unqualified support for Scotland's joint bid with the Republic of Ireland for the European championships in 2008?
    Mr. Caborn: My right hon. Friend confirmed our support to UEFA in April this year, giving a clear indication that the Government gave the guarantees expected by UEFA. We fully support that bid and Ministers have discussed it, but at the end of the day it is a decision for the devolved Administration.
    Mr. George Foulkes: May I offer my more sincere condolences on England's premature exit from the World cup? Is it not the case that the World cup is a marvellous benefit for the host countries? I thank my right hon. Friend for all that he has done for the joint bid, which has been greatly enhanced by the way in which Ireland performed in the World cup. Does that not show that it was a wise decision for Scotland to go for a joint bid, rather than a sole bid?
    Mr. Caborn: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We will support the joint bid, but as I said, it is a decision for the devolved Administration. The British Government have given a commitment to UEFA, but the decision rests with the Scottish Executive.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Has there been a single achievement or action of the Labour Government in the past five years that makes it likely that any part of the United Kingdom will attract a big international sporting event? Last year, Britain became the first developed country in the world to suffer the humiliation of having to renege on its commitment to host the world athletics championships. Last week, the Secretary of State showed her expertise on football by claiming to have kept in touch via text messages with what was happening in England's World cup match against Nigeria, on the day when everyone else in the country knew that we were playing

    593
    Denmark. Is not the most helpful thing that Ministers could do to assist the Euro 2008 bid to keep their mouths firmly shut?
    Mr. Caborn: The hon. Gentleman's comments about my right hon. Friend are uncharacteristic.
    In the next two or three weeks, one of the largest sporting events in the world, involving 17 disciplines, will be taking place—the Commonwealth games. I think that it will be a huge success for the north-west and for the entire country. A little later this year, the Ryder cup will be taking place. It will be the first team event after the tragic events of 11 September in which we have been involved. We have been helping the organisers of the Ryder cup. Many events are taking place, and it is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman keeps harking back to a decision that I believe was taken correctly. It has been acknowledged by international committees that we took the right decision. It has also been acknowledged that it was a courageous decision.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Has my right hon. Friend had any discussions with the Scottish Executive about England's hid for the rugby World cup in 2007? We shall need Scotland's vote to win that bid.
    Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend raised the issue with me in the Lobby last week. I have made contact and we are exploring how support can be given.

    Ofcom Office (Scotland)
    Pete Wishart: What recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive regarding the establishment of an Ofcom office in Scotland. [612191
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): The Scottish Executive, along with other devolved Administrations, are aware of our proposals for ensuring that the interests of the different parts of the UK are represented within Ofcom, and we have exchanged correspondence on this issue. This includes the proposal that Ofcom should have an office in Scotland.
    Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I am not surprised that he is being selective in his account of his recent dealings with the Scottish Executive. Will he confirm that the Scottish First Minister has written twice recently describing his concerns about the lack of representation on the Ofcom board? It seems that there has not been a reply to the second letter for four weeks. Following what can only be described as an unseemly and embarrassing squabble between the Minister's Department and the Scottish Executive, with the Scotland Office also getting involved, we find that what we have in Scotland is some small sub-committee that goes no way to satisfying the concerns of the broadcasting community in Scotland. Will the Minister confirm that Scotland is still deprived of a place on the Ofcom board? Does he agree that this can only disadvantage the broadcasting community within Scotland?
    Dr. Howells: As someone who in the right mood will cross a road for a row, I can usually pick them up when
    594
    they are around, and I have noticed no squabble between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and anyone in Scotland. The idea is that a small board for Ofcom will react quickly and with energy. The nations and regions of the country will have their interests well represented on the content board.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: Is my hon. Friend aware that at the weekend the managing director of Scottish Television said that he thought that
    "the way the bill is written at the moment is a very, very good"
    solution
    "for regional broadcasting in the future",
    and that it
    "clearly protects quality and diversity"?
    Is not that the real voice of those in Scotland who are concerned about broadcasting in Scotland? I suggest that my hon. Friend listens to that voice rather than to the negative voices that we have heard from Opposition Members this afternoon.
    Dr. Howells: I could not agree more. I am glad that I did not answer the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) with the words, "Never believe anything you read in the press."
    Mr. Boris Johnson: Is Ofcom, whether in England or Scotland, expected in its competition mode to offer any hope to small educational software firms, such as one in my constituency, which are about to find their markets swamped by £150 million worth of BBC educational software? Can anything be done to allay their fears that unfair competition will be practised by the BBC?
    Dr. Howells: Competition issues are important and fair trade, as it has come to be known in the sector, should properly be practised and policed. I believe that the Office of Comunications Bill, or at least the Communications Bill, when it becomes law, will provide the means to ensure that there is fair competition for everyone who wants to take part in the sector.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: As the purpose of establishing an Ofcom office in Scotland would presumably be to serve Scottish consumers, will the Minister say whether he considers that those consumers would benefit more if digital terrestrial television offered only free-to-air channels or a mix of free-to-air and pay television channels?
    Dr. Howells: That is a matter for the regulator, not for Ministers.

    Motor Sport
    Richard Burden: If she will make a statement on her Department's efforts to promote motor sport in the UK. [61220]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The promotion of motor sport in the UK is a matter for the Motor Sports Association, the sport's governing body. However, the Government fully support motor sport.

    595
    The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working closely with the MSA, the Department of Trade and Industry and other sporting organisations to raise the profile of motor sport in this country.
    Richard Burden: As my right hon. Friend knows, I work with him on motor sport matters. He also knows that within the past week or so, the governing body of motor sport, the FIA, has confirmed that the roadworks and other improvements around Silverstone secure the future for the grand prix this year and, let us hope, for future years as well. I thank my right hon. Friend, other members of the Government and constituency Members on both sides of the House for their efforts to secure that important sporting event in the UK. However, we cannot be complacent about the future. Formula 1 is important, but motor sport goes beyond Formula 1. We all need to do everything we can to nurture a sport in which Britain excels and an industry that is a multi-million-pound showcase for British engineering, high tech and innovation.
    Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend is right. The industry is worth £4.8 billion and directly employs some 40,000 people, so it is very important. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been trying to bring the industry and the sport together, which will make the industry a more potent force on the international scene. I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he did to make sure that the grand prix takes place at Silverstone. There were some doubts a few months ago, but they have been resolved and, as a result of co-operation across the House and with the motoring organizations, the grand prix will take place at Silverstone on 7 July.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: As the constituency Member for Silverstone, I associate myself entirely with the questioner and, in this case, with the Minister's response on a matter of great importance for employment in my constituency and the locality and, indeed, the United Kingdom as a whole. Does the Minister agree that the emphasis now should be not on recrimination for anything that went wrong in the past, but on a celebration of the fact that we have got through a difficult time and are determined together to provide an excellent experience in just under a fortnight, on 7 July? We will then use it as the basis not merely for—we hope—a sporting success, but to strengthen an industry which is of great importance in the locality and much more widely across the country.
    Mr. Caborn: I welcome those remarks and reinforce them by saying that seven of the top 11 Formula 1 teams operate out of the UK, which is extremely important for the supply chain going into that. It is pleasing—even though it came out of a crisis—that the sport and the industry are now meeting. The strength of the totality of sport and industry coming together can only bode well for the future. I hope that in the near future the DTI, the DCMS and others will work closely together in a more formal way to promote the industry internationally as effectively as we can.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: There are a number of very successful motor sport companies in Warwickshre, and one or two in my constituency. The industry makes an important contribution to the
    596
    development of automotive technology, but to secure its future it needs to attract young people into it. Colleges of further education have a significant role to play in that respect. May I impress on my right hon. Friend the bid coming forward from Warwickshire college to have such a centre of excellence based there?
    Mr. Caborn: I have no doubt that many will be saying that. The old saying in engineering is that what happens in Formula 1 today happens in the luxury car market tomorrow and in the volume car market the day after. The Motor Industry Association plays an important role in trying to attract young people into the industry. I know that the MIA works with both higher and further education, and I hope that through the sport we can maximise the industry.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: May I, too, pay tribute to motor sports in the United Kingdom? Motor sport is the third most watched sport after the World cup and the summer Olympics. Some 5 million television viewers watched last year's grand prix. The Minister ominously referred to a joint role for his Department and the DTI. Will he be more specific about what role his Department will play and what precisely the Government intend to do to keep the British grand prix going?
    Mr. Caborn: I hope that what we will demonstrate on 7 July will compel the FIA to ensure that future grands prix will be held in the UK. In terms of the development of the industry, as I said, out of the little crisis that arose, the MSA and the MIA have been working together. The MSA has produced an ambitious development plan that clearly links in with that. We are reflecting on it, and it will then be for the Government to respond and see how we can interface with the industry.

    Sport (Young People)
    Mr. David Heath: What plans she has to encourage involvement in sport by young people in the south-west. [61221]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government are committed to increasing participation by young people throughout the country. My Department is working with the Department for Education and Skills to improve access to and quality of PE, school sport and club links for five to 16-year-olds in all parts of the country. A number of excellent projects are under way in the south-west.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he accept that it is often felt that the priorities of his Department do not entirely recognise the difficulties of access in predominantly rural counties such as those in the west country? Facilities, where there are any, are located further apart and travel can be a real problem. The smaller communities desperately need help to provide equipment, pitches and the wherewithal for sport. In particular, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned school sport. Will he encourage inter-school sport, which is so desperately important in developing sport, by helping to

    597
    find curricular time, helping with transport and simply encouraging schools to engage in what used to be a normal part of the school week?
    Mr. Caborn: We are putting investment into sports colleges and school sports co-ordinators, but it will be the practitioners on the ground who reflect that. I should like to quote Marie Hunter, head teacher of Penryn college and community school:
    "Our schools sports co-ordinator partnership covers 7 secondary and 67 primary schools in the West of Cornwall. It is making a tremendous impact in encouraging young people to get involved in sport and in the delivery of PE in primary schools. Programme has had a marked effect on sport in the local community and has encouraged partnership working with other agencies".
    I rest my case.
    Mr. John Greenway: I am sure that the Minister will agree that many young people in rural areas such as the south-west benefit from the community and amateur sports clubs in their areas, as they provide the opportunity of playing team games, which are not always so easily available through schools. Does he agree that the clubs that provide such help and support could do an even better job if they enjoyed mandatory rate relief? Why do the Government think that that welcome help should be available only if clubs become fully fledged charities? If Ministers really believe in them, why cannot rate relief be included in the Government's tax package, as they originally said it would be?
    Mr. Caborn: On the first step towards bringing charitable status to many clubs, we submitted to every hon. Member the leaflet "Charitable Status and Amateur Sports Clubs". Some 100,000 leaflets were published in the first print a few weeks ago, and we are now having to go into a second print because of the demand. There is real appetite for community and charitable status for amateur sports clubs, and we are working on the issue. Indeed, the performance and innovation unit is considering whether sport should be provided by charity as of right with regard to amateur sports clubs, and we are exploring that possibility. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who is distinguished in the world of sport, that his Government were in power for many years, but did not explore the matter at all during their tenure.

    Sport (National Lottery Funding)
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What contributions the sports lottery is making to increasing the community use of schools for sport. [61222]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The national lottery is providing £581 million in England through the new opportunities fund and £55 million to the space for sport and the arts scheme for the provision at schools of sports facilities, all of which are available to the community. In addition, the national lottery has awarded £153.5 million to fund 293 school sports facilities in England, all of which are available to the community. Lottery funding for school sports facilities is conditional on community use of those facilities.
    Dr. Cable: I welcome the programme, especially the £800,000 that was indicatively allocated to my borough.
    598
    However, the fact that the money goes through the lottery rather than the Government means that primary schools in particular find it impossible to get access to the money because they have to demonstrate 40 hours a week of community use. Will the Secretary of State try to ensure that that rule is applied flexibly, so that in future more children under 11 have access to sport in their schools?
    Tessa Jowell: Because of the inflexibility to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the 40-hours-a-week rule has been waived in recognition of the difficulties that can face small primary schools, but that does not detract from the overriding principle that investment in school sports facilities should also extend and open up opportunities to the community.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for her contribution to the provision of resources for sports in schools. Will she take particular note of the former mining areas where the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation used to provide substantial resources and help for schools as regards sports? That has now gone, so resources are needed to maintain the link between communities and sport. The lottery fund could fill that void. Will the Secretary of State give attention to that and help the mining villages to maintain their sports facilities?
    Tessa Jowell: I take my hon. Friend's point very seriously. He is right in two respects. It is important to ensure, first, that coalfield communities get their fair share of lottery funds and, secondly, that children in those communities are able to benefit from opportunities to participate in sport. For the first time ever, we have a major programme of investment in sport facilities, amounting to more than £1.1 billion across the United Kingdom, which is linked to the introduction of school sport co-ordinators and primary liaison teachers. That will ensure that every child has the opportunity to enjoy sport both in and out of school. That is good for their academic achievement, improves their health and reduces crime. It is also good for the well-being of communities and the ambitions of the nation as whole.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Secretary of State join me in praising the England and Wales Cricket Board for the various innovative measures that it has introduced to increase participation in cricket, not only by those in school, but by those in clubs who have left school but are using school facilities? Does she recognise that one of the problems involved in community use of school sports facilities is that although she and her predecessor promised many times to stop the sale of school sports fields, a report for her own Department has shown that the increase in sales of school sports fields, many by Labour-controlled local authorities, increased by 60 per cent. last year? If she could stop that and put sport back into the core curriculum, sports facilities would improve across the board.
    Tessa Jowell: First, I pay tribute to the governing bodies that are taking seriously their role in introducing young people to sport and in providing high-quality coaching, so that the great cricketers, great rugby players

    599
    and, especially at this time, great footballers of today, who are role models for young people, provide the basis of children's aspirations to do as well as they have done.
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is, frankly, way wide of the mark. As my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), has made clear, under the previous Tory Government the sale of playing fields was running at about 40 a month, and the only way in which many schools could raise the necessary assets to build laboratories or new classrooms was to sell their playing fields. For the past five years, since 1997, we have tried to reverse that trend, and we have done so with great success. The £1.1 billion going from the lottery into improved facilities is evidence of that.
    Mr. David Kidney: On the first day of Wimbledon, does my right hon. Friend accept that when I recently launched the new out-of-school-hours courses at Rising Brook high school in Stafford, there was widespread interest by students in the school and youngsters in the surrounding community? [Interruption.] Very good; I shall return the shot later. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way forward is through partnership between the schools, the lottery and the various sports associations if we are to achieve more smash hits in the future?
    Tessa Jowell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport said, the Commonwealth games are only weeks away in this summer of sport. The governing bodies, including the Lawn Tennis Association, have a vital role in ensuring that they recruit the next generation of young champions for the future.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Let us return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made about playing fields. Does not the Secretary of State agree that although most schools are good at making their facilities more widely available in the community, especially in West Sussex, they can do little about it if the playing fields are sold from under their feet? Despite her protestations, the sale of school playing fields has recently reached record levels. Will she speak to Ministers in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and ensure that school playing fields can be sold for housing development only in the most exceptional circumstances, given their importance to the wider community?
    Tessa Jowell: It is a pleasure to hold exchanges with the hon. Gentleman across the Floor, but he is talking rubbish about the Government's record. He is trying to conceal the Conservative Government's guilty past, which the Government are trying to rectify for the benefit of children by unprecedented investment in improved sports facilities, including £15 million to improve and upgrade playing field facilities.

    Film Industry
    Barbara Follett: What measures her Department is taking to support the British film industry. [61223]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): In April 2000. we established the Film Council as the Government's strategic lead body for film which, for the first time, brought together responsibility for the film industry, culture and education.
    Barbara Follett: What discussions has my hon. Friend held with the Department for Education and Skills about encouraging young people to acquire the skills that they need in today's high-technology film industry?
    Dr. Howells: We regularly discuss creativity in the classroom with the Department for Education and Skills. We fund the national film and television school directly. Skillset, the sector skills council for the audiovisual industries, and the Film Council are undertaking a joint research project to develop a comprehensive skills strategy for the British film industry. The Film Council's innovative £1 million-a-year "first light" scheme already gives many young people from all social backgrounds the opportunity to make short films.
    Nick Harvey: What assessment has the Minister made of the likely impact of the changes in this year's Budget on film tax relief? Although I acknowledge that there was abuse by people who were producing for television on tiny budgets but claiming large amounts of relief, does the Minister share my anxiety that the effect may be to drive big projects away to eastern European countries and elsewhere? Does he know that the Film Council believes that approximately £250 million-worth of planned projects will move to other countries because of the changes? Will he discuss with the Treasury some other method of directing relief to big, high-value projects? What will be the position of projects that were already on the stocks of studios if they are not allowed to continue under the tax arrangements that were in place when they were agreed and when the contracts were signed?
    Dr. Howells: The decision as to what is eligible for tax relief is, of course, one for the Inland Revenue and the Treasury, and they must also decide on the implementation of the announcements in the Budget. The Department has been very concerned, however, about the likely effect on future investment in the film industry in this country, and particularly on big inward investment from America. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there was serious abuse of the existing system. Something has certainly gone wrong when episodes of soap operas and even weather forecasts are put forward for tax relief.
    Kali Mountford: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the British Film Commission and local authorities have made great strides towards working together recently, more could be done to show local authorities the benefits of attracting the film industry into local communities? Should not the film and television industries also do more themselves to make clearer the contribution that they can make to local communities?
    Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is quite clear from working with the tourist sector, for example, that people want to visit film locations. That has become big business, not only in this country but in

    601
    America and elsewhere. The importance of film, television and the communications media in general is understood by some but not all local authorities, and it can be a big creator of jobs and revenue. I should be interested to hear any suggestions that my hon. Friend has about how we might take that agenda forward.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: What extra support does the Minister intend to give to film-making in Liverpool? Does he agree that film-making is an important part of economic regeneration, and does he consider that Liverpool's fine track record in filming is a good reason why Liverpool should become the European capital of culture in 2008?
    Dr. Howells: I certainly cannot comment on my hon. Friend's last suggestion. Responsibility for deciding what part of the money allocated to the Film Council is to be spent in different parts of the country lies, of course, with the Film Council. God forbid that Ministers should start deciding where film money should to be spent, and on what projects.

    Arts (National Lottery Funding)
    Mr. Peter Pike: What discussions she has had with the Arts Council about the distribution of lottery funds for arts projects in the north-west. [61224]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Dr. Kim Howells): None. The north-west has received more than £175 million in arts lottery funding to date, and it is the second-highest recipient of arts lottery funding of all the British regions.
    Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will recognise that it is a year ago today that Burnley had disturbances on its streets. I am sure that he will agree that art is one means of bringing communities together, as was shown by Artspeak at Burnley Mechanics on Thursday and Friday last week. Does he recognise that Burnley youth theatre has done tremendous work locally to bring the community together? Will he urge members of the Arts Council to go to Burnley, meet members of Burnley youth theatre and ensure that action is taken at an early date to sort out the final few snags in its lottery grant?
    Dr. Howells: Yes; I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts would have any problem agreeing to my hon. Friend's suggestions. My hon. Friend will be aware that Burnley has received more than £670,000 of lottery funding, which is largely consistent with other districts when considered in terms of per capita spend. I agree entirely with him that spending on the arts is one way of trying to capture the anger and frustration that appear to have expressed themselves in his constituency, and to channel them more constructively.
    Bob Spink: For the sake of the north-west, as well as the rest of the country, when will the Minister consider reducing the bureaucracy and increasing the common sense in awarding lottery grants?
    Dr. Howells: I understand that a number of initiatives are under way to try to reduce the red tape, bureaucracy and time involved in awarding lottery grants. That is a huge
    602
    task, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. Unprecedented amounts of money have been awarded, not least in the north-west, and they have to be spent properly. The last thing we need is lottery grants being put into projects that prove to be unsustainable and subsequently fail.
    Ian Stewart: The recent White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions" has been well received in the north-west. It proposes that elected regional assemblies devise and fund strategies for the arts, tourism and sport. Surely the Arts Council's recent centralisation flies in the face of that. Will my hon. Friend consider the issue again?
    Dr. Howells: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. Anyway, as the proposal will not be implemented for at least five years, if any fine tuning is needed we have plenty of time in which to do it.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: How much of the money awarded to the north-west is underspent?
    Dr. Howells: I have no idea, but I shall try to find out, and will write to the hon. Gentleman.

    Public Parks (Sport)
    Caroline Flint: If she will make a statement on the use of public parks as a location for open access sports activity. [61225]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): Public parks provide an excellent environment for both formal and informal sport and recreation.
    We recognise the broad range of benefits to be gained from open spaces in terms of health, education and many other parts of our lives. We therefore want to ensure that they are preserved and indeed upgraded, especially for people living in urban areas.
    Caroline Flint: Venus and. Serena Williams learned tennis on the public courts in their neighbourhood. Given the world of leisure in which we live, I suggest that our parks will be in decline unless we do something. Has the Department taken account of the fact that many parks run by local authorities have no access to funds such as those available to private sports clubs, schools and other bodies mentioned today in answers to questions?
    Mr. Caborn: That is why the urban White Paper considered the whole question of open spaces. Following the report of the working party on green spaces and sustainable communities, we will incorporate its proposals in the development of sports facilities. I hope they will be reflected in planning policy statement 17, and that there will be a firm link with the £500 million invested in localities through the new opportunities fund. Although it has been given to local education authorities, a precondition of its release is that the facilities it will provide are used by the community.
    Mr. Mark Field: As the right hon. Gentleman may know, the royal parks

    603
    will remain part of his Department's responsibility for a few more months. Will he try to ensure that the interests of local people are put first when it comes to use of the royal parks, particularly Hyde park, for the increasingly large number of sporting and other events that have beset that public asset in recent years?
    Mr. Caborn: The royal parks have been used by the public, demonstrably, during the recent jubilee celebrations. Musical events have taken place there. I will, however, reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said when there are discussions about the royal parks.
    Mr. Andy Reed: Does my right hon. Friend agree that parks play a crucial role in ensuring that young people in particular have access to low-level, non-coaching types of physical activity—that they can simply walk to a local park and play? Is he aware that parish councils play a key role in rural and semi-rural areas such as mine, where many such facilities have declined during the past 15 or 20 years? Has he had discussions with parish councils to ensure that they can provide the money that is needed to improve the facilities enough for most people to be able to use them much more regularly?
    Mr. Caborn: As I have said, a working party has just reported, and we have produced an urban White Paper. We are now trying to bring together open spaces and more formal sports facilities. The fact that they have been kept apart is a weakness in our sport and recreation infrastructure. We need a proper synergy of activity and development, and we shall bring that about in the months ahead. The first step will be the provision of PPS 17 by the Deputy Prime Minister's Department. It will give local authorities directions on planning for sports and open-space facilities.

    Wembley National Stadium
    Gregory Barker: When she expects the new national stadium at Wembley will be able to stage its first football match. [61228]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The Football Association, whose project this is, has made it clear that the construction contract lasts for 39 months. Construction can start as soon as the financing deal is in place. There has been no change to the FA's estimate, which I set out in my statement to the House on 23 May, that it would take up to 10 weeks from signing heads of agreement to reach financial close.
    My officials remain in close contact with the FA and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. and good progress is being made by the FA on its commercial negotiations. We will continue to give the FA all the support that it needs to deliver the national stadium at Wembley and to ensure that the public interest in the project is suitably protected.
    Gregory Barker: Sadly, on this occasion, despite the heroic efforts of our team, the World cup will not be coming home. However, if the same level of risible skill and effort had been displayed by our England team that has been characteristic of the Government's handling of the national stadium, it would not have made it even to Japan. Can the Secretary of State give the House a firm
    604
    commitment that we will be in a position for London to bid for the 2014 World cup? Indeed, what comfort can she give the House that this supposedly athletics-capable stadium will be able next year to bid for the 2012 Olympics?
    Tessa Jowell: While our team was away competing in the World cup, the heads of agreement on the Wembley deal were signed, evidence that the Wembley project is closer to reality than at any other time in its history, which has lasted about eight years. That is an achievement. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should recognise that progress has been made and that the project has made more progress in the past year than it made in the previous six years.
    In relation to decisions on an Olympic bid, that is a matter for separate discussion with the key interests and governing bodies, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

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

    Parish Priests (Recruitment and Retention)
    Tim Loughton: What financial measures the Commissioners have recently taken to improve recruitment and retention of parish priests. [61202]
    Mr. Stuart Bell Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): In terms of recruiting, the ministry division of the Archbishops' Council supports a nationwide network of vocation advisers, who encourage people to consider their vocation to priesthood and other ministries. In terms of retention, in 1999, the Archbishops' Council set up a group to review clergy stipends. Its recommendations include increasing the clergy stipend from its national stipend benchmark of £17,042 to £20,000 from April 2002.
    Tim Loughton: Perhaps I should declare an interest as the son of a semi-retired rector. I have attended about six induction services in the past couple of years in my constituency and the interregnums between clergy seem to be getting longer and longer, so clearly we need to do more to encourage more people to come into that office. Can the hon. Gentleman specifically comment on reports that with an annual £11 million shortfall, the Church of England is considering scrapping the final salary pension scheme for clergy as the latest victims of the pension crisis? Can he also comment on the Department of Trade and Industry proposals, apparently reported in the paper last week, to replace God as the employer of clergy and make them subject instead to employment tribunals on earth?
    Mr. Bell: On the second question, I am not responsible for the DTI, but we are always interested in looking at the conditions of employment of clergy in relation to trade unions and the rest. It is a matter that the Church keeps constantly under review.

    605
    On pensions, the Church seeks to balance the stipends that are paid to the clergy and the pensions that accrue to them. That is always based on actuarial figures. Comments as to loss or shortfall are mostly speculation and I would not be able to comment.
    Mr. Andy Reed: Is my hon. Friend aware of the pressure placed on existing priests, vicars and rectors when individuals leave and the work load is spread? In my own constituency—and my own parish in particular—we have one vicar covering three parishes, where previously there were two. Do not those increased pressures cause difficulties? What measures can be put in place to ensure that the vast majority of the country is covered, resourced and staffed adequately?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will be interested to know that the number of men and women ordained as deacons and serving in the stipendiary ministry was 295 in 2001 and 313 in 2002. In relation to his question as to how parishes cope, my hon. Friend will be interested to know that the lay ministry grows in strength and that there are now 10,000 lay readers serving the Church. That helps to ease the burden on the parishes and the parish priests.

    Church Repairs
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations he has received on VAT on church repairs. [61203]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I have received no specific representations recently on the subject of VAT on church repairs.
    Miss McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of my ongoing campaign in this regard and, in my view, the totally unsatisfactory response of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in simply making available a grant in lieu of the VAT that churches would be otherwise able to reclaim. Will he confirm that he continues to put pressure on the Treasury to make sure that the administrative burden on the churches is not more than the value of the grant coming back, and that he will continue to campaign for a VAT reduction?
    Mr. Bell: I am always grateful for the hon. Lady's assistance in campaigning on the issue. She will know that the Church of England VAT group has worked closely with other faith groups and is represented by the Church's main committee. We have maintained especially close links with the Treasury and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We will be making strong representations to the Treasury and, through the Treasury, to the EU to ensure that VAT is reduced to 5 per cent. during 2003. We will make all our efforts co-ordinated with Members of Parliament who have an interest and with Members of the European Parliament.
    Alan Howarth: It seems to many of us that with his temporary grant scheme to offset the cost of VAT, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has provided a splendid opportunity to enable repairs to be made to listed places of worship. What steps are being taken by
    606
    the Church Commissioners—presumably in conjunction with the heritage lottery fund and English Heritage—to ensure that these repairs are carried out to appropriately high standards in terms of materials and workmanship? After all, in the last great phase of repairs to English parish churches, our Victorian forebears—for all their piety and energy—all too often undertook the work in a spirit that subsequent generations have judged to be too clumsy and unfortunate. We do not want to make similar mistakes in our own generation.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In fact, most of the infrastructure of our churches goes back over 100 years, which is why many of them are in disrepair and why repairs are now urgently needed. He will be aware that the setting up of the listed places of worship grant scheme has resulted in a number of payments being made directly to parishes engaged in vital repairs to their listed church buildings. They are grateful for that and I am sure that the standard of workmanship will be higher than in the Victorian era.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) has made an important point? Far too often the liturgical fads and fancies of the moment are responsible for a re-ordering of church fabrics that does not exactly enhance them. There seem to be an awful lot of incumbents who are immunised against beauty at birth. Will he bear in mind that it is important that the fabrics that we have inherited are properly safeguarded and maintained?
    Mr. Bell: We are going an awful long way from the subject of VAT on church repairs being reduced from 17.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. I am sure that DCMS Ministers sitting on the Front Bench will be most interested in the comments that have been made. It always occurs to me that when we deal with the fabric of our churches and the national heritage, there is a lack of collective spirit. There is great desire to ensure that repairs are done; there is not a great desire to provide the wherewithal. Somehow we must link the two to maintain our national heritage.

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

    Compulsory Voting
    Mr. James Plaskitt: If the Commission has commissioned research into the effects of introducing compulsory voting. [61204]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): I understand that the Commission intends to carry out research into the operation of compulsory voting in other countries. This research project is expected to begin later this year and the results will be published in 2003.
    Mr. Plaskitt: Although it is worth conducting research into compulsory voting, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is probably not the solution to falling turnout, because it is incompatible with freedom of choice? Will he concentrate instead on investigating increasing turnout through voluntary processes?
    Mr. Beith: The commission has said that the main responsibility for increasing turnout in elections must lie with the politicians and parties themselves. It does not regard compulsory voting as the answer to this problem, but it considers it appropriate to carry out research. I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's views on this subject.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: It is encouraging to hear that response, but will the right hon. Gentleman go further and say that the franchise implies a degree of responsibility and consideration on the part of the person exercising it? If someone cannot be bothered to vote, they should not be forced to do so.
    Mr. Beith: I have a similar view, but we probe voters' motives at our peril.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered compulsory postal voting, and moving polling day from a Thursday to the weekend?
    Mr. Beith: I have never before heard the suggestion that compulsory voting and postal voting be combined, but I suppose that might follow if compulsory voting were introduced. Changing polling day is precisely the sort of issue that the Electoral Commission considers from time to time, and on which it might at some point make recommendations to Government.
    Simon Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one obvious disadvantage of compulsory voting is that it would be not nearly as easy to judge how happy the electorate are with politicians as it is under a system that allows them to choose whether to vote? Is not a bigger priority to concentrate first on making registration—which is already compulsory—work effectively, given that, in many parts of the country, it does not? Should we not also consider providing a financial incentive to vote? Such an incentive might encourage many more people to vote, but it would still leave them the freedom not to do so.
    Mr. Beith: Later this afternoon, the Electoral Commission Committee will consider increasing the commission's expenditure on raising awareness of the need to register to vote, which the commission regards as particularly important.

    National Assembly for Wales Elections
    Kevin Brennan: What discussions the Committee has had with the Electoral Commission on introducing an all-postal ballot for elections to the National Assembly for Wales. [61205]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): There have been no such discussions, but I understand that the commissioners have discussed with the First Minister and his colleagues a range of options for increasing turnout at the Assembly elections in 2003.
    Kevin Brennan: Do we not want to encourage maximum possible turnout for elections to a new institution such as the National Assembly? Is it not particularly suited to an all-postal vote, and would not extending that idea to next year's elections ensure a high turnout and thus increase the credibility of the results?
    Mr. Beith: All-postal voting in the National Assembly elections would require primary legislation. The commission is evaluating the use of all-postal voting in recent local elections, but because of the time needed to make that evaluation, and to introduce primary legislation, it is fairly unlikely that all-postal voting could be introduced in time for the Assembly elections.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: What special measures the Electoral Commission is considering to ensure access to polling stations in the Welsh Assembly elections. [61206]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): The Commission will fund the development and delivery of training for electoral services staff in Wales in advance of the 2003 National Assembly elections. The training programme will address how to ensure access to the electoral process for people with disabilities. Later this year, the Commission will also publish a series of "good practice" handbooks, which will include advice to returning officers on this matter.
    Mr. Bryant: Are the right hon. Gentleman and the commission aware that many electoral registration officers in Wales are already worried that literally hundreds of polling stations will not meet the legal requirements for disabled access next year? Thousands of people could be disfranchised because of the absence of a local polling station. If the commission will not consider all-postal ballots, will it at least consider requiring local authorities to write to every constituent, suggesting that they might none the less have a postal vote?
    Mr. Beith: I shall certainly put the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the commission, but it should be borne in mind that a long-standing legal requirement exists that, so far as is practical, all electors should have reasonable facilities for voting, and, in particular, that local authorities should designate as polling stations only places that are accessible to disabled voters. Indeed, there is a widespread feeling in the House that every polling station should, if possible, be fully accessible to the disabled. However, when a polling station is changed or removed, local electors can petition against that development, and the Electoral Commission has the power to require the local authority concerned to reinstate the polling station. However, to date no such petitions have been received.

    Election Material (Imprints)
    Mike Gapes: When the Electoral Commission plan to discuss enforcement of the law relating to imprints on material circulated during election campaigns. [61208]
    Mr. A. J. Beith (representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission): I understand from the chairman of the commission that it has no such plans. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 does not give the commission an enforcement role as regards imprints on election material, although the Government are required to consult the commission before making regulations relating to imprints. In that context, the commission has encouraged the Government to bring in the new requirements for imprints contained in the Act that were suspended by the Election Publications Act 2001.
    Mike Gapes: I am disappointed by that reply. Those of us who have been subjected to the distribution of literature without imprint, have complained and had the matter investigated by the police, have found—as in my case—that the Director of Public Prosecutions says that it is
    "not in the public interest to prosecute".
    That is even though the people responsible have been warned about their future conduct. How can we enforce the law to protect democracy if people can distribute literature with impunity?
    Mr. Beith: I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the experience that he had in his constituency, but such matters of law enforcement are
    610
    matters for the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will—I am sure—be made aware of these exchanges. It is the job of the commission merely to monitor compliance, and it may make recommendations arising from that monitoring.

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

    Conservation
    Mr. Robert Key: What responsibilities the Church Commissioners have for the (a) Church Heritage Forum, (b) Cathedrals Fabric Commission and (c) Council for the Care of Churches. [61209]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and I look forward with great interest to his supplementary.
    Mr. Key: Given that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has halved the cathedral grants this coming year, what representations have the Church Commissioners made to the Chancellor in the public spending round to maintain the cathedral grants at least at their previous level?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue with me. We will make a submission to the Chancellor on that subject. I hope that it will become a Budget submission for consideration at the next Budget.

European Council (Seville)
3.32 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Seville on 21 and 22 June. This was the last summit of the successful and very professional Spanish presidency—although, thanks to the World cup, the Spanish President and I unfortunately had more in common than we had originally intended.
By 2004, the European Union will have welcomed up to 10 new member countries, with more to follow. This is an historic opportunity that the Government welcome. Excellent progress on the timetable has been made under the Spanish presidency, and at Seville we reaffirmed our commitment to complete the negotiations by the end of the year.
In preparing for a union of 25 member states we need to reform the way we operate. We have agreed a series of measures that will allow us to streamline the Council agenda in order to shorten Council meetings and to make sure that issues decided by specialist Councils are only, exceptionally, put before the European Council.
We have set a limit on the size of delegations. In order to prepare meetings of the European Council, the General Affairs Council will become a General Affairs and External Relations Council, split into two separate parts with separate meetings, separate agendas and, if member states desire it, different Ministers taking part. We have now opened up Council legislative meetings to the public.
We have further reduced the number of specialist Councils. There were more than 20 three years ago, and there are 16 now. We will further reduce them to nine, concentrating in one Council the whole of the European Union's agenda of competitiveness, which is at the heart of the economic reform agenda. Our campaign for simpler, better regulation, with proper consultation with business and industry, was endorsed.
The European Council itself will henceforth set a multi-annual strategic programme for the whole of the European Union for the following three years, with the annual work programme set by the General Affairs Council. This is a significant evolution in the role of member Governments in setting the EU's agenda.
In a letter to Prime Minister Aznar a month ago, I proposed that at Seville we should give a remit for action to strengthen the EU's borders, including Community funding; make progress on returns to Afghanistan now that normal government is being restored; and benchmark the performance of third countries and use our network of agreements to improve co-operation in handling migration issues.
Since the Tampere summit we have, across the European Union, introduced tough penalties for people smuggling and people trafficking, and agreed visa security rules and a Europe-wide database for identifying illegal immigrants. We are setting minimum reception conditions for asylum seekers and have established a European refugee fund to help countries, including our own, deal with this problem.
At Seville, we decided, first, on measures to combat illegal migration, including action on visas, readmission agreements and a repatriation programme, including early
612
returns to Afghanistan. Secondly, this year we agreed to take steps to achieve co-ordinated management of external borders, including joint operations at those borders.
Legal migration can and does bring real and substantial benefits to countries, including Britain. Our aim is not to prevent legal migration; on the contrary, subject to proper rules, we welcome it. It is to stop illegal immigration and asylum seeking that is not genuine, because that debases the system and harms the interests of the legal immigrant.
Our aim is also to ensure that the people traffickers, who trade in human misery, cannot exploit weaknesses. We need only look at the success of the joint Anglo-Italian operation in Bosnia to see what can be achieved. There, an airport was being used to transit illegal immigrants into the European Union. Unaccounted arrivals have now been cut by 90 per cent., but we are dealing with clever, organised criminal gangs. If we shut down one route, they come looking for the next. So the third element is about the integration of immigration policy into the Union's relations with third countries based on the following: all new co-operation or association agreements with third countries will have a migration clause and a commitment to readmission; readmission agreements with all relevant countries will be completed as soon as possible; and there will be a systematic review of relations with third countries to gauge the extent of their co-operation in migration issues.
A majority of states, including Britain, wanted to go further in hardening the language on third country returns. A minority were concerned that this looked as though we were prepared to harm our development objectives. In the end, the compromise was that, in respect of any new agreement, returns to third countries would be an integral part of the negotiation on all aspects of the agreement.
In respect of existing agreements, where there is non-co-operation, we reserved the right to adopt any measures or positions in respect of a third country that we decide upon, provided that they are consistent with our contractual commitments and development objectives. I have no doubt that this will now form a key part of our relations with third countries, although the test, of course, will be the practical effect of the measures proposed.
The world summit on sustainable development meets in Johannesburg in two months' time. We have made clear for the last year our strong commitment to the aims of the summit. Many leaders, including me, will be there. The European Council gave a strong message of support for the policies of sustainable development. We reaffirmed our commitment to breaking down trade barriers, including on agriculture. We called for initiatives at Johannesburg on water, sanitation, energy and health—all top United Kingdom priorities. I urge the House to give this programme its full support.
The conclusions of the summit have been placed in the Library of the House. I draw the House's attention to the declaration that we issued on India and Pakistan and to the statement of the Council, which takes note of a national statement by Ireland.
Finally, we discussed the grave crisis in the middle east. We agreed that there must be an end to the violence so that the Israelis and Palestinians can relaunch the peace process as rapidly as possible. As I have said many times, this must result in a secure Israel recognised by its Arab neighbours and in a viable Palestinian state.

613
I repeat my praise of the six months of the Spanish presidency. On economic reform, reform of the Council and the sensitive issues of illegal immigration and asylum, it has made substantial progress. The direction of policy is clear—it is the pace that we need to quicken. However, that is a far cry from where the agenda of reform stood five years ago. For Britain, the policy of constructive engagement is right, it proves itself consistently and, under this Government, it will be maintained.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and join him in condemning the bombings in Spain over the weekend. Violence is no way to advance a political agenda, be it in Europe or the middle east.
We support the Council's declaration that a lasting solution to the conflict in the middle east must be based on Israel being recognised by its Arab neighbours, feeling secure within its borders and living peacefully alongside a Palestinian state. Does the Prime Minister agree that now is the time for members of the European Union to lend their full support to American efforts to bring about negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians?
We also welcome the Council declaration on India and Pakistan and the progress that it has made on sustainable development, although the latter message would carry greater conviction if the EU gave more aid to developing countries rather than to aspirant member states.
None of those things, however, can obscure the underlying message from Seville: that for all the Prime Minister's talk of leading in Europe and winning the argument, he has once again lost the argument and been left behind. He went to Seville seeking an agreement that would penalise countries that failed to co-operate with the fight against illegal immigration—as he and his Foreign Secretary put it. He was supremely confident. Only last week, he stood next to the Prime Minister of Spain and said:
"I have no doubt…we will reach agreement."
Will the Prime Minister confirm not only that his plan was rebuffed but that the Swedish Prime Minister referred to the idea as stupid, unworkable and "an historic mistake"? Perhaps he had been speaking to the Secretary of State for International Development. The Prime Minister not only failed to carry the rest of Europe with him—he could not even carry his own Cabinet to Europe with him.
Instead, the Prime Minister has returned with an agreement that supports the principle of setting up an EU border police. Only last Friday, the Foreign Secretary boasted that
"such is the opposition to the principle of a European Union border police that it will not feature".
However, yesterday, after the welcome in the final declaration, the EU's Justice Commissioner said that he expected the border force to become a reality within five years. Is that what the Minister for Europe meant when he said yesterday that
"the truth is we got everything we wanted"?
I thought that this was supposed to be the post-spin era of the Government.
614
I am also sure that the House would be grateful to hear what discussions the Prime Minister held with the Spanish Government on the Gibraltarians' right to a referendum to decide their legal status.
The Prime Minister tells us that Seville made progress on enlargement of the European Union, but it did not deal with the structural funding issue, and discussions on reform of the common agricultural policy have yet again been postponed. Given that his Minister for Europe maintains that quick reform of the CAP is imperative for enlargement to take place, can the Prime Minister seriously guarantee that negotiations with applicant countries will be completed by the end of this year?
Does the Prime Minister agree with NATO's supreme commander in Europe when he says that NATO should have primacy over the Euro army and that his deputy should have strategic control over EU-led operations? If the Prime Minister agrees—he has never made that clear—why has he allowed the Euro army to be described as operational when, again, no agreement has been reached on the sharing of military assets with NATO.
Like all summits, the meeting at Seville will be judged not by the spin of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Europe, but by what it actually delivers. The reality belies the Prime Minister's usual rhetoric and all the padding that came out of his statement today. For the past five years, he has constantly maintained that he alone could get things done and that he could get things from Europe that it did not want to give—a modern, outward-looking and decentralised Europe and an EU" in which Britain maintains control over its own destiny.
Seville has shown that that is just another piece of shallow spin. The Prime Minister has been isolated on his own asylum proposals. He has been bounced into accepting EU border patrols. Once again, he has failed to get CAP reform on the agenda and he has stood by impotently as NATO's future has yet again been drawn into question. The
"Government can no longer advance Britain's interests abroad, nor look after them properly at home".—[Official Report, 31 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. 781.]
Those were the Prime Minister's own words in opposition. After last weekend, that is the one prime ministerial soundbite with which the whole country can agree.
The Prime Minister: It is in the nature of the position in which the right hon. Gentleman has put the Conservative party that Conservatives have to say that Britain fails in Europe the whole time. That is their position.
The big difference between now and five years ago is simply this: when we came to power five years ago and went to our first European summit, the agenda was set by somebody else. It is true that we could block certain things, but the general direction of Europe was set by others. The difference now is that the agenda at Seville and at the earlier summit that the Spanish held was set by us. Of course there will be countries that block certain parts of that agenda—that is bound to happen—but the idea that we would now be in a better position if we had pursued the policies of isolation that we had five years ago is absurd.

615
The right hon. Gentleman has to say that we achieved none of our objectives at Seville. Let me take the two points that Seville was about. On asylum and immigration policy, the agenda conclusions say that
"any future cooperation, association or equivalent agreement which the European Union or the European Community concludes with any country should include a clause on joint management of migration flows and on compulsory readmission in the event of illegal immigration."
With respect, that is precisely what we asked for and what was achieved. It is correct to say that we would have gone further in respect of existing agreements, but it is also the case that, in respect of those agreements that we now conclude with any third country, this is at the heart of the agenda—and that, with respect, is a substantial step forward.
The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about Council reform, which, again, is hugely important. The fact that the agenda for the EU will now be set by the European Council at intergovernmental level is extremely important for the future of Europe.
The right hon. Gentleman's comments on the EU border police are, quite simply. wrong. A study has been going on for months in the EU—nothing new was decided on this at Seville—about whether it is right to have European border police, but what he forgets is that, as a result of the protocol negotiated by this Government at Amsterdam, none of that applies to Britain at all, so his point, which is that somehow our police will be supplanted at Dover by European police, is factually wrong. In any event, even those things—
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Are you against the European border police?
The Prime Minister: I will explain exactly what I believe. As a result of what we negotiated at Amsterdam, Britain has a complete veto on this. In any event, the proposal on the European border police can be agreed only by unanimity. I am not against such a study being conducted because, when we take new countries into the EU, I do not think it foolish to consider the idea of Europe giving help to countries on our eastern frontier, where a large number of people are coming in illegally as the result of the activities of organised criminal gangs. The only reason why the right hon. Gentleman is against even discussing the idea is that it has the word "European" in it.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman fails, again, to understand that European defence can be undertaken only where we have agreement between the EU and NATO. That is clearly stated in the conclusions, and I believe that, if possible, it is sensible for Europe to try to improve its defence capabilities. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, who believes that we should not even engage in European defence, I think the fact that Britain is able to make European defence compatible with NATO is essential for the future best interests of this country.
Whether it be on economic reform, the euro, asylum and immigration policy or defence, Labour Members believe in engaging constructively, whereas Conservative Members would opt out of the argument altogether. We remember where we were five years ago—opted out of every major debate in Europe, unable to set the agenda and completely isolated—and from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, it seems that, if he ever got the
616
chance, he would return us to precisely that position. As I have said on many occasions, that is not the satisfaction of the national interest; it is the betrayal of the national interest.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I think that the Prime Minister would wish to acknowledge that there is a bit of salutary sense in the process leading up to the summit and in its eventual outcome. Among the salutary messages and lessons that emerge are, first, that attempts that advance bilateral fixes between individual member states do not necessarily work, far less deliver; and, secondly, that imposing sanctions and punishments on the poorest nations is not a tenable way forward. In many respects, the language is modified when one compares the vocabulary used by the Government in this country in the run-up to the summit, as opposed to the agreed statement on the outcome of the summit, which pledged
"a systematic review of relations with third countries to gauge the extent of their cooperation in migration issues."
That is a considerably more balanced and tolerant presentation of a serious and complicated issue, which can be adequately addressed, far less resolved, only at a European level. Liberal Democrats certainly subscribe to the view of the Secretary of State for International Development that the earlier approach that was outlined by the Government would be morally repugnant.
Is this not a good opportunity to make the positive case, in our domestic politics, for long-term, planned immigration? It is economically essential to Britain. We need look only at the demography of our country, for decades and generations ahead, to see that we can learn a lot from the past and that we must plan better for the future. We must not give in to some of the more strident voices on this issue. Over the course of this weekend, Europe has—to coin a phrase—been something of a candid friend to the British Government, and that should be welcomed.
On the issue of enlargement, which we strongly support, and the intended progress, which is also very much to be welcomed, can the Prime Minister explain how that can be squared when no meaningful decisions have yet been arrived at and, apparently, no substantial discussions have taken place on reform of the common agricultural policy. Surely one must predate the other.
Greater transparency in the international institutions that govern the European Union is, of course, welcome. On the central issue of the single European currency, however, does the Prime Minister agree that the debate needs to be led in this country? It can be led only by the Prime Minister and the Government, and the absence of a positive lead leaves us in the weakened position in which we saw ourselves as an EU member state last weekend in Spain.
The Prime Minister: On the latter point, I am afraid that I simply do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. It is absolutely correct that we would have gone somewhat further in Seville than other countries, but we were probably in the majority in wanting to do so.
The point that I was making earlier to Opposition Members was that the difference now is that we set the agenda on economic reform, defence or asylum and immigration—[Interruption.] No, we do not lose it.

617
Of course, one never gets all that one wants, because unanimity applies at European Councils, but each new EU agreement must now contain a migration clause and a readmission clause. In respect of existing agreements, we have a proposal to assess whether those countries are co-operating. If they are not co-operating, we reserve entirely the right to act.
We made it clear from the very outset, if I may quote from what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said at the Justice and Home Affairs Council, that we should take measures
"without undermining the need to better focus aid on the reduction of poverty in low income countries".
We never thought that it was sensible to penalise poor countries and make them poorer, because that would operate against the policy of encouraging them to take action against migration flows. We are saying, however, as we do now in relation to the Cotonou agreement with African and Caribbean countries, and as we have just done in relation to Balkan countries, that the totality of our relationship with those countries whom we are assisting must also include the issue of trafficking in illegal immigrants. That is entirely sensible—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but that is precisely the proposition that we put.
In the end, of course, that is not the only thing that we need to do. It is important that we co-operate at the external borders of Europe and also take our own measures here in respect of asylum, because we cannot make those measures count simply through the European Council. The fact is that that agenda now exists. We have made substantial progress on it, and the fact that we do not get everything that we desire does not mean that we get nothing. That is the truth, whether on that issue, on Council reform, or on the other issues.
People must ask themselves whether we are in a better position trying to set the agenda, as we have done on economic reform, Council reform and asylum and immigration, or whether we should be in the Conservative party's position, which is next door to the exit sign. The idea that we would be in a better position if we were sitting there resolutely hostile to absolutely everything that Europe proposes is absolutely ridiculous.
On the right hon. Gentleman's point about the euro, we have the right and sensible position. The economic tests have to be passed and, if they are passed, we will put the matter before the British people in a referendum. That is the right position and it distinguishes itself from those people who say that we should join irrespective of the economic conditions—I never know whether that is the right hon. Gentleman's position but, if it is, I disagree with it—and it certainly distinguishes itself from the position of the Conservative party, which is against joining the euro under any circumstances. Conservatives Members may nod their heads at that, but it is a foolish and futile position that is not in the best interests of the country.
David Winnick: My right hon. Friend mentioned the middle east. Are not the terror organisations that mastermind the suicide bombing of civilians totally opposed to any form of peace process, and do they not use religion and politics to carry out those
618
monstrous crimes? Would it not be useful for the Israeli Government to understand—if only from the colonial history of European countries such as ours—that people, such as those in the occupied territories, cannot be ruled against their overwhelming wishes? Israel must understand that it is Israel proper that needs to be defended and not land that it holds on to illegally.
The Prime Minister: I understand that, but I also think that we must be aware of the fact that Israel has been subject to terrorist attacks on its civilians in the heart of Israel. Some of those terrorist attacks were undoubtedly organised from the occupied territories, so the problem that Israel has is how to take action against a terrorist threat that comes from the occupied territories without it going into the occupied territories. That is why I think that, in the end, Israel will take security measures and that we must be at least reasonably sympathetic to the fact that any country faced with this number of its citizens being butchered in terrorist attacks would take action. We must be sympathetic to that while saying that the only long-term solution to the problem is to ensure that we have a political process capable of resolving it.
That political process must be based on the security of Israel and a viable Palestinian state. I continue to think that if, each time there is a terrorist outrage, we scrap all thought of a political process, we hand the keys of the process to the terrorists. That is why we need to understand that Israel will take reprisals, and to condemn totally the terrorist outrages that are happening. However, we also need to do everything that we can—and we will—to try to make sure that a political process gets under way.
Mr. John Redwood: Does the Prime Minister agree with those EU Governments who say that a country has to introduce compulsory ID cards if it wishes to be successful in dealing with illegal immigration?
The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with that. The issue of ID cards must obviously be decided by each country according to its merits. People sometimes say that the reason for the pressure on asylum here is the absence of compulsory ID cards, but let us get some facts straight. First, this country, if we consider it proportionately in terms of population, is in the middle of the pack on asylum applications, and not at the top. Indeed, I think that in terms of overall applications Germany has now outstripped us again. Secondly, the pull factors here are often to do with the strength of the economy, particularly in the south-east.
The other point that I would make to the right hon. Gentleman is that our asylum applications declined by 11 per cent. in 2001, whereas those in France increased, I think, by 22 per cent. and in Germany by 12 per cent. It is a common European problem. Although ID cards may form part of the solution—he knows the discussions that are going on about them—I do not think that they provide a full answer. One part of the answer is undoubtedly to work with third countries so that—as with Afghanistan, for example—if there is a change in their circumstances, we make sure that the third country illegal nationals are taken back.
Mr. George Foulkes: I commend the Prime Minister for his work on

619
tackling illegal immigration, especially the appalling commercial trafficking in human beings. Will he consider seeking a ministerial meeting of the cross-channel commission with France, so that we can speed up the security arrangements at Frethun, which allow illegal immigration to continue and play havoc with our freight exports?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right: it is important to address the problem at a bilateral level with France. That is why the Home Secretary is meeting his opposite number in France—tomorrow, I think—and obviously he will discuss such issues, including security at Frethun.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Did the Prime Minister agree with the leader of the Liberal party when he said that enlargement would be impractical unless there were major changes to the common agricultural policy? Was there agreement at Seville on the major changes in the common agricultural policy necessary to enable countries in central and eastern Europe to join the European Union? If not, why not?
The Prime Minister: Because it never was the case that we were going to discuss the common agricultural policy in detail in Seville. It is being discussed by the Agriculture Council, and in the context of the accession negotiations with individual applicant countries. It is very important that we get reform of the common agricultural policy. Indeed, it will be unsustainable without reform, which is the position of this country and many others, including Germany.
We are under the particular difficulty that any agreement has to he agreed unanimously. Although there is qualified majority voting in the Agriculture Council, that is not the case at the European Council, which is why it is extremely important that we continue to put every pressure we can on other countries, a minority of which are standing out against that reform. However, I would not want to send out a contrary signal on enlargement. The enlargement process has been a big success. We pushed for it, and it would be unfortunate to send out a signal to any applicant country that we intended to hold up the process. At the same time as we pursue the accession negotiations, we have to pursue reform of the common agricultural policy, which is vital.
Jeremy Corbyn: In the discussions on migration and asylum seeking, did the conference discuss why people seek political asylum, what poverty and forms of political oppression they are fleeing from, and what support can be given to the poorest countries in west and east Africa to assist people to have a better standard of life there? Did it also consider the large volume of arms sales by western European countries to many of the poorest and most oppressive regimes around the world, which cause people to flee to Europe in the first place?
The Prime Minister: In respect of the latter point, we are making a big push towards conflict resolution in different forums. Part of that is a responsible arms sale policy. On the first part of the question, the Council drew a clear distinction between legal migration and help for genuine asylum seekers, which we support totally and
620
should do more to help, and support for development aid. This country is increasing its development aid budget significantly, and the purpose of part of that money is to reduce the pressures of poverty that cause the migration flows.
However, it is not inconsistent with that position to be wholly opposed to illegal immigration, and in particular to what comes with it—the trafficking in human beings and the organised crime, and the people who come into the country not on the basis of proper rules and a proper system, but on the basis of who can pay the organised criminal most. That is why it is important for those of us who believe in the potential of legal migration to take the initiative on illegal migration; otherwise, we vacate the field and leave it to extremists who adopt a hard ultra right-wing agenda that is against any form of immigration, as we have seen in certain parts of Europe. That is not right and does not help. It is important to take action on the illegal side so that we can better present the case for legal migration.
Sir Michael Spicer: The Prime Minister told us that there would be no Euro army, and there will be; he told us that there would be no corpus juris, and there will be. Why should we believe what he says about border control and Euro border guards?
The Prime Minister: The Conservative party is wrong about the so-called Euro army. Let me explain it again. There is a proposal for Europe to have the capability, where it decides to do so and where NATO is not engaged, to undertake European defence operations for peacekeeping, humanitarian and other limited purposes. That is important, because we cannot be in the position where we are not able to act unless America acts. The proposal is not anti-American. On the contrary, it applies where America, for various reasons—for example, in Macedonia today—decides that it may not want to act. In those circumstances, we should have the capability to act, but in respect of each operation there is a sovereign decision of each country whether to participate.
There is no question of Britain committing its armed forces to a standing European army. That has never been the proposal. The idea is to have the capability, if we want to use it, for Europe to undertake operations where America does not want to be engaged. I think that that will add a string to our bow, not take one away.
As for the European border police, if we were the previous Government we would probably have said, "We are not having any discussion of this whatever." Instead, we have entirely secured our own position, because of the protocol at Amsterdam. No one can impose anything on us. We have a complete veto on anything that is agreed. However, I do not think that it is foolish to consider the feasibility—[Interruption.] People should listen to what I am saying instead of shouting out. When we take 10 extra countries into the European Union and when we extend the border of Europe many miles eastward—that is precisely the point, with some of these countries, where illegal people trafficking is happening—I do not think that it is foolish for Europe at least to ask the question whether—[Interruption.] It is not foolish to ask the question whether it is not better that Europe can do something together.
None of that imposes any obligation on us, but it makes sense. In the end, that is the difference between the attitudes of the two political parties. The Conservative

621
party is in the position where, basically, it wants to oppose what Europe does. We are in the position, for sensible reasons, of taking a completely different approach. That is why there is a difference between us. We believe that it is important to engage constructively, and in that way we are better able to get our own way.
Mr. John McFall: Given that France, Portugal and Italy have been given more time to eliminate their budget deficits, is there not a need for us to examine the stability and growth pact with more flexibility? Is it not a good thing to have small public deficits sometimes, if they lead to investment?
The Prime Minister: It is necessary to keep the basic principles of the pact because that is important for the stability of the euro. What my hon. Friend says about necessary flexibility to take account of different circumstances is right, and that is our position too.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Council unanimously accepted the proposal for the European border police, will the Prime Minister confirm that it was agreed by the members taking part, or spelled out in the conclusions, that Britain's exemption was there, and was legal? Secondly, what was agreed about Gibraltar, which is part of the EU? Will the European police force operate in Gibraltar?
The Prime Minister: First, in respect of the position on our protocol agreed at Amsterdam, that is in the treaty. I point out once again that nothing new was agreed on European border police at the Seville summit. A study has been ongoing for about eight months, and that study was referred to in the conclusions. No new position was taken at Seville. For the reasons that I have just described, I think that it is entirely acceptable that a study be undertaken. It imposes no obligation on us. As I have said many times, perhaps especially because of our European relations, it is important for Gibraltar as well as Spain and Britain that we try to reach agreement.
Mr. Bill Rammell: I welcome the changes to the workings of the European Council of Ministers, which I think can help to ensure the primacy of elected governments over the unelected Commission. Should we go further and appoint a president of the European Council for a period of up to five years? What progress was made on that issue?
The Prime Minister: There are many interesting ongoing discussions, and that is something that will form part of the agenda of the European convention. It is clear that with 25 members it would be foolish for us to continue with the existing rotating six-monthly presidency. I cannot see that that would he in the interests of Europe. It cannot be efficient and it cannot be right. There is increasing recognition in Europe that that is the case.
Mr. Ian Taylor: If the Prime Minister had a setback in Seville last weekend, it was because in anticipation, he had over-hyped the claim that he was setting the agenda. Does he accept that it is unlikely that we will really set the agenda until we have
622
joined Europe's biggest project, the euro? Does he accept that unless he goes out and explains to the British people, and some of the journalists who write editorials, it will not be understood that some issues are now European issues that can be solved only at a European level, which therefore override national blockages, just as we overrode a national blockage during the 1980s, when we were opening up the single market? The only way to solve the asylum problem is at a European level. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be critical if we failed the nations that are joining us, and did not help them with their policing of a common border, and with the institutions right across Europe, against traffickers in people who are exploiting their countries as well as ours? [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister: They always shout on the Opposition Front Bench, but the comments of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) would strike most people outside as reasonably sensible. Yes, the issue is a European issue, and it is important that we try to deal with it at a European level, for the simple reason that whatever measures we can take in this country, there is a limit to what we can do as one country alone. That is precisely why we put the matter on the agenda. Because of that, a substantial additional element of European policy was decided at Seville. Until now, that did not form a mandatory part of the negotiation with any country of a new co-operation or association agreement. Now that will be the case. In respect of existing agreements, obviously there was a compromise, which I have just outlined. However, it is not the case that no progress was made on that agenda. Progress was made; we would like to have seen more, but if we had not tried to set the agenda we would have got nowhere at all.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Paragraph 14 of the conclusions refers to the European Union taking over from NATO in Macedonia. From the Prime Minister's previous answer, is it not clear that there is a very dangerous situation in Macedonia? What is being done by the Community as a whole to carry out the promise that we thought was made during the bombing, that there should be a rebuilding of the Balkans?
The Prime Minister: On the first point, in relation to Macedonia, de facto the Europeans, with a NATO hat on, have undertaken that. The conclusions make it clear that it would be sensible for European defence to do so,
"provided that the permanent arrangements between the European Union and NATO…are then in place."
That is the complete answer to those who say that that conflicts with NATO; it does not. Yes, it is correct that it was anticipated that European defence could do that.
In respect of the other point about the Balkans, we are rebuilding the region. In Kosovo, Serbia, Macedonia and other places in the Balkans, we are doing an enormous amount of work. A great deal of aid and help is being given to those countries. One of the most exciting prospects for the European Union is the prospect of those countries, which were riven by civil war and ethnic strife, sorting themselves out so that in time—it may take some considerable time, obviously—they can become members of the European Union. Such a project would have seemed

623
impossible a few years ago—and I say respectfully to my hon. Friend that if Milosevic were still in Serbia, it would be well nigh impossible.
Mr. John Maples: The Prime Minister has gone through some of the sensible steps that were taken over immigration and asylum at Seville, and of course there is a European dimension to that. However, the vast majority of people in this country would regard it as going much too far to allow a non-British police force answerable to the European Union to operate within the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister has muddied the waters a little, as if it had nothing to do with him, but paragraph 31 of the conclusions states that the European Council, of which he has told us he is the leading member—presumably, if he sets the agenda, he has some say over the minutes—welcomes the study that has been carried out on the matter. The Prime Minister implied that he was instituting a study. In the final paragraph of the conclusions, paragraph 39, the European Council—presumably he was still its leading member at that stage—called for a report to be submitted at the June 2003 summit to see how
"the practical implementation of the guidelines"
could be put into action. Of course we know that we have a veto, but what we want to hear from him is that there are absolutely no circumstances in which his Government would agree to the operation of a European border police force within the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman why that is the case: the protocol in the Amsterdam treaty that we negotiated makes it clear that nothing can be done without our consent. Therefore, the whole idea of European police taking over from British police at Dover or anywhere else in the UK is fatuous and wrong. [Interruption.] We have no intention of consenting, as we have made it clear that we have the protocol that was negotiated at Amsterdam.
However, the point that I was making—I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman on this—is that the feasibility study is still being carried out; it has not yet been completed. I am not against its being carried out, for the reasons that I have just given. When the new countries are taken into the European Union—true, this is for us, but it is not directed at us, or, indeed, Spain or France—the issue is that when we open up the whole of our eastern European border to them, it is not foolish, although there are other ways of dealing with it, to say that some of those countries on that border will need help with policing their borders. Provided that we have a veto over what happens, which we do—
Mr. Maples: Will you use it?
The Prime Minister: I have told the hon. Gentleman already about our position on Britain. In respect of the rest of it, I will listen to what the feasibility study says, because I want to see what arguments there are. I will make up my mind on the arguments. [Interruption.] This is an astonishing thing to hear—apparently I should be saying that I am not going to listen to the arguments, but veto it anyway. With the greatest of respect—and we have just heard this from the Conservative party again—that is the Conservatives' policy: if something has the word
624
"European" in it, we veto it, whether it is good or bad. That is why we ended up with no influence in Europe, and it is a policy that I will not adopt.
Mike Gapes: The Prime Minister will be aware that British customs officials are already working in Bulgaria and Romania, that our police force has already been giving advice to countries in central and eastern Europe, and that other countries, including Germany, are doing the same. Does he agree that if European Union enlargement is to occur and we are to enjoy the benefits of a bigger market and the historic unity of our continent, it is absolutely vital that we can all feel secure that the smuggling of people and drugs through the Balkans has been stopped?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is precisely why it is important that we consider all the potential methods that can help. I have just been reminded of the fact that British policy and passport officers now operate in Paris, at the Gare du Nord. That is not considered a breach of French national sovereignty; it is a sensible arrangement, because we are dealing with a proper problem. We should be looking at whatever works, in order to deal with the problem. If that means greater co-operation in Europe, let us co-operate more in Europe so that we get the problem dealt with.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: What is the point in our alleging that we set the agenda, if that agenda is then comprehensively rejected by our partners? Why does the Prime Minister say that Seville was a success for this country, despite the fact that the Anglo-Spanish proposal on immigration and asylum was also rejected? If that was a success, what would he define as a failure?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on the facts, I am afraid. Let me repeat it to him: we made substantial progress at Seville, but as I said, we did not get everything that we wanted. [Interruption.] If he and his colleagues will stop shouting from a sedentary position for a moment, I will explain to them exactly what we got on asylum and immigration. First, we got the agreement that any future co-operation—[Interruption.] They have started again. They are unbelievable; they will not listen.
First, any future co-operation or accession agreement will contain both a migration clause and a compulsory readmission clause. Secondly, in respect of existing agreements, there is an analysis of whether there is co-operation on illegal immigration or not. Thirdly, if there is a finding that nations are not co-operating, we reserve our right to adopt positions or attitudes in respect of those nations that we can decide upon. In other words, in respect of future agreements, it is completely a part of them that they include migration and readmission clauses. In respect of existing agreements, we reserve our right, once an analysis has been conducted of whether co-operation is taking place. In addition, we have immeasurably strengthened the whole issue of joint border co-operation on the visa and security regime and action on the illegal smuggling of people. I agree that that is not the sole answer to the problem, but it is absurd in these circumstances to say that we have got nothing.
As regards the other part of the agenda coming from this country, which is the Anglo-Spanish proposal—or rather, the Anglo-German proposal—on Council reform,

625
the bulk of that was agreed by the Council. The point about setting the agenda in Europe is that one never achieves everything that one wants; the question is whether one achieves some of it. In this case, we have.
In other areas, too—economic reform, for example—we need to go far further, but at long last the whole agenda and policy direction is in favour of reform. Yes, we need to do more, but would we be in a better position if we were isolated, without any influence, simply sitting there letting others determine the agenda and saying no? The answer to that is obvious. That is where we were when we took over five and a half years ago, and it was a disaster for this country.
Joyce Quin: The Prime Minister stressed the benefits of legal migration and proper procedures for asylum seekers, which I support. The countries that have had the greatest burden have been those immediately adjacent to crisis areas, whether Pakistan in the case of Afghanistan or, at an earlier stage, the African countries that surrounded the area where the Rwandan genocide took place. Is it not therefore important, if not vital, for the European Union to be able to take immediate long-term measures on aid for those countries to help them to tackle such issues in a compassionate and humane way?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is precisely what we have done as regards the agreement on the Balkans, for example. That is a classic example of using the totality of our relationship with those Balkan countries to insist that we will help them to deal with migration flows, but they have a responsibility to respond to that help.
On Afghanistan, it is worth pointing out that 1 million Afghan refugees have returned to Afghanistan since the conflict took place, many of them from neighbouring states. We are entering into agreements with the new Afghan Government so that Afghans who have claimed asylum and no longer need it owing to the change of Government can return to their country. We have to engage with the issue systematically.
It is also worth pointing out that this, too, is not a problem for Europe alone; it is a problem all over the developed world, including in countries such as America, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. We must obviously take measures here, but, as my right hon. Friend says, we must also ensure that where there is a crisis and a migratory flow erupts as a result, we put in place the right system of measures on aid and assistance to stop it.
David Burnside: The Prime Minister has been fulsome in his praise of the Spanish presidency. In his private moments discussing football, no doubt his Spanish host remarked that the referee in the last Spanish game abused his position at least once, if not twice. Did the Prime Minister point out that in the six months of the Spanish presidency, they abused their position as regards fisheries policy, further to the detriment of the British fishing fleet?
The Prime Minister: The Spanish have not succeeded in the aim attributed to them in media reports, and we can and will ensure that they cannot. I think that on balance the totality of the Spanish presidency has been successful.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: My constituents in Dover are more familiar than most with the Dublin convention and the bilateral agreement with the French. What progress has my right hon. Friend made towards allowing us to send asylum shoppers back to the safe countries through which they have passed?
The Prime Minister: As I should have said in answer to another question a moment ago, another matter that we agreed was a set of timelines on action, including the negotiation of Dublin II by the end of this year. We must ensure that that timetable does not slip, as it has before. Better ordering of the procedures under the Dublin convention is essential, because what happens to Britain in particular is that people go through what are effectively safe third countries, then end up here when they could easily have claimed asylum in the safe country through which they passed. Tough negotiating will be necessary before Dublin II is agreed, but at least we have a firm mandate and we have set out a timetable in the Council conclusions.
Angus Robertson: To which specific suggestions by the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Executive or the Northern Irish Executive did the Prime Minister give voice at the Seville summit? For example, did he raise the point that my colleague from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) made about the common fisheries policy and the way in which Spain handled it? Yes or no? Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to commend President Chirac of France and Prime Minister Persson of Sweden for blocking a morally repugnant proposal to tie aid for developing countries to their immigration policies?
The Prime Minister: There was the usual consultation with the devolved Administrations about the full range of Council issues. The Spanish presidency is of the European Council; we raise matters such as the CFP in our bilateral discussions with Spain. There were no bilateral discussions at the Council between the Spanish Prime Minister and me, but they do happen on many occasions.
Keith Vaz: The House will welcome the positive steps at Seville towards a more transparent and efficient European Council. Will the Prime Minister give a commitment that the Government will continue to take the lead on reform until all the points mentioned in his letter to Chancellor Schröder and all Javier Solana's proposals have been implemented in full? We have made enormous progress, but much remains to be done.
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right, and he played a part in pushing the reform agenda forward when he was Minister for Europe. Most European countries basically accept it. Germany and the United Kingdom are not traditional allies on Council or European institutional reform, but the fact that we were able to combine and make joint proposals is a great step forward. The European Council works through unanimity; forming alliances and gaining

627
agreement is therefore the only way to get any proposal through. That is right, and I am sure that we will continue to press for all the reforms. A big part of the European reform agenda must be making the European system work better and more accountably.
Mr. Roger Gale: The Prime Minister has had ample opportunity this weekend to discuss with other European Ministers matters that are of general concern to the people of the United Kingdom, and are of especial concern, for obvious reasons, to the people of east Kent. He claimed that the discussions were successful. When may we expect rail freight to resume through the channel tunnel, in compliance with European regulation? When will the Government try to enforce the Sangatte agreement? It was signed after the Dublin convention, and permits the return of illegal migrants who use the channel tunnel. When does the Prime Minister expect the Red Cross centre at Sangatte to close?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues keep mentioning the agreement under which we were entitled to return people to France. As a result of the Conservative Government's negotiations, the agreement lapsed when the Dublin convention came into force.
Mr. Gale: It was signed afterwards.
The Prime Minister: It is correct that it was signed after the Dublin convention, but a specific term of the agreement provided that it should lapse when the Dublin convention came into force—in October 1997, I think, from memory. Consequently we have to renegotiate with the French, and we are doing that. I believe that we shall make progress on that and on Frethun, but it will be easier to do so in the context of European action.
I did not say that we gained all our objectives at Seville; I said that we gained many of them. We also made sure that the issue was on the agenda much more clearly.
Mr. Gale: Rail freight?
The Prime Minister: That depends on reaching agreement about Frethun. I am reasonably optimistic
628
about that, but it must be negotiated with the French. That is why the Home Secretary is meeting his French counterpart—tomorrow, I believe.
Mr. Tom Clarke: I welcome what the Prime Minister said about sustainable development and the forthcoming talks in Johannesburg. Does he agree that the lesson of last week's mass peaceful lobby of this place was that we can make more progress by being objective in presenting our views on, for example, falling commodity prices and unfair subsidies, than by simply carping from the sidelines?
The Prime Minister: If international agreements require unanimity, we can block an agenda set by others. We cannot, however, gain our own position in any way other than by getting the agreement of others, which is why constructive engagement is so manifestly the right policy. My right hon. Friend's comments on trade issues are absolutely right. It would bring great shame on the developed world if we did not take significant action to open up our markets further to the goods of the poorest countries in the world. Access to our markets is what they need—possibly as much as, and sometimes more than, aid.

EXPORT CONTROL BILL (PROGRAMME No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June 2001],
That the following provisions shall apply to the Export Control Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 9th July 2001:

EXPORT CONTROL BILL (PROGRAMME No. 2)

  Consideration of Lords Amendments
  1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) three hours after their commencement.
  2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely Nos. 1, 17, 10, 2 to 9, 11 to 16 and 18 to 30.

  Subsequent proceedings
  3. The proceedings on any further message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) one hour after their commencement—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Export Control Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  4.32 pm
  John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I shall take the point of order in a moment. Before the House considers the Lords amendments, I wish to draw its attention to an error on the amendment paper. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 17 should read:
  "Line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 18",
  not "line 17".
  John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you for your leniency. Amendments were tabled in my name and the names of a number of my hon. Friends that expressed a certain position that had been debated previously in the House, and was the subject of an early-day motion with 300 signatories.
  Ann Clwyd: Three hundred and ten signatories.
  John McDonnell: I thank my hon. Friend for correcting me. I accept that those amendments have not been selected today, and that the Speaker has no responsibility to provide reasons for not selecting them. Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you none the less take back to him the view that there may well be a case for the publication of the advice provided to the Speaker on amendments, so that we can have transparency and openness and, perhaps, increased accountability about the selection of amendments process?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman knows well how the House deals with these matters, and that it is not possible for me to comment on the selection of today's amendments. He has, however, put his thoughts on record for everyone to see and to read.

  Export Control Bill
    Clause 1

      EXPORT CONTROLS
      Lords amendment: No. 1.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 17 and Government amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
      Nigel Griffiths: Given that the issues raised by amendments Nos. 1 and 17 to 19, and amendment (a) to amendment No. 17, are so closely related, it is sensible to address these amendments as a whole. I will, of course,
      630
      explain the Government's position on each amendment, and explain why the Government propose to support amendment (a) to amendment No. 17, then amendment No. 17 as amended, and to agree with amendments Nos. 18 and 19. Indeed, I should add that amendment No. 1 covers ground very similar to the part of amendment No. 17 that we are proposing to change. As a result, when I discuss the unfortunate consequences of subsection 4 of amendment No. 17 as it stands, the House can take it that amendment No. I would have similar consequences.
      This may sound a little complicated, but what I am proposing is in fact quite simple. I am asking the House to support the Government's original amendment to the Bill made in the House of Lords, through which the Government responded to concerns expressed in this House and elsewhere about the issues of guidance and of sustainable development.
      I will explain in a moment why we think the House should disagree with Lords amendment No. 1 and support amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 17. First, however, let me explain why the Government want to replace former clauses 7 and 8, which are now Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19, with Lords amendment No. 17, as amended.
      Former clauses 7 and 8 governed the operation of the export licensing process. They enabled the Government to publish guidance about matters to which regard might be had in the making of export licensing decisions, and the reasons that might be thought to justify particular decisions. The measure that replaces clauses 7 and 8 has a similar function, but we have made two significant changes.
      Although we have no doubt that under the Bill as it left the House of Commons it would be possible for the Government to reject an export licence application solely on sustainable development grounds, the Government were very much aware of the depth of concern. We have addressed that concern first by strengthening the role played by guidance under the Bill, and secondly by putting beyond all doubt the Government's continuing commitment to sustainable development in the licensing process, together with all the other relevant consequences listed in the schedule.
      First, let me explain how we propose to strengthen the role played by guidance under the Bill. The House will be well aware that the Government have always intended the important role currently played by the consolidated criteria announced to Parliament on 26 October 2000 to continue after the Bill becomes law. That is why clause 8 contained a reference to the consolidated criteria, and a similar reference is in the proposed new clause. The new clause, however, significantly strengthens the role played by the criteria under the Bill by making it a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue guidance about the general principles to be followed in the exercise of licensing powers, and by stating that the consolidated criteria constitute such guidance on general principles. The change will also ensure that if any Government in future wish to change the general principles on which the export control regime operates, they will be obliged to issue guidance stating what the new principles are, and to lay it before Parliament.

      631
      I am sure Members will agree that the changes are beneficial to the Bill, and I hope they will support Lords amendment No. 17 as amended and Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
      Tony Worthington: Why was the Bill turned upside down as a result of our worries? Why did my hon. Friend not respond by simply reinserting "sustainable development" in the schedule, which is where it was in the draft Bill?
      Nigel Griffiths: That was discussed fully in the House of Lords. "Sustainable development" is now on the face of the Bill, which is what was recommended by my hon. Friend and others. We think that that is the right place for it, as does Lord Scott, who did not want it to be in the schedule.
      Let me now explain why the Government believe the House should agree to the Government amendment to Lords amendment No. 17 and oppose amendment No. 1. The Government's original amendment, represented by amendment (a), introduced important changes. We proposed to make the reference to sustainable development explicit by including the text in amendment (a). The fact that that addition to the Bill has much more than merely symbolic significance is demonstrated by the Government's proposal to amend the Bill to say that future Secretaries of State must give guidance about
      "the consideration (if any) to be given",
      in the exercise of licensing powers, to issues related to sustainable development and to all the issues listed in the table in the schedule. Taken together with the change that I have already described, which will make it a requirement for the Government to issue guidance, amendment (a) will ensure that all future Governments are required to issue guidance on how they propose to consider sustainable development and all the relevant consequences listed in the schedule when exercising their licensing powers. The only way to change that would be by primary legislation.
      Mr. Roger Berry: Can my hon. Friend explain why the wording that the Government propose in their amendment is superior to the wording in the Lords amendment?
      Nigel Griffiths: The Lords amendment opens up an unfortunate loophole in terms of what its consequences would be, which I will come to in a moment, if my hon. Friend will bear with me. I will give way to him again if he wishes to pursue the point.
      Liberal Democrat Members were concerned that the words in the amendment "if any" might allow a future Government simply to decide to ignore such important issues as sustainable development when considering export licence applications. I do not share their concern, but I do share their aim, which is why we tabled our original amendment.
      The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) may still have some concerns. Perhaps he will still assert, as his colleagues in the House of Lords have asserted, that the Government's wording would allow a future Government simply to ignore relevant sustainable development issues. That is not so. I can assure the House that under the Government's original proposal, now represented by amendment (a), it would not be possible
      632
      for a future Government simply to decide to ignore sustainable development or any of the schedule table issues by saying, "We have considered sustainable development and concluded that it has no place in the consideration of export licences." That would not meet the requirements of the clause proposed by the Government.
      Ann Clwyd: Since my hon. Friend prays Lord Scott in aid, does he also agree that Lord Scott is in favour of prior parliamentary scrutiny, a matter that the Government have obviously turned their face against?
      Nigel Griffiths: I am not sure that it is quite as straightforward as my hon. Friend states. Unfortunately, this debate is not about prior parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that measures on that were not ruled by the Speaker to be competent for debate today.
      I have explained to the Opposition, and it was explained to the Opposition in the House of Lords, not only that their concern on this issue was unnecessary, but that what they have proposed instead would be profoundly damaging. Let me explain that in the light of the question that was put to me earlier.
      In the House of Lords, it was explained that under the EU code of conduct and under the UK's consolidated criteria on arms exports, the Government have pledged that the criteria—I quote from the criteria here—
      "will not be applied mechanistically but on a case by case basis using judgement and commonsense".
      The effect of the Liberal Democrat amendments would be to make it impossible for the Government to use the judgment and common sense that we have promised to use.
      All Governments need to be able to take justifiable—my emphasis on the word "justifiable" is deliberate—decisions that there is no need for sustainable development or indeed any of the other schedule consequences to be considered in certain cases. I believe that it is common ground in the House today that there are export licensing cases where it would not be relevant or appropriate to consider sustainable development: for example, the export of a single military vehicle to a developed country such as Canada. The same would he true of any relevant consequences. For example, it would not be relevant or appropriate to consider the regional stability implications of the export of a single parachute to France. I assure the House that even exports of single items still require consideration if the export is of licensable goods.
      The effect of the Liberal Democrat amendments would be to impose a straitjacket on the administrative regime, forcing Government Departments to give some consideration to sustainable development and to every single schedule table implication of every single export, no matter how irrelevant certain implications might he either to individual exports or to categories of exports.
      4.45 pm
      Norman Lamb: Is it not the case that if the Government have their way, all they will have to do is consider the issue of sustainable development and, if they see fit, reject that criteria and move ahead to grant an export licence? Has that not happened under the

      633
      existing consolidated criteria, with the authorising of a licence for the purchase of the air traffic control system for Tanzania?
      Nigel Griffiths: It is not true to say that Ministers could take a cursory look at sustainable development issues and then move on to grant a licence, or not, as the case may be. They must consider sustainable development implications and show that they have done so if there is any future inquiry or appeal against a decision. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has accurately summed up how this matter will be handled.
      Mr. Berry: I am trying to get to grips with why the Lords amendments should be changed. They refer specifically to guidance stating that regard should be had to issues relating to sustainable development. Why could not that guidance specifically exclude, for example, certain exports to certain countries? I do not see what is wrong with the Lords amendments at all if the guidance is appropriate.
      Nigel Griffiths: Let me clarify it for my hon. Friend. Earlier, I mentioned a loophole; I should have made it clear that the amendments would make it impossible for the Government to give effect to certain international agreements according to their actual terms. These are the even more serious and damaging effects of the amendments, which would impose a brand new duty on the Government that could conflict with the Government's existing commitment—given to this House and to our European partners—to consider all strategic export licence applications against the consolidated criteria. This new duty would also take precedence over the EU code of conduct on arms exports, thus potentially requiring us to take an approach to licensing decisions within the UK different from that adopted in the rest of the EU.
      Dr. Jenny Tonge: For clarification, will the Minister define exactly what he means by sustainable development?
      Nigel Griffiths: Sustainable development is fairly clearly set out in our documents and is detailed in the annual report in terms of any licences that are granted or refused. There is no secret about how the Government analyse and assess sustainable development. The problem that we have with the amendments is that they would give us the obligation of a higher legal status than the consolidated criteria and the EU code. That would put us out of step with our EU partners and possibly make it impossible for the UK to abide by the EU code. That is the effect of amendments Nos. 1 and 17, unamended.
      Tony Worthington: I was interested to hear the Minister's response to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). He said that what sustainable development would mean would be clear from the occasions when sustainable development was the ground
      634
      upon which an export had been turned down. My information is that no export has ever been turned down on the ground of sustainable development.
      Nigel Griffiths: I think that my hon. Friend is wrong, and I hope to put on the record the number of such cases before the end of today's proceedings.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Surely the acid test for the Bill, and for the efficacy of the various amendments, is simply this: is the Minister saying that, under the Bill as it stands, the Tanzanian air traffic control system export would not happen again?
      Nigel Griffiths: Each future case will be considered according to the available criteria and the prevailing circumstances. Ministers will take decisions on such cases and justify them.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Nigel Griffiths: Such decisions are published in the annual report—another innovation that the Bill will establish as a permanent and necessary requirement.
      Ann Clwyd: My hon. Friend is offering to look retrospectively at licensing, but such a facility already exists. Our point is that it is no good having a retrospective look; we want prior scrutiny of contentious arms licences.
      Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend argues for prior parliamentary scrutiny, but she has not convinced me that a workable system exists; indeed, since I last came to the Dispatch Box my view was reinforced during a visit to Washington. The Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee was critical of the prior scrutiny regimes in Sweden and in Washington, and I fully understand those criticisms.
      Ms Julia Drown: The Minister said that the Lords amendment could be inconsistent with the European code of conduct on arms. Can he give an example of such an inconsistency, because it is not obvious?
      Nigel Griffiths: I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend or to the House, but I am reluctant to pluck hypothetical examples from the air. Our legal advice is clear: if the amendment were accepted, the new duty would take precedence over the EU code of conduct on arms exports. For the UK to take an approach to licensing decisions that differs from that taken in the rest of the EU would be highly damaging to the establishment not just of a concerted, EU approach to licensing arms, but to an international approach that ensures that we are controlling as best we possibly can the export of arms and related technology. We must also recognise that, if unamended, the amendments would have other effects.
      John McDonnell: Is my hon. Friend saying that the Lords amendment is unacceptable because it conflicts with prior commitments given at a European level, and that European agreements that we have entered into prevent us from taking sustainability into account in considering individual licence applications? If so, the

      635
      entire debate on sustainable development being taken into account—in whatever form—under this legislation has been completely futile.
      Nigel Griffiths: No, I was not saying that. I was saying that the amendments could mean that we had criteria different from those that operate under the EU code of conduct, and that is what we are trying to avoid. I did not go into specifics because I did not want to pick up on a hypothetical case.
      Hugh Bayley: If the Minister wants to convince me that we should modify Lords amendment No. 17, he will need to convince me that the way in which the Government will determine whether sustainable development would be undermined or compromised by an arms export is rigorously defined. Do the Government intend to set out defined criteria in the public domain against which they will decide whether a particular arms export would compromise sustainable development? In other words, the Government need to go further than simply saying in general terms that they will exercise their judgment.
      For instance, will the Government examine, as a test of sustainability, whether a particular export offers value for money or entails "productive expenditure"—to use a phrase from the rules of the Export Credits Guarantee Department—for a developing country? Those of us who have considered the Tanzanian case would say that it would not be termed a sustainable export if measured against value-for-money criteria or against—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
      Nigel Griffiths: The clearest way to answer my hon. Friend is by reference to the annual report, to which I referred hon. Members earlier. Criterion No. 8 in the report makes clear the need for the compatibility of the arms exports with the technical and economic capacity of the recipient country, taking into account the desirability that states should achieve their legitimate needs of security and defence with the least diversion into armaments of human and economic resources. Subsequent paragraphs spell out clearly the approach that Ministers take—and under the Bill must take—when carrying out that assessment. That is the important point that we need to make about the amendments.
      Hugh Bayley: Will the Government publish a list of criteria that they will use in deciding whether sustainability is compromised? A set of such criteria is used in relation to export credits guarantees. Will the Government provide a similar list in relation to arms exports?
      Nigel Griffiths: The report makes the position clear, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will read it. There is a list of factors that are taken into account, including information from sources such as the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and reports from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Whether the proposed export would seriously undermine the economy or hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country will also be taken into account. I am sure that the House will
      636
      accept that the answer will vary from country to country, depending on the level of development and the size of purchase proposed when the granting of a licence is considered.
      The report also makes the other criteria clear and gives a clear description of what is taken into account and, by its absence, what is not. I am not sure that we would want anyone to add anything that is not already in the report. However, if my hon. Friend has a suggestion to add, the House will listen with interest.
      5 pm
      Gregory Barker: I, for one, believe that sustainable development should be at the heart of all Government policy making. Nevertheless, is the Minister aware that numerous small arms manufacturers such as Manroy Engineering Ltd. in my constituency, which employs 40 people, will welcome the fact that he rejects prior parliamentary scrutiny? In rejecting the Liberal Democrat amendments, was any assessment made on the likely impact on job losses that would arise, given that, in certain cases, many small firms must already wait up to a year for the issue of a licence?
      Nigel Griffiths: No one has raised the implication for jobs with me; I have read no briefings about it and have not discussed it with ministerial colleagues or anyone else. I am concerned that the Bill provides for the proper scrutiny of licences and an effective regime to avoid the pitfalls that are highlighted by Lord Scott and others. I am afraid that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question, although I recognise that he is voicing the concerns of his constituents and the defence manufacturer associations.
      Mr. Llwyd: The Minister referred to the criteria in the annual report. What effect, in reality, did the World Bank report on the Tanzania contract have?
      Nigel Griffiths: I am afraid that I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's question.
      Mr. Llwyd: What effect did the report by the World Bank, which was heavily against the export of the air traffic control system to Tanzania, have on the decision to export?
      Nigel Griffiths: I am not going into detail about the considerations that were made; I am simply justifying the Government's position on the amendments and the effect of the Bill. What the hon. Gentleman refers to is a matter for the Government of Tanzania.
      I disagree with Lords amendment No. 1 because I am keen to avoid a costly mechanism that would oblige us to consider every issue in every case, whether it was relevant or not. At best, that could lead to confusion about taking particular licensing decisions, which could slow down the export licensing process and make it impossible for the United Kingdom to give effect to future international obligations according to their terms.
      I do not believe that any of this is necessary. If it is the wish of the House that a future Government should not be able to choose to ignore issues such as sustainable development and human rights, the Government share that wish. That is why I want to assure the House once again that Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment

      637
      No. 17 would not allow future Governments to ignore these important issues. The Government published a list of criteria in October 2000, setting out their position in detail. I hope that that helps answer the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley).
      In conclusion, I urge the House to achieve our common goal and avoid the unnecessary and damaging effects of Lords amendment No. 1. I urge the House to support amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 17 and amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
      Mr. Robert Key: This is an extraordinarily important debate. I am conscious of the fact that we have only three hours in which to debate all the business this afternoon; I will therefore be brief, as we have many concerns to raise on the next group of amendments on academic freedom.
      Let me say first what an extraordinarily successful exercise has been carried out by a large number of organisations and by the Quadripartite Committee, whose contribution has been extremely important in informing the judgment of the House. The Select Committee on International Development has also taken a very proactive role. I am very grateful for all that and for the briefing. Everyone who has spoken today—and most Labour Members present have already spoken—has expressed opinions that reflect the passionate concern of many thousands of people who care deeply about the state of millions of the most vulnerable people in the world.
      As the right reverend prelate, the Lord Bishop of Manchester said in another place:
      "If we are serious about halving world poverty, we need to strengthen our legislation regarding what should and should not be exported and imported, taking into account the purposes and outcomes of such exports and the consequences of granting licences for them."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 April 2002; Vol. 633, c. 1099.]
      The House may recall that during Third Reading, I said:
      "The House is owed an explanation of why the Government left out the paragraph on sustainable development from the table to the schedule."—[Official Report, 8 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 414.]
      On that occasion, the Minister stubbornly, and quite inexplicably, refused to give a rational explanation. He could have done so, but he failed to and that misjudgment had consequences: the official Opposition voted in favour of the amendment, when we might have abstained; and, in the other place, the Under-Secretary of State caused months of trouble for the Government, ending in their defeat on the issue on 18 April. Today, we are considering the Government's attempt to reverse that defeat.
      I pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon and other noble Friends for their persistence in harrying the Government. The quality of the argument in another place is often said to reflect favourably the time available for debate. It is certainly true that if Ministers fail to win the arguments, they may fail to win the votes—something that regrettably rarely happens in this place.
      Since the Bill left us last November, several things have happened. First, as a direct result of the pressure on the Government, I was told in answer to a parliamentary question that the Cabinet Office was working with
      "all Government Departments with an interest"—
      638
      to address—
      "the need for clearer procedures for reaching decisions where sustainable development is an issue".
      The Minister pointed out that the Government would be discussing procedures on how criterion 8—on sustainable development—of the consolidated criteria could
      "most effectively be applied in assessing relevant export licence applications." —[Official Report, 20 June 2002; Vol. 387, c. 467W.]
      That is an extremely important point and I wish that the Minister had dwelt on it during report and Third Reading.
      Criterion 8 of the consolidated European Union and British codes sets out exactly how the process will be governed. It states:
      "The Government will take into account, in the light of information from relevant sources such as United Nations Development Programme, World bank, IMF and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reports, whether the proposed export would seriously undermine the economy or seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country.
      The Government will consider in this context the recipient country's relative levels of military and social expenditure, taking into account also any EU or bilateral aid, and its public finances, balance of payments, external debt, economic and social development and any IMF or World bank-sponsored economic reform programme."
      That says much more than either the Lords amendment or any of the other amendments proposed so far.
      As the Government said in another place that it was "absolutely mandatory"—I think those were the words of the Under-Secretary, Lord Sainsbury—for them to consider sustainable development where it was relevant to the export concerned, their reconsideration of how criterion 8 can most effectively be applied is a step forward. We welcome that.
      We, too, have gone back to the beginning—to assess how the Bill and this debate measure up to the recommendations of the Scott report. In dealing with the question of the processing of export licensing applications, Lord Scott said that they should be processed
      "expeditiously and with fairness to exporters".
      We should not ignore the consequences of changing the wording of the Bill. We have been advised that it would have the effect—as the Minister has confirmed—of requiring the Government to consider sustainable development and every other issue covered by the table to the schedule whenever they exercise their licensing powers under the Bill. So the Government would have to consider every export covered by the schedule even if the implication is that that is clearly irrelevant to individual licence applications or categories of exports. The practical effect would be that all licence applications would have to be systematically assessed against all the consolidated criteria. That would be bound to cause substantial delay, to the detriment of the legitimate interests of the exporters and their employees, but would the delay be significant and what would be the impact on public finances?
      It is has been assessed that, if the amendment stands, the number of export licences processed by the Department for International Development will increase from about 600 a year to 15,000. The Department currently employs 1.5 people to process existing applications, so there would be a 2,500 per cent. increase in the Department's work load in that respect. That would clearly have substantial work force implications, which

      639
      would be amplified right across Whitehall. Only the Government can decide if that is acceptable and, furthermore, whether the Chancellor will pay.
      Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman please tell the House the source of those statistics, which come as a surprise to some of us?
      Mr. Key: Yes, they come from a number of academics and the Defence Manufacturers Association. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] It is all very well for hon. Members to say, "Ah", but government is not just about listening to only one argument; all the arguments have to be listened to, which is precisely what we have done.
      The Government are now floundering in a mess of their own making when it comes to sustainable development. They have listened and acted on concerns about the application of criterion 8 across Departments. We are concerned that, on reflection, the amendment goes much further than Lord Scott intended, so we will not seek to frustrate the Government's will in this matter.
      Mr. Berry: I should like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for arranging a meeting with himself and officials after the debates on Report. A number of my colleagues and I had the opportunity to discuss sustainable development with him and how it might be dealt with in the Bill. I should like to thank him, first and foremost, for that opportunity. This is indeed an historic Bill, and I passionately support 99 per cent. of it. I also congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on ensuring that sustainable development has been included in the Bill. That is very welcome indeed. However, I confess to being at a total loss as to why the Government have tabled amendment (a) to Lords Amendment No. 17, and I shall explain why very simply.
      Lords Amendment No. 17 is very clear. It states:
      "guidance…must state that regard shall be had…to…issues relating to sustainable development".
      The Government want to remove that and to replace it with the words:
      "guidance about the consideration (if any) to be given"
      to issues that relate to sustainable development. I have two problems with that, and I am clearly not in a minority of hon. Members in having that view. The first problem is that, pretty obviously, "to have regard to", as in Lords Amendment No. 17, constitutes a stronger obligation than the duty "to give consideration to", as in Government amendment (a).
      At first blush, there seems to be an open and closed case that the Government are weakening the duty. However, the second and perhaps even greater problem is the inclusion of the phrase "if any", so a future Secretary of State could simply ignore sustainable development when issuing guidance on export licensing by the simple device that he or she would be required only to include
      "guidance about the consideration (if any) to be given."
      May I please emphasise that I do not suggest that the current Secretary of State would do that? I might be in enough trouble in a minute, so I shall not dig myself into that one as well, but a future Secretary of State could say, "No, I do not think that consideration should be given". It is clear from what my hon. Friend the Minister has said
      640
      this afternoon that the Government do not want that to happen, but I simply do not understand why the Government want to include amendment (a).
      My hon. Friend suggested that the Lords amendment would fetter the Government's ability to make common-sense decisions—I think that that was the phrase that he used. I am all in favour of common sense, but I do not understand which common-sense decisions would be problematic. The example given by the Minister, which happened to be the same example given by Lord Sainsbury in another place, was the export of a single military vehicle to a developed country such as the United States of America. Clearly, as has been pointed out, that would not raise sustainable development issues.
      5.15 pm
      As I understand it, therefore, the Government's concern, expressed by hon. Friend the Minister today and by his colleagues in the other place, seems to be that a range of decisions in relation to particular exports to particular countries would not be especially affected by the sustainable development criterion. That is why they wanted the phrase "if any" to be included. For the life of me, I do not understand why the Secretary of State cannot issue appropriate guidance on the sustainable development criterion indicating, for example, what exports to which sorts of countries would be considered. I assume that that is part and parcel of guidance. Nobody has ever argued that every good and service exported by the UK to every country in the world should be subject to an appraisal before an export licence is granted. Guidance is there to assist those making decisions to ensure that the Government's policy on arms export controls and other matters is implemented. The Lords amendment, which, in my view, is better than the Government amendment, would prevent sustainable development from not being considered when it is, in fact, relevant.
      My hon. Friend said that the Government have had legal advice. He will know, as we all do, that Oxfam has also had legal advice from Matrix chambers. As this is a brief debate, I shall not waste the time of the House by quoting that advice, but it is contrary to what my hon. Friend has said and says that the Lords amendment is less unclear and stronger than the Government amendment, and that the problem that my hon. Friend has identified could be dealt with in the guidance issued by the Secretary of State. I am therefore at a loss to know the real reason why the Government want to amend Lords amendment No. 17.
      I want to make a couple of brief points about guidance on sustainable development, as that is relevant to what will be the work of those responsible once this welcome Bill becomes an Act. I was delighted that, in March, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary informed the Quadripartite Committee that the Cabinet Office is undertaking an exercise with relevant Departments in assessing criterion 8. I welcome the review of criterion 8, and I hope that it will address a couple of issues.
      First, if one considers the consolidated criteria, they do not carry the same weight. The first four criteria take the form that
      "the Government will not issue a licence".
      For example, a licence will not be issued
      "if there is a clear risk that the equipment will be used for internal repression".

      641
      The first four of the eight criteria state that the Government will not grant a licence if certain conditions are satisfied—for example, if it is incompatible with our international obligations, or if exports would
      "promote or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions or conflicts".
      A current example of that springs to mind.
      My point is that the principle of the first four criteria is that the Government will not grant a licence if a certain condition is satisfied, whereas the principle behind the sustainable development criterion—I am glad that it is being reviewed—is that the Government will "take into account" the effects. I hope that that duty will be considered further in the review that is being undertaken. It is slightly odd that the sustainable development criterion is of a different order of importance than the first four of the eight.
      My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) made the point that any realistic and productive assessment of the sustainable development criterion must involve assessing the extent to which arms exports represent value for money or productive expenditure. I shall say nothing about the Tanzanian controversy, but it obviously springs to mind. I want to stress that, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, in the case of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, the Government have already accepted the principle of a productive expenditure test. The ECGD's statement of business principles makes it perfectly clear that support for exports to developing countries must be given only when they will not harm sustainable development.
      I spent a few happy moments this morning looking at the ECGD's website. Its business principles include:
      "We will promote a responsible approach to business and will ensure our activities take into account the Government's international policies including those on sustainable development".
      The wording gets stronger. The statement adds:
      "ECGD will ensure that debt sustainability will be a prime determinant of the provision of its support for exports."
      It specifically makes it clear:
      "ECGD will…restrict cover for the poorest countries, to transactions which pass a productive expenditure test."
      That is already Government policy in terms of what the ECGD does.
      We should apply that same principle to arms exports. We should use the review of criterion 8 to raise the standards for sustainable development testing to those used by the ECGD. If we do not do that, Government policy on sustainable development will not remain joined up. For example, it would be ludicrous if the Government refused export credit guarantees because the productive expenditure tests had not been met at the same time as they granted a licence for arms exports. A key part of the review of criterion 8 is that it must be used to make the policies consistent. ECGD practice demonstrates that it is right in principle and possible in practice to test for the sustainable development impact when deciding whether to license arms exports. To support that argument, I point to the fact that the Government already do that.
      I acknowledge that the Government have moved on the provision for sustainable development. When we debated the issue on Report, we were told that we did not need
      642
      such a provision in the Bill because the matter was being dealt with through the criteria. At the meeting I had with the Minister, we were told that we could not put such a provision in the Bill because it would apply to every good that the country exported. We are now being told a third story—we can have such a provision in the Bill, but that the Government do not like the Lords amendment. I am not trying to be difficult and I certainly am not trying to be sarcastic, but I genuinely do not understand why the Government should want to amend the two sensible lines in the Lords amendment.
      Dr. Tonge: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this whole debate is nonsense? The front page of the International Development Act 2002, which went through the House recently, contains a provision for sustainable development, and the Secretary of State for International Development considered that provision to be the most important in the Bill. Furthermore, the Prime Minister told us this afternoon that he has signed up to all the aims of the sustainable development conference to be held in Johannesburg in September. Is this debate not complete nonsense?
      Mr. Berry: I am not sure that the debate is complete nonsense, but it is confusing. I believe that the Government are committed to sustainable development, and the International Development Act 2002 contains a definition of it. However, I do not understand the argument for amending the Lords amendment. I have explained why that would make the Bill weaker and that the Lords amendment would not stop the Government doing what they want to do. I have never before heard the argument that the Lords amendment might put us in breach of the EU code, and I am still awaiting further clarification on that. I cannot believe that it does, certainly not according to the legal advice that other organisations are receiving.
      I am enthusiastic about this important Bill and the last thing I want to do is vote against my Government's amendment, but I cannot understand why they have tabled it. The Lords amendment is superior. I am sad to say that if the mystery is not explained before the end of the debate, I will not be in the same Lobby as my hon. Friend the Minister. I will deeply regret that and hope that he gives me a reason to be in the same Lobby.
      Dr. Vincent Cable: I am in favour of the Lords amendments and against the Government's proposed changes. Like the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), I, too, am confused about how the argument is progressing. There have been several triple-reverse somersaults on how we should approach sustainable development. Unfortunately, the confusion is infectious. I had hoped that the same broad coalition that operated in the other place would be in action today. It comprised a large group on the Government Benches who shared the well informed scepticism that we have heard this afternoon and Members on the Liberal Democrat, nationalist and Conservative Benches.
      I listened with mounting bafflement to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). Only a few weeks ago,

      643
      the Conservative spokesman on international development questioned the Secretary of State for International Development. She said:
      "The Secretary of State will be aware of the sustainable development amendment to the Export Control Bill, which was recently approved in another place. It was supported by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and bishops, and might give the Department for International Development a greater say in such matters. I call on the right hon. Lady to have the courage of her convictions and tell the House that she will support the sustainable development amendment."—[Official Report, 25 April 2002; Vol. 384. c. 500.]
      I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman outranks his colleague or has not consulted her, but he is taking a diametrically opposite point of view. I will not pursue that too much, but I hope that he will explain why for the past year or so his colleagues have said the opposite of what he now proposes.
      Mr. Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to remind him of what happened in the Standing Committee in November and on Report and Third Reading when we made it clear that we might have abstained had we got a straight answer. We got the answer in the other place, the Government have moved on the issue and we have been back to Scott. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Scott report if he thinks that the proposal conforms with what it recommended. That explains my position. For goodness' sake, it does no one any good if we never move forward in politics.
      Dr. Cable: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have consulted his colleague because she made her remarks long after the illuminations that he describes emerged.
      The more important issue is the Government's position on the matter, on which there have been several significant shifts, to which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) referred with characteristic pithy accuracy. We started with a draft Bill. The Government accepted that the schedule of purposes should embrace the principle of sustainable development. That principle was fairly uncontroversial in the White Paper, the Green Paper and the draft Bill, but then it was changed.
      The Bill went through the Commons and the House of Lords. However, at the last moment, to avoid putting words into the schedule of purposes, the Government explained that the schedule of purposes was not what it was originally supposed to be. They effectively turned the Bill on its head and are now defending amendments that relate to the language that should be used. Many of us who followed the Bill through its stages and who are interested in the Scott report find those amendments unsatisfactory.
      I shall take up specific points. We are told that consideration will be given to sustainable development. That is the weakest language that one could find in this context. The other phrase which is much more controversial—the hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) referred to it—is "if any". To critics of the Bill, that appears to give Ministers the option of not considering sustainable development. That is how it appears from the outside.
      644
      5.30 pm
      The Government's view, which the Minister has restated, is that they could be involved in considering many extraneous issues such as trade with the United States or with France. He cited legal opinion to that effect. There are, however, alternative legal opinions. Matrix chambers is one of the most reputable set of barristers, and it makes the point that the Government's legal interpretation is bizarre. I do not want to read the legal language in great detail, but there is a key passage that needs to be put on the record. As for the problem of avoiding dealing with extraneous details, the lawyers say that it would be possible to disregard them
      "even if these two words (if any) were omitted from the clause, on the basis that, in providing guidance about the consideration to be given to issues related to sustainable development in a particular type of case, the Secretary of State can determine the weight to be placed on such issues and may confirm that in certain types of cases such issues are not relevant and may be of little consideration."
      In other words, if an application arrives on the Minister's desk relating to parachutes from Britain to France, he may simply say, "The sustainable development issue carries no weight, or minimal weight, in these circumstances. We will therefore not pursue that line of inquiry." It is an easy way of dealing with the problem. It is difficult to understand why a diametrically opposed legal opinion has been given on this important point. As the Government have changed their mind several times on the legal status of the Bill, I hope that they will give fresh consideration to the issue, which makes them look rather foolish.
      We are talking not only about matters of legality but broader issues of principle. In essence, the Government are trying to tell us, "Trust us. We will interpret sustainable development in the right way at the right time. Providing that there is provision in the guidance, we will look after this concern." In principle, I am always willing to take the Government on trust. However, there are good reasons why we cannot do so in this instance. The first has been taken up twice by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). In her interventions she asks the highly relevant question why the Government chose to disregard the Scott report, and why the four Select Committees, with all-party consensus, recommended that individual applications be considered through parliamentary scrutiny.
      The Government have rejected that approach. By doing so, they sacrificed one of the key safeguards to ensure that applications were properly considered. When the hon. Member for Salisbury intervened on me to say that the amendment is not compatible with the Scott report, that must be seen in conjunction with the fact that the Government have already rejected one of the central propositions of the Scott report, which was parliamentary scrutiny. Had there been that scrutiny, we would not be having the argument. It would not be necessary. It is because the provision is not in place that the relevant language needs to be written much more firmly and strongly in legislation. That is what the debate is about.
      The second reason why we cannot trust government—I do not mean the present Government or the Minister—is the way in which the Tanzanian case was dealt with. That illustrated the weakness of the process of export licence applications in relation to development, in precisely the same way that the Matrix Churchill case illustrated the failures of the old regime. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman

      645
      Lamb), who has done a great deal of work on the Tanzanian case, would like to talk about the issue at considerable length. However, I shall make a few points because the matter specifically illustrates the difficulty that Government have in dealing with development issues in export licence cases.
      The importance of the Tanzanian case is that that was one example where the development argument was clearly set out, first by the World Bank and latterly by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which examined the project and concluded roundly that it was not in the developmental interest. There was a specific and quantifiable test of sustainable development in the conditions set by the International Monetary Fund for the conditions of credit.
      The story of the project, as many people know, is that Barclays bank, working together with BAE Systems, produced a project that appeared superficially to conform to the terms of the IMF definition of sustainable development. In other words, there was a 28 per cent. grant element in the loan. People have examined the project. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk has much more detail than I have, and papers are becoming available. Questions are now being asked about how the project managed to satisfy that test of sustainability.
      Three hypotheses are being offered. The first is that the bank suddenly developed a fit of generosity and decided to give Tanzania, effectively, a grant of £10 million—a third of the value of the loan. That sounds to me highly implausible. The bank has not claimed credit for doing it, and its shareholders certainly have not been told, so it seems unlikely that it did that.
      The second hypothesis is that the bank and BAE Systems fiddled the contract price and overstated the tender price by 30 per cent. so that they could then give a concessional loan. To do that, however, they would have had to engage in what amounts to fraud, with collaborators in Tanzania. We do not know whether that happened, but it seems highly possible that it did.
      The third possibility is that the bank and/or BAE Systems were given a quid pro quo—"You sign this contract for the air traffic control system; we will give you access to banking or another arms contract"—involving, probably, illegal and covert relationships with senior Tanzanian civil servants.
      We do not know what happened. It will emerge, because papers are coming out of the international organisations which are building up the story. One of the Select Committees of the House—I do not know which; it could be the International Development Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Treasury Committee or the Defence Committee—will get their teeth into it, and Ministers and their officials will be called to explain what happened, in precisely the same way as Ministers and officials were called to explain what happened in the case of Matrix Churchill. We shall then understand the dynamics of what happened in Government.
      My understanding is that the Department of Trade and Industry, backed by the Ministry of Defence and 10 Downing street, enthusiastically supported the project. They were opposed by the Secretary of State for International Development and probably the Chancellor
      646
      of the Exchequer, who saw it driving a coach and horses through his sustainable development work in relation to debt relief. The story will emerge, but the key conclusion is that the mechanisms of Government, as they operate at present, do not allow a proper test of sustainable development to take place, even when all the evidence is in front of them and is mobilised by Departments of State.
      That is why it is absolutely fundamental that we have strong language in the legislation. If the Tanzanian case can occur under the present Government, far worse things can happen under other Governments. The legislation must be strengthened. That was the purpose of the amendment, and I urge hon. Members in all parts of the House to support it and to reject the weasel words that have been incorporated in amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 17.
      Tony Worthington: I do not disagree with anything that was said by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable).
      What a pity that we are having this debate today, given that the Bill was so welcome. It represents a major step forward and is slightly tarnished by the sustainable development aspect. It is still incomprehensible to me why we are in such a tangle on that issue. I praise the Department of Trade and Industry for its role during the mass lobby of Parliament last week, when it spoke to those who were calling for the poor to be looked after under the trade rules. At the heart of that day was the concept of sustainable development, and it was very good that the DTI, alongside other Departments, was making it clear that the Government's policy genuinely has sustainable development at its heart. Indeed, that goes back to what was said by the Chief Secretary in respect of the following announcement:
      "Government Departments have been asked by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to ensure that sustainable development issues are considered and reflected in their bids for the 2001 Spending Review".
      That gave rise to a press release entitled "Sustainable Development at the Heart of Government Policy Development"—an approach that is very welcome and which we want to encourage.
      There are other instances in the light of which today's debate is genuinely incomprehensible. On 11 January 2000, the Chancellor made a very important speech. In giving the Gilbert Murray memorial lecture, he called for Government policy to maximise the benefits of debt relief in poverty reduction and economic development by imposing sustainable development criteria. He said:
      "Britain's export credits will only support productive investment that assists social and economic development and thus reduces poverty."
      That is absolutely clear and it was very welcome. Hon. Members have referred to the consequence of that statement in terms of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Seemingly, the oddity is that, although any rank and file export that goes to the ECGD must be justified by the test of sustainable development, something that is related to arms does not have to pass that test. As we seem to be getting towards joined-up government, it appears that somebody is undoing a link, which is very unfortunate.
      The Secretary of State says that we take sustainable development seriously. That is the trusters' argument, but the case for the trusters is seriously weakened by two

      647
      factors. First—this seems pretty much the crunch factor—no one has ever found an example of an arms export being turned down on the basis of sustainable development. I do not know whether the Minister has received information yet from other sources, but when I addressed a question about the matter to the Foreign Secretary in the Quadripartite Committee in March, he said, prompted by his officials, that there had been no cases in which sustainable development had been the ground on which an export was turned down. Unless something has happened since March—if it had, one would have expected the DTI to remember it—we are being asked to take seriously the assertion that sustainable development is at the heart of Government policy in the DTI, and in terms of export controls, even though there has never been an instance in which it was the reason for turning down an export. That is difficult to accept.
      The second weakness in the argument has been the presence in the debate, perhaps for some malevolent reason, of the Tanzanian air traffic control system. If one had had to sit down in the past in a university seminar and devise a project that would fail a sustainable development test, one would have come up with this one. It is a beauty. One section of the Government had been giving debt relief to one of the world's poorest countries on the grounds that that debt was unsustainable, then along came another section of the Government encouraging it to take on £28 million-worth of debt for a civil air traffic control system that did not work and was described in the first International Civil Aviation Organisation report—I have not seen the second report, but I think that it is even more damaging—as being out of date and in need of extra equipment to make it work. One has to wonder how that can be classified as sustainable development.
      5.45 pm
      The Government's response when BAE Systems came to them in 1997 should have been to acknowledge that their policy was not sorted out and that sustainable development was not at the heart of Government at that time. However, that did not happen. The project went through the strange procedure of being approved by the arms working party, which was virtually the same as saying, "You're licensed." I say that because of 4,000 to 5,000 applications a year, only about five were not licensed at the end of the procedure. It was almost unheard of for someone not to be given permission to move forward by the arms working party, which was composed only of officials from the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, and had no representatives from the Department for International Development. The project was a mess, and it would not go through nowadays.
      What puzzles me is that no Minister has been able to say that such a project would be caught by the Bill. It would be welcome to hear the Minister say that the Government are upgrading the sustainable development criteria so that such projects will be caught in future. It was a mess, with Cabinet Ministers quarrelling in public over the decision on whether the project was to go ahead at a time when the system had already been built and was resting in crates on the Isle of Wight. Such things happen. However, we need assurances that projects that so clearly infringe any notion of sustainable development will not be approved in future. It would be encouraging if the
      648
      Minister could say that the Government recognise the need to strengthen the sustainable development criteria and that a project such as the Tanzanian air traffic control system would be caught by the Bill. I hope that he will address those concerns.
      Tony Baldry: It is a matter of regret that the Government have given so little time to the debate on Lords amendments to the Bill, which has been widely welcomed and on which there is broad consensus. We have only three hours and the Minister took the first half an hour in introducing the Government's response to the first group of amendments.
      In respect of sustainable development, in May 2001 the Quadripartite Committee said that
      "consideration should be given to putting on the face of the Bill assurances…that licensing decisions should have due regard to the general purposes for which controls can be imposed, as set out in the Schedule to the Bill".
      I do not believe that the Committee envisaged that the Government would initially give sustainable development a strong profile in the draft measure, subsequently remove it when the Bill was first published and amend the measure to include it in another place. However, the language is rather ambiguous, and I shall briefly act as a boring lawyer and make a couple of boring lawyer's points.
      I am a member of the Quadripartite Committee and I chair the Select Committee on International Development. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) is a member of the latter, and many other members of it are or have been present this afternoon. We have tried to achieve the coherent application of criterion 8 of the EU's consolidated code of conduct for arms export, which ensures, especially in the developing world, that export licences are balanced with the recipient country's economic and poverty reduction policies. Consistent and balanced defence exports are therefore the watchwords.
      The Government's assertions in the explanatory notes show that the basis for the latest status of sustainable development is clarifying
      "the manner in which sustainable development issues are addressed".
      It is not so much the "manner" in which sustainable development is "addressed" as the way in which it is expressed that is ambiguous in the Bill. It states that,
      "guidance about the consideration (if any) to be given"
      to sustainable development must be provided.
      I have two anxieties about the status of such "consideration" of sustainable development. First, I am worried about the weasel wording of the phrase "to be given", which I suspect will mean that sustainable development is often considered but frequently ignored. The wording has not been amended to "have regard to", and the Bill will therefore not move us much further than the consideration that is currently given to criterion 8.
      Let us consider a straightforward example. Hon. Members are more than aware of the further developments in the Tanzanian air traffic control debacle, and I shall not repeat them. However, hon. Members may be interested in the initial issues that surround the radar sale, not least the first International Civil Aviation

      649
      Organisation's report to the World Bank. It was published in November last year, when the Government claimed that they took full account of sustainable development.
      When the Select Committee on International Development invited the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to give evidence on the Tanzanian case, she refused but reaffirmed in a letter to us on 17 December 2001,
      "the Government's commitment to considering carefully the issue of sustainable development as defined in criterion 8."
      If the Government were serious about carefully considering sustainable development, they would not have granted the Tanzanian licence after carefully considering the ICAO's previous submission to the World Bank, which stated that,
      "the system, as contracted, is primarily a military system and can provide limited support to civil air purposes".
      I understand that the Department for International Development considered the document to be sufficient ground for not granting the licence. The Department of Trade and Industry did not listen to those anxieties, and that demonstrates disingenuousness in the dealings in Whitehall.
      In response to a written parliamentary question by me on 28 January 2002, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry stated:
      "The Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation has received no representation from the International Civil Aviation Organisation on Tanzania's export licences."—[Official Report, 28 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 66W.]
      That statement, which implies that the Department had never seen the relevant ICAO document, contrasts sharply with the response of the Secretary of State for International Development to a question on 5 February 2002. It stated:
      "When I received a copy of the letter of 8 November from the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to the World Bank, I sent copies to the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. I have since had discussions and correspondence with these Departments on the content of the ICAO letter."—[Official Report, 5 February 2002; Vol. 379, c. 918–19W.]
      Not only is the Department of Trade and Industry's response to my parliamentary question somewhat disingenuous, it also reinforces the Department's ambivalent attitude to the "consideration" of sustainable development criteria. As other hon. Members have said, one sometimes has to be suspicious of Government collectively—not any specific Government, but the machinery of government.
      That leads to my second worry about the Bill's weasel words on sustainable development status. The Bill contains the caveat phrase, "if any" about sustainable development. Doubtless it means that the Government can flagrantly disregard criterion 8 if they wish, while using wording to make such a dismissal of sustainable development almost impossible to challenge. Under such circumstances, how can the current status of sustainable development ensure coherent export policy? It simply will not.
      650
      There are no two better examples than the early stages of the Tanzanian export control licence application and the first case of defence exports to India. Let us consider the Foreign Secretary's recent evidence to the Quadripartite Committee. On 21 March, he said that,
      "it is whether the proposed export would seriously undermine the economy or seriously hamper sustainable development of the recipient country. As with any other criteria, those have to be weighted in the round".
      I believe that the Foreign Secretary is suggesting that we read "cost effective" for "sustainable development". Cost effective for whom? Can £1 billion-worth of defence spending be cost effective for a country that has increased its defence spending by 28 per cent. in the past two years? Defence spending of £1 billion by India is worth 10 years of UK bilateral development to India, which is our largest recipient of bilateral aid. I suspect that the money would be better invested in. India's under-resourced health and education systems. How can the scale of such defence sales be within the capacity of a country that is the top recipient of the Government's bilateral aid?
      Criterion 8 explicitly asserts that export licences should not be granted when that would be incompatible with economic capacity. That was clearly the case when Tanzania's economic stability already depended on the UK's recent writing off of £100 million in debt and richer countries' collectively writing off of $3 billion in debt.
      As the Tanzanian case shows, it would be beneficial to developing countries if the phrase "if any" were removed. If hon. Members doubt that, I refer them to the Foreign Secretary's comments to the Quadripartite Committee, when he spoke of,
      "careful consideration of whether the proposed export could seriously undermine Tanzania's economy or seriously hamper Tanzanian sustainable development."
      Those sentiments echo those of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and should make us question whether "cost effective" means moneys for the UK or the recipient country.
      Let me put the matter another way. I suspect that the conundrum is made no clearer than by the response of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence on 29 January to a written parliamentary question that I tabled. He said that when the Tanzanian case was initially assessed under the F680 procedure,
      "sustainable development was not a specific factor taken into account…as…Tanzania did not include cost information, it would have been difficult to take any impact related specifically to the financing of the equipment into account."—[Official Report, 29 January 2002; Vol. 379, c. 218W.]
      Where on earth is the "weighted in the round" consideration of criterion 8?
      Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Tony Baldry: No. The Government have provided scant time for the debate. The hon. Gentleman must make his own contribution. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench want to move on to other amendments, and the House has been given a pathetic amount of time for the debate.
      Although the F680 assessment does not represent an approved licence, only a handful of the 10,000 or so applications that are assessed each year do not produce an export licence. Moreover, although the Ministry of

      651
      Defence may assure us that the F680 procedure is being reviewed to allow for "consultation" with the Department for International Development on future assessments under it, we have to question whether "consultation" will mean as much as "consideration" in the Bill.
      If the status of sustainable development is not affirmed early in the defence export process, it is imperative that "consideration" of sustainable development is undertaken as much as possible later in the licence process.
      Much of the measure is welcome. The Government have somersaulted so often that it is difficult to know where they stand. I do not gainsay the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). It is good news that sustainable development is included in the Bill. However, the jury is still out on whether the Government have any intention of ensuring that the true spirit of sustainable development is invoked in the measure's implementation. The test will come and we shall ascertain in due course whether the Department for International Development and other Departments are given a fair and reasonable say in defence export licensing. If they are not, Ministers can be confident that hon. Members from all parties will raise the issue again.
      6 pm
      Ann McKechin: First, I want to assure the Minister of my support for the principal purposes of the Bill, which is welcomed on both sides of the House. The need for a modern, comprehensive approach to the control of exports—particularly arms—is overwhelming and long overdue. Recent events in Palestine and Kashmir have again shown the need for proper restraints to be in place.
      We have also accepted that, in deciding our criteria, it is not sufficient simply to state that arms exports should not have an adverse effect on a region's peace and stability. In too many cases, countries have spent millions of pounds on expanding their armed forces and providing them with sophisticated weaponry, while making little investment in basic health and education facilities for their own citizens. Armed conflict may come at a later date, by which time the size and strength of military forces can lead to rapid and horrendous consequences.
      That is why I also welcome the fact that the Government have now accepted that the principle of sustainable development should be an integral part of the decision-making process, particularly for exports to developing nations. In order to reassure our constituents, church groups and many non-governmental organisations about the Bill's ability to prevent abuses, I strongly urge the Government to consider accepting a definition of the concept that is both meaningful and capable of assessment.
      Armed conflict remains the greatest hindrance to eradicating the scar of poverty from our world and preventing the unnecessary deaths of millions. In many cases, the global market in arms has led to increasing instability in conflict zones and, directly and indirectly, to the loss of life. Sadly, the United Kingdom has not been exempt from participating in this grim and tawdry business.
      I note that, when the Bill was discussed in the other place, the Government agreed to review their criteria for sustainable development. It is vital that the definition of that concept is fully compatible with that used by the
      652
      Department for International Development and by the Department of Trade and Industry's own Export Credits Guarantee Department—a case that has been eloquently stated today by my hon. Friends the Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington), and for City of York (Hugh Bayley). As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie correctly said, it would be absurd for an export licence for arms sales to be granted after an application for export credit had been rejected on development grounds, despite both processes claiming to have considered the impact on a country's sustainable development. The Export Credits Guarantee Department's own statement of business principles clearly states that exports must not harm sustainable development, and that includes having regard to debt sustainability. Any application to the Department for exports to the world's poorest countries must pass a "productive expenditure" test.
      I had the privilege of serving on the Committee that scrutinised the International Development Act 2002. That measure provides the first legal definition of sustainable development, and I am surprised that the Minister did not mention it today. It states that such development must be
      "prudent having regard to the likelihood of its generating lasting benefits for the population of the country".
      Does the Minister not agree that it would be strange to have two Departments—or even two sections of the same Department—working with different definitions of the same concept at the same time? I trust that he will be able to give the House a commitment that his intention in the review is to achieve joined-up government and a definition that is as clear, comprehensive and unambiguous as that applied by other sections of the Government.
      There is a great deal of support for the Bill, and it would be very sad if the Government were unable to offer a clear and comprehensive approach to sustainable development at the same time. That would not require any changes to primary or secondary legislation. A simple commitment from the Minister today would reassure many hon. Members that the Government are truly committed to sustainable development, and to one definition of that concept.
      Mr. Llwyd: I shall be as quick as I can, bearing in mind that other hon. Members wish to speak. Following, as I do, the hon. Members for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) and for Banbury (Tony Baldry), there is not a lot that remains to be said. I shall, however, make one or two points.
      The sustainability issue appears to have gone in and out of the Bill like a squirrel going in and out of a hole in a tree. It seems strange that we are having this debate today, bearing in mind that the Bill has much to commend it. I understood the point made by the hon. Member for Kingswood when he rightly said that there is much in the Bill to support, and that he had difficulty understanding why we were having the debate. I share that concern; I cannot understand it either.
      If we proceed this evening to overturn the Lords amendments, the Bill's provisions on sustainable development will surely be extremely weak. We would merely be placing a duty to give consideration—"if any"—to sustainable development. That would be an

      653
      even weaker provision than that in the current system. The Government's original argument was that an explicit reference to sustainable development in the Bill was not needed because the Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to issue guidance.
      In this context, the Bill referred specifically to the consolidated criteria that are used by the responsible Government Departments to determine whether individual export licences should be granted. I am thinking specifically of criterion 8, which covers sustainable development and was the subject of an exchange at the beginning of the debate. It is patently obvious to all, however, that the current system is insufficient, because of the decision to grant an export licence in the Tanzanian case. I shall not dwell on that example, because there are others here who are far better qualified than I am to speak on that issue. I shall, however, highlight one or two brief points.
      As we know, the World Bank commissioned independent civil aviation experts to look into the Tanzanian deal, and its report has just been published. It has condemned the sale, describing the system in question as a complete waste of money. The experts concluded that Tanzania could have bought an off-the-peg system for about a quarter of the price agreed with BAE Systems, that the system actually purchased had "dated technology", and that Tanzania does not have an air force of its own anyway. We also heard about the debacle between the Department for International Development and the Department of Trade and Industry, a misunderstanding that leads us to think that government is not always joined up. If the Government are serious about sustainable development, the findings of the World Bank must surely be an embarrassment to them.
      In The Guardian on 15 June, a DTI spokesperson said that the World Bank report would make no difference to the Department's attitude towards the deal. He also stated:
      "We will not revoke the export licence because this report is not relevant to it."
      I regret having to repeat those words, and when I take into account what the Minister says about the criteria now being urgently reviewed, I have to ask when that review will commence. If the gentleman at the DTI takes part in it, I do not hold out much hope for the future.
      The ICAO report has been mentioned, and there seem to be 100,000 reasons why the Tanzanian debacle sets a bad example, as the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said earlier. I hope that the Government will reconsider their stance on this matter. I am another boring lawyer, but I do not intend to dissect the amendments. Suffice it to say that it is patently obvious to anyone, lawyer or layman, that the Government's proposals will water down the concept of sustainability. I regret that, but, whichever side of the argument one comes from, it is the obvious conclusion to draw. I repeat that there is much in the Bill to commend it, and it is regrettable that we are having this debate today.
      Hugh Bayley: We have had a fairly full debate, and I will try not to detain the House. I will simply say that I welcome the Bill. How different this is from what happened when the Conservatives were in power. I also welcome the Government's decision to make specific
      654
      reference in the Bill to sustainable development. From time to time, during the short time that I spent on the Front Bench, I had to dream up reasons why the Government might, on reflection, change their position. One good reason for the Government deciding, when the Bill was in another place, to agree that sustainable development should appear in the Bill, was that when they first published the Bill and brought it to this House, the International Development Act 2002 was not on the statute book. For the first time, we now have a statutory definition of sustainable development. It would be rather curious if, a few months after agreeing on such a definition, we refused to apply it in relation to a further piece of legislation.
      I strongly welcome Lord Sainsbury's statement in the other place that criterion 8, the "sustainable development" criterion, would be reviewed. I do not want to repeat the arguments that other Members on both sides of the House have advanced so cogently about the need to use the sustainable development tests relating to applications for export credit guarantees—for instance, the "productive expenditure" test, to give just one example in connection with arms sales.
      I should mention, however, that another of the export credit guarantee tests concerns whether an export would be compatible with debt sustainability. That test should certainly apply to arms sales; omitting it would lead to the unjoined-up-government nonsense whereby one Department—the Department for International Development—can commit millions of pounds of Government money to writing off a developing country's debt, only for another Department to make a decision that creates a similar amount of debt.
      Not just the working but the wording of criterion 8 needs to be reviewed. In particular, the Government should devise and publish a series of specific sustainability tests and apply them rigorously when considering whether the "sustainable development" criterion is being applied. I ask the Minister to comment on that when he replies. Indeed, I should like him to reflect on the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) and for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), as well as those I have raised. If he wants the House to go along with the Government's amendment, I hope he will be able to reassure us by saying that they intend to publish that series of tests allowing them to determine the question of sustainability.
      Norman Lamb: Several Members have described the Government's approach as incomprehensible, and have said that they are confused by the debate. I suspect that we should not be confused in any way. We all know, surely, that a battle is in progress at the heart of Government between those who want to pursue the concept of sustainable development and make it a binding test in all contexts of Government policy, and those in Government who are more interested in sustaining the British arms industry. That is what has happened with the Tanzanian scandal, and it is what is happening in the Bill. At present those in the Cabinet who want to sustain the British arms industry, even at the expense of sustainable development, are winning the argument.

      655
      6.15 pm
      It is important for those of us who believe that sustainable development must be at the core of all Government thinking to keep challenging the Government. Their approach, and their amendment, will render any effective test of sustainable development meaningless. What they are doing represents spin without substance. It will look good on paper, but the Government will be able to evade the test whenever they need to. Moreover, it means that we will sustain this inconsistent approach across Government.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) pointed out, the International Development Act 2002 now has at its heart a requirement that the spending of development assistance must meet the test of sustainable development and the alleviation of poverty. Many Labour Members have mentioned the approach of the ECGD. The work of that department must also meet the test of sustainable development—but when the Bill has been passed, if the Government have their way, they will ultimately be able to ignore sustainable development when granting export licences.
      Export licence applications are currently considered in terms of the consolidated criteria. Many references have been made to criterion 8, and to the fact that it is under review and will be reformed. We know, however, that when the Government are in a corner they will ignore that criterion. We know it from the example of the Tanzanian air traffic control system. We know that what really drove the decision to grant a licence was the issue of jobs and the interests of the British arms manufacturer BAE Systems.
      I want the Minister to answer a specific question. When the Department of Trade and Industry granted the export licence in December, did it know of the role of Barclays bank? Did it know that Barclays had apparently subsidised the deal? As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) observed, here we have a commercial bank suddenly, in a fit of generosity, subsidising a totally inappropriate arms deal with a heavily indebted country. It is unbelievable. The Secretary of State for International Development has already alluded to corruption. Did the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry know the details when she reached her decision back in December?
      As other Members have said, the really troubling aspect of the Government's approach today is that a decision such as that reached in the case of the Tanzanian scandal will be just as possible after the Bill has been passed. Consideration is a very weak test. It will be perfectly possible for the Government to demonstrate that they have considered sustainable development before rejecting it. No legal challenge will be possible, given such a pathetically weak test. The Government will be able to go on sustaining the arms industry, as they seem willing to do at present.
      I want to say something about the interplay between the granting of an export licence and the preliminary clearance given by the Ministry of Defence. Again, sustainable development effectively goes out of the window. The MOD, bizarrely, has an opportunity to give preliminary clearance to an arms export that will later have to be considered by an entirely separate Department, the Department of Trade and Industry. Back in August 1997—just after the then Foreign Secretary had referred to a foreign policy with an ethical dimension—it gave preliminary clearance to an arms sale to Tanzania.
      656
      Before the export licence was granted last December, BAE Systems entered into a binding contract with Tanzania, with the support of Barclays bank. The equipment was largely built, and $15 million had already been paid. All that happened before the application for an export licence was made. No one can tell me that when the application was considered in December, sustainable development played any part in the decision that was reached—and that will still be so in similar cases after the Bill has been passed.
      In promoting the Government amendment, the Minister seemed to make great play of the alleged loophole—the fact that if the Lords amendment remained in place, the provision would be inconsistent with the European consolidated criteria—but in answer to an intervention he seemed, as I understood him, to make it clear that we would not be in breach of any legal obligation to Europe. If the Lords amendment were agreed, we would have a system that better protected the interests of sustainable development, and that is what the Government are seeking to throw out. They should be ashamed.
      Roger Casale: This seems the right moment in our proceedings to put on the record my support for the Government's decision to put sustainable development back in the Bill. That was the right decision. It cannot have been an easy decision, not least because they had previously removed it. It opens the Government to potential criticism and attack on their overall approach, so it was a courageous decision, too.
      I am delighted that sustainable development is back in the Bill. The reason why the Government appeared to be reluctant to put it back has come out in the debate; I use the word "appeared" because I do not believe that they were truly reluctant. There was no lack of commitment to sustainable development. Indeed, how could anyone, let alone a Labour Government committed to tackling poverty at home and abroad, be against that admirable goal?
      It is all too clear that there is a conflict—many hon. Members have referred to it—in the day-to-day business of Government, and in the pressures from different Departments, such as the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury and the Department for International Development. Those elements clearly came to a head in the Tanzanian air traffic control issue. We saw a lot of rather sanctimonious nonsense in the press about that at times.
      Unrealistic expectations were voiced about how the Government should have acted. The Government were in a difficult position, because they had to try to square the circle and bring together the legitimate needs of different sectors represented by different Government Departments. What we need is not an approach to international development or trade issues that privileges one particular Department—whether that be the Department for International Development, the Department of Trade and Industry or the Ministry of Defence—but a coherent overall approach, a coherent strategy on making decisions about matters such as the Tanzanian air traffic control issue, which takes all the relevant considerations into account.
      At the heart of that strategy must be the concept of sustainable development. Not only do we need a concept of sustainable development in the Bill, but it should be

      657
      defined in the same way for each Department, so that it can act as a golden thread that joins the work of different Departments.
      At the same time, we must recognise that sustainable development definitions are subject to change. Twenty years ago, we had the Brundtland definition of sustainable development, which emphasised reconciling social and economic development with the environment. Today there is a much stronger emphasis on tackling poverty and building democracy in developing countries as a way of ensuring that development in those countries is sustained over time. We must recognise that we cannot simply open the Oxford English dictionary and find a definition of "sustainable development". It is a contested concept. The notion of sustainable development that we are anchoring in the Bill today will be subject to change over time.
      For that reason it is important to understand that in the application of that concept to practical everyday politics there needs to be a certain degree of flexibility and adaptability. None the less, I am delighted that the concept is back in the Bill, because the whole aspiration and thrust of the Bill is to change dramatically the approach to the control of export licences, which was long overdue, and to put it on a completely new footing with new principles at its core. I hope that the concept of sustainable development is robust enough to link the work of different Departments. I wish the Government luck, every success, and, I hope, support from reasonable-minded people who will not use that concept as a rod to beat the Government over the head with in years to come.
      Jeremy Corbyn: Briefly, because I know that other hon. Members want to raise other issues on the Bill, I shall make three points. First, can the Minister say what is happening to the review of criterion 8, when he expects that to be published, and how it will be published for us?
      Secondly, it must be plain that sustainable development has to be among the criteria for arms exports. The Tanzanian fiasco points that up, as do many others; one only has to look at the arms sales that have traditionally been made around the world to the most odious regimes presiding over the greatest poverty and abuses of human rights. The two often go together.
      I cannot understand why we have got ourselves into the incredibly arcane debate about whether this or that version of sustainable development is in Bill. I would like to hear from the Minister a clear answer to the effect that sustainable development will be central to the considerations, and that the Department for International Development will have an opportunity to take part in that review. It would not have to review every document, as the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) seemed to claim, but at least it would have a say in the general criteria, and would therefore influence the decisions that were made.
      Thirdly, I regret that the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others was not selected, because this whole debate clearly underlines the case for proper effective parliamentary scrutiny of arms exports. Many of us have spent many years being very concerned about the fact that the arms export industry in this country is heavily subsidised, about the damage that it does to the economies
      658
      that purchase arms from us, and about the fact that regimes that have no regard whatever for human rights buy arms claiming that they will be used to defend their country against external aggression, and then use them simply for internal oppression.
      Those problems are at the heart of the concerns that many people have. I hope that when the Minister replies, he can convince us that the many people who are campaigning on the issue are right, that the Government have heard them, and that they will be serious about controlling arms exports. I no longer hear talk of proposals for an arms conversion industry. Perhaps this is the time for the Minister to bring those proposals forward again.
      Nigel Griffiths: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to some of the points and, I hope, reassure the House, including my hon. Friends. May I start with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn)? On the first question that he put to me, the Government recognise the need to consider how criterion 8 can be most effectively applied in assessing relevant export licence applications, and we have agreed that there is a need for clearer procedures in Whitehall for reaching decisions when sustainable development is an issue. The Cabinet Office has been tasked with facilitating an interdepartmental discussion of the issue involving all the Departments with an interest. That discussion continues, so the Government are not currently considering a change in the policy.
      The Government have already published details of how they consider, and will consider, sustainable development both now and under the Bill. The consolidated criteria published in October 2000 represent the Government's policy now, and will continue to represent it under the Bill. That is made clear by subsection (8) of the new clause to be inserted by amendment No. 17. We have a definition appropriate to that—one agreed with all our EU partners. Definitions and criteria relating to other issues and other circumstances are simply not relevant here.
      I remind the House, especially the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), that the Bill says that the Government must have regard to the guidance. It will not be possible simply to ignore sustainable development, as I think he mistakenly stated. The use of the words "if any" does not mean that a future Government could simply decide not to address the issue of sustainable development, or indeed any of the issues listed in the table referred to in the schedule.
      6.30 pm
      The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) implied that it would be fairly straightforward for advisers or Ministers to pass swiftly over obviously irrelevant considerations, but that fundamentally misunderstands the nature of primary legislation. A duty for the Government is not there to be applied or ignored according to the view of the Government of the day as to what is or is not relevant. That is the attitude that the Bill is designed to prevent, and we have taken care to draft our proposals in such a way that the Bill allows common-sense decisions to be taken, but only where they can be justified. The Liberal Democrat amendments would make it impossible for common sense to apply, and would encourage the absurdity of the box-ticking approach that we are seeking to avoid.

      659
      The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned the Scott report and claimed that it made a recommendation on prior scrutiny. However, the Scott report never mentioned prior scrutiny. It spoke in favour of scrutiny orders, which are provided for in the Bill.
      I repeat that if sustainable development were in the schedule, that would empower the Government to control the export or trade of pretty well any goods of any kind, since almost any goods have the capacity to have an effect on the sustainable development of a recipient country. This would he a massive extension of the Government's ability to impose controls.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) mistakenly believes that only Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministry of Defence officials consider F680 inquiries. I can assure him that Department for International Development officials are involved in every case in which it is necessary to consider criterion 8 of the consolidated national and EU code.
      Tony Worthington: Will the Minister give way?
      Nigel Griffiths: I will not prolong our proceedings. I gave way generously earlier, and my reward was to be accused of delaying things and spending too much time at the Dispatch Box. I am sure that my hon. Friend will find a way of coming back to the issue.
      As there has been an allegation of wrongdoing and criminal activity on the part of BAE Systems, I want to put clearly on the record the fact that the Government have no evidence that the deal was in any way corrupt. We are committed to working with our international partners and the business community to ensure that there is effective action both here and abroad to tackle the problem of corruption, as the OECD convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 make clear.
      Norman Lamb: Will the Minister give way?
      Nigel Griffiths: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, whose hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham made serious allegations about Barclays and BAE Systems. I do not know if he intends to repeat them outside this House, but I would caution against it.
      I hope that I have given a justification for rejecting amendment No. 1 and supporting the motion standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
      Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 40.

      Division No.278]

      6.34 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bayley, Hugh

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Beard, Nigel

      Ainger, Nick

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Bell, Stuart

      Allen, Graham

      Bennett, Andrew

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Berry, Roger

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Best, Harold

      Austin, John

      Betts, Clive

      Baird, Vera

      Blackman, Liz

      Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      660

      Blizzard, Bob

      Gapes, Mike

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Gardiner, Barry

      Borrow, David

      George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

      Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Gilroy, Linda

      Brennan, Kevin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Goggins, Paul

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bryant, Chris

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Burden, Richard

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Burgon, Colin

      Hanson, David

      Burnham, Andy

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Cairns, David

      Havard, Dai

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Healey, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hendrick, Mark

      Casale, Roger

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Caton, Martin

      Heppell, John

      Cawsey, Ian

      Heyes, David

      Challen, Colin

      Hill, Keith

      Chaytor, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Hodge, Margaret

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clelland, David

      Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Coleman, Iain

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

      Colman, Tony

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Connarty, Michael

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cooper, Yvette

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Cousins, Jim

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cox, Tom

      Jamieson, David

      Cruddas, Jon

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Joyce, Eric

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      David, Wayne

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kidney, David

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dismore, Andrew

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Lammy, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Drew, David

      Laxton, Bob

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Lepper, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Edwards, Huw

      Levitt, Tom

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Love, Andrew

      Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

      Lucas, Ian

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Luke, Iain

      Flint, Caroline

      Lyons, John

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McDonnell, John

      Foulkes, George

      MacDougall, John

      Francis, Dr Hywel

      McFall, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      McIsaac, Shona

      McKechin, Ann

      661

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McNulty, Tony

      Shaw, Jonathan

      MacShane, Denis

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Sheridan, Jim

      McWilliam, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Simon, Siôn

      Mallaber, Judy

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mann, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marris, Rob

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Miliband, David

      Soley, Clive

      Miller, Andrew

      Southworth, Helen

      Moffatt, Laura

      Squire, Rachel

      Mole, Chris

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mountford, Kali

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Mudie, George

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Tami, Mark

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Neill, Martin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Organ, Diana

      Touhig, Don

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Trickett, Jon

      Perham, Linda

      Truswell, Paul

      Pickthall, Colin

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)

      Pike, Peter

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pond, Chris

      Vaz, Keith

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Ward, Claire

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Wareing, Robert N

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Watson, Tom

      Purchase, Ken

      Watts, David

      Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Rapson, Syd

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      (Swansea W)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Wills, Michael

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wilson, Brian

      Rooney, Terry

      Winnick, David

      Ross, Ernie

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Roy, Frank

      Woodward, Shaun

      Ruane, Chris

      Woolas, Phil

      Ruddock, Joan

      Worthington, Tony

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Salter, Martin

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wyatt, Derek

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sawford, Phil

      Mr. Ian Pearson and

      Joan Ryan.

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Barrett, John

      Harvey, Nick

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Holmes, Paul

      Brake, Tom

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Breed, Colin

      Keetch, Paul

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Burstow, Paul

      Lamb, Norman

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Oaten, Mark

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Price, Adam

      Cotter, Brian

      Pugh, Dr John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Rendel, David

      662

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Weir, Michael

      Sanders, Adrian

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

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

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wishart, Pete

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Younger—Ross, Richard

      Thurso, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Mr. Andrew Stunell and

      Tyler, Paul

      Bob Russell.

      Question accordingly agreed to.

    New Clause
    Lords amendment: No. 17, before clause 7, to insert the following new clause—Guidance about the exercise of functions under control orders.
    Amendment made: (a), in line 12, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 and insert—
    'The guidance required by subsection (3) must include guidance about the consideration (if any) to be given,'.—[Nigel Griffiths.]
    Lords amendment No. 17, as amended, agreed to.

    After Clause 3
    Lords amendment: No. 10.
    Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move, That the House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 6, and the Government motions to disagree thereto, and Lords amendment No. 16.
    Nigel Griffiths: Hon. Members may be aware that extensive discussion took place in the House of Lords on the Bill's possible impact on the activities of scientists and academics. To address those concerns and make clear their position on these important issues, the Government tabled their own amendment—Lords amendment No. 16—which protects academic freedom. Opposition amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 10 were passed with the same aim, but they would introduce several highly damaging loopholes. For instance, if they were accepted we could not prevent the transfer abroad of research into the development of torture equipment technology.
    I shall explain how the Bill and amendment No. 16 provide protections to ensure that the Bill cannot be misused to damage academic freedoms. I shall also explain the damaging consequences of the Opposition amendments, in the hope that hon. Members will agree to their being overturned.
    The academic community has acknowledged its concern not about the controls that the Government plan to introduce through the Bill, but about whether a future Government could misuse the powers in the Bill. Baroness Warwick, chief executive of Universities UK, stated during a debate in the other place that, after discussions with the Government, UUK was convinced that they in no way wanted to impinge on academic freedom by way of the Bill. Universities UK was nevertheless keen for the protections for academic freedom in secondary legislation under the Bill to be backed up by a statement in the House that the Government intended to protect academic freedom in that way. Lord Sainsbury made such a statement in the other place, and I can happily give the same assurance here today.

    663
    There are already strict limits on how the Bill's powers could be used. They can be used only to control exports or transfers required by our international obligations on military equipment and technology and on exports or transfers that could have serious consequences, such as contributing to weapons of mass destruction programmes, or human rights abuses. In spite of that, Universities UK and others, including parliamentary colleagues, requested that a clear commitment to academic freedom be set out in the Bill. In response, the Government introduced Lords amendment No. 16. That makes clear that the Secretary of State, when making secondary legislation under the Bill, must avoid unreasonable restrictions on putting information in the public domain or communicating material already in the public domain.
    Although the amendment does not use the words "academic freedom", it goes to the heart of what academic freedom is about. It protects freedoms for all, not just for members of the academic community, including freedoms to publish, or otherwise make publicly available, research and to communicate it to students and others. That reflects the fact that scientific and other research is carried out far more widely than just in the academic world. Therefore the rules applying to such research should apply equally to all undertaking it—a matter of some concern, I understand, to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).
    Under the amendment, any order under the Bill that attempted to place an unreasonable restriction on publication or communication could be opposed in the courts. We have tested the effect of the amendment on a list of scenarios sent to us by Universities UK which illustrated the kind of situation that universities were concerned about. The answers to those scenarios illustrate—I hope—that the Bill will not, and could not, be used to damage academic freedoms. The details are available in the Library. The Government are nevertheless willing to continue working with Universities UK and others to consider any remaining concerns or proposals they may have in relation to the Bill.
    The Government amendment, Lords amendment No. 16, also ensures that any controls introduced under the Bill can be kept in line with our obligations under international regimes, such as the missile technology control regime and the Wassenaar arrangement. That is because it will enable us to keep the exemptions for information in the public domain contained in secondary legislation in line with the international concepts and definitions used.
    The Opposition's amendment, Lords amendment No. 10, sought to protect academic freedoms, but unlike the Government amendment, it would also create very damaging loopholes in the Bill. I shall explain what those are. First, subsections 1(a) and (b) of the amendment would establish in secondary legislation an immutable exemption for information in, or being placed in, the public domain, unless the transfer was related to weapons of mass destruction or required by international treaty obligations. Because that exemption could not be adapted except by primary legislation, Lords amendment No. 10 would prevent the UK from complying with its commitments to voluntary export control regimes such as the Wassenaar arrangement and the missile technology control regime, if those agreed any change to the definition used, as they might do. As the House will know, those international regimes form a crucial part of global efforts to combat proliferation of conventional and
    664
    non-conventional weapons, and it is therefore essential that the United Kingdom be able to meet its commitments to those regimes.
    Subsection 1(c) of Lords amendment No. 10 would exempt from control any and all information transferred in the course of academic teaching or research unless the transfer was related to weapons of mass destruction or involved military technology. That would exempt anyone engaged in academic research and teaching from controls on the transfer of technology capable of causing the consequences listed in the schedule to the Bill, such as human rights abuses, internal repression or facilitation of terrorism or serious crime. It would therefore permit an academic to contravene the Government's 1997 ban on export of equipment and related technology about which we have had evidence that it has been used in torture—by sending overseas research results on how to make, for example, electric shock batons. It is unacceptable in the Government's view that any one group should be automatically exempted from our export control regime in that way. The all-party Quadripartite Select Committee agreed with that view in its report on the draft Bill, stating:
    "We see no case for complete exemption of academic activity from export controls".
    The effect of subsection 4 of amendment No. 10 would be to require the Secretary of State to misuse licensing powers granted to her under EU law. Subsection (4) of the amendment would require the Government to grant licences under directly applicable EU provisions in such a way as to exempt academic activity in certain areas from control. However, the European Union dual-use regulation currently in force states that licence applications under it must be considered against the European Union code of conduct on arms exports. The amendment would therefore make the Secretary of State subject to conflicting duties under national and EU law. Moreover, the regulation already includes specific exemptions from control for information in the public domain and for basic scientific research, and it is not open to member states to attempt to alter those.
    Lords amendment No. 4, also tabled by the Opposition, would remove clause 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d) from the Bill. The Opposition suggested in the other place that those clauses could be used to require overseas students to obtain licences to study in the UK. Let me assure the House that that is simply not the case. The Bill could not be used to license overseas students' presence in the UK. However, the powers that amendment No. 4 would remove are crucial if we are to have a comprehensive export control regime. Those powers would give the Government the power to impose controls on transfers of technology within or into the UK where the technology transferred was intended for use outside the UK.
    Without those powers, we would have a huge loophole in the Bill. Let me explain why. As well as being exported physically or electronically, technology can in effect be exported through communications in person, either in the UK or overseas—for example, an expert going overseas and providing training there could be effectively exporting technology. The European Union joint action on provision of technical assistance to weapons of mass destruction programmes requires us to control such transfers of technology by UK persons overseas that are destined for use in WMD programmes. But exactly the same transfer of WMD-related technology to exactly the same person

    665
    with links to a WMD programme could be made entirely within the UK, with the intention that the recipient would then use that technology overseas.
    It would be absurd if a licence was needed for the overseas transfer, but not if the same transfer took place in the UK. Equally it would make a nonsense of the controls if they could be evaded by a UK person overseas transferring technology into the UK in the knowledge that the receiver intended to take that information and use it overseas. That is why we have proposed to introduce controls on such transfers within and into the UK. However, we recognise that regulating these types of transfers is difficult, so we have made it clear that these controls will apply only to the areas of greatest concern—namely, weapons of mass destruction and related missile programmes.
    We need clause 2(2)(c) and 2(2)(d) of the Bill if we are to have effective controls against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, our proposals in this area were strongly supported by the all-party Quadripartite Committee, which pointed out that
    "non-proliferation is arguably the most important single issue in strategic export controls".
    The Committee went on to describe the proposals in its report on the draft Bill as "profoundly significant".
    The Government have made every effort to address the academic community's concerns about the Bill. We believe that Lords amendment No. 16 strikes the correct balance between the need to protect the freedom of academics and others engaged in teaching and research and the need for an effective export control regime. I urge the House to accept the amendment and to overturn Lords amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 10.
    Mr. Key: This is an important group of amendments and we have only a little over half an hour in which to have a coherent debate. I shall do my best to be speedy. The Minister is profoundly mistaken to think that the academic community will be in any sense reassured by what he has said and what his colleagues said in the other place. There is a misunderstanding about why the academic community is concerned. The current regime of export controls was introduced in 1939, and for many years it applied only to physical goods. Although technology could be transferred electronically by telegraph from the 1840s, by telephone and fax from the 1870s, and by radio from the 1900s, no attempt was made to do so.
    7 pm
    Some years ago the Department of Trade and Industry started applying export controls to manuals for weapons as well as to weapons. That caused a certain amount of grumbling, and served no obvious purpose other than to make work for the civil service. The DTI, however, has never lacked powers against genuine arms exporters. If a company successfully argued in court that controlling manuals was ultra vires, it would no doubt get hammered on its other licence applications. The problem is that these powers have often been used erratically. For example, the Canadian army was refused an export licence for flails for use in mine clearance in Bosnia. Apparently, the DTI saw the word "mine" and froze. That led to the Scott inquiry, after which something had to be done.
    666
    During the 1990s, the United States National Security Agency tried to tighten the regulation of civilian cryptography. In the last months of the first Bush Administration, it pitched the clipper chip—a new standard for encryption with the feature that the National Security Agency would hold a master key. Thus US business could get the benefits of strong encryption, but if it were abused by criminals, the National Security Agency would be able to defeat it. George Bush senior and his Cabinet were hostile; they thought that it was bureaucratic empire-building and would cause them all sorts of trouble. Once President Clinton was elected, however, the pitch was repeated and got a warmer reception. Vice-President Al Gore took on the role of directing cryptography policy in the Cabinet. His efforts to sell the clipper chip were hampered by the availability world wide of encryption software that can be downloaded from many academic and other websites. Why should people pay $100 for encryption that the United States Government can break when they can get free software that they cannot break?
    Cryptography is now used in a large number of systems as the glue that holds things together. It is found in every personal computer, in web servers, browsers, banks' automatic teller machines, car door openers, electricity meters and even one-armed bandits. As the USA tried to retain export controls on the technology, it waded deeper into trouble.
    United States law, unlike English law, allows export controls to be applied to intangibles such as software downloaded from websites. There were furious battles in the United States about whether encryption software was the constitutionally protected academic speech of the professor who wrote it, to which the answer was "Yes, sort of', and whether it could be exported printed in a paper book, to which the answer was "Yes." People printed software on T-shirts that said, "This T-shirt is a munition." Companies such as Microsoft then poured money into civil liberties groups, annoyed that European encryption software firms were establishing markets close to them. Eventually, in the run-up to the 2000 election, Vice-President Gore caved in and removed most of the controls on the export of encryption software.
    Before new Labour came to power, it adopted a strong position against the regulation of cryptography. Once it was in power, the line changed. The Government started putting out proposals for cryptoregulation that eventually, after much opposition and watering down, led to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. At the same time, consultation was started, and accelerated after the Scott report, on modernising the export control regime. A Green Paper came out in 1996 and a White Paper in 1998; the latter recommended the introduction of controls on transfer of technology by intangible means.
    The best reference on this is the Trade and Industry Committee report of 10 December 1998 on strategic export controls. It took a critical view of the White Paper's line on intangible controls—paragraphs 37 to 42 are the key. The Committee found that the Government had no clear idea of the extent of the problem that the provisions sought to address, that there were grave doubts about the practicality of the proposals and fears for their consequences, and that there would be significant economic consequences such as the increase in costs of post-sales software maintenance and the support of online instructions manuals.

    667
    The Committee noted severe worries about the effects on the operation and standing of United Kingdom higher education. It recommended that intangible export controls, if introduced, should be limited to weapons of mass destruction, and that the Government should not agree to an extension of the European Union's dual-use regime, whose aim was to bring exports of dual-use goods outside the EU under harmonised control.
    The Government's reaction was to encourage the EU to put through a dual regulation in 2000 which, on the face of it, extended controls on the export of dual-use goods from the EU to intangible transfers. The legal view taken at the time by the universities was that this regulation had no force in criminal law because it would take primary legislation to introduce a new criminal offence, namely, conveying information to foreigners without the permission of Government. DTI officials claimed that the regulations did indeed have criminal force, but when pressed for an explanation of which Act would be used to prosecute, they were unable to help.
    None the less, the DTI went ahead and started implementing dual-use controls on the community of arms manufacturing companies that it regulates. For such a company, a direct legal challenge could have unpleasant consequences. The view of the Defence Manufacturers Association at the time was—and, for all I know, still is—that the regulations also applied to tens of thousands of other companies which were, for example, incorporating cryptography in all sorts of products and exporting them while blissfully unaware of the alleged new legal situation. The DTI did not educate the companies which were now supposedly subject to licensing.
    The Bill gives the Government almost arbitrary powers to regulate intangible exports. Officials say that it will be used sparingly. However, the EU dual-use regulation, which they will at last be able to enforce, will itself prevent, for example, technology transfers relating to cryptography outside the EU. Other technologies on the dual-use list include a very large part of what the Ministry of Defence considers to be high tech and thus a great deal of what interests universities.
    Officials have been telling two different stories to academia. To Universities UK, they said that the Bill will be used to take powers to license the teaching of certain subjects to certain students. In public—and in Parliament—Ministers denied that that was the case. Lord Sainsbury tried to finesse the issue by saying loudly and often that the licences would be needed not by the students, as the Opposition had said, but by the professors teaching them. That is pure casuistry, as the students' name would also appear on the licence. Universities UK, whose chief executive is Baroness Warwick, did not push the issue.
    Ministers say that the needs of academia will be met by exemptions covering pure science and information being put in the public domain. Yet the current arrangements for research grants for the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council require applicants to describe their proposal's "relevance to beneficiaries". Thus a pure mathematician wanting to do work on elliptical curves will describe it as being highly relevant to cryptography, which is the key enabling technology for electronic commerce, thereby putting his head in the noose.
    668
    One academic told me that in 1997 he worked with scientists in Norway and Israel to develop cryptographic software for a competition run by the United States Government to find a replacement for a 1970s-generation encryption standard. DTI officials told him that in future, once they had intangible export controls in place, such an exchange would require a licence. As a result, the research would not get done. The conditions likely to be attached to such licences will not be acceptable to many universities or individual academics. Yet now we see Ministers equivocating as to whether a licence would be needed. In a letter to Baroness Warwick, Lord Sainsbury says that
    "it is likely that exchanges of the type described above would be authorised under the Open General Export Licence for Cryptographic Development."
    Yet that relates to commercial development and thus appears to exclude free software; it needs a formal agreement, which must be registered; it excludes Chinese nationals; it has an onerous record-keeping burden; and it excludes cryptanalysis. No really useful scientific work on ciphers can be done without cryptanalysis. It is like trying to design aeroplanes without either a wind tunnel or computational fluid dynamics codes with which to test the designs.
    Ministers claim that placing information in the public domain will make it exempt. That means that if I were to invent a global positioning system jammer that rendered US smart munitions ineffective, I could put the design on my web page so that the Taliban could download it and build it.
    However, if I were to give a talk at a closed conference—a NATO conference, for example—I should need to obtain an export licence, not only for the talk but for any slides that I wanted to e-mail in advance to the conference organisers. Such a provision would also interfere with academic-industry collaboration, as we would appear to need licences to attend progress meetings. Perhaps all the problems will be sorted out in time—but certainly not tonight or by the Bill.
    Control on the export of goods mainly affects trade. Important though the freedom of movement of goods may be, it is easy to understand the prior claims of public policy on national security. As restrictions on trade threaten jobs, the resulting tension between the requirements of national security and of the economy tend naturally to produce the necessary checks and balances on the export control power.
    Control over the export of ideas is radically different, however. Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right and gives way much less readily to the claims of the state. Moreover, the natural checks and balances that affect decisions on trade are lacking, as blocking a research project will not normally produce job losses or other evident short-term economic effects. The extension of control from the export of goods to the export of intangibles is thus a radical step with serious implications; it is not merely the closing of a tiresome, recently discovered loophole in existing controls.
    Export control over goods applies straightforwardly to goods being exported; ideas are far harder to control. The difficulty of the attempt to impose control on the export of ideas leads to fears of evasion and thus to subsections 2(c) and 2(d) of clause 2 giving power to impose control

    669
    over the transfer of ideas—not their export but their exchange inside the UK. It is true that the power is qualified by the words
    "(but only where there is reason to believe that the technology may be used outside the United Kingdom)".
    That is no help at all, however, as Universities UK has plainly told the DTI.
    First, if the power can be used whenever technology may be used abroad, it can be used in practically every case, because any communication or publication of information may lead to its being used abroad. Secondly, if the power is used to impose controls that apply where
    "there is reason to believe that the technology may be used outside the United Kingdom",
    leaving it to the publisher or communicator to judge at his or her peril whether the control applies, the risk will be too high for many people. It is certainly obvious that there is always reason to believe that technology taught to foreign students may be used outside the United Kingdom, and therefore a clear power is needed to impose controls and licensing requirements on such students.
    Two exemptions are needed to secure academic freedom; one relating to the public domain, and the second relating to the, in essence, private processes of research before publication. The public domain exemption divides into two elements: first, material already in the public domain and, secondly, the publication of the results of research that puts that material into the public domain. There should be no power to impose control on either of those processes.
    The Minister disclaims any intention of imposing such controls, and points to the exemptions in the existing controls. Exemptions in present controls exist by grace and favour of the Minister. It is essential that they should be entrenched in primary legislation. Academic research involves much collaboration and communication between researchers. It is not made public as the research proceeds, and much of it may never be published. We all know about the false starts and rough drafts on the back of an envelope that are, in essence, private; their communication would not be protected by a public domain exemption. If the preliminary results are shared with research students, that may take place in seminars that are not open to the public, and would thus be equally unprotected by a public domain exemption.
    What is required is an exemption for communications made in the ordinary course of academic research and teaching. The Minister referred to an exemption in existing controls for "basic scientific research", but there are two flaws. The first is that such exemptions are far too important to be left to secondary legislation. The second is that "basic scientific research" is far too narrowly defined, by being limited to exclude work with practical application. The Minister's Department insists that research grant applicants explain their work's "relevance to beneficiaries", thus ensuring that applicants classify their work in such a way as to take it outside the "basic scientific research" exemption.
    7.15 pm
    The Minister offered a justification for not including the existing exemptions in the Bill: the definitions of
    670
    "public domain" and "basic scientific research", which are used in the exemptions, are derived from international agreements and might be changed when those agreements are revised; and it would be inconvenient if he had to promote primary legislation to reflect those changes in UK law. Such an explanation fuels the very fears that he is trying to allay. The very purpose of pressing to include those exemptions in the Bill is to make it as hard as possible for them to be removed or changed. The mere fact that the Minister or his officials might agree with one or more of their counterparts abroad that it would suit them to remove or narrow down the exemptions should certainly not be enough to enable them to effect that change in UK law. Academic freedom is far too important to be exposed to dilution through horse-trading between Governments. It is far from reassuring that a Minister with responsibility for science should apparently put his own legislative convenience above the importance of academic freedom.
    Lords amendment No. 4 deals with internal transfers, or imports, of technology, not its export, which is what the Bill should be limited to. The provisions would expose to control academic teaching and collaborative research within the UK—especially the teaching of foreign students—and also the publication in the UK of research work undertaken in this country or abroad.
    The only justification offered for the provisions is that they will prevent evasion by foreigners visiting the UK to obtain controlled technology; but that justification is wholly inadequate. If transfers are made in the UK for the purpose of sending information abroad, in breach of controls, the parties involved are guilty of conspiracy to commit breaches of the controls and can be prosecuted accordingly. The powers are far too wide for that purpose.
    There have been controls on the export of goods for many years, without any equivalent extension for controls on their transfer within the UK "to prevent evasion": the supposed loophole does not exist. It is unnecessary to prohibit the transfer inside the UK, as export by a foreigner is controlled-that is sufficient. It is no answer to say that a foreigner can carry the technology abroad inside his head.
    Controls on intangibles such as technology should apply to the equivalent of controlled documents: the UK argued successfully for that very principle to be reflected in the EU dual-use regulation, where article 2 defines "export" as including
    "transmission of software or technology by electronic media, fax or telephone to a destination outside the Community; this applies to oral transmission of technology by telephone only where the technology is contained in a document the relevant part of which is read out over the telephone, or is described over the telephone in such a way as to achieve substantially the same result."
    It is clear that what should be controlled are not general ideas or the results of education or training, as they are inevitably capable of being carried inside the recipient's head, but the electronic equivalent of technical documents. The foreigner visiting the UK to obtain controlled technology must thus breach export controls to send it abroad, and would be caught by controls imposed under (2)(a) or (2)(b), without (2)(c) or (2)(d) being necessary.
    There are enormous problems with Lords amendment No. 10. It relates to protection of what is already in the public domain or is being published. Subsection (1)(c) deals with unpublished information being exchanged in

    671
    the course of teaching or research. Subsection (2) makes it clear that there would be no conflict with the secrecy provisions under the Patents Act 1977, or with obligations under the Official Secrets Act 1911 or similar obligations.
    Weapons of mass destruction and their associated missile programmes are a special case. Subsection (1)(c) ensures that controls can still be applied to unpublished information in the case of teaching and research; and subsection (3) tracks the special provisions applicable under article 4 of the dual-use regulation in respect of exports outside the European Community, thus avoiding any apparent conflict between the Bill and the regulation.
    Lords amendment No. 16 relates to clause 7 which is inadequate to protect academic freedom for three reasons. First, it leaves the Minister to decide the matter; all he has to do is to take into consideration the need to do so. When a Minister claims that national security and so on override academic freedom, the courts almost never interfere.
    Secondly, the clause gives no protection to anything to which the general public have no access. That may include the contents of lectures—so far as they are not previously published—and will certainly include all pre-publication interchanges between academic researchers. Thirdly, it fails to impose any duty on the Minister to grant licences under the dual-use regulations.
    So the whole proposition is not founded on reality and it involves a misunderstanding of the academic world in this country. Defence manufacturers agree that there should be an equality of approach. They are not asking to be exempt from certain controls, and they are keen that academics should not be exempt from certain controls. The Bill has not got the right balance, but Lords Amendment No. 10 has, and I very much hope that the Minister will bear that in mind because we shall certainly disagree with him if he presses the matter to a vote.
    Alan Howarth: In considering these amendments, we seek to reconcile two imperatives, which, if not in contradiction, are certainly in tension. Of course we need to prevent the transfer of knowledge that would assist terrorists in pursuing their aims, as well as those who seek to develop weapons of mass destruction. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I certainly do not understate the importance of that. Equally, however, we need to protect academic freedom.
    Those who have expressed their anxieties in relation to academic freedom—notably, Universities UK and Save British Science—are not opposed to the Government's legitimate aim of preventing the transfer of technology for use in terrorism or mass destruction, but they are, as I am, critical of the very loose drafting of the clauses that relate to those matters.
    I believe that the proponents of both sides of the argument are acting in good faith. Of course the Government want the universities to thrive if only because they know how important that is to our economy, and the Government encourage our universities to attract foreign students and academics to study and carry out research in this country.
    It is genuinely difficult to reconcile those two imperatives and to find effective means to regulate the exchange of information and ideas, of intangibles. Universities have expressed the concern that activities that are routine in the global academic community—
    672
    collaborative research, exchanging and debating ideas through e-mails and holding international conferences—could be put at risk under those provisions.
    Hon. Members ought to express our thanks to Members of the other place—unreformed though it may be—for their vigilance in the interests of academic freedom. It might have been possible for Ministers who are members of the Government's legislative programme committee to have noted the possible threats to academic freedom when the Bill was originally proposed. It may have been possible for hon. Members to have observed the same things earlier in our proceedings. The Quadripartite Committee at any rate took evidence from Universities UK, drew the Government's attention to those issues and expressed its hope that a better balance might be struck.
    It is not the first time that their lordships' House has been more vigilant than we have been in regard to academic freedom. Some 10 years ago, when the Further and Higher Education Bill was proceeding through Parliament in the winter of 1991 to 1992—I have to confess that I was the Minister responsible for the clauses on higher education—the Treasury, to my embarrassment and anger, insisted on intruding into the Bill a "he who pays the piper" clause, so enabling the Government to exercise some direction and restraint on academic activity. At the time, a number of peers—in particular, Lord Beloff and Lord Renfrew—made some very fine speeches in support of the principle of academic freedom. They were thorns in our side as the Government, but they were absolutely right to make those points.
    Academic freedom matters profoundly, and Governments should be more careful of it than they are. As my hon. Friend the Minister has noted, the EU dual-use regulation removes certain discretion from the Government, but that does not mean that they should not be extremely careful in exercising their discretion. There is too much instrumentalism in Whitehall's approach to higher education and Governments are not customarily sufficiently tender towards academic freedom and academic sensibilities. No one, however, as far as I am aware, is impugning the good faith and good sense of the Ministers who are responsible for the Bill.
    After all, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was a director of the National Council for Civil Liberties in a previous incarnation. She certainly cannot be indifferent to considerations involving academic freedom. The Minister for Science and Innovation, Lord Sainsbury, is passionate about supporting science in our universities. My hon. Friend the Minister has two universities in his constituency, and no one is more diligent in keeping lines of communication open to his constituents, so he does not underestimate those considerations.
    Having made those points, I must say that it is profoundly undesirable that we should have primary legislation on the statute book that a future Government could construe illiberally, so severely damaging academic freedom. Of course there are differences of interpretation about the significance of the drafting of the relevant clauses and amendments. I certainly do not agree with some of the more lurid accounts that have been expressed in previous parliamentary proceedings, but I attach

    673
    considerable weight to the testimony of Lord May of Oxford, the Government's former chief scientific adviser and an immensely distinguished scientist, who said:
    "We need to be especially careful about how we limit academic freedom. The exceptional circumstances need to be spelled out clearly and carefully, and not in sweeping general terms…I support the spirit of this group of amendments."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 April 2002; Vol. 633, c. 1119.]
    I understand that the lawyers who have advised Universities UK have expressed the opinion—although in terms perhaps a little milder than those just used by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)—that clause 2, as drafted, may give the Government the right of prior review of scientific publications and that clauses 2 and 3 might give officials the power to require that foreign research students should be licensed and that the present voluntary vetting system should be made compulsory. They suggest that clauses 2, 3 and 4 would threaten routine academic activities in a variety of ways through the power to impose export and trade controls on intangibles—matters such as software, e-mails, presentation slides, manuals and training programmes. They also express a broad concern that the definitions in the Bill
    "are so wide that essentially all science and technology falls within it."
    So their lordships passed amendment No. 10, which is, of course, deficient. The Minister powerfully explained its inadequacies, but the underlying principles are right: the Government should unambiguously affirm in the Bill their commitment to academic freedom, any exceptions should be specific and the safeguards for academic freedom should be clearly stated in primary legislation. Correspondingly, the Government introduced Lords Amendment No. 16, and we should be appreciative of that. However—this is a legitimate concern—it is loosely drawn and there are respectable fears that it could be too weak in its application.
    Lord Amendment No. 16 states that the Government
    "shall have regard to the need to avoid any unreasonable restriction".
    I had hoped that the Government would do rather better and draft a clause that would be more stringent and better focused in its effect. The Secretary of State will be left with a great deal of discretion. We are told that the European convention on human rights, which is incorporated in our domestic law, would provide further safeguards, but as Lord May observed, that is a cumbersome and protracted remedy. However, no better clause has been tabled. I am a little surprised, given the extent of academic concern about this issue, that academic lawyers have not been able to propose a preferable version, but we will have to live with Lords Amendment No. 16.
    7.30 pm
    In conclusion, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to add whatever safeguards they can to the existing provisions on affirmative procedure, and to requiring modifications to the schedule to be exposed in draft. I was very happy to hear my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary reaffirm today the Government's commitment to maximise academic freedom. I hope, however, that the Government will introduce a formal statement that would
    674
    be justiciable and further case studies to demonstrate exactly what their intention is. The orders will need to be tightly drawn with maximum specificity and minimum scope.
    In preparation of the orders, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will undertake to confer with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and with UUK. I welcome the Government's express willingness this evening to continue to work with UUK.
    The scope for parliamentary scrutiny of orders is always too flimsy, but Parliament must do its best to retrieve its failures in relation to the measure and to seek whatever opportunities that it can to put further stakes in the ground in defence of academic freedom.
    Nigel Griffiths: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly in the 60 seconds that are left to me. I thank the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth) for their thoughtful points.
    The amendment has been considered in great detail in the House of Lords, and, in the spirit with which it has been raised by Baroness Warwick and others representing the universities, in terms of the need to ensure that we do not do anything to impede or attack academic freedoms.
    I assure the House that the Bill will not, in practice, affect the regulation of cryptography in so far as that is controlled by the European dual-use regulations. Cryptography on an open website, however. would be in the public domain, arid, therefore, would not be subject to control. We also want to control the fact that a professor who knowingly transmits information to any particular—
    It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 129.

    Division No. 279]

    [7.32 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Brennan, Kevin

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Ainger, Nick

    (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Bryant, Chris

    Allen, Graham

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Burden, Richard

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Burgon, Colin

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Burnham, Andy

    Austin, John

    Cairns, David

    Baird, Vera

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Battle, John

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Caplin, Ivor

    Beard, Nigel

    Casale, Roger

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Caton, Martin

    Bell, Stuart

    Cawsey, Ian

    Bennett, Andrew

    Challen, Colin

    Berry, Roger

    Chaytor, David

    Best, Harold

    Clapham, Michael

    Betts, Clive

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Blackman, Liz

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Clelland, David

    Blizzard, Bob

    Clwyd, Ann

    Borrow, David

    Coaker, Vernon

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cohen, Harry

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Coleman, Iain

    675

    Colman, Tony

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Connarty, Michael

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hurst, Alan

    Corston, Jean

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Cousins, Jim

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Crausby, David

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Cruddas, Jon

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Jamieson, David

    Cummings, John

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Jones. Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones. Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Joyce, Eric

    David, Wayne

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Keen. Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Khabra, Piara S

    Denham, Rt Hon John

    Kidney, David

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Lammy, David

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Doran, Frank

    Laxton, Bob

    Dowd, Jim

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Drew, David

    Lepper, David

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Leslie, Christopher

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Levitt, Tom

    Edwards, Huw

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Love, Andrew

    Ennis, Jeff

    Lucas, Ian

    Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

    Luke, Iain

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Lyons, John

    Flint, Caroline

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    MacDonald, Calum

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    McDonnell, John

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    MacDougall, John

    Foulkes, George

    McFall, John

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Gapes, Mike

    McIsaac, Shona

    Gardiner, Barry

    McKechin, Ann

    George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Gerrard, Neil

    McNulty, Tony

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    MacShane, Denis

    Gilroy, Linda

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Godsiff, Roger

    McWilliam, John

    Goggins, Paul

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mann, John

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Marris, Rob

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hanson, David

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Marshall—Andrews, Robert

    Havard, Dai

    Martlew, Eric

    Healey, John

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Miliband, David

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Miller, Andrew

    Hendrick, Mark

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Mole, Chris

    Heppell, John

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

    Mountford, Kali

    Heyes, David

    Mudie, George

    Hill, Keith

    Mullin, Chris

    Hinchliffe, David

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Hodge, Margaret

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Hoey, Kate

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Hope, Phil

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Organ, Diana

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Perham, Linda

    676

    Pickthall, Colin

    Speller, Rt Hon John

    Pike, Peter

    Squire, Rachel

    Plaskitt, James

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Pollard, Kerry

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Pond, Chris

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Purchase, Ken

    Tami, Mark

    Purnell, James

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Rapson, Syd

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Timms, Stephen

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Touhig, Don

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Trickett, Jon

    Rooney, Terry

    Truswell, Paul

    Ross, Ernie

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Roy, Frank

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Ruane, Chris

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Vaz, Keith

    Salter, Martin

    Ward, Claire

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Wareing, Robert N

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Watson, Tom

    Sawford, Phil

    Watts, David

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Sheerman, Barry

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Wills, Michael

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Winnick, David

    Simon, Siôn

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Skinner, Dennis

    Woolas, Phil

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Worthington, Tony

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mr. Ian Pearson and

    Soley, Clive

    Joan Ryan.

    Southworth, Helen

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Fallon, Michael

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Field, Mark (Cities of London)

    Bacon, Richard

    Flight, Howard

    Baldry, Tony

    Flook, Adrian

    Barker, Gregory

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Baron, John

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Bellingham, Henry

    Francois, Mark

    Bercow, John

    Gale, Roger

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gibb, Nick

    Blunt, Crispin

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Boswell, Tim

    Gray, James

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Grayling, Chris

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Greenway, John

    Burnside, David

    Grieve, Dominic

    Burt, Alistair

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Cameron, David

    Hammond, Philip

    Cash, William

    Hawkins, Nick

    Chope, Christopher

    Hayes, John

    Clappison, James

    Heald, Oliver

    Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

    Hendry, Charles

    Collins, Tim

    Hoban, Mark

    Conway, Derek

    Horam, John

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Hunter, Andrew

    Duncan, Alan (Rutland amp; Melton)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Evans, Nigel

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Johnson, Boris (Henley)

    677

    Key, Robert

    Selous, Andrew

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Simmonds, Mark

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Lansley, Andrew

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Letwin, Oliver

    Spink, Bob

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Spring, Richard

    Liddell—Grainger, Ian

    Steen, Anthony

    Lidington, David

    Streeter, Gary

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Swire, Hugo

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Syms, Robert

    Loughton, Tim

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Luff, Peter

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Trend, Michael

    Malins, Humfrey

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Tyrie, Andrew

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Viggers, Peter

    Mercer, Patrick

    Waterson, Nigel

    Moss, Malcolm

    Watkinson, Angela

    Murrison, Dr Andrew

    Weir, Michael

    Norman, Archie

    Whittingdale, John

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Wiggin, Bill

    Ottaway, Richard

    Willetts, David

    Page, Richard

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Paice, James

    Wilshire, David

    Pickles, Eric

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    Price, Adam

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Prisk, Mark

    Wishart, Pete

    Robathan, Andrew

    Yeo, Tim

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Mr. Desmond Swayne and

    Ruffley, David

    Mr. Julian Brazier.

    Sayeed, David

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 13 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 6 disagreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 2, 5, 7 to 9, 11, 12, 14 to 16 and 18 to 30 agreed to.
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill; Dr. Vincent Cable, Nigel Griffiths, Mr. Robert Key, Mr. Bob Laxton and Mr. Ian Pearson; Nigel Griffiths to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Angela Smith.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Single European Sky
[Relevant documents: The Thirty-Second Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2001–02 (HC 152-xxxii), paragraph 16, on Air Traffic Management and Aviation Safety.]
7.48 pm
The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 13735/99, Commission Communication on the creation of a Single European Sky, No. 12692/1/01, Commission Communication and draft Regulation laying down the framework for the creation of a Single European Sky, and No. 12693/1/01, draft Regulations on the provision of air navigation services, organisation and use of airspace and technical interoperability in the Single European Sky; considers that the establishment of a single air traffic management (ATM) framework in the Community can best be achieved by establishing and implementing common rules which are developed and monitored centrally; considers that military authorities should not be bound by these regulations; agrees that the operation of the single market would be improved by establishing a Community body responsible for the creation of a single Community airspace with common design, planning and management, for the authorisation of air navigation service providers and certification of air traffic controllers, for ensuring an equitable and transparent charging regime for air navigation services, and for the development of technical interoperability; supports the Government's position that the model mapped out in the proposals, but excluding its military part, could provide the building blocks to meet these objectives by improving the present European ATM system, reducing air transport delays and the financial and environmental cost associated with them, the key element being that the Single Sky regulator is endowed with sufficient powers and autonomy to make efficient and effective decisions; and supports the Government's intention to press for this approach in the European Union.
I welcome the opportunity to debate this important measure on the Floor of the House. The Government attach great importance to the establishment of the single European sky as it will benefit our aviation industry, the travelling public and the environment. We believe that single sky is a good project that offers the only realistic long-term solution to overcoming the difficulties in Europe's rather fragmented air traffic management system that has been coupled with an ever-increasing amount of air travel and air congestion. Single sky offers a much-needed fresh approach to smooth out the inconsistencies across Europe, to quicken the process of market liberalisation in the provision of air traffic services and to enhance airspace capacity while at the same time ensuring that air safety remains paramount. Those are the background factors.
The origins of single sky date from the heavy air traffic delays of the first half of 1999 that resulted from significant airspace closures. The June 1999 Transport Council responded by requesting the Commission to examine what was being done to minimise delays and to assess whether further initiatives were required. The Commission looked in some detail at the issue and presented to the December 1999 Transport Council its communication entitled "The Creation of the Single European Sky". The proposal subsequently cleared scrutiny in the Lords, but has yet to do so in the Commons.
Hon. Members may recall that as the development work on single sky was ongoing in the high-level group throughout 2000, it was not felt appropriate to debate single sky at that time. The United Kingdom Government participated fully in the high-level group and we enjoyed

679
the consistent high standards of support and advice that we have come to expect from the Civil Aviation Authority. We also worked closely with National Air Traffic Services and the airlines in developing our policy on this proposal.
After the presentation of the high-level group report to the December 2000 Transport Council, there was a short hiatus while the issue of Gibraltar airport was resolved satisfactorily. Following the agreement between the respective Governments in the summer of 2001, the Commission released its two further communications on single sky last October which include four draft regulations. The proposals have not yet cleared scrutiny by either of the European Union Committees.
We recognise that single sky is a complex proposal. This is why, in conjunction with other European member states, we have sought to ensure that single sky offers significant benefits over those that we might realistically expect to arise from the work of the existing Eurocontrol organisation, even taking into account last week's decision by European member states authorising the European Community to sign the accession protocol to join Eurocontrol. The Government believe that that decision will be conducive to the success of single sky because it will help to secure the participation of Eurocontrol, with its wealth of technical expertise, in the single sky process.
Mr. Anthony Steen: We are always interested to hear what the Minister has to say and this is no exception. However, although I am a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I do not understand the difference between Eurocontrol, which is working on giving us a smoother ride throughout Europe, and the single sky initiative. What is the difference between a single sky and the other types of sky?
Mr. Spellar: Eurocontrol deals effectively with technical matters and harmonisation of procedures and technology. The feeling, especially since 1999, is that neighbouring countries in particular need to pull together so that there is greater harmonisation of aviation control. At the moment we have a lumpy and disjointed process that delays flights. That is also partly down to the investment by different countries at different times. As the inevitable increase in capacity does not apply everywhere, we are not able to achieve the best advantages from that.
I fully understand that there are problems with the policy. We need to work through them. The involvement of the Community will enable the process to work more smoothly. We all agree that the problem exists. Equally, however, we can recognise not so much the deficiencies but the limitations of Eurocontrol. The policy allows us to have an advanced capability that we can match up with the problems.
David Cairns: My right hon. Friend is right that the accession of the Community to Eurocontrol will push the process forward. Does he share the slight concern, however, that if the Community chooses to vote as one in Eurocontrol. there is a six-month cooling off period—it is not quite a power of veto—so that the non-EU members can have a good think about the agreement? Given that the problems are multiplying rapidly, does he think that that is too long?
Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend may think that, but I should explain that it represents considerable progress.
680
Unlike him in his previous occupation, I do not seek perfection; I merely try to ensure that things are more manageable.
The single sky proposal can be broken down into four parts: the establishment of the single sky committee; a new authorisation system for the provision of air navigation services within the Community; a mechanism to establish a single coherent Community airspace with common procedures; and a proposal to improve technical interoperability between Europe's air traffic service providers.
Mr. Steen: I have got the idea about the sky and the slots, but I am still not clear about defence. Air traffic control excludes defence aircraft. I hope the Minister excuses my ignorance, but how does that fit in with the new sky business? Will all the sky be controlled or will fighter aircraft be excluded?
Mr. Spellar: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will come to that in a moment. He is right to identify the problem, which concerns a number of member states. We have made it clear that we need to resolve that by excluding military aviation so that we can make progress on the civil side. However, we also need to ensure that we get the right working relationship between civil and military airspace, as we have successfully done in the UK, so that we avoid some of the blockages that occur in the European system.
The framework regulation sets up an over-arching approach to European air traffic management through the establishment of the Single Sky Committee. The committee will be tasked to create a European airspace conceived and managed as a single continuum by the end of 2004, and for ensuring that the action programme to deliver single sky is achieved. The work of the committee is still being refined in the negotiations that are taking place and we are pushing to ensure that it will provide genuine improvements over what can be achieved under Eurocontrol's structure. We are hopeful that the new committee will succeed in that regard.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), the Government made it clear during negotiations that they will not allow military operations to come within Community jurisdiction under the first pillar of the treaty of the European Union, a view shared by many member states. We believe that our position will be maintained, but I want to assure the House that we are not complacent. We will continue to scrutinise developments closely to ensure that the single sky proposals are not directly applicable to our military air traffic authorities and do not enable the Commission to take control of our military forces.
The proposal on air navigation services is still being developed.
Lembit Öpik: Can the Minister assure me that the Government are also taking seriously concerns in the light aviation community? Members of the gliding community are worried that the provisions will exclude them from European airspace and destroy the sport. Will he accept representations from the British Gliding Association to explain the issue and perhaps find a way forward?
Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am always prepared to receive representations from fellow

681
Members of Parliament, although I am not sure why the provisions on the relationship between civil and military airspace would have that impact. However, we recognise that a considerable number of people participate in gliding. Many of them are associated with the armed forces, especially the Air Cadet Force, and we would not want their interests to come into conflict. For a moment I was afraid that the hon. Gentleman might be talking about how extraterrestrials would come within air traffic control. I recall that they were part of my remit when I was Under-Secretary of State for Defence. I thank the hon. Gentleman for sparing us that diversion. On a more serious note, I await his representations on the gliding issue.
The air navigation services' proposal is still being developed, but the Government are strongly in favour of it. This is because the UK already has a robust regulatory system for air traffic services that is enshrined in the Transport Act 2000 and the air navigation order. National Air Traffic Services and its controllers are already licensed and operate under stringent safety requirements, which has led to a service of which the UK is justly proud. The Government will not allow these standards to be lowered, and we are convinced that single sky will raise rather than lower safety requirements throughout Europe.
The proposal on air navigation services is also designed to begin what is, in our view, the overdue process of liberalising the provision of these services. That is particularly the case in the non en-route activities such as airport approach control services, meteorology and aeronautical services. Both NATS and the Meterological Office are uniquely placed to benefit from this initiative and are keen to seek to capitalise on the commercial opportunities that the proposal offers for their expertise.
In the longer run, the Government hope that NATS will be able to benefit from any developments enabling far more en-route air traffic services to be operated across national boundaries within the Community. The airspace proposal respects the essential need not to compromise each member state's airspace sovereignty. Nevertheless, it stresses that Europe's airspace is a vital resource that must be efficiently managed as a whole rather than the somewhat fragmentary approach that we see today. For example, there are about 30 flight information regions throughout the Community and single sky hopes to replace these with one region in the upper airspace.
The intention is to create also functional blocks of airspace that are unconstrained by national boundaries. The Government support this notion as it would enable the formation of larger air traffic service providers—we hope that NATS will be one of these—that can benefit from the resulting economies of scale.
Mr. Martin Salter: My right hon. Friend used the expression "liberalise". Was that a euphemism for privatise? If so, will he explain whether the decision to create a European single sky, which I am tempted to support, is predicated upon the liberalisation of the markets or the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services? I ask the question because of the assurance of my hon. Friend's predecessor.
Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend knows that I am prone not to euphemism but more to blunt speech. Therefore,
682
I assure him that this is liberalisation in terms of opening up the market. It is not predicated upon the mechanism of ownership, either in the UK or in any other country. It is, however, about making the most efficient use of the assets that are available, and the most efficient use of the airspace that is available. That has nothing to do with the decisions of individual countries in terms of ownership of their facilities.
Mr. Salter: I thank my right hon. Friend for a full answer. Does he accept that those of us on the Government Benches who have grave misgivings about the part privatisation of NATS certainly have no such misgivings about the veracity of his answers nor the honesty and bluntness with which he has always dealt with us? However, l must press him again. One of the central arguments advanced in support of the reasoning behind the need to part privatise NATS was the forthcoming creation of the European single sky. My hon. Friend has correctly suggested that that decision was not predicated on that set of circumstances. Does he understand why many people are left slightly confused and bemused?
Mr. Spellar: I do not entirely accept that. The opportunity presented by the privatisation of NATS was to enable the most efficient operation and the incorporation of new investment that would constitute the leading edge of investment in air traffic services. That capability puts NATS in the best possible position to provide services on a broader framework as we are able to negotiate that within the concept of single sky. Other countries do not necessarily have to follow that route. It might be that they will therefore not be able to have the most effective organisation that is open to them. Therefore, services provided by NATS may be more attractive. We all agree that it is providing a technically proficient service, arid an increasingly cost effective one. Decisions needed to be taken in the United Kingdom. These led to the provision of more efficient services in the UK and put British air traffic control in a favourable position in the international environment. That is different from arguments that are advanced as to what should happen in other countries. We come back to the point that I was making about the meaning of "liberalise" in this context.
David Cairns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what matters is not so much ownership but separation between those who provide the service and those who regulate it, which is not the case throughout Europe? That is where reform is needed.
Mr. Spellar: There is much in what my hon. Friend says, but we are getting one step ahead of where we need to be moving in a European context. As I have said, there are many air traffic centres throughout Europe. I believe that there are about three times as many as those in the United States, and they are handling a unified air space.
There is a danger within Europe that the argument can be caught up in ownership issues, which are causing some difficulties in some countries. We saw the results only last week. It is right that we achieve a logical separation of the different issues. We recognise the differences between the regimes that different air traffic control systems operate. Some European operators have been able to raise

683
their charges by their own unilateral decisions. In this country, NATS has to make an application to the Civil Aviation Authority and has to he able to justify increases in charges to the airlines. I think that it is generally accepted that that is the better format for considering the long-term development of a substantial but growing industry. However, it is facing the various challenges that I have mentioned.
The Government welcome the proposal to improve technical interoperability across the Community's air traffic service providers. We see this as a natural extension of the Community directives that already exist to promote air traffic service interoperability in Europe. Moreover, we believe that less fragmented air traffic services will enhance the overall capacity of the system significantly, reduce the cost of new equipment through more effective procurement practices, and further strengthen air safety.
Detailed discussions are continuing in the Council's working group. There was also a short discussion on single sky's framework regulation at last week's Transport Council, which I attended. That agreed some common principles on single sky, and the project will now be taken forward as a package on which we expect final agreement some time next year. In the light of the continuing work on the draft single sky proposals, the Government welcome the debate.
8.8 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: The issue of European air traffic control has become increasingly important as a result of the ever-more crowded skies over Europe. Congestion inevitably leads to delays, increased cost burdens and inefficiencies. Last but not least, it leads to fears for safety. According to Eurocontrol's latest assessment, traffic is forecast to grow on average by 4.8 per cent. a year. That is the equivalent of an increase of 26.6 per cent. over the period to 2005. By 2015, it is predicted that there will be a 60 per cent. increase in flights. Other estimates suggest that the number of people flying will double over the next 10 or 15 years. We therefore have a real problem on our hands. Despite continuous efforts to deal with it, serious congestion prevails, particularly in the most intensively used air corridors of Europe. That congestion threatens the future of Europe's aviation market.
Current national air traffic control arrangements are indeed inefficient. To cite a popular example, Europe has 73 air traffic control centres, whereas the USA has only 20 to manage twice as many flights. The European Commission's answers to these problems are presented in the single European sky proposals that we are debating today.
At the heart of the proposals is the idea that national air traffic control arrangements should be brought under the remit of an expanded Eurocontrol. Even though operations could still be conducted by national ATCs, any such centralisation of air traffic control is contentious, because there would inevitably be some transfer of powers away from the nation state's control. That is particularly sensitive in relation to military aircraft control—a point that has already been raised by hon. Members. In most EU states, the control of military aircraft is integrated to some degree with civilian air traffic control. I hope to return to the issue a little later.
684
We in the Opposition accept that the single sky plan would rationalise and, we hope, simplify air traffic arrangements in Europe. That, we believe, will require the EU both to sign up to a new institutional framework and to being part of the decision-making process by working more closely and effectively with Eurocontrol.
Mr. Steen: What one often sees in Europe is duplication and an additional tier of bureaucracy. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should concern us?
Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend anticipates some of the arguments that I shall deploy later in my speech. He is right. It is necessary for the single sky plan to work more closely and effectively with Eurocontrol, which it is not doing at present. The success of the proposal is predicated on that close relationship.
As we know, a target date of December 2004 has been set for implementation of the proposals. We seriously doubt whether that date is achievable. Given the fairly tight time scale, are the individual states any nearer to ceding control of national airspace than they were a few years ago? We suspect not. How much closer are we to agreement between states on the necessary standardisation of national air traffic control arrangements?
Bringing the question nearer to home, is our own NATS system compatible with those in other countries? Can it be easily and inexpensively integrated? If not, what do the Government see as the main difficulties? How will that affect the autonomy and financial viability of the NATS operation, given its parlous financial state since the Government's highly contentious part-privatisation and the events of last September?
One advantage that we do have with NATS is that we have already separated regulation from service provision. That must be an essential starting point in any new EU-wide arrangements—a requirement with which countries such as France would have great difficulty in complying, because those two functions are both still carried out by a single Government Department.
What of the opposition from air traffic controllers and their unions? We have witnessed graphic examples of such opposition in both Spain and France in recent days. Are the actions of the French unions merely a bargaining position for better pay and conditions, or are they a sign of more fundamental and deep-seated opposition to the creation of a single European sky on grounds of political dogma? Given the part-privatisation of our own NATS, are there real fears that a new pan-European air traffic control system would be ripe for private picking? The EU Commissioner, Miss Loyola de Palacio, pleads her innocence on the matter, but why are the unions still not listening?
In response to a question from a colleague, the Minister did not say where NATS would fit into the possible privatisation on a more Europe-wide scale, if the proposals went ahead.
Given that we all agree that there is a problem, what is the best way to solve it? Does it really require a new EU body to deliver the improvements that we want? Do those who are most enthusiastic about such matters insist on the single European sky project not because it will best deliver the answers that we seek, but rather because it fits into the political framework of the Single European Act and other matters integrationist?

685
Rationalisation is a precursor of any improvement in service delivery, but could that not be achieved through co-operation and standardisation between neighbouring countries? What about the improvements to technical programmes? It is my understanding that Eurocontrol is working on a number of programmes that, by its own estimates, if all members adopted them, could increase air traffic capacity by some 60 per cent. by 2005. Those programmes include such measures as reducing the vertical separation minimums from 2,000 ft to 1,000 ft; enhancing flow management; reducing radio frequency spacing; new modes of radar to improve ground-to-air information transmission; and free-route airspace, giving greater autonomy and control to individual pilots.
If those measures can be achieved by individual states operating autonomously, and a 60 per cent. improvement is predicted by 2005, that raises the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) posed: why do we need a new arrangement if, by improving the technical programmes, substantial improvements could be achieved in a few years?
Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend kindly mentions my comments. At present, there are navigational air transport services all over Europe catering for the aircraft that fly into their airspace. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am worried that all the measures that come to our Committee tend to be more, more, more—not necessarily better, better, better. The problem with the open sky control concept is the assumption that because it will be managed centrally, it will be better. Does my hon. Friend agree that central management is sometimes worse?
Mr. Moss: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The thrust of my argument is whether it is necessary to go down that road, when we can achieve improvements on an individual basis by appealing to nation states to improve their own air traffic control. Those who have influence in these matters may well feel that, by signing up to some over-arching EU arrangement, those who wish to dictate and prescribe will have more power to their elbow to deliver the things that they want.
I have set out a proposal whereby we increase air traffic capacity by up to 60 per cent. without the need to sign up to a centralising body that may become ever more prescriptive, ever more regulatory and ever more outside political control. The big "if" is whether there could be the level of co-operation necessary to achieve the objectives or whether they are doomed to failure because of individual states insisting on their own autonomy.
Is it an all-or-nothing scenario? If the EU cannot get agreement, does the whole project gather dust on the shelves? If unanimity is unobtainable, would there not be some merit in working with Eurocontrol to encourage the more forward-looking states to adapt some or all of their programmes? The Minister said nothing about the plan B that will be used if the EU fails to get agreement on plan A. There is an assumption that all the proposals will be signed up to in good time for December 2004, but I suspect that that might prove more difficult than he and others envisage. If that happens, what is plan B? Will he tell the House what the Government intend to do if the plans do not come to fruition?
686
Why is it necessary to create this new centralising body when the main problem of congestion lies in the sectors straddling from north to south the centre of the EU area? The zone embraces Italy, Spain, Switzerland—I understand that it is not part of the EU, but it is inside the zone—and parts of Germany. I am told that those countries are responsible for about 44 per cent. of air traffic flow management delays and 30 per cent. of bottlenecks. Of course, Greece was once a problem in that context, but the Greeks have addressed the problems and significantly improved their air traffic control. Thus, it can be shown that if a nation state addresses the internal problems of its own air traffic control system, significant improvements can be made.
As I said, one area that still raises serious concerns is the relationship between air traffic control and defence and security policies—another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes. The matter was raised at some length last January in the most recent report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, which was entitled "Reducing Air Traffic Delays: Civil and Military Management of Airspace in Europe". The report was critical of certain aspects of the Commission's proposals. First, although the Commission attempted to clarify the relationship between the new European sky committee and Eurocontrol, the Committee felt that the proposals did not go "far enough". It recommended that
"the Single Sky Proposals for the future of Eurocontrol be spelt out."
It also discerned a lack of clarity in the relationship between the single sky proposals and the non-EU members of Eurocontrol. The Minister mentioned non-EU members earlier in answer to a question, but he did not deal with the point about the ongoing relationship between non-EU members and the single sky body.
On civil and military issues, there is still uncertainty about how to accommodate the military. The House of Lords European Union Committee pointed out the contradiction in the Government's position. On the one hand, the Government strongly oppose the idea that military operations be brought under the first pillar of the EU, but on the other they support the concept of flexible use of airspace, which they expect to form part of the Commission's proposals under the first pillar. The Committee recommended that the Government make clear their position on that issue. Given that some, if not all, military operations could not be included in the first pillar, how do the Government—or the Commission, for that matter—propose to resolve the serious issues that that raises? Does the Minister recognise a need for institutional arrangements outside the first pillar to provide a forum for civil/military liaison, a framework in which sensitive military issues affecting air traffic management can be raised and a way of involving states outside the EU?
The Minister mentioned Gibraltar. I understand that the agreement between the UK and Spain allowed the European single sky proposals to be launched last year, but does it also allow the EU's accession to Eurocontrol to go ahead? The Minister looks puzzled. What I am getting at is that we have got the agreement to proceed with the single European sky proposals, but does that mean that we can also easily move into an accession to Eurocontrol?
On the face of it, the proposals have some merit, if they can achieve the laudable objectives that they set out to achieve. However, we have serious doubts that unanimity

687
will be found and agreement reached. In case the matter has not proceeded as planned by December 2004, we are anxious that the Government address that possibility and make proposals of their own.
8.25 pm
Dr. Gavin Strang: This is the first debate on air traffic services on the Floor of the House since the partial privatisation of National Air Traffic Services, the UK air traffic control system, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) pointed out. The proposals for a single European sky raise questions and concerns, some of which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport has already addressed.
One of the most important issues, to which both speakers have referred, is military air traffic control. The European Commission understandably wants to eliminate delays and problems caused by what it calls "national frontiers in the sky". That is fair enough, but surely there must be national frontiers in relation to the respective air forces of the member states of the EU. I see that it is the Government's view that the military authorities should not be bound by the regulations.
Let me turn to the important matter of co-operation between civil and military providers of air traffic services. Our Royal Air Force pilots must train, and some of that training has to be in UK airspace, over these islands. We always said that one of the reasons why the UK air traffic control system has been admired throughout the word is the successful co-operation between the military and the civil side. As everyone present in this debate will know, our military controllers operate on the same premises as the civil controllers. Such co-ordination does not exist elsewhere. I understand that in France, for example, there is no such dialogue between military and civilian controllers. I hope that the new framework of operation that is to be established to facilitate the partial privatisation of NATS will not jeopardise co-operation between our civil and military controllers in any way.
I turn now to investment in National Air Traffic Services. One of the main arguments advanced by the Government for the partial privatisation of NATS was that it would facilitate investment. We all acknowledge that the financial position of NATS was weakened by the downturn in traffic after the events of 11 September, but the Minister will be aware of the great dismay in Scotland about the announcement by NATS that the new Scottish centre is to be delayed. There is a desperate need for the new Scottish centre.
My right hon. Friend the Minister may be aware of the statement that I had the privilege to make five years ago this month, with the full authority of the Deputy Prime Minister, confirming our support for the two-centre strategy for the UK. In that statement, it was pointed out that the equipment at Prestwick was almost 20 years old. If it was 20 years old five years ago, hon. Members will need no assistance in working out that it is a quarter of a century old now. Will he give us an idea of when he now expects the investment in the new Scottish centre to come through, so that the work can get under way? Is it still the Government's position that the new Scottish centre will not be completed until 2008 or 2009?
Another matter that I had the opportunity to deal with when I was Minister for Transport was the establishment of a European aviation safety authority—EASA. The UK
688
supported EASA strongly and we secured under our presidency the decision to proceed with it. I see that the EU Transport Council adopted the regulation establishing EASA only last week. With our tremendous aviation sector, it seemed to us at the time that the UK had a very strong case for securing the headquarters. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House where the decision making has got to with regard to the location of EASA's HQ?
I should like to say a brief word about liberalisation and competition. We need to be clear that a competitive framework for air traffic control could pose serious difficulties for air traffic services in this country and elsewhere in Europe. No doubt liberalisation and competition could drive down costs and probably prices, but what are those costs? They are the people who have done so well in managing our airspace until now—the air traffic controllers, engineers and other support staff. Many engineers have taken redundancy from NATS since it was privatised. It would be a great mistake if the huge body of expertise at NATS was disbanded to be replaced by inexperienced new people supplied by private contractors. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the great concern that the agenda for air traffic control in Europe is one of competition and privatisation. How far down the track would the Commission be allowed to drive such a market-oriented policy?
Of course, we support measures that will reduce delays for holidaymakers and business people in Europe, but always transcending that is the need for the highest attainable standards of security and safety. By the highest standards, we in the UK mean standards that are considerably higher than any that are likely to be set by a regulator. Today's debate is of great importance, because Parliament will have a duty to scrutinise very closely the development of European policy on air traffic control.
8.30 pm
Tom Brake: I, too, welcome the opportunity for this topical debate. The newspapers have recently been full of stories about delays, strikes and allegations of pilots on the cheap flights airlines taking short cuts.
One of the key drivers pushing the single European sky proposals is the issue of air traffic delays. A couple of years ago, it was estimated that the cost of delays is 8 billion euros—roughly £5 billion. It is calculated that about 50 per cent. of delays are due to the airspace management structures in Europe. Huge environmental costs are associated with delays, whether it be aircraft stacking above airports or aircraft that cannot take the shortest possible route from A to B.
The single European sky appears to have several advantages. First, it could lead to a more efficient system. Other hon. Members have referred to the air traffic control system in the United States, which does a lot more for a lot less—it is estimated to be about 70 per cent. more efficient than Europe's systems. Secondly, it could create extra capacity—although I should be interested to hear the Minister's view on whether we are over-egging the pudding in that respect, because many of the bottlenecks will remain around European airports, irrespective of whether a single European sky is achieved.
Thirdly, the single European sky could reduce pressure on air traffic controllers, which might in turn lead to less pressure resulting from the need to train additional

689
controllers. There is a recognised shortage of controllers, which may be exacerbated in the UK by the fact that higher wages are paid abroad. Fourthly, it could improve safety by making flight paths more logical. Finally, as the Minister said, it could mean that the UK industry was well positioned to take advantage of any business prospects.
The single European sky has potential disadvantages, too. Hon. Members will be all too aware of the political minefield that it represents in terms of perceived or actual loss of sovereignty. There is also the question of military independence. The Minister is right to oppose the extension of the proposals to military operations in which the UK requires flexibility.
The Government need to answer several questions. First, do they have a clear view about how airspace would be allocated to the different nations in moving away from border-based sectors to more logical sectors that do not represent country borders? Secondly, do they have a clear understanding of how the single sky regulator would operate? Thirdly, we have heard the implementation date of December 2004. I believe that that is optimistic, and that a fallback position is required. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have made any independent assessment of that implementation date?
If the Minister can answer those questions, the single European sky should prove to be a positive development. However, it is important that harmonisation does not lead to a lowering of standards; British standards, practices and procedures must still prevail. Nor should it lead to a loss of military independence, so the military opt-out that the Minister proposes is welcome. Harmonisation is necessary for safety reasons and because it provides benefits to the consumer and to the environment. For those reasons, Liberal Democrat Members support the proposals.
8.36 pm
John McDonnell: I shall deal first with the issues on which there is general agreement. On the inevitability of "Euro-sky", there is general agreement that at some stage over the next decade there will be a need for the integration of regulation across Europe. There is general agreement that that may lead to closer co-operation and, in turn, economies of scale, as outlined by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
There is general agreement, as there was in the debate about air traffic control processes in this country, that there should be a split between regulation and service providers. There are concerns about whether the proposals can be delivered by December 2004, especially given the delaying mechanisms of the six-month consultation period and the veto that could be exercised by non-Commission members. It is generally recognised in the aviation industry that a complex process of negotiation and consultation is involved.
Those are the points of agreement. The points of concern being expressed by those who work in, or have a knowledge of, the industry are that the proposals could become—pardon the pun—a launch pad for privatisation on a European scale, following what happened to national air traffic control services in this country. Industrial action is occurring in many parts of Europe because of those anxieties.
690
It is worth while for the Government to state that the proposals have nothing to do with privatising air traffic control services throughout Europe. It would be useful if, as a Government, we had the humility to explain to our European colleagues that we had experienced the privatisation of air traffic control services and that we had learned our lesson.
I do not want to go into detail about the air traffic control experience so far, but I shall briefly mention some facts. Last Christmas, the air traffic control workers in my constituency could not have their wages because of a cash-flow problem; the airline company group that has taken over air traffic control returns month after month for additional public subsidies; the Government are so desperate for the British Airports Authority to bail out air traffic control services that they are willing to bribe it with a new runway at Heathrow.
I do not want to go into such detail about the failure of air traffic control services as privatised by the Government. However, despite assurances so far, some of the documentation that the Government have published links the single European sky proposal with privatisation. I am referring to the helpful bundle of documents that the Vote Office provided, especially the report entitled "Explanatory Memorandum on European Community Document", which was submitted by the Department for Environment, Local Government and the Regions on 18 January 2000. It was signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is no longer an Under-Secretary of State and has returned home to the Back Benches. He has clearly maintained his interest in air traffic control matters, and is not with us tonight. I do not believe that he wanted to be associated with anything that happened previously.
On the single European sky proposals, the document states:
"Similarly, the Commission's assertion that commercial sector methods and expertise should be employed in air traffic service provision…is fully in keeping with current UK thinking."
Yet again, the Government are perceived as a proselytiser for privatisation of air traffic control throughout Europe. There is no reference in the documents to a Commission proposal for advocating the use of commercial sector methods and expertise in air traffic control.
The high-level group's proposals make only one reference to a link between the environment for air traffic control and the discussion about monopoly services. The group said that although core air traffic control was a monopoly, there was an opportunity for competition for ancillary services. It did not refer to the introduction of commercial practices in air traffic control.
David Cairns: For the sake of completeness, my hon. Friend should include the phrase that he left out of the quote from the document signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). It says that air traffic control should be "regulated robustly". That does not detract from the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument, but it is important that robust regulation forms part of the Government's strategy.
John McDonnell: I omitted the phrase not to be disingenuous but because I said in my introductory remarks that there was no dispute between us about the separation of service delivery and regulation. Robust

691
regulation has been the standard that British air traffic control services set the world. That is why I did not refer to the phrase. However, my hon. Friend can understand the anxiety that the fact that the UK Government are advocating the introduction of commercial sector methods and expertise causes air traffic controllers throughout Europe. We can understand the reason for their anxiety that the proposal may be a stepping stone to privatisation.
It is worthwhile for the Government to state on the record that we have learned from our experience of privatising air traffic control in this country and that we do not advocate privatisation as part of the open sky policy. It is worth stating that we want to consider integration without privatisation. Two thousand air traffic control staff have been laid off or are under threat of losing their jobs in Britain because of part-privatisation—so no wonder air traffic controllers in Europe are anxious about their jobs when the British Government advocate privatisation on the back of a Euro-sky proposal.
The expression that we are "all Thatcherites now" is inappropriate in the context of air traffic control. Privatisation has failed in almost every other transport sector, and is failing in our air traffic control services. We have never experienced so many breakdowns, loss of morale on such a scale, so many job losses or such underinvestment. British air traffic control has approached bankruptcy many times. A statement that our Euro-sky policy is not based on privatisation would be welcomed throughout Europe.
8.44 pm
David Cairns: Like other hon. Members, I shall not labour the points of agreement between us, other than to say that I welcome the proposals. They are extremely important, not just for the industry—we are talking in terms of billions of pounds for the industry—but for our individual constituents who experience dreadful delays. They work very hard all year round, get a couple of weeks' holiday, then spend huge chunks of time at the beginning and end of their holiday sitting around in airport lounges. That is not a pleasant experience, and it is one that those of us who are frequent fliers also encounter. If we can cut delays and increase capacity in the skies, the provisions will benefit not only a big industry but individuals.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) mentioned that the national boundaries that exist on the ground are often utterly meaningless at 30,000 ft; the rivers, mountain ranges and forests that have given rise to national boundaries become less important in the open skies. Such boundaries should not, therefore, be a sufficient reason to hold us back from moving towards a new system and a new way of thinking about air traffic management. We all agree that reform is needed; it is perhaps the nature of the reform that is causing some consternation.
I was slightly confused by some of the comments by Members. On one hand, they appeared to assert that the provisions would result in duplication, with more committees and more bureaucrats considering the issue. On the other, we heard the assertion that the measures would centralise the system and introduce just one way of doing things. There was a slight contradiction there. We cannot duplicate and streamline at the same time—or perhaps we can, but I do not think that that was quite the thrust of the argument coming from the Opposition Benches, where there just seemed to be confusion.
692
As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said, we are talking not of centralisation but of greater harmonisation. That will involve the harmonisation of systems, software, hardware and training. The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the shortage of trained air traffic controllers in this country. Part of the difficulty in allowing air traffic controllers to take their labour to other parts of Europe is caused by the different specifications involved in different air traffic control training programmes. If we could achieve greater harmonisation there, we would have greater fluidity of movement of labour across the continent, which would he all to the good.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned the fear that the measures are about privatisation. Privatisation and methods of ownership are not prescribed in the document. What is prescribed, however—and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it—is the unacceptable situation in which the providers of the service are also the regulators. That situation is untenable and ought to be challenged.
There has also been discussion about the civil and military aspects of air traffic management. An example from my own neck of the woods, which involves another medium of transport, is that of the flow of traffic on the River Clyde. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh will know that the Clyde port authority is the largest such authority in western Europe, and is very busy because of the amount of commercial and military shipping—including Trident nuclear submarines—that uses the river.
Until a few years ago, there was a staggering lack of co-operation between the harbourmaster based in Greenock, who was in charge of the commercial shipping, and the military personnel based at Faslane, who were in charge of the naval shipping. The harbourmaster would often send ships off down the coast, only for them to turn the corner and see seven French frigates coming up for an exercise that he knew nothing about. There has been much more co-operation at that level recently, and it is clearly not beyond the wit of Governments to ensure that such co-operation takes place in the skies above us. The Minister for Transport, as a former Defence Minister, seems ideally placed to bridge that gap.
Those who say that privatisation intrinsically raises issues of safety often point to Railtrack—although that has not happened in this debate. I have said repeatedly that I feel no less safe on a British Airways flight today than I did when British Airways was a nationalised industry, 15 years ago. I do not believe that it is axiomatic that the involvement of private sector expertise necessarily compromises safety. Of course a robust regulatory system must have safety at its core, and I hope that the Minister will convince us that he agrees with that.
There seems still to be some confusion about the residual role of Eurocontrol in a single-sky environment—particularly with regard to the EU's position as an acceded member of Eurocontrol—and about the relationship between Eurocontrol and the EU's new single sky committee. I have studied the documents in some depth, but I am still not sure about the exact relationship between Eurocontrol, the European Union as an acceded member of Eurocontrol, and the EU single sky committee. I hope the Minister can clarify the position.

693
In general, however—like most Members who have spoken—I welcome the proposals, which I consider very necessary. They will be costly, but the cost of doing nothing—that is, increasing delays—would be greater, to the airlines, to the wider economy to which the airlines are tremendously important, and to our constituents who have to waste time in airports. I am pleased that action is now being taken.
8.50 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I hope the House will forgive me for not having listened to all the speeches. The Minister, of course, will have listened to all of them assiduously, and taken on board all that was said.
I must declare a number of interests. We have to declare so many interests that we must be careful not to overlook any. I think I must declare my membership of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, but if that is not necessary I declare it anyway. I am also an adviser to Airlines of Great Britain. In fact I have been an adviser to a number of airlines, both as a former practising lawyer and as a politician. I am sorry to say, however, that most of the airlines I have advised have gone bust, so I have not many left to declare. I do not know whether that has anything to do with my advice, or whether they have all got bigger, or worse. I think I have to declare the interest anyway, although the airlines I have advised have not done terribly well. One or two have kept going, however.
I shall be brief, as I know the debate must finish at 9.15 pm. I suspect that the Minister called it just to get the feeling of the House—if there is any feeling. Not many people turn up for aviation debates: the subject is technical, people do not really understand it, and they have other things to do. It is obviously important, however, for the Minister to get some feeling of what the House is thinking. I do not know whether he has got that feeling, or whether the House has been thinking or saying anything useful—or, indeed, whether it really matters. We have tremendous discussions in the European Scrutiny Committee, but it does no good. The Government go on doing whatever they want, and Europe goes on doing whatever it wants. Nevertheless, I think it useful for the Minister to take account of what is said in a personal capacity, although I do not think he will do anything with it.
What concerns me is whether the operation of a single market would be improved by the establishment of a Community body responsible for the creation of a single Community airspace. It seems rather as though a wizard were to enter Europe, wave his wand and say, "This is all one airspace". The airspace has come into being over a number of years as an airspace over the countries concerned, which have built up quite efficient air navigation schemes. People may not think them efficient, but very few accidents have been caused by error other than human error, and the machinery and mechanical equipment for navigation aids is now excellent. Ours in Britain is state of the art.
I am not sure why the Government believe that another body with more staff and bureaucracy will be better. I am reminded of the fact that if the word "safety" is used in the House, any rule or regulation—any statutory instrument—is passed immediately because no Member
694
will ever vote against safety. Another buzzword is "security": as soon as it is mentioned, the regulation or statutory instrument will go through. The most recent example is the word "hygiene". Any measure deemed to be hygienic, or related to health and safety, will be accepted.
In this instance, everyone wants faster planes and more slots. Everyone wants to think the system is safer, and everyone assumes that if another body is created it is bound to be safer. That is not necessarily the case. Let us compare air traffic control in Poland—hopefully, it will be part of the enlargement of the EU—with that in Britain. They are miles apart. Such systems probably work over their own space, but I am not sure about trying to make them uniform, which is what this idea is about.
The Minister is a very good salesman. He will tell us that this is the best thing since sliced bread. He will use the word "safety" all the time and we will all say that this is wonderful—but is it wonderful? I do not know how we are going to judge. Is it ever going to happen? Is there ever going to be a wizard waving his wand over all the skies of the EU? Remember that another 12 EU countries will come in. No sooner will the sky be sorted out over the first 15 but another 12 will come on board.
This is a lovely idea; we all like it. I thank the Minister for bringing it to the House. We have had a good run for an hour or so and he has heard the views of some of his colleagues, who are using the debate for various reasons. It does not affect what he is doing. It is courteous of him to come along to tell us all his ideas. He wants to wave that wand over the sky and make it all one place, but I hope he will agree in reality that not much will happen other than this one-and-a-half-hour debate on whether it is a good idea.
With regret, I say: full steam ahead, get on with it, let us get it going tomorrow morning. The Minister will know that it is unlikely and that in 10 years we will not have seen anything at all. I thank him on behalf of the House for coming along and doing what he has done. I hope that I have thrown in my two pennyworth in this useful debate.
8.56 pm
Mr. Spellar: I do not recall that it was entirely optional to attend this evening, but I am delighted that we were able to provide the opportunity for a constructive debate. One often says from the Dispatch Box that it has been a constructive debate, but on this occasion I actually mean it. The comments have largely been directed at the issue. Rightly, matters have been raised that have not necessarily been resolved but are still under discussion in Europe. I shall try to deal with some of those during my contribution, but may need to write to hon. Members.
I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will allow me not to follow him all the way down his various arguments, which might be slightly diversionary. The fact that I do not do so should not be construed as agreement with a number of those arguments. I disagree with some of his comments, but he takes a keen interest in the aviation industry and is a strong representative on behalf of his constituents who work at the airport. We have worked constructively on a number on issues—for example, on the issue of kirpans for staff at Heathrow and at other airports.
What I found useful about the discussion was that there was a broad recognition of the existence of a problem: there are difficulties in European airspace capacity and

695
that leads to bottlenecks. That in turn leads not only to delays but, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) rightly pointed out, to considerable environmental consequences: for example, the time that aircraft spend in the air needlessly using fuel.
There was an attempt to create a distinction between airspace and the impact on airports, but it is increasingly recognised that if there are delays in en-route airspace, particularly with the tight timetables that many of the no-frills airlines operate on, those can have considerable knock-on effects at airports and on schedules, and should not be underestimated. That is particularly a problem with a number of the bottlenecks in European airspace.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) said that we would use the issue of safety as a way of carrying the proposal. The situation is quite different. Safety is a prerequisite; it is an absolutely essential component that must underlie any system that we have, whether the current system or an improved one. It is essential and does not affect the argument one way or the other. We are talking today about capacity and, consistent with safety, realising the capacity to deal not only with existing problems, but with the increasing demand for air travel. We will put that in the wider public domain with the regional airport studies that will be published shortly. We are dealing with one aspect of the increase in demand and the need for capacity.
Mr. Steen: As I recall, during the terminal 4 inquiry, the deal was for 275,000 movements at Heathrow a year. As a result of navigational improvements, the figure is up to 400,000 movements a year. That has happened incrementally. At the same time, planes are getting bigger, so we could end up with a situation in which we do not need more airspace. Instead, there will be a need for ever bigger planes. Has that been considered?
Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me further into issues that will be debated publicly in a short time. He is right to say that larger planes are enabling more people to travel, without there being necessarily a commensurate increase in air movements. However, running parallel to that, there has been a huge increase in point-to-point flights. That is particularly the case with many of the no-frills airlines, which are operating not necessarily from major hub airports but from many others. That does not add to congestion at hub airports, but it does add to congestion in en-route airspace.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) referred to the new Scottish centre at Prestwick. I can assure them that the Government have not shifted one inch in our commitment to the two-centre strategy for National Air Traffic Services, including the Prestwick centre. The only issue is timing, for obvious reasons that have been mentioned. We shall ensure that NATS builds the centre as soon as future traffic forecasts make it viable to do so.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) asked why we could not proceed voluntarily through Eurocontrol. Eurocontrol has done a good job on many of the technical harmonisation aspects, but it is essentially a voluntary agreement between 31 member states and progress, understandably, has been slow. A
696
number of major Eurocontrol programmes have been delivered late, or have not been as effectively implemented as we would have hoped. The greater authority of the EU allied to the technical capacity of Eurocontrol is a recipe for the more rapid progress that, for the reasons I have outlined, we believe to be increasingly urgent.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington asked about the 2004 deadline and whether it was optimistic. In the Council working group, progress has been slower than we hoped, but we still believe that there is every prospect that the single sky framework will be in place by the end of 2004 as planned. It has been recognised that implementation will be a gradual process that will be spread over a number of years.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh asked about military airspace. It is true that military aviation accounts for only 4 per cent. of aviation, although there are some localised issues related to that. However, that does not detract from the essential position; we have made it perfectly clear in the negotiations that we will not allow military operations to come within Community jurisdiction, under the first pillar of the treaty of the EU. As I also said, that view is shared by several other states.
Tom Brake: On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), if civil and military air traffic control no longer work together—if the former is conducted on the basis of a single European sky and the latter is kept separate—might that not lead to less harmonisation, and therefore to an increased risk to safety?
Mr. Spellar: No, I certainly do not see that happening. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the UK has had considerable success in harmonising requirements and ensuring compatibility in terms of resources. However, it is clear that this is a matter of national competence, which is an extremely important principle for many other reasons.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire also asked about NATS compatibility with the single European sky. As he knows, NATS is widely recognised as a leading air traffic service provider. It has invested heavily in new equipment—notably at Swanwick—and is already ahead of the rest of Europe in that regard. We do not envisage the single European sky placing an additional financial burden on NATS; indeed, it could win more work in a liberalised air traffic market.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington that undertakings with an individual state in respect of ownership have no bearing on the liberalisation of air traffic control; such matters are rightly those for the individual state concerned. As I said in my opening statement, the route that we have taken enables us to provide better, cost-effective services for the travelling public. However, privatisation of individual entities is not a prerequisite to liberalisation of the market.
Mr. Moss: The Minister talks about liberalisation of the European market, but one of the objectives is to reduce the 73 existing air traffic control centres to

697
something more manageable, which must involve a dilution of the importance of the nation state and of national control. As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, surely many centres will therefore be ripe for amalgamation and takeover by the private sector.
Mr. Spellar: That is not a prerequisite. [Interruption.] No, liberalisation of the market, coupled with transparency in accounting procedures to ensure a level playing field, is perfectly compatible with different forms of ownership. It is right to debate this issue, but there is no prerequisite in terms of the European single sky and liberalisation of the market.
John McDonnell: It is accepted that there is no prerequisite, but air traffic controllers across Europe are anxious that the UK Government are becoming advocates of privatisation as the next stage in the process. An assurance from the Minister that the Government are not in fact advocating privatisation would go some way towards reassuring many of them.
Mr. Spellar: We are not advocating the idea that other countries run their businesses in a particular way, save that we should all work for the most effective use of European airspace, in the manner outlined in the single European sky proposals from the European Commission.
This has been a constructive debate in which the principal issues have been aired. It is also clear that there is some considerable way to go, and that the subject is one to which we shall doubtless return. However, we should bear in mind the fact that there is widespread recognition of the underlying problems, and of the need to make progress on behalf of the aviation industry and—perhaps more significantly—of the travelling public.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 13735/99, Commission Communication on the creation of a Single European Sky, No. 12692/1/01, Commission Communication and draft Regulation laying down the framework for the creation of a Single European Sky, and No. 12693/1/01, draft Regulations on the provision of air navigation services, organisation and use of airspace and technical interoperability in the Single European Sky; considers that the establishment of a single air traffic management (ATM) framework in the Community can best be achieved by establishing and implementing common rules which are developed and monitored centrally; considers that military authorities should not be bound by these regulations; agrees that the operation of the single market would be improved by establishing a Community body responsible for the creation of a single Community airspace with common design, planning and management, for the authorisation of air navigation service providers and certification of air traffic controllers, for ensuring an equitable and transparent charging regime for air navigation services, and for the development of technical interoperability; supports the Government's position that the model mapped out in the proposals, but excluding its military part, could provide the building blocks to meet these objectives by improving the present European ATM system, reducing air transport delays and the financial and environmental cost associated with them, the key element being that the Single Sky regulator is endowed with sufficient powers and autonomy to make efficient and effective decisions; and supports the Government's intention to press for this approach in the European Union.

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

  AUTHORISATION OF HUMAN AND VETERINARY MEDICINES
  That this House takes note of European Union document No. 13361/01, Commission Report on the experience gained as a result of the operation of the procedures for granting marketing authorisations for medicinal products and No. 14591/01, draft Regulation laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, and draft Directives amending Directives 2001/83/EC and 2001/82/EC on the Community codes relating to medicinal products for human use and veterinary medicinal products; supports the Government's position of broad agreement to the proposed amendments, and the overall aims of the Review; supports the Government's ongoing work with Member States to build on the current system of medicines regulation to ensure it continues to contribute to the protection of human and animal health, also to promote the further development of a single market in pharmaceuticals, prepare the regulatory regime for enlargement, and provide a competitive environment for the pharmaceutical industry; notes European Union Document No. 6240/02, draft Directive amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards traditional herbal medicinal products for human use; and supports the Government's position of broad agreement to the proposed amendments in order to achieve a regulatory regime for traditional herbal medicines which improves public health protection while maintaining consumer choice. —[Mr. Heppell.]
  The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 111.

  Division No. 280]

  [9.10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Casale, Roger

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Caton, Martin

  Ainger, Nick

  Cawsey, Ian

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Challen, Colin

  Allen, Graham

  Chaytor, David

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clapham, Michael

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Battle, John

  Clelland, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clwyd, Ann

  Beard, Nigel

  Coaker, Vernon

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bell, Stuart

  Cohen, Harry

  Bennett, Andrew

  Coleman, Iain

  Berry, Roger

  Colman, Tony

  Best, Harold

  Connarty, Michael

  Betts, Clive

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Blackman, Liz

  Corston, Jean

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cousins, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Crausby, David

  Borrow, David

  Cruddas, Jon

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cummings, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bryant, Chris

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Burden, Richard

  David, Wayne

  Burgon, Colin

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Dawson, Hilton

  Cairns, David

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Caplin, Ivor

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  699

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Laxton, Bob

  Doran, Frank

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Dowd, Jim

  Lepper, David

  Drew, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Levitt, Tom

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Edwards, Huw

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Linton, Martin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Love, Andrew

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lucas, Ian

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Luke, Iain

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lyons, John

  Flint, Caroline

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McDonnell, John

  Foulkes, George

  MacDougall, John

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  McFall, John

  Gapes, Mike

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gardiner, Barry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gerrard, Neil

  McKechin, Ann

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Gilroy, Linda

  McNulty, Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  McWilliam, John

  Goggins, Paul

  Mallaber, Judy

  Grogan, John

  Mann, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marris, Rob

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hanson, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Havard, Dai

  Miller, Andrew

  Healey, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mole, Chris

  Hendrick, Mark

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Morgan, Julie

  Heyes, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Hill, Keith

  Mudie, George

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Hodge, Margaret

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hoey, Kate

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hope, Phil

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Organ, Diana

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Perham, Linda

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Picking, Anne

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hurst, Alan

  Pike, Peter

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Plaskitt, James

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Pond, Chris

  Irranca—Davies, Huw

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jamieson, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Purnell, James

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Rapson, Syd

  Joyce, Eric

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Rooney, Terry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ross, Ernie

  Khabra, Piara S

  Roy, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ryan, Joan

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Salter, Martin

  Lammy, David

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  700

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Timms, Stephen

  Sawford, Phil

  Tipping, Paddy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Touhig, Don

  Sheerman, Barry

  Trickett, Jon

  Sheridan, Jim

  Truswell, Paul

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Simon, Siôn

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Ward, Claire

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watson, Tom

  Soley, Clive

  Watts, David

  Southworth, Helen

  White, Brian

  Speller, Rt Hon John

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Squire, Rachel

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wilson, Brian

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Winnick, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Worthington, Tony

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tami, Mark

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Angela Smith and

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mr. John Heppell.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hayes, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Heald, Oliver

  Bacon, Richard

  Heath, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Hendry, Charles

  Barrett, John

  Holmes, Paul

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hunter, Andrew

  Blunt, Crispin

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Boswell, Tim

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Brady, Graham

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Brake, Tom

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Lamb, Norman

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Letwin, Oliver

  Burnside, David

  Lidington, David

  Butterfill, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Luff, Peter

  Carmichael, Alistair

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Chope, Christopher

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Collins, Tim

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Conway, Derek

  Maples, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Doughty, Sue

  Moore, Michael

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Evans, Nigel

  Norman, Archie

  Ewing, Annabelle

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Price, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Pickles, Eric

  Gale, Roger

  Price, Adam

  Garnier, Edward

  Pugh, Dr John

  Gidley, Sandra

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Rendel, David

  Gray, James

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Greenway, John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Ruffley, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  701

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

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Weir, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Spink, Bob

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spring, Richard

  Wiggin, Bill

  Steen, Anthony

  Willetts, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Syms, Robert

  Wilshire, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Younger—Ross, Richard

  Thurso, John

  Trend, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Mr. Desmond Swayne and

  Tyler, Paul

  Mr. Julian Brazier.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I propose to put together the Questions on motions 5, 6 and 7.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    EXTRADITION
    That the draft European Union Extradition (Amendment) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 100) (HC 869), on 2001/02 Special Grant for Rate Relief in Respect of Hardship Caused by Foot and Mouth Disease. which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.

    INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
    That the draft International Maritime Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 23rd May, be approved.—[Joan Ryan.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    CRIMINAL LAW
    That the draft Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell]
    The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 30.

    Division No. 281]

    [9.22 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Berry, Roger

    Ainger, Nick

    Best, Harold

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Betts, Clive

    Allen, Graham

    Blackman, Liz

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Blizzard, Bob

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Borrow, David

    Austin, John

    Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

    Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Battle, John

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Bayley, Hugh

    Brennan, Kevin

    Beard, Nigel

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    702

    Bryant, Chris

    Hanson, David

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Burden, Richard

    Havard, Dai

    Burgon, Colin

    Healey, John

    Burnham, Andy

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Burnside, David

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Hendrick, Mark

    Cairns, David

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Heyes, David

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hill, Keith

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hinchliffe, David

    Casale, Roger

    Hoey, Kate

    Caton, Martin

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Challen, Colin

    Hope, Phil

    Chaytor, David

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Clapham, Michael

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Clelland, David

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hurst, Alan

    Cohen, Harry

    Hutton, Rt Hon John

    Coleman, Iain

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Colman, Tony

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Connarty, Michael

    Irranca—Davies, Huw

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Corston, Jean

    Jamieson, David

    Cousins, Jim

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Crausby, David

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cruddas, Jon

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Cummings, John

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Joyce, Eric

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Kennedy. Jane (Wavertree)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Khabra, Piara S

    David, Wayne

    Kidney, David

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Dismore, Andrew

    Lammy, David

    Dobbin, Jim

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Laxton, Bob

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Doran, Frank

    Lepper, David

    Dowd, Jim

    Leslie, Christopher

    Drew, David

    Levitt, Tom

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Edwards, Huw

    Linton, Martin

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Love, Andrew

    Ennis, Jeff

    Lucas, Ian

    Farrelly, Paul

    Luke, Iain

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Lyons, John

    Flint, Caroline

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    MacDonald, Calum

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    McDonnell, John

    Foulkes, George

    MacDougall, John

    Francis, Dr Hywel

    McFall, John

    Gapes. Mike

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Gardiner, Barry

    McIsaac, Shona

    Gerrard, Neil

    McKechin, Ann

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Gilroy. Linda

    McNulty, Tony

    Godsiff, Roger

    McWilliam, John

    Goggins, Paul

    Mallaber, Judy

    Grogan, John

    Mann, John

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Marris, Rob

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Marshall—Andrews, Robert

    Martlew, Eric

    703

    Merron, Gillian

    Skinner, Dennis

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Miller, Andrew

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Mole, Chris

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Morgan, Julie

    Soley, Clive

    Mountford, Kali

    Southworth, Helen

    Mudie, George

    Spellar, Rt Hon John

    Mullin, Chris

    Squire, Rachel

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    O'Neill, Martin

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Organ, Diana

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Stringer, Graham

    Pearson, Ian

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Perham, Linda

    Tami, Mark

    Picking, Anne

    Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Pike, Peter

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Plaskitt, James

    Timms, Stephen

    Pollard, Kerry

    Tipping, Paddy

    Pond, Chris

    Touhig, Don

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Trickett, Jon

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Truswell, Paul

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Purchase, Ken

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Purnell, James

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Rapson, Syd

    Vaz, Keith

    Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

    Ward, Claire

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Watson, Tom

    Rooney, Terry

    Watts, David

    Ross, Ernie

    White, Brian

    Roy, Frank

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Ruane, Chris

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Ruddock, Joan

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Wilson, Brian

    Ryan, Joan

    Winnick, David

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Woodward, Shaun

    Sawford, Phil

    Worthington, Tony

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Wyatt, Derek

    Simon, Siôn

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Angela Smith and

    Mr. John Heppell.

    NOES

    Barrett, John

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    704

    Doughty, Sue

    Rendel, David

    Ewing, Annabelle

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

    Gidley, Sandra

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Harvey, Nick

    Stunell, Andrew

    Heath, David

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Holmes, Paul

    Thurso, John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Tyler, Paul

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Weir, Michael

    Lamb, Norman

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Willis, Phil

    Moore, Michael

    Younger—Ross, Richard

    Price, Adam

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Pugh, Dr John

    Bob Russell and

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put motions 9, 10 and 11 together.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES
    That the draft Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (Schedule 4) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
    DEFENCE
    That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.

    INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION AND DEVELOPMENT
    That the draft Horticultural Development Council (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Joan Ryan.]
    Question agreed to.

  COMMITTEES

    Ordered,
    That Ian Lucas be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Huw Irranca-Davies be added.—[Joan Ryan.]

    PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Paul Boateng and David Davis be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Ruth Kelly be added.—[Joan Ryan.]

  Business of the House
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.—[Joan Ryan.]
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: It is all very well for the motion to he moved formally. However, this important motion starts with a phrase with which we have become all too familiar—
  "notwithstanding the practice of the House"—
  so we might have been entitled to an explanation from either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Leader of the House. Neither of them is present and that practice has become all too frequent. It well illustrates the Government's attitude to the House of Commons. The motion seeks to change our normal practice on something as important as the Finance Bill of all things, but we have not even had the courtesy of an explanation as to why that is happening.
  Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not understand his motion, but I do not expect that of the Leader of the House. I would have thought that he understands it all too well. However, neither of them are here to explain to the House what is going on.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: We should draw the House's attention to the fact that, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House are not here, no one from their Departments is either.
  Mr. Forth: Sadly, that is the case. Many Government Whips are present, and that suggests that the Government expect their Members to vote the motion through willy-nilly without the courtesy of an explanation from anyone on the Government Front Bench. [Interruption.] In fairness to the Leader of the House—he knows that I am always fair to him—he has just turned up.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend think that he should start his comments again so that the Leader of the House can hear them?
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to find himself guilty of breaching Standing Order No. 42 by obeying the advice of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin).
  Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was just about to explain that I have not even got into my preamble yet. The Leader of the House has not missed anything of substance and neither have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Leader of the House has not seen fit to provide us with an explanation despite the fact that the game is given away by the phrase "notwithstanding the practice". The details of the motion entitle us to a measure of alarm. Normally—you know this almost better than anyone in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the Finance Bill is very much regarded as a special case by the House of
  706
  Commons. That is as it should be, because the provision of finance and the raising and spending of moneys are among the things about which we in the House are extremely jealous, and rightly so. Therefore, we have always given the Finance Bill a very special place and we have always treated it with very great care. For example, we deal with many aspects of it on the Floor of the House and then other more detailed provisions upstairs in Committee. The motion suggests that more than one stage of the Finance Bill
  "may be taken at any sitting".
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when his Government were in power, they cut the grant for all gypsy site refurbishments? Will he tell us why?
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that very important point. When my party had the privilege of being in government, we allowed a proper amount of time to deal with such matters. The House would have given those subjects more than adequate time—both on the Floor and upstairs in Committee. I do not know whether he knows, but we almost certainly did not try to deal with more than stage of the Finance Bill—even the one containing the measure about which he has reminded us—in any one sitting.
  I suspect that, given the importance of that measure, it would have been properly considered in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. Even if the hon. Gentleman was not happy with the outcome, in the good old days when my party had the privilege of being in government, proper time would have been allowed by the House to consider a matter even as detailed as that, never mind the great issues about the raising of revenue and the concomitant expenditure that confront the House in a Finance Bill.
  A mysterious proposition is before the House and we are left wondering why the Government would want to give such special treatment to the Finance Bill. I am forced to speculate on that because no explanation has been given. It is just possible that one of the arguments might have been that we do not have enough time to treat the Finance Bill in the traditional way, but that argument does not stand up.
  Hon. Members will be aware not only of the fact that a number of make-weight measures are on the Order Paper for this week and next week, but of the proposed date of our rising. The Leader of the House was kind enough to say to us last Thursday that the House would rise on 24 July subject to the passage of business. Does he want to rush the Finance Bill through with unseemly haste so that the House can adjourn early? I hope not. I like to think that he would not dare to come to us with such a proposition.
  If we dismiss that speculation as outrageous even by the standards of this Government and Chancellor of the Exchequer, we are forced to consider other possibilities. One of them might be that the Government are so ashamed of what is in the Finance Bill that they do not want it to be properly scrutinised. I incline to the view that that is probably a more credible explanation than the Leader of the House wanting us to go off on our hols early. Again, however, I can only speculate because we have not been told.

  707
  The right hon. Gentleman came rushing back into the Chamber having been told that the House was impertinent enough to want to query the measure, which he assumed would go through on the nod. I hope that he has a thorough briefing from his assiduous officials so that he can give us at least one credible reason why the motion has been tabled. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I assume that hon. Members are referring to a certain box at the end of the Chamber where officials are wont to sit. That comment is probably out of order, however, and I would not want to be caught out in such a way. Some of us have been around long enough to avoid that trap.
  We have a parliamentary conundrum. We have before us an important, possibly ground-breaking measure that may well set a precedent. If the House agrees exceptionally to the measure after hearing a proper explanation of it, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman gives an undertaking that it will not be regarded as a precedent. I want to be reassured that the Government or the Leader of the House will not quote it as a precedent if we agree to it. We slip all too easily into bad practices in which something is brought before the House and slipped through on the QT at an early stage of the evening, and the night is still young in parliamentary terms.
  The right hon. Gentleman should give a full explanation of why he wants the measure. Is it to do with an early recess? Is it to do with his shame at the Bill's content? When he explains his reason for the motion and if we accept it, I hope that it will be explicitly stated that it is not a precedent and will not be quoted as such by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should he ever deign to come to the House. We need to be assured that we will treat each future Finance Bill on its merits. Only if we get that explanation will we be satisfied and allow the measure to proceed.
  9.44 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I thought there was some levity in the approach to the subject. That disturbed me because it is a serious matter, and I strongly agree with the concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
  In recent years, Finance Bills have got longer and longer and have become increasingly complex. This year's Bill is no exception. The articulation of the debate—quite apart from its length—is important if the House is to have a proper opportunity to assess all the complex issues that arise from it.
  In recent weeks, some major, serious Bills have not received proper attention in Committee or in the House as a result of the programming and guillotining of those measures. The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill is an obvious example. We must ask those on the Government Front Bench on precisely what grounds the usual practice is being broken on this occasion, as it would appear. No attempt so far has been made to explain the precedents for this practice. Before we even reach the question whether it should be a precedent for the future, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, we should surely at least he told whether there have been precedents ill the recent past for approaching the Finance Bill in this way.
  We should never forget that the Finance Bill is unusual. That is because it is the House alone that considers the measure. There is no second chance. There is no second
  708
  guessing at the other end of the building. The Lords cannot consider the mistakes that are made in this place. Only we can do that, and only during consideration of remaining stages. If those stages are hurried in any way—if they are managed in such a way to achieve a rapid result rather than a comprehensive result—that would be entirely wrong.
  Mr. Forth: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He might want briefly to explore the implications of consideration of all stages in one day. It strikes me that if, for example, an error were to be found during one stage of our deliberations, it might procedurally be difficult, or even impossible, to deal with that error in the immediate subsequent stage. By conflating consideration in that way, we would have less chance of picking up what could potentially be a serious error in the Finance Bill, of all things, in our usual procedures.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has more than adequately made the point to which I was coming. A manuscript amendment may be appropriate in some circumstances, but not on a Finance Bill. I served in Committee on a Finance Bill. At 3 am the Minister responsible explained that we were trying to correct an error that had been made the previous year. I asked whether he could recall, or perhaps his officials could, at what stage in the night in the previous year the mistake had been made. It had been made in the middle of the night. That is what is unusual about the Finance Bill. Not only is it extremely—
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the high proportion of the contents of each Finance Bill that consists of correcting mistakes that were left over from previous Finance Bills? Does he agree that to accelerate that process is to worsen it?
  Mr. Tyler: If I did not know my hon. Friend so well, I would think that to be a planted question. As he is such an independently minded Member, I know that not to be the case.
  I was about to say that during consideration of the Finance Bill on the occasion to which I was referring, part of the previous year had been spent correcting another part of a previous Finance Bill, passed two years previous to that. That is what is so significant about a Finance Bill. There are some members of the Treasury team on the Government Front Bench, and I am sure that they will be the first to concur that every year the Chancellor has to bring forward some proposals to correct mistakes made not necessarily by a previous regime but in a previous year.
  The Finance Bill is significant in that respect. It must be extremely precise. That is why it is exceptionally important in this instance that we have proper management of the time given to the Bill.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I ask the hon. Gentleman, for the information of the House, whether he received any indication that this matter would appear on the Order Paper today. I understand that we, the official Opposition, received no such indication. Despite the abbreviation of the way in which we scrutinise Bills now, at least there is some consultation on them

  709
  between both sides of the House. It is a heinous crime that on something as important as the Finance Bill, no discussion has taken place across or through the usual channels.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I shall cut short my remarks to enable an occupant of the Government Front Bench to respond to that. However, it is not only a matter of indication; the convention in the House on a matter of this sort is that there is consultation, not merely a unilateral statement of what the Government intend to put on the Order Paper. There should be consultation with the Opposition parties for the good order of business in the House. Surely that is what we should all be interested in.
  The handling of the Bill may have justification, but as far as I and my Chief Whip have been involved, and I understand that it is a similar case with those on the Conservative Front Bench, there has been no consultation or explanation whatever. That is a break with the conventions of the House. Yes, there are elements of the Order Paper that can be issued as a Government diktat or fiat, but usually the business of the House involving a major Bill, let alone a Finance Bill, would he a subject for consultation.
  Now that the Leader of the House and senior members of the Treasury team are with us, I very much hope that they intend to speak on the matter. It would be quite outrageous if they simply pushed it through by the force of numbers, without any explanation, given that the proper way to do business in the House is that we, the House, decide how we handle our business—not the Government, but all Members of the House.
  I am sure that hon. Members on the Government side will agree, as will the Father of the House, who is present and who is always a great protector of the interests of the House, that it would be against all precedent and all convention for the motion to be carried forward without proper discussion and consultation between the parties. I hope that we will now get an explanation and that there will be a proper discussion before we come to a conclusion.
  9.51 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robin Cook): I thank the shadow Leader of the House for this unexpected pleasure—unexpected, in part, because I announced the business for the next week last Thursday, and unexpected also because, contrary to what the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said, the order was laid on Thursday and has been on the Order Paper since last Friday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked me for an assurance that the order would be no precedent. I can tell him that tonight's order will form no precedent because the Order Paper and the history of the Journal of the House of Commons are littered with precedents to the same effect. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to page 739 of "Erskine May", which states that
  "the third reading of the Finance Bill has frequently been taken immediately after consideration"—
  710
  that is, consideration on Report—
  "when such an order has been made."
  The right hon. Gentleman will be particularly interested to know that there is a footnote, No. 5. When I refer to footnote 5 for the precedent for taking the Third Reading after consideration on Report, I find that it quotes 1995–96. [Laughter.] I hope my hon. Friends will allow me to continue. I think that the look on the right hon. Gentleman's face is the nearest that he is capable of getting to being sheepish. I managed to get through school without studying modern studies, but as I recall 1995–96, it was the right hon. Gentleman's party that was in power at the time, and he was a member of the Government of the time who created that precedent.
  As to the reason for the order, I remind the right hon. Gentleman—who is present every week for the business statement and hears the business announced every time—that virtually every Bill whose remaining stages we have considered in this Session has been taken on Report, with the Third Reading immediately afterwards. Most of those Bills have been the subject of a programme motion which set that out from the start.
  There is no programme motion covering this Finance Bill. The reason is that the right hon. Gentleman's own party requested that it should not be the subject of a programme motion, which meant that we would require such an order to handle the remaining stages. I make no complaint of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's party requested that there be no programme motion. My understanding is that the proceedings in Committee have been perfectly amicable, carried out by agreement, with both sides fully delivering on the agreements that they achieved in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman now looks rather more than sheepish.
  At no stage during the proceedings in Committee has the right hon. Gentleman's party asked for more time. At no stage has it disputed the allocation of time in Committee. Indeed, last week's Committee sitting rose early because members ran out of things to say about the Finance Bill. I understand that it is expected that the Committee proceedings will finish at tomorrow's sitting. In those circumstances, I think that two full days in total to consider the remaining stages is perfectly adequate provision. It is adequate partly because this Finance Bill has already been through more consultation with the industry, outside bodies and financial services than any previous one. Many of the clauses were seen in draft form by the industry, which may partly explain why the Opposition ran out of things to say in Committee.
  Mr. Forth: I am, as ever, grateful to the Leader of the House for his history lesson and analysis of the Bill to date, but will he give me the undertaking that I requested? Notwithstanding the explanation that he has just given, which is just about adequate for the purposes of the motion, will he go that step further and give us an undertaking that, if we agree to it for the reasons that he has kindly given us in respect of this Bill, it will not be quoted as a precedent for doing the same thing again for future Bills without similarly valid reasons?
  Mr. Cook: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is now scrabbling for firmer ground and I do not wish to discourage him. I am very happy to give him the assurance that, for all future times, should we be minded

  711
  to introduce similar provision for future Finance Bills, we will always quote as our precedent that which was set in 1995 to 1996. He can therefore rest assured that no new precedent is being created.
  I sense that we are winning the argument, so I am happy without further ado to commend the motion to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.

  Single Room Rule
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  9.56 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: Many people outside the House find it difficult to understand how we can find half an hour to discuss the toe clippings of activities in this House and not debate the real issues that our constituents face. Nevertheless, I am grateful to have an extra three minutes or so to discuss the case of my constituents, the Rev. and Mrs. John and Stella Celia. I am grateful to the Minister for being present to respond to the debate. I look forward to hearing his response. My constituents' case highlights something that is common in the experience of many disabled people in the United Kingdom and serves as a salient example of why a particular regulation needs to be changed, and perhaps of why many benefit regulations need to be reviewed in the light of the progress that we have made towards disability equality and against disability discrimination in the past few years.
  The Rev. John Celia suffered a brain stem stroke some four years ago. Before then, he was a very well-known personality. He gave advice to the previous Conservative Government on the issue of cults. His charity, a Christian charity, was heavily involved in rescuing people from cults and fighting the indoctrination of extreme religious cults. He therefore gave hugely to the civic and religious life of this country. Indeed, on the day when he suffered his stroke, his ill fortune was announced on national television, such was his status at the time. His wife, Stella, has given him sterling support and has herself worked in the community for many years. For 20 years, both of them have worked and dedicated their lives to their charity and the work in which they have engaged.
  Their work continues. Despite his disability, John Celia is now a volunteer in the local day centre in Aberystwyth, and Stella, Mrs. Celia, has just become a trained magistrate. I welcome her to the JPs' bench in Ceredigion, where I am sure she will make an enormous contribution with her experience.
  So these two people have contributed greatly to society over many years. I say that to the Minister not to distinguish between some sort of deserving and undeserving disabled person in respect of the regulations, but to underline the deep dissatisfaction that some people feel when, after giving many years of service, they find that the regulations and Government attitudes are hardening against them because of some ill fortune that they have suffered because of illness or disabilities.
  Many people who may be healthy and fit now, such as ourselves, do not realise just how debilitating suffering disease or disability can be, not because of the disability itself, but because of all the obstacles that seem to appear from bureaucracy and government in the face of it.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Mr. Thomas: A Government who promised to restore dignity to disabled people seem to have achieved very

  713
  little in practical terms. We must judge our society by the way in which we treat the worst off and the poorest within it, and the case of the Rev. and Mrs. Celia highlights that.
  Their case turns on housing benefit entitlement. More than two years ago, they were advised by their general practitioner on medical grounds to move from their one-bedroomed house to a two-bedroomed house. The stroke that John had suffered made his medical needs intensive. His main carer is his wife, and their GP felt that it was better that they should not necessarily share a bedroom at night, so that his wife could have a decent night's sleep. John's rest is very disturbed and he does not necessarily have a good night's sleep, but it is important that his main carer, his wife, is able to do so. Thousands of married people must be in a similar position whereby one or both have become disabled and have specific medical reasons for not sharing a bed—for example, because of medical equipment.
  As the Minister will know, under housing benefit regulations a rent officer can give a rent judgment only on the basis that a married couple should occupy a one-bedroomed property. There is no leeway or discretion in that. People who are married must be judged as though they occupy a one-bedroomed property. Those who have to occupy a two-bedroomed property for medical reasons or for reasons of disability have to meet the extra rent that may be payable because they will not get full housing benefit to cover it. As Mrs. Celia told me when I first met them two years ago, they would be better off divorced and living in sin, which is a bit much to expect from the Rev. and Mrs. Celia.
  At the moment, they pay £85 per week in rent for a two-bedroomed house in the wilds of Ponterwyd outside Aberystwyth. That is not an awful lot these days for a two-bedroomed house in Ceredigion—in fact. it is a little on the cheap side. The rent recently went up by £10—previously, at £75 a week, it was very reasonable. They receive £18.50 a week as a discretionary housing payment, which used to be called the severe hardship payment. That is in recognition of the fact that they have strong needs and deserve a two-bedroomed house. The payment is controlled by the local authority, and it can stop at any time if the local authority runs out of funds for it. The couple have already received at least five payments, which is highly unusual in my experience. I once served on a local authority panel that judges such payments, and I never knew of anyone who had received five payments. They were good enough to suggest that it would not have happened had it not been for my advocacy. In fact, it is simpler than that—the local authority recognises that their case screams out for some measure of justice within housing regulations and has given them every assistance that it can, five or six times now, by providing a discretionary housing payment. However, the most recent letter received by the couple clearly states that this must be the last time that such a payment can be made.
  Two letters illustrate the situation in which the Rev. and Mrs. Celia find themselves. On 11 July 2001—about a year ago—they received a letter from Ceredigion county council's finance department regarding their housing benefit. It said that the total income for benefit purposes
  714
  was £126.15 and that the weekly eligible rent—that is, the rent upon which the housing benefit is based—was £60 a week.
  This year, on 13 June, they received a similar letter, which again set out that their total income for benefit purposes was £128.30. It has increased by £2.15 in a year. However, their weekly eligible rent is £51.40. That means that the Rev. and Mrs. Celia's rent entitlement has decreased by £8.50 a week while their income has gone up by only £2.15 a week. There is no justice in that. How can there be justice in a decrease in rent entitlement for the same property in one year when income has increased only slightly? The justification is that rent has been reassessed in the area. I fail to understand how rents have decreased in a year when house prices in Ceredigion, especially in rural areas, have increased substantially.
  There is a problem about the way in which housing rents are calculated and the way in which the valuation officer works. Perhaps that is wider than the scope of tonight's debate, but it is pertinent. The housing valuation officer takes the highest, lowest and middle rent in an area and calculates the average. It is not a serious study of genuine rent levels in an area. Perhaps that accounts for the perception of decline in rents. For example, one of the properties that the valuation officer used for his re-evaluation was a three-bedroomed house that was available at £42 a week. The reason for that was that the farmer was letting it to his daughter. No wonder the rent was £42 a week. Some of the property rents are crazy.
  The Rev. and Mrs. Celia's income has increased by £2.15 a week but their housing benefit has decreased by £8.50 a week. They have been forced to meet the difference from their pockets. As Mr. Micawber said, the difference is between happiness and misery. The Rev. and Mrs. Celia are in an increasingly desperate position, whereby their income is considerably less than it was two or three years ago compared with their rent. It would be easy to contrast their position with that of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, who live in Kensington palace or perhaps even the Deputy Prime Minister with his access to an RMT cheap flat. That would not be irrelevant but I do not want to make such a comparison until we treat disabled people with a modicum of respect. In particular, we should consider the housing benefit regulations and ensure that they do not discriminate against disabled people.
  As the Minister knows, the relevant order is the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997. That is simply an update of the 1987 order, and it did not change anything. The Child Poverty Action Group stated in a letter to me that the order did not reflect advances in views about the needs and rights of people with disabilities. That is true. The order appears increasingly to go against the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
  The Rev. and Mrs. Celia would probably not have a case under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Section 59 states:
  "Nothing in this Act makes unlawful any act done…in pursuance of any enactment; or…in pursuance of any instrument made by a Minister of the Crown under any enactment; or…to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by a Minister of the Crown…by virtue of any enactment."
  It is clear that actions by Ministers of the Crown are exempt from the 1995 Act. That needs review.

  715
  A briefing that I received for the debate from the Disability Rights Commission recognises that we are considering part of a wider problem of statutory duty exemption under the Disability Discrimination Act. In 1999, the disability rights taskforce said that that should be changed. It recommended that statutory bodies should be under the same obligations as other service providers under the Disability Discrimination Act. The Government have agreed to that in principle. When will that happen? It has been suggested that we shall have a new disability Bill, which may be announced in the Queen's Speech. Will that happen? Is that how the Government intend to deal with the position of people as the Rev. and Mrs. Celia?
  The Child Poverty Action Group is interested in the effect of regulations on disabled people such as the Rev. and Mrs. Celia. Indeed, it is keen that they should be a test case under the Human Rights Act 1998 to ascertain whether section 2 of the 1997 order can stand up in court.
  The Rev. and Mrs. Celia do not have access to the funds necessary to bring a test case; nor do they necessarily want to do so. They certainly want to take forward this debate with the Minister, however, and I hope that he will respond to some of the issues that they have raised with me and with the Child Poverty Action Group.
  It has been suggested that article 14 of the European convention on human rights, which outlaws a discriminating manner, or article 8, which relates to a person's home, family or private life, could be used to protect people such as the Rev. and Mrs. Celia. It is surely detrimental to a disabled person's home life to discriminate against them on the basis of their medical condition, yet that is what the present housing benefit regulations seem to do.
  I have to say to the Minister as an aside, albeit an important one, that there is also a religious discrimination aspect to this matter. I understand that orthodox Jews are forbidden under Mosaic law from sharing a bed with their wives during menstruation. That is an orthodox tenet of faith that would underline a religious need for the recognition in legislation of two bedrooms for married couples. The blanket application of the rule that married people must share a bedroom must, therefore, fly in the face of the needs of disabled people, the needs of people with strong medical grounds for separate bedrooms and of the religious needs of strict orthodox Jews.
  In local government terms, the Government seem to have fettered their discretion. They have painted themselves into a corner, from which they cannot respond to people's genuine needs. In local government terms, that would be ultra vires. In central Government terms, it is not, but it is open to challenge. The order that was made in 1997 states:
  "The Secretary of State may by order require rent officers to carry out such functions as may be specified in connection with housing benefit and rent allowance subsidy".
  The use of the word "may" makes it clear that the Secretary of State has discretion as to the form of order that he might make, and it is surely a fundamental principle of public law—and particularly of the Human Rights Act 1998—that a Secretary of State must exercise such discretion in a lawful manner. I suggest that the discretion that the Secretary of State is currently exercising under the order is unlawful under the Human Rights Act and certainly discriminatory, and that it needs to be reviewed.
  716
  The Disability Rights Commission takes a similar view. In a submission to me, it states that the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1987—and the subsequent 1997 order—constitutes indirect, unfair discrimination against the Rev. Celia. The Commission believes that stating the eligibility of a married couple to claim benefit on the basis of having a shared bedroom places the Rev. Celia, and other disabled people in similar circumstances, at a clear disadvantage if, for a reason relating to a disability, a married couple are advised to sleep in separate bedrooms. The Commission wishes to pursue this matter in the review of legislation that it is currently undertaking.
  The Child Poverty Action Group, Shelter, Age Concern and Help the Aged all agree with the Rev. and Mrs. Celia's—and my—analysis of this matter, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's justification of this position. We have to remember that 50 per cent. of disabled people have an income of less than half that of the general population, so there is a double discriminatory whammy here. These people are told that they cannot have recognition of their true medical needs, or needs based on their disability under housing benefit regulations. In addition, they are penalised financially under those regulations, which places them further down the financial pecking order in society.
  The central issue is this: we all know that every order, regulation and Bill that comes before the House bears an undertaking from the Minister concerned that it meets the obligations set out in the Human Rights Act 1998. That is now enshrined in our constitutional procedures. This is important; I have seen several challenges to Ministers across the Dispatch Box as to whether a Bill really meets our obligations under the Act. Ministers are called to account by saying, "Yes, it does" and by coming to the Floor of the House and justifying their position.
  I want to ask the Minister whether he would sign the 1997 order now, in the light of the experience of the last few years in relation to the way in which people are discriminated against in society, and to the way in which disabled people suffer discrimination. The order might have suited the times in 1987, and we might just have got away with it in 1997, but, in post-Human Rights Act times, I can see no justification for it. I believe that it is flawed and cannot stand up to a challenge under the Human Rights Act.
  I should like the Minister to respond to that. I should like him to respond to the comment by the Disability Rights Commission that the rule constitutes indirect unfair discrimination against my constituents. I should like him to respond to the recommendation of the disability taskforce that the Government's actions should be within the remit of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I should like him to say when statutory bodies will be brought within that remit, and I should like him to explain to my constituents how he expects them to live on an ever-decreasing income while making an ever-increasing contribution to rent.
  10.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on initiating the debate on behalf of his constituents. I listened to his speech with great interest. I acknowledge

  717
  the important contribution that the Rev. Celia and his wife have made to the national and the local community in recent years, and I am sorry about the position in which they now find themselves.
  I shall stick to the main point—housing benefit—although the hon. Gentleman's speech ranged fairly widely. I should welcome an opportunity to discuss with him, on another occasion, the Government's policies on disability and a policy for carers. I think our record will stand any assessment, and I have an interest as a sponsor of the Bill that became the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995. However, I want to concentrate on the key subject of housing benefit. Let me begin by explaining our policy on the benefit in relation to private sector tenants, and explaining why we have rules such as the size criteria.
  Unlike social housing, the deregulated private rented sector is not subject to any internal rent controls. It is essential that we exercise control over housing benefit expenditure, so that the needs of people receiving benefit are balanced against those of taxpayers—indeed, those of the wider community. Surely it is a fundamental principle that people receiving housing benefit should not have their rent met in full if the level exceeds the broadly average rent level for an appropriately sized property in the area where they live.
  Rent officers play an important part in the administration of housing benefit in the deregulated private rented sector. In carrying out his or her functions, the rent officer will make a determination based on certain criteria. He or she may make two or more determinations on a particular decision if those criteria apply to the same property. One is the size-related rent, which is the main subject of this debate.
  The size criterion works like this. If a claimant lives in a property that exceeds the defined size criteria for his household, the rent officer must determine a rent for a similar tenancy of the appropriate size for that household in the vicinity. By "vicinity" we mean the immediate surrounding area. The defined criteria provide for one bedroom per couple and one for each single person over 16. The rules also state that two children—under 16—of the same sex should share a bedroom, as should two children of different sexes under 10. Any child who does not come into those categories is allowed his or her own bedroom. We also allow the household to have up to three living rooms, depending on how many people live in it. A one, two, or three-person household can have one living room, four people can have two, and three are allowed when there are more than four people in the household. We pay some attention to household circumstances.
  The rules are set out in the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) Order 1997, which covers England and Wales, and the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) (Scotland) Order 1997.
  The rent officer has no discretion to alter the size criteria for any particular case—for example, where, due to health reasons, a husband and wife would find it difficult to share the same bedroom. That could, as in the case of Rev. Celia and his wife, result in a shortfall in housing benefit where the property exceeds the size criteria.
  718
  In such cases—it is an important point—discretionary housing payments are available. Indeed, that was acknowledged by the hon. Gentleman. Those are free-standing payments—they are not payments of housing benefit or council tax benefit—that can be made at the discretion of the local council where the claimant has a shortfall in housing benefit or council tax benefit and requires further help with rent or council tax.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, an overall cash limit is set on the amount that local authorities may spend on discretionary housing payments in any one year, and we contribute towards that limit. For this year, we have set the national limit at some £50 million: £20 million of that is the Government contribution, leaving £30 million that authorities may spend from their own resources.
  Rev. Celia is receiving discretionary housing payments, as has been acknowledged, although they do not mean that his rent is met in full. I appreciate that that tight definition of the size criteria may seem inflexible but, as I said earlier, in housing benefit—as is perhaps always the case, sadly, with public expenditure—we must balance the needs of claimants with taxpayers' interests.
  It would clearly be irresponsible to have no limit on the number of rooms in any given property for which housing benefit is paid, and to do so would put claimants at an unfair advantage perhaps vis-à-vis their working peers, who might not be able to afford to live in larger properties. There is an issue of equity that we must allow for in this area of housing and social security policy.
  Having said that, I have listened with concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said. We need robust rules for housing benefit, but that does not mean that we do not listen to constructive argument, or that we are inflexible, and I can see how the situation faced by Rev. Celia and his wife is a particularly difficult one.
  In balancing our sensitivity and concerns about the individual with a sickness or disability, we need to recognise, perhaps with equal force, as the hon. Gentleman has done, the needs of the carer, in this case the reverend's wife. In these situations, we need the carer to have a proper night's sleep and to be looked after in all sorts of appropriate ways. Therefore, although I cannot make any promises immediately to the hon. Gentleman, I have asked my officials, with whom I discussed the matter today, to re-examine the size criteria rules to see whether, in the circumstances before the House, with which I have much sympathy, the rules can be changed to accommodate this sort of situation. We will need to exercise care to ensure that we do not open housing benefit to abuse, with perhaps a large number of people claiming that they would rather have a second bedroom, but we will review the rules nevertheless.
  If change is possible, we will consult, as would be our normal practice, the Social Security Advisory Committee and the local authority associations in the normal way before laying the necessary legislation before the House.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: On that point, I am very pleased to hear what the Minister is saying. I accept his point that we do not want to drive a cart and horses through the rules. We do not want people to claim snoring or some other spurious reason, but Rev. Celia is on invalidity care benefit—the long-term rate. He is on disability living allowance, higher care allowance and mobility allowance. Where high disability pensions and benefits are paid to

  719
  such individuals, it is clear that they have true disability needs. Those are the cases where the Minister might find some flexibility in a new set of rules.
  Malcolm Wicks: If we can make progress—I stress "if"—establishing such criteria would be important in our deliberations.
  I should make it clear that Rev. Celia's property is, in our judgment—this may be a matter of controversy—relatively expensive for the locality, although I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about locality rates. The fact that Rev. Celia's benefit is restricted is in line with our policy that housing benefit should not cover in full rents that exceed the broadly average rent for an appropriately sized property in the same area. Even if the size criteria were to be modified, it is unlikely that Rev. Celia and his wife would have their full rent met, although his housing benefit entitlement would rise.
  720
  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising the issue. It is when we judge social policies against the hard reality of our constituents' experience that we are sometimes able to make better policy and better public administration. I have found this to be a good opportunity to consider these matters.
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that Rev. and Mrs. Celia had judged at one stage that should they ever live in sin—of course they never would—they might be better off. Our social security regulations, as always, understand that point. I assure the hon. Gentleman—an assurance that Rev. and Mrs. Celia will want to hear—that they would be no better off living in sin under our no-nonsense social security regulations. Whatever crises the churches face in our modern society, this is not a temptation that we are able to place before them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Crime (Young People)
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department is taking to contribute to the Government's strategy to reduce crime among young people. [61229]

  Tessa Jowell
  My Department is playing a full part in the Government's drive to tackle street crime, the vast majority of which is committed by young people. My officials are working closely with colleagues at the Youth Justice Board to develop a programme of summer activities in the 10 police areas targeted by the street crime initiative. This will provide at least 48,000 places, for children and young people aged nine to 17 at risk of offending, in quality sports and arts provision. We hope to be able to announce the exact locations of all of the individual schemes shortly.

  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what research she has commissioned on the role of sports and arts provision for young people in crime prevention. [61239]

  Tessa Jowell
  There is already an increasing body of evidence that engagement in sports and arts activity can have an important role in crime reduction. However, we are keen to build on this. The comprehensive programme of Splash Extra schemes being developed jointly by my Department and the Youth Justice Board in the street crime areas will provide an important opportunity in this respect. We will ensure that the impact of these new schemes on local crime levels is evaluated as fully as possible.

  Arts, Sport and Tourism (Regional Input)
  Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to strengthen the regional input into the development of arts, sport and tourism policies. [61230]

  Mr. Caborn
  Steps have already been taken to restructure the Arts Council to provide a more effective structure for delivering national priorities for the arts while enhancing regional input to arts policy. The Performance and Innovation Unit is currently undertaking a review of sports policy in England and is looking at the regional dimension building on the findings of the Quinquennial review of Sport England. While the preliminary findings of a review of tourism have identified the need for the Regional Development Agencies, and in the longer term Elected Regional Assemblies, to have a stronger role in tourism development.

  Performing Arts (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to support the development of performing arts in rural areas. [61231]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Arts Council's new Regional Councils are working with Local Authorities to develop the infrastructure for the performing arts in rural areas, this is in addition to support through the New Audience Programme and Lottery funding. Rural areas including Norfolk and Cornwall have also been included in Creative Partnerships, a £40 million programme to bring creative professionals, teachers and young people together to work on sustained and innovative projects.

  Gambling Review
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress she has made in implementing the recommendations of the gambling review. [61232]

  Mr. Caborn
  Two recommendations have already been implemented; and we are on course to implement a further six before the Recess. The majority will, however, need primary legislation. We are now working with interested parties on the preparation of a Bill.

  Media Regulation
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent meetings she has had with the Press Complaints Commission to discuss media regulation. [61233]

  Dr. Howells
  While my right hon. Friend has not met the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) recently, the Department continues to monitor closely the effectiveness of the newspaper industry's self regulatory system, and my Ministerial colleagues and I have no hesitation in suggesting improvements to the PCC and the industry, as and when appropriate.

  National Lottery Funding
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps she is taking to ensure an equitable distribution of funds raised by the national lottery. [61234]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government would like all parts of the country to experience the positive effects of Lottery funding. Reforms introduced under the National Lottery Act 1998 and targeted programmes introduced by Lottery distributors are designed to tackle inequity. We shall seek public views on what further steps might be taken in a consultation paper to be published shortly.

  Sports Facilities
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures her Department is taking to encourage greater co-operation between schools and community sports clubs, particularly in respect of the provision of facilities. [61235]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in partnership with the Department for Education and Skills, is keen to promote greater co-operation between schools and community clubs through a number
  641W
  of schemes and programmes that they, along with Sport England and other interested bodies, are running. These include the NOF PE and Sport Programme, where an ability to demonstrate community access to new facilities is one of the criteria that schools have to meet when bidding to LEAs for funding allocated to them by NOF, and the School Sport Co-ordinator Scheme, where Co-ordinators are responsible for—among other things—developing community outreach programmes.

  Sport (Young People)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on Government plans to develop sport for young people of school age. [61236]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Department for Education and Skills are working closely with the Prime Minister's Delivery Unit on a comprehensive plan to improve access to, and the quality of, PE, school sport and club links for 5 to 16-year-olds. Key activities associated with the plan will include; the expansion of the specialist sport college network and school sport co-ordinator programme; training for primary and special school PE co-ordinators and secondary school directors of sport; further incentives to encourage extra-curricular activities; and "Step into Sport", a leadership and volunteering programme.

  International Sporting Bodies
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action her Department is taking to increase UK representation on international sporting bodies. [61238]

  Mr. Caborn
  Part of UK Sport's responsibilities is to encourage and maintain UK influence within international sports federations. To support this objective they operate an international Representatives Grant Aid Programme. This programme offers financial support and advice to elect British postholders and, in addition, supports governing body delegates attending formal meetings of international sports bodies.

  European Capital of Culture
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received on the nomination of Liverpool as European Capital of Culture. [61240]

  Tessa Jowell
  My Department has received a number of representations about the Liverpool bid.

  Tourism (World Heritage Sites)
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will meet the English Tourist Council to discuss plans for the promotion of tourism along the south Dorset coast and other world heritage sites. [61241]

  Dr. Howells
  I am delighted that the Dorset and east Devon coast was awarded world heritage site status last December. I have no plans to meet the ETC specifically to discuss this issue. South West Tourism actively promotes south Dorset through its website, marketing campaigns 642W
  and existing publications. The BTA also highlights the south Dorset coast in its Walking Britain brochure, and other BTA promotions.

  British Museum
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the director and trustees of the British museum regarding the financial support which she gives to the museum. 61242]

  Tessa Jowell
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts (Baroness Blackstone) has had several discussions with British Museum trustees and officials on a number of issues including the current financial position at the Museum. Grant-in-Aid to the British Museum has increased each year since 1997–98 and in 2002–03 will amount to £36.5 million. In addition, since April 2001 the Museum has been able to recover VAT relating to its expenditure on free access, worth at least £750,000 per annum. Funding is being further reviewed in the Government's 2002 Spending Review.

  Sport (National Lottery Funding)
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last met the chief executive of Sport England to discuss lottery funding for sports activities. [61243]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend, last met David Moffett, the Chief Executive of Sport England, on 8 May to discuss the restructuring of sport delivery. He also regularly attends the monthly interministerial sport policy meeting, the latest of which was on 16 May. The subjects discussed included Lottery funding for sports facilities.

  School Sports
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement about the progress being made in implementing the school sports co-ordinator programme. [61244]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are well on their way to meeting their target of 1,000 School Sport Co-ordinators by 2004, with 577 currently in place, benefiting 1.26 million pupils. Another 165 Co-ordinators have been designated, making a total of 742 in post by September, and increasing the total number of pupils benefiting to 1.8 million.

  Tourism
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last met the chief executive of the Tourism Alliance to discuss tourism. [61245]

  Dr. Howells
  My officials have been in regular discussions with the Tourism Alliance, since its formation in October 2001, on aspects of the agenda for reform of the tourism industry.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met with Digby Jones, chair of the Tourism Alliance and Director General of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) on 14 February 2002 formally to discuss tourism

  643W
  matters and in regard to the Tourism Alliance's paper on 'Tourism Spending Priorities', which was later published in April 2002.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policies are to assist tourism in southern England. [61227]

  Dr. Howells
  Through the English Tourism Council and the Southern Tourist Board, the Government have invested in a number of programmes to promote tourism in the area. The Southern Tourist Board is receiving £554,000 of Government support this year and £10,000 from the English Tourism Council has supported a regeneration at Sandown Bay.

  BBC Online Services
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will publish the terms of the agreement reached with the BBC on the provision of BBC Online services. [57935]

  Dr. Howells
  I am arranging for copies of the BBC Online service approval documents to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  SCS

  A(U)

  A

  B

  HEOD

  C

  D

  Strategy and communications

  3

  1

  3

  11

  1

  1

  5

  Education, training, arts and sport

  6

  3

  12

  21

  3

  26

  16

  Museums, galleries, libraries and heritage

  4

  3

  12

  22

  2

  27

  30

  Creative industries, media and broadcasting

  4

  3

  11

  15

  2

  18

  16

  Regions, tourism, millennium and international

  4

  1

  19

  18

  1

  14

  10

  Corporate services

  4

  5

  9

  31

  2

  14

  18

  The roles of these grades vary between directorate but the overall description of the roles are as follows:

  Senior Civil Servants—head Divisions and Directorates across the Department.

  Grade A/AU—they are the first level of senior management and are accountable for delivering specific parts of the departmental plan.

  Grade B/HEOD—carry out a wide range of tasks in support to support the Department's policy and sponsorship objectives.

  Grade C—first management level and will generally be responsible for providing a range of management support to senior officers and colleagues.

  Grade D—carry out a range of work to support the functional areas of DCMS.

  The figures relating to the Royal Parks Agency are as follows:

  Grade

  Total

  Grade I

  29

  Grade II

  29

  Grade III

  15

  Grade IV

  9

  Inspector

  7

  Police Constable

  132

  Police Sergeant

  16

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures are(a) in place and (b) under discussion in her Department in order to ensure compliance with the WEE Directive. [60743]

  Dr. Howells
  The WEE Directive is still in draft and should be finalised this autumn. Work on implementation planning will commence at that time.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people work in the parts of her Department responsible for(a) the Royal Parks Agency, (b) strategy and communications, (c) education, training, arts and sport, (d) museums, galleries, libraries and heritage, (e) creative industries, media and broadcasting, (f) regions, tourism, millennium and international and (g) corporate services; and for each what (i) their civil service grade and (ii) their role is. [60036]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: Set out in the following table are the number of staff by individual responsibility.

  The roles of these grades vary but the overall description of the roles with the Royal Parks Agency are as follows:

  Grade IV—senior management within the RPA and are accountable for delivering specific objectives.

  Grade III—carry out a wide range of tasks in support to support RPA objectives.

  Grade II—first management level and will generally be responsible for providing a range of management support to senior officers and colleagues.

  Grade I—carry out a range of work to support the functional areas including finance, procurement wildlife and estates.

  Inspector/Police Constable/Police Sergeant—policing of the royal parks.

  Communications Bill
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy in the forthcoming Communications Bill to place a duty upon(a) the Regulator, (b) Ofcom and (c) the media to promote good race relations in the performance of their functions; and if she will make a statement. [62305]

  Dr. Howells
  The existing regulatory bodies for communications (the Independent Television Commission, Radio Authority, Radiocommunications Agency, Oftel, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the BBC and S4C) already have a duty under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, in respect of their public functions, to have regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and
  645W
  to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. It is our intention that Ofcom should similarly be designated.

  The draft Communications Bill, which is currently subject to consultation, also contains provisions placing a duty on Ofcom to take appropriate steps for promoting equality of opportunity in relation to employment in broadcasting services and training and retraining for such employment; and a requirement on Ofcom to include in broadcasting licences appropriate conditions requiring licensees to make arrangements for promoting equality of opportunity, including between persons of different racial groups, in relation to employment with the licence holder.

  Concessionary TV Licences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the rules on concessionary TV licences for elderly people living in sheltered residential accommodation were last reviewed. [63587]

  Dr. Howells
  The last comprehensive review of the Accommodation for Residential Care concessionary television licence scheme was carried out in 1999, by the independent review panel on the future funding of the BBC. The panel recommended that the existing scheme be retained. The Government have since introduced free television licences for everyone aged 75 or over, the cost being met from public funds.

  Carlton House Terrace
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding is given to organisations to meet the cost of property in Carlton House Terrace. [63487]

  Dr. Howells
  Funding for the arts is a matter for the Arts Council of England and its regional offices. In 2002–03 London Arts will provide revenue funding of £1,021,248 to the Institute for Contemporary Arts (ICA) in the Mall which is adjacent to Carlton House Terrace. The ICA is an independent organisation which may use this money for artistic activity as well as other costs such as property.

  BBC
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what approval she is required to give before the BBC can(a) apply for and (b) operate a multiplex service licence. [63471]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 20 June 2002]: Clause 2.4 of the agreement provides that

  "The Corporation may, subject to the prior agreement of the Secretary of State provide multiplex facilities for digital television and sound broadcasting frequencies"

  but does not require her approval for the BBC to apply for a multiplex service licence.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the circumstances in which her approval is required by the BBC. [63472]
  646W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 20 June 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's approval is required under the following articles of the BBC's Charter:

  3(b)—ancillary services

  3(c)—commercial services

  3(c)—commercial services

  3(i)—transmission

  3(u)—joint ventures, partnerships, establishing companies and acquiring shares etc

  3(w)(ii)—borrowing limit

  17(i)—certain borrowings

  18(i)—the appointment of auditors

  24(i)—directions and approvals

  and under the following clauses of the agreement:

  2.2(d)—local sound programme services

  2.3—the number and geographical coverage of national television and sound programme services

  2.4—multiplex facilities

  10.10—sponsorship and subscription

  14—non assignment.

  The Charter and agreement also provides that the Secretary of State can give directions to the BBC under certain circumstances and that some matters relating to the World Service require the separate approval of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

  Community Sport Facilities
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the oral answer of the Minister for Sport, of 13 May 2002.Official Report, column 493, what studies she is making of structural weaknesses, including facilities, in the provision of community sport facilities. [62102]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has announced our intention to establish an England-wide database of sports facilities. Information on sports facilities in England is currently held by a variety of organisations and a single database will enable more strategic Government investment in those areas and facilities which are most important.

  My Department and Sport England have also been working closely together with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the revision of Planning Policy Statement 17 for Open Spaces, Sport and Recreation to ensure that we adopt a comprehensive approach to planning for these important facilities.

  Analogue Television
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the future availability of the analogue television signal. [61226]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are committed to ensuring that terrestrial analogue broadcasting signals are maintained until everyone who can currently get the main public service broadcasting channels can receive them in digital form and switching to digital is an affordable option. As a target indicator of affordability, 95 per cent. of consumers should have access to digital receiving equipment.

  Regional Theatres
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the impact which her policies have on theatre in the regions. [61218]

  Dr. Howells
  From 1 April the Arts Council is investing an additional £12 million in theatre throughout England as a consequence of its extensive review of the needs of regional theatre. From 2003–04 this will increase to an additional £25 million a year. Funding for the Stanwix Theatre in Carlisle will increase from £6,000 last year to £16,000 this year and 2003–04, an increase of 167 per cent.

  (a) Project

  (b) Dates

  (c) Consultancy

  1996–97—£109,000

  Internal Audit Services

  October 1997 to August 1998

  Deloitte Touche

  1997–98—£nil

  1998–99—£324,000

  Risk Management Systems

  November 1998 to January 1999

  KPMG

  Efficiency Review

  August-September 1998

  Deloitte Touche

  Recruitment of Chairman-NOF

  August 1998

  Capita

  Recruitment of Chairman-NESTA

  January 1999

  Capita

  Recruitment for BBC Appointments

  March 1999

  Capita

  Royal Parks Consultancy

  August 1998 to July 2001

  WS Atkins

  Royal Parks Consultancy

  January-March 1999

  WS Atkins

  Royal Parks Consultancy

  March 1999

  WS Atkins

  1999–2000—£33,000

  Royal Parks Consultancy

  July 1999

  WS Atkins

  Royal Parks Consultancy

  September 1999

  WS Atkins

  2000–01—£106,000

  Royal Parks Consultancy

  July 2000

  PWC

  Economic Impact—Lottery

  May 2000

  AEA

  Royal Armouries Consultancy

  October 2000

  PWC

  2001–02—£122,000

  Risk Management—QUEST

  May 2001

  PWC

  Recruitment Advisory Services

  July 2001 to February 2002

  Capita

  Capital of Culture advisers

  February-June 2002

  Kingshurst Consulting

  Note:

  Includes Royal Parks Agency

  Radio Frequencies
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the future of common radio microphones used in television and film production by musicians, and on stage concerning changes to frequencies allocated to them once the switchover to digital television is completed and the sale of frequencies allocated to the broadcast of analogue television is begun; and what meetings she has held to discuss the financial and practical implications of changes in frequency allocated to such equipment. [62058]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  Wireless equipment such as radio microphones used by broadcasters, independent production companies and theatres/concert venues shares that part of the radio

  Consultants
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money her Department has spent on consultants in each financial year since 1997, giving(a) the project for which the consultant was employed, (b) the dates on which the consultant was employed, (c) the name of the consultant and (d) the tendering process used for hiring the consultant. [63375]

  Dr. Howells
  There is no central register of contracts held for procurement exercises undertaken outside of the central procurement team. Approval is required to proceed for any single tender action above £5,000.

  There follows a list of contracts placed by the procurement team in the relevant periods. All followed competitive tender.

  spectrum used also for analogue and digital television broadcasting. The Government appreciate fully the importance of the radio spectrum in underpinning this activity.

  The recent joint DTI/DCMS consultation process (Digital Television: The Principles for Spectrum Planning) sought views on the basis on which we should plan the use of this spectrum for digital television and other services once the analogue signals can be switched off. The responses will inform decisions about the amount of spectrum that might be dedicated to programme-making use after switchover, and also the future arrangements for the way that the programme-makers will share spectrum within digital TV networks. We will ensure, through careful planning and consultation with programme makers, minimal disruption.
  649W
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry meets with many organisations to hear and discuss their views. The programme-making community is also closely involved with Ministers and other stakeholders within the Digital Action Plan arrangements.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

  All-postal Ballots
  Martin Linton
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission if he will ask the Electoral Commission to consider an all-postal ballot in referendums on(a) the euro and (b) the voting system. [61210]

  Mr. Beith
  The role of the commission in the conduct of any national or regional referendum is set out in the Political Parties, Referendums and Elections Act 2000. The Act does not give the Commission powers to determine the type of ballot used for a referendum. As part of its contingency planning for the conduct of referendums, the Commission will be considering a range of policy and practice issues and where appropriate may make recommendations to the Government.

  Voting Age
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what discussions the Commission has had about reducing the voting age to 16 years. [61211]

  Mr. Beith
  The Commission has indicated to the Government that it intends to look, in due course, at the minimum voting age as part of its programme of reviewing electoral law and practice. The Commission's consideration will take account of the final recommendations from the Children and Young People's Unit, whose "Why Vote? Why Not?" project is consulting young people about measures to encourage increased participation in elections. The unit intends to publish a report later this summer.

  Local Elections Review
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what the timetable is for reviewing the implications of the local elections in 2002. [61212]

  Mr. Beith
  There is no statutory obligation for the Commission to report on the operation of local elections, but the Commission will be evaluating the electoral pilot schemes held in 30 local authority areas in May 2002. The Commission will submit its evaluation reports to the Deputy Prime Minister by 2 August, and the reports will be published.

  Postal Voting
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's650W
  Committee on the Electoral Commission what research has been conducted into the impact of extended postal voting experiments on the secrecy of the ballot. [61214]

  Mr. Beith
  The Electoral Commission is currently preparing its evaluation of the postal voting pilot schemes which took place in May 2002. The evaluation, which will be published in (early) August, will consider the impact of the pilot schemes on the secrecy of the ballot. The Commission is also undertaking a wider review of the law and practice in relation to absent voting, which includes consideration of secrecy and related issues.

  Euro Referendum
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the right hon. member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what discussions he has had about preparations the Electoral Commission is making for a referendum on adoption of the euro. [61215]

  Mr. Beith
  In accordance with its statutory obligations, the Electoral Commission has begun to draw up contingency plans for the conduct of national and regional referendums. In February this year, the Speaker's Committee approved plans for the recruitment of a small team of staff and funding for consultancy on IT issues. The Commission's main objectives for this stream of work are set out in their Corporate Plan 2002–03 to 2006–07. Detailed project plans are in the process of being drawn up.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Cathedral Restoration
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if the Commissioners plan to meet representatives of the National Heritage Lottery Fund to discuss the funding of cathedral restoration; and if he will make a statement. [61213]

  Mr. Bell
  No. The funding of cathedral repairs is a matter for individual cathedrals and for the body that represents them, the Association of English Cathedrals.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  New Direction in Agriculture
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if her Department will spend the match-funded money raised from the introduction of modulation under the New Direction in Agriculture package before the end of the present spending round. [60383]

  Margaret Beckett
  EC Regulations stipulate that the money raised from modulation has to be spent within three years of being raised. The first receipts were raised in July 2001; between then and the end of April 2002 nearly £28 million has been collected in England, and nearly £9 million has been spent. Modulation funds are used to secure valuable public benefits through agri-environment schemes, in particular the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and the Environmentally Sensitive
  651W
  Areas scheme. Receipts will be used progressively as new agreements under the schemes are signed, and as old agreements come forward for renewal. I am confident that the funds will be spent before the deadline.

  Agrimonetary System
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to bring forward new policy measures to address the problems faced by British farmers as a result of the expiry of the agrimonetary system. [61544]

  Margaret Beckett
  We acknowledge the problems facing British agriculture at the moment. We believe that sustainable agriculture can be achieved by encouraging a more market-oriented sector with reduced dependence on production-linked support. This is our aim for the forthcoming mid-term review of the CAP. Also, following publication of the report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food, the Government are working with a range of stakeholders to chart a way ahead by developing a strategy for sustainable food and farming in England, by the autumn.

  Tree Diseases
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to guard against the risk of sudden oak death in the United Kingdom. [61602]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: "Phytophthora ramorum"—the causative organism of sudden oak death—is not established in the United Kingdom, but has recently been detected on plants of viburnum and rhododendron in a targeted survey by the Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate. Research is in progress to establish whether the "Phytophthora ramorum" found in the United Kingdom exhibits the same pathogenicity as that causing such serious damage in the USA and whether European tree species are susceptible to either the European or North American isolates. This work is being carried out by the Central Science Laboratory and the Forestry Commission Research Agency.

  Possible Community-wide measures are being considered and there has already been an exchange of information and some additional survey work by member states. In the meantime, on the basis of a pest risk assessment, precautionary measures have been introduced to prevent susceptible material being imported into the United Kingdom from affected areas of the USA and to allow plant health inspectors to track commercial movements of host plants of any origin. Current controls on imported oak wood from the USA are also being extended to include wood derived from all host trees originating in affected areas. Further information is available on the Forestry Commission and DEFRA websites at http://forestry.gov.uk/planthealth and http:// defraweb/planth/ph.htm

  Countryside
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to implement the Government's commitment in the Rural White Paper to protect the countryside for its own sake. [63501]
  652W
  Alun Michael
  The Government set out measures for protecting the countryside in chapters 9 and 10 of the Rural White Paper "Our Countryside: the future—A fair deal for rural England". In December 2002, I reported our progress on implementing the Rural White Paper in "England's Rural Future". My answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) of 12 December 2001,Official Report, column 920W, announced publication of this document.

  An explanation of how all the commitments in the Rural White Paper are being taken forward is set out in the Rural White Paper Implementation Plan which is on the Department's website at: http://defraweb/wildlife/ wildlife-countryside/index.htm. This plan will be amended from time to time to ensure it is up to date.

  Beef Special Premium Scheme
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what costs have been incurred by the Rural Payments Agency as a result of the extra information required of farmers in Section 1, No. 5, of the Beef Special Premium Scheme 2002. [63628]

  Mr. Morley
  When a Beef Special Premium Form is received at the Rural Payments Agency, the contents on the form are entered on to the RPA computer system by staff keying in the information shown. When Section 1 question 5 consists simply of one line of text, the time taken may be measured in seconds. Where more information is received, clearly, the time taken will be longer. However, the main cost to the RPA arises from cases where Section 1.5 is not completed appropriately, that is, information given is not clear, or is evidently incomplete. It is the processing of the cases which led the RPA to re-examine the wording of Section 1.5. It is not possible to calculate accurately the cost of dealing with these.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers have fully completed Section 1, No. 5, on the Beef Special Premium Scheme 2002 claim form; and how many have not complied and are stating only the holding address. [63627]

  Mr. Morley
  All Beef Special Premium Scheme 2002 claim forms where the only anomaly concerns the completion of Section 1, question 5 are being accepted and lodged with the Rural Payments Agency.

  To date, the Rural Payments Agency has received just under 39,000 Beef Special Premium Scheme 2002 claims. It estimates that the current proportion of the forms having either no, or incomplete, information entered at Section 1, question 5 is 35 per cent. The agency will seek the additional information from producers where required.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the need for the changes that the Rural Payments Agency have made to Section 1, No. 5 of the Beef Special Premium Scheme 2002. [63626]

  Mr. Morley
  Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No.2419/2001, which came into effect on 1 January 2002, requires that a livestock aid application shall contain where applicable, an undertaking by the farmer to keep claimed animals on his holding during the retention
  653W
  period and information on the location or locations where the animals will be held including the period or periods concerned. This requirement has not changed from the relevant previous regulation.

  For operational reasons, the level of detail and the method of collecting it was changed for scheme year 2002. Following representations from industry representatives the Rural Payments Agency is currently reviewing Section 1, No. 5 of the Beef Special Premium Scheme 2002 form.

  Countryside Stewardship Schemes
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to offer continuous advice to farmers for improvements to their countryside stewardship schemes. [63625]

  Mr. Morley
  Staff from DEFRA's Rural Development Service operate a programme of visits to farmers with land under Countryside Stewardship Scheme agreement to advise them on technical aspects of management. However, provision of this advice is resource intensive and any decision to increase these advisory visits would need to balance the increase in resource costs against any increased environmental value for money which might result.

  Advice on preparing new or upgraded applications to the scheme is available from various organisations including the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group, local wildlife trusts, and National Park authorities in the relevant areas.

  All aspects of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme are currently under review.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) when she will review the Countryside Stewardship Scheme; [63623]

  (2) what plans she has to change the 10 year timeframe of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. [63624]

  Mr. Morley
  Countryside Stewardship is currently being reviewed as part of a wider review of English agri-environment schemes. An initial public consultation exercise, inviting views on a number of strategic questions, closed on 27 May 2002. 119 responses have been received and are now being analysed. The results from this consultation exercise will be used to help develop a revised framework for English agri-environment schemes, working closely with stakeholders. Any changes to the schemes will need to be submitted to the European Commission as a proposed modification to the England Rural Development Programme.

  All aspects of the current Countryside Stewardship Scheme are under consideration in this review, including the length of agreements.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Solicitor-General (1) what steps have been taken by each CPS authority to progress the Glidewell recommendations for reorganizing 654W
  its work into functional units collocated with police units; and where and when this collocation has been achieved; [60223]

  (2) if she will make a statement on variations in the pace of progress between CPS areas noted by HMCPSI. [60211]

  The Solicitor-General
  It has been assumed that the question regarding the pace of progress refers to the establishment of criminal justice units and trial units.

  All chief crown prosecutors and chief constables have submitted joint plans detailing their strategy to implement the Glidewell recommendations. These plans were reviewed by a joint CPS/police working group to ensure that they followed the agreed model for joint administration. The model aims to reduce duplication and delay; focus freed up resources towards the more serious casework; and improve the service to victims and witnesses. CPS areas and their police partners regularly review their plans, actively seeking opportunities to maximise use of the combined police/CPS buildings and provide regular updates to the centre as and when their plans have progressed.

  All CPS areas not yet collocated have reorganised their front line operations into discrete units to deal separately with Crown court and magistrates court work, in order to deliver at least some of the benefits envisaged by Glidewell.

  As at 31 March 2002, there were 42 collocated criminal justice units established in 20 areas and 54 trial units in 32 areas. The schedule shows the location and date of establishment of these units.

  The pace with which areas have progressed the Glidewell recommendations has largely been influenced by the availability of either suitable CPS or police buildings.

  Criminal justice units

  Area/location

  Date established

  Avon and Somerset

  Bristol

  June 2000

  Taunton

  June 2000

  Bedfordshire

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  Huntingdon

  January 2002

  Parkside

  December 2001

  Thorpe Wood

  January 2002

  Cheshire

  Crewe

  March 2001

  Cleveland

  Middlesbrough

  October 2000

  Hartlepool

  February 2002

  Cumbria

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  Devon and Cornwall

  —

  Dorset

  —

  Durham

  —

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  655W

  Criminal justice units

  Area/location

  Date established

  Essex

  Colchester

  September 2000

  Harlow

  December 2000

  Southend

  November 2000

  Lalndon

  March 2001

  Gloucestershire

  Gloucester

  April 2001

  Greater Manchester

  —

  Gwent

  —

  Hampshire

  Basingstoke

  June 2001

  Aldershot

  March 2001

  Isle of Wight

  October 2000

  Portsmouth

  April 2001

  Portswood

  July 2001

  Hertfordshire

  St. Albans

  April 2001

  Watford

  April 2001

  Hertford

  January 2002

  Humberside

  Grimsby

  April 2001

  Scunthorpe

  April 2001

  Hull

  June 2001

  Kent

  Folkestone

  January 2001

  Maidstone

  January 2001

  Canterbury

  July 2001

  Chatham

  July 2001

  Lancashire

  Preston

  March 2001

  Leicestershire

  —

  Lincolnshire

  Skegness

  June 2001

  Merseyside

  —

  Metropolitan and City

  Bishopsgate

  September 2001

  Norfolk

  —

  Northamptonshire

  Weston Favell

  October 2001

  Northumbria

  —

  North Wales

  Caenarfon

  April 2001

  Colwyn Bay

  January 2002

  North Yorkshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  South Wales

  Rumney

  January 2002

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  May 2000

  Doncaster

  November 2001

  Staffordshire

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  Surrey

  —

  Sussex

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  West Mercia

  —

  West Midlands

  Brierly Hill

  March 2001

  Halesowen

  March 2001

  West Bromich

  November 2001

  West Yorkshire

  Halifax

  October 2000

  Wiltshire

  —

  656W

  Trial units

  Area/location

  Date established

  Avon and Somerset

  Bristol

  June 2000

  Bedfordshire

  Luton

  October 1999

  Cambridgeshire

  Huntingdon

  January 2002

  Cheshire

  Chester

  March 2001

  Warrington

  March 2001

  Cleveland

  Middlesbrough

  October 2000

  Cumbria

  —

  Derbyshire

  Derby

  October 2000

  Devon and Cornwall

  Exeter

  December 2000

  Plymouth

  December 2000

  Truro

  December 2001

  Dorset

  —

  Durham

  Durham

  March 2001

  Dyfed Powys

  Carmathan

  March 2002

  Essex

  Chelmsford

  March 2001

  Gloucestershire

  Gloucester

  October 2001

  Greater Manchester

  —

  Gwent

  Newport

  January 2001

  Hampshire

  Isle of Wight

  October 2000

  Eastleigh

  April 2001

  Portsmouth

  April 2001

  Hertfordshire

  St. Albans

  January 2002

  Humberside

  Grimsby

  April 2001

  Hull

  March 2001

  Kent

  Maidstone

  January 2001

  Canterbury

  January 2001

  Lancashire

  Preston

  May 2001

  Burnley

  May 2001

  Leicestershire

  —

  Lincolnshire

  Lincoln

  January 2001

  Merseyside

  Liverpool

  December 2000

  Crosby

  December 2000

  Metropolitan and City

  Old Bailey

  February 2001

  Harrow/Isleworth

  March 2002

  Snarsbrook

  March 2002

  Southwark/Middlesex

  March 2002

  ILCC/Youth

  March 2002

  Blackfrairs/Woolwich

  March 2002

  Wood Green

  March 2002

  Kingston

  March 2002

  Croydon

  March 2002

  Norfolk

  Norwich

  June 2001

  657W

  Trial units

  Area/location

  Date established

  Northamptonshire

  —

  Northumbna

  Newcastle

  June 2001

  North Wales

  Wrexham

  March 2001

  Colwyn Bay

  January 2002

  North Yorkshire

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  Nottingham

  May 2000

  South Wales

  —

  South Yorkshire

  Sheffield

  December 2001

  Staffordshire

  Stafford

  October 2000

  Newcastle under Lyme

  October 2000

  Suffolk

  Ipswich

  April 2000

  Surrey

  Guildford

  April 2000

  Sussex

  —

  Thames Valley

  Abindon, Reading and Aylesbury

  April 2001

  Warwickshire

  —

  West Mercia

  —

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  January 2001

  Coventry

  April 2001

  Wolverhampton

  January 2001

  West Yorkshire

  Leeds

  October 2000

  Bradford

  October 2000

  Wiltshire

  Wiltshire

  September 1999

TRANSPORT

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the mandate of the Technical Adaptation Committee on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to chemical physical and biological agents at work 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. [55230]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  No committee with the name given and covering chemical, physical and biological agents is known to exist.

  PPP Contracts
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what improvements in frequency of tube services will be delivered in each of the first seven years of the PPP contracts for each of the three consortia; [56216]
  658W
  (2) when, for each line of London Underground, new trains will be introduced under the terms of PPP; [56214]

  (3) when, for each line of London Underground, new capacity will be introduced under the terms of PPP; and how much new capacity will be introduced for each line. [56215]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 14 May 20021]: I have been asked to reply.

  The modernisation plans for London Underground require contractors to meet performance specifications. The contracts do not specify the details of each individual project. Instead, the performance regime has been designed to deliver faster, more reliable and more pleasant journeys for passengers, as quickly as possible.

  The specifications include demanding targets for improvements in Journey Time Capability (JTC), an outcome measure which reflects passengers' experiences of a range of factors affecting how quickly they can travel through the underground system.

  Improvements in JTC through line upgrades, as specified in the current contracts, are as follows:

  Jubilee line: 22 per cent. by 2008

  Northern line: 18 per cent. by 2010

  Piccadilly line: 19 per cent. by 2013

  Bakerloo line: 15 per cent. by 2019

  Central line: 6 per cent. by 2004

  Victoria line:

  Interim upgrade—5 per cent. by 2004

  Main upgrade—14 per cent. by 1 September 2012*

  Waterloo and City line: 12 per cent. by 2005

  Northern Sub-Surface lines:

  Interim upgrade—2 per cent. by 2010

  Main upgrade—17 per cent. by 2013

  Southern Sub-Surface lines:

  First interim upgrade—2 per cent. by 2010

  Second interim upgrade—3 per cent. by 2013

  Main upgrade—11 per cent. by 2016.

  To meet these specifications, the contractors will need to deliver substantial improvements across the entire system infrastructure, including works to increase frequency and capacity, and the introduction of new trains. In addition, on all lines contractors will be incentivised to improve availability scores, which measure infrastructure reliability. This will help London Underground to deliver service improvements, such as increased train frequency, irrespective of the timing of line upgrades.

  The contracts directly specify improvements to trains on all lines, which must be delivered by the dates are as listed:

  Jubilee line: 2016

  Northern line: 2016

  Piccadilly line: 2013

  Bakerloo line: 2019

  Central line: 2015

  Victoria line: 1 September 2012*

  Waterloo and City line: 2015

  Metropolitan line: 2013

  District line: 2014

  Hammersmith and City/Circle line: 2013

  659W
  All dates listed (except *) refer to contract years (ie 2005 ends on 31 March 2006). These are the latest dates by which improvements must be delivered. In practice, the infrastructure companies will need to start work on the upgrades many years in advance to meet these dates. Therefore many improvements will be delivered well before the contractual end-dates. The exact details of how the private sector companies intend to meet their contractual obligations are matters for the companies concerned.

  Rail Crash Investigations
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what(a) contracts and (b) technical support contracts were (i) awarded and (ii) used by the Health and Safety Executive as part of their investigation into the derailment at Potters Bar in May; and if he will make a statement. [58651]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  In addition to all the work undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) internal laboratory, HSE engaged the following contractors to support their investigations of the Potters Bar rail crash:

  Contractor

  AEA Technology Rail—assistance with investigations (contractual arrangements will be via the central HSE call-off contract).

  Contractor

  Research

  Grant Fire Consultants

  Review of existing fire standards and a review of the literature in respect of the behaviour of fires on porous ground

  Intertek Testing

  Testing of gas/oil samples

  Forensic Science Services

  Paint analysis

  Astra Zeneca

  Auto ignition temperature test of samples of gas/oil

  University of Sheffield

  ICP analysis

  Garvic Development

  Design advice related to fuel tank impact test

  IC Consultants

  Technical support in respect of the failure of fuel tanks and of the collision dynamics

  However, it should be noted that providing an exhaustive list of contractors would entail disproportionate cost.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what(a) contracts and (b) technical support contracts were (i) awarded and (ii) used by the Health and Safety Executive as part of their investigation into the derailmentat

  Contractor

  Research

  Trimac Ltd

  Specialist photographic support

  AEA Technology Rail

  Assistance with investigation including on-site derailment investigation, track profile measurements and examination of vehicles

  AEA Consultancy

  Advice on non-destructive testing

  Serco Rail-test

  Practical non-destructive testing of rails

  Sheffield Testing Labs.

  Chemical analysis of steel samples, and machine and tensile test of rails

  However, it should be noted that providing an exhaustive list of contractors would entail disproportionate cost.

  SPADS
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what 660W
  The investigation continues and further contracts may be let. However, it should be noted that providing an exhaustive list of all contractors would entail disproportionate cost.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what(a) contracts and (b) technical support contracts were (i) awarded and (ii) used by the Health and Safety Executive as part of their investigation into the Southall rail crash in September 1997; and if he will make a statement. [58648]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Providing details of contracts let to support the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) investigation of the Southall rail crash would entail disproportionate cost because the methods of record keeping have changed since the Southall crash.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what(a) contracts and (b) technical support contracts were (i) awarded and (ii) used by the Health and Safety Executive as part of their investigation into the Ladbroke Grove rail crash in October 1999; and if he will make a statement. [58649]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  In addition to all the work undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) internal laboratory, HSE engaged the following contractors to support their investigations of the Ladbroke Grove rail crash:

  at Hatfield in October 2000; and if he will make a statement. [58650]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  In addition to all the work undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) internal laboratory, HSE engaged the following contractors to support their investigations of the Hatfield derailment:

  (a) contracts and (b) technical support contracts were (i) awarded and (ii) used by the Health and Safety Executive as part of their process of monitoring and investigating signals passed at danger; and if he will make a statement. [58647]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is as follows.
  661W

  Contractor

  Research

  Railway Industry Training Council

  Development of a standard for defensive driving

  Railtrack procurement

  Signals passed at danger: rate in relation to signal type

  AEA Technology

  Human factors in reliability

  Vectra

  Proposed framework for addressing human factors in signal boxes; and circumstances surrounding Ladbroke Grove crash

  Railway Lines
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what representations he has received from(a) the Health and Safety Commission, (b) the Health and Safety Executive, (c) Railtrack, (d) train operating companies and (e) others regarding (i) trespass, (ii) vandalism and (iii) informed vandalism on railway lines; and if he will make a statement; [58197]

  (2) what discussions he has had with (a) the Health and Safety Commission, (b) the Health and Safety Executive, (c) Railtrack, (d) train operating companies and (e) others regarding (i) trespass, (ii) vandalism and (iii) informed vandalism on railway lines; and if he will make a statement. [58198]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 22 June 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are pleased that all sections of the rail industry have come together in the National Route Crime Group to examine and promote ways of tackling trespass and vandalism on the railways. The group includes passenger and freight train operators, Railtrack, Railway Safety, the Health and Safety Executive, British Transport police, trade unions, infrastructure contractors, the Rail Passengers Council and the Strategic Rail Authority. The Government will continue to remain in touch with these organisations on their efforts to reduce the incidence of trespass and vandalism on the railways.

  Departmental Land
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the land that his Department(a) is offering for sale and (b) plans to offer in the next 12 months, giving its (i) location and (ii) size. [59060]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have placed in the Libraries of the House a spreadsheet listing the land, which the Department's Highways Agency is (a) offering for sale and (b) plans to offer in the next 12 months, giving its (i) location and (ii) where available, size.

  Health and Safety Commission
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions on what dates he has(a) met, (b) written to and (c) communicated with the chair of the Health and Safety Commission in the last 12 months; what the subject was of each communication; and if he will make a statement. [60000]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.
  662W
  Ministers are in regular contact with the chair of the Health and Safety Commission and have frequent meetings, formal and informal, and correspondence with him throughout the year. The precise information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many computers were replaced in his Department in each of the past three years; how the replaced units were disposed of and by which companies; and at what cost. [60748]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is not held centrally, or in a format which permits ready answer to the questions, and could therefore be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if(a) his Department and (b) its agencies have a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59459]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: My Department, including its agencies, follows the Civil Service Management Code. In line with that code, all applications for employment from persons below the age of 65 are considered equally.

  Public Consultations
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [60146]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: According to central records the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions issued 70 consultation documents between 1 June 2001 and 29 May 2002. I have placed a full list in the Library. The Department does not, however, keep central records of the numbers of responses received to each consultation.

  Staff Numbers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff were employed by his Department on(a) 2 May 1997 and (b) 31 May 2002. [60918]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) on 13 June 2002,Official Report, column 1402W.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the(a) cost and (b) saving from the pursuit of the Department's Public Service Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61050]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department's Public Service Agreement sets out the key outcomes it is committed to deliver with the resources provided, and its Service Delivery Agreement sets out the key steps towards delivery of those targets. Every year the Department publishes performance against its targets—including on value for money and the resources it has used, in its departmental report.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) cost and (b) saving has been from the Department's pursuit of Service Delivery Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61635]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department's Public Service Agreement sets out the key outcomes it is committed to deliver with the resources provided, and its Service Delivery Agreement sets out the key steps towards delivery of those targets. Every year the Department publishes performance against its targets—including on value for money and the resources it has used, in its departmental report.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 had been spent by 31 May; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [61007]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Boateng) on 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 130W.

  Small Businesses
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many regulations which cause additional burdens for small businesses have been introduced in the field of health and safety in the last three years. [61143]

  Mr. Jamieson
  During the period June 1999 to June 2002, 55 statutory instruments containing regulations relating to health and safety have been introduced. Not all of these will affect all firms, of whatever size; much depends on the nature of the business and the risks it creates. Some new legislation may indeed reduce burdens on small firms by simplifying existing legal requirements.

  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department intend to take to reduce administrative burdens in the field of health and safety for small businesses; and if he will make a statement. [61142]

  Mr. Jamieson
  HSE has long recognised the special needs of smaller businesses and the importance of ensuring that administrative requirements placed on them in the field of health and safety are kept to the minimum, while ensuring that they recognise and act on their duties to protect the safety and health of their own workers and others.
  664W
  HSE consults widely on proposed regulations and guidance, although it recognises the need to ensure that small businesses are properly involved in developing its policies and practices and is currently looking at a variety of ways that will make it easier for small businesses to communicate with them.

  Many of the problems come from incorrect interpretation of regulations, companies often believing that they need to take more complicated action than is actually necessary or not understanding what needs to be done. HSE, therefore, produces extensive guidance on most of its regulations, much of it targeted towards small firms.

  HSE also continually looks for innovative ways to broaden its support to small businesses. For example, a pilot grant scheme is due to be launched shortly to provide some financial assistance for small businesses to access health and safety mentoring and training.

  Women at Work (Pregnancy)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to monitor and improve awareness of pregnancy complications among women at work. [58251]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The Health and Safety Executive published "New and Expectant Mothers at Work—A guide for employer" in 1995. The guide highlights the hazards and risks in relation to chemical, biological and physical agents, and working conditions and advises employers of possible pregnancy complications. A revised version is due to be launched in autumn 2002. To support this, HSE is planning to produce two additional leaflets—one for new and expectant mothers who work and the other for their health professionals.

  Health Promotion England has also published, on behalf of the Department of Health, the "Pregnancy Book" that is given (free) to all first time mothers. The book provides comprehensive guidance and information to women for a healthy pregnancy.

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information is held by his Department on each hon. Member in relation to(a) personal relationships, both current and past, (b) financial status and dealings, (c) connections with companies and interest groups, (d) connections with Governments and (e) published works; and what was held in January 2002. [61826]

  Mr. Darling
  Ministers and officials in the Department have access to published reference sources, as well as to the information about hon. Members made publicly available by the House authorities, for the purpose of parliamentary business.

  Employees Injured at Work
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of British companies which have in place policies on rehabilitation for employees injured at work. [58053]
  665W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: Although HSE has recently commissioned two surveys which have addressed rehabilitation at work in varying ways, neither asked whether a company has a policy on rehabilitation specifically for employees injured at work.

  One of these surveys has suggested that: approximately 25 per cent. of employers surveyed knew how to access rehabilitation support.

  Emerging findings from the other suggest that: 1,759 of the 4,950 companies surveyed provide rehabilitation programmes after illness.

  Departmental Grants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations and outside bodies which were in receipt of grant in 1997–98 are no longer; what the annual saving is(a) individually and (b) in aggregate; which organisations and outside bodies which were not in receipt of grant in 1997–98 now are; and what the annual cost is (i) individually and (ii) in aggregate. [62046]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Road Accidents
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people were involved in road accidents while riving within one year of receiving their driving licence in each year since 1995. [62946]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on the length of time for which drivers have held a licence is not collected as part of national road accident statistics. However, we do know from research that as many as one in five newly qualified drivers have some sort of accident in the first year of driving.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in the last 12 months the requirement to engage in a competitive tendering process has been waived by his Department due to national security obligations under paragraph 6(h) of the supply regulations. [62823]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There have been no occasions.

  Passive Smoking
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has received since 29 October 1999 from the Health and Safety Commission on its proposed Approved Code of Practice on Passive Smoking at Work; and when he intends to approve the Code of Practice. [62849]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The chair of the Health and Safety Commission wrote on 5 October 2000 to the Minister with responsibility for health and safety advising about the commission's decision to favour the introduction of an Approved Code of Practice (ACoP). The Government are giving careful consideration to the commission's proposals. As part of this process, the commission has been asked to consider further both the implications of an ACoP on the hospitality sector and small businesses generally, and the role the Public Places Charter could 666W
  play. I have not yet been formally asked to give consent for the introduction of an ACoP as this work is still in hand.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Health and Safety Executive revised the regulatory impact assessment which was contained in the Health and Safety Commission consultative document, "Proposals for an Approved Code of Practice on Passive Smoking at Work"; and if he will publish it. [62848]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) partially revised the draft regulatory impact assessment (RIA) in August 2000. It would be inappropriate to publish this version because the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has been requested to carry out further work on the proposals that it underpins.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Health and Safety Executive revised the draft Approved Code of Practice on Passive Smoking which was consulted on in the Health and Safety Commission consultative document, proposals for an Approved Code of Practice on Passive Smoking at Work; and if he will publish it. [62847]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) partially revised the text of the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) in August 2000. It would be inappropriate to publish this version of the ACoP because the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has been requested to carry out further work on the proposals.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish a summary of responses to the Health and Safety Commission consultative document, proposals for an Approved Code of Practice on Passive Smoking at Work. [62846]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A brief summary of responses was included in the press release issued by the Health and Safety Commission on 5 September 2000. Individual responses, subject to respondents' requests for confidentiality, are available for inspection at Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Information Centres.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the oral statement of 25 March 2002,Official Report, column 586, what the number and/or column reference was of the written parliamentary question from the week of 18 to 24 March, to which the then Secretary of State refers to with regard to letters of comfort. [62294]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, was referring to the draft comfort letters for the London Underground that were reported to Parliament using the minute procedure on 20 March 2002. The minute was placed in the Libraries of the House and reported to the Transport Select Committee and to the Public Accounts Committee.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of his guidance for officials on answering parliamentary questions. [62575]

  Mr. Darling
  Answers to parliamentary questions are drafted in accordance with "Guidance to Officials on Drafting Answers to Parliamentary Questions" issued by
  667W
  the Cabinet Office. In addition, guidance is issued to officials within the Department on deadlines and format for the different types of parliamentary questions. A copy of that guidance (which will be updated to reflect the recent machinery of government changes) has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Driving Lessons
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses he has received to the consultation document on, Introducing a More Structured Approach to Learning to Drive, broken down by category of respondents. [63110]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has received over 300 responses to this consultation document. These have come from a wide range of interests including driving instructors and their trade associations, road safety and road user groups, other organisations and individuals with an interest in the issues raised in the document. Responses are still being received and they have not yet been broken down into categories.

  Aviation Kerosene
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment the Government have made on the environmental benefits of a tax on aviation kerosene; and what plans he has to work towards an international agreement to impose such a duty. [63634]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our assessment is that a tax on aviation kerosene would have worthwhile environmental benefits in reducing climate change impacts from aircraft emissions but only if it were imposed internationally. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) concluded at its assembly last October that alternative measures such as an open emissions trading scheme or an emissions charge could be equally if not more environmentally beneficial than such a tax. The UK is currently assisting ICAO in following up these possibilities.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has finalised agreement with the Strategic Rail Authority to introduce a standard three hour journey time between London and Plymouth. [63641]

  Mr. Jamieson: I
  refer the hon. Member to my answer of 27 February 2002, Official Report, column 1369W. This is not a matter that requires my agreement.

  "The New Humber Pilotage Service"
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what consultation took place with Humber Pilots Limited on the time spent to complete an act of pilotage for the DTLR document, "The New Humber Pilotage Service"; and what the outcome of this consultation was; [62996]

  (2) what the source of the statistic was that new very large ships pilots on the Humber have already done over 100 very large ships each on the DTLR document, "The New Humber Pilotage Service" (paragraph 3.21). [62997]
  668W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: The information was obtained from detailed individual records maintained by the competent harbour authority, Associated British Ports.

  Stena Gothica
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Humber pilot in charge of the Stena Gothica on 2 April was authorised by Associated British Ports. [63620]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: This incident is currently the subject of an investigation by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. All the pilots now working on the Humber have been authorised (or in some cases re-authorised) by the competent harbour authority on or after 12 December 2001, when the former pilots went on strike.

  Humber Pilots
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what percentage of Associated British Ports' new Humber pilots have an unlimited Foreign Going Master's Certificate or Class 1; [62998]

  (2) what percentage of new Humber pilots have a United Kingdom/European Union Certificate of Competency. [62999]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: This is a matter for the competent harbour authority which has the statutory responsibility for deciding what qualifications are required from applicants for authorisation. There is no rule requiring any particular seafaring qualification and practice varies.

  Speed Limit (Motorways)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase the speed limit on motorways. [64212]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no plans to increase the speed limit on motorways.

  Consultation Exercises
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each consultation exercise being carried out by his Department, including the start date, the date by which responses had to be returned and the expected date for reporting on the consultation. [63789]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: According to central records the Department is currently carrying out nine consultation exercises. A full list of these consultation exercises, including start dates and dates by which responses must be returned, has been placed in the Library. Reports on consultations are published once all of the responses have been received, and the issues they raise, have been considered.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) discussions have taken place and (b) assessment he has made of the role of developing an asset register of Railtrack upon delay attribution; and if he will make a statement. [64147]
  669W
  Mr. Spellar
  None. There is no direct correlation between the development of an asset register and the process of delay attribution. The register will contain information on the condition, capability and capacity of Railtrack's assets.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rail workers have been injured while working on rail lines, in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [60392]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The numbers of workers injured while working on rail lines in each year since 1997 is as follows:

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Major injuries

  6

  3

  3

  2

  Minor injuries

  18

  7

  12

  4

  The Railway Group Safety Plan for 2001–02 sets out a number of detailed targets for reducing risks to railway staff working on Railtrack's infrastructure.

  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to introduce legislation requiring rail network companies to introduce a specific type of safety mechanism onto rolling stock over a certain age; and if he will make a statement. [63695]

  Mr. Spellar
  There is no safety legislation relating specifically to the age of rolling stock. The Railway Safety Regulations 1999 require a form of automatic train protection where reasonably practical, for example the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS), to be fitted on all trains and key signals throughout the rail network by the end of 2003.

  Under the same regulations all Mark 1 rolling stock must be fitted with a safety modification (to prevent overriding in the event of two Mark 1 carriages colliding in an accident) by the end of 2002, in order to remain in service until the end of 2004 when they will finally be withdrawn from service. An exemption from the regulations can only be granted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSE is currently conducting a public consultation on an application for exemption to fit the safety modification received from the three Mark 1 train operating companies, South West Trains, Connex South Eastern and South Central. The HSE is expected to make a decision in the autumn.

  Network Rail
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what internal investigations have been launched by his Department and by its predecessor into grey market share trading in Railtrack shares before the Network Rail bid was announced on 25 March. [63788]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: None. Market surveillance is properly a matter for the Financial Services Authority.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the mandate of the Committee on Experts on the Transit of Electricity through Grids is; how many 670W
  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. [61709]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The role of the committee is to mediate in disputes between network operators over conditions for the use of electricity transit lines, as set out in Article 3 of Council Directive 90/547/EEC of 29 October 1990 on the transit of electricity through transmission grids.

  The committee has not met in the past 12 months. The UK representation is provided by the National Grid Group plc. There is no UK public funding of this committee. There are no items currently under consideration by the committee.

  The Commission's current proposals for liberalising the European energy market would repeal Directive 90/547/EEC and so remove the legal base for this committee.

  There are no plans to increase accountability and transparency as it is about to be dissolved.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what steps the Department has taken to monitor the mobile phone industry's adherence to its 10 voluntary commitments on siting and erection of mobile phone masts. [59633]

  Mr. McNulty
  I have been asked to reply.

  The then Minister for Housing, Planning and Regeneration met representatives of the five mobile phone network operators on 8 May 2002 to discuss their progress in meeting their commitments and to discuss the audit arrangements that they have put in place to assess continuing compliance with the commitments.

  Work currently under way to revise the Code of Best Practice on Mobile Phone Masts is building on the commitments and on our guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (Telecommunications) to improve consultation on mast proposals with local communities and local planning authorities. The Working Group established to take that work forward will monitor the operation of the revised Code and effectiveness of the commitments themselves.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  International Baccalaureate
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding is available for scholarship support relating to International Baccalaureate study at the United World college. [63183]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department has no direct involvement in and does not fund any scholarship programmes relating to the International Baccalaureate.

  Infant Classes
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) average infant class size was in each year since 1997 and (b) total number of infants in classes in each of these years was. [62855]

  Mr. Miliband
  The requested information is shown in the table.

  Average size of infant classes1,2 in England

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  Average class size

  20023

  61,527

  1,548,947

  25.2

  2001

  62,480

  1,575,160

  25.2

  2000

  62,651

  1,614,641

  25.8

  1999

  61,597

  1,629,716

  26.5

  1998

  61,142

  1,654,287

  27.1

  1997

  61,107

  1,646,660

  26.9

  1One teacher classes

  2Position in January each year

  3Provisional

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Music and Ballet Assisted Places
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils were educated on the music and ballet assisted places scheme in each academic year since 1997; and at what cost in each year. [62782]

  Mr. Miliband
  The music and ballet scheme has been renamed the music and dance scheme. The information requested is given in the following table:

  Academic year

  Number of aided pupils

  Total cost (AY) £ million

  1997–98

  659

  9.4

  1998–99

  693

  10.0

  1999–2000

  710

  10.6

  2000–01

  749

  11.2

  2001–021

  771

  12.2

  1Estimate

  Connexions Card (Proof of Age)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to use the connexions card as the basis for a national proof-of-age scheme for young people. [63213]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The primary purpose of the connexions card is to encourage young people to continue in learning, after the age of 16. However, the features of the card mean that it can be used for proof-of-age purposes by young people, if they wish.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the total were admitted to study medicine in UK medical schools from(a) independent schools, (b) public sector schools and (c) abroad, broken down by medical school in each year since 1997. [59776]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The information requested has been placed in the Libraries.

  Medical Degrees
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to the answer of 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 581W, on medical degrees, how many medical degree places were offered by higher education institutions; and how many of these places were taken up by pre-clinical medical students, in each year since 1997. [59552]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 24 May 2002]: The latest information is shown in the table.

  Students accepted to pre-clinical medical courses in the UK

  Planned intake

  Accepted applicants1

  1997

  5,020

  5,029

  1998

  5,062

  5,119

  1999

  5,165

  5,312

  2000

  5,595

  5,714

  2001

  5,928

  6,240

  1 Home and overseas domiciled students accepted via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS).

  Aberdeen Bacterial Culture Collection
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what support is being given to the maintenance and development of the bacterial culture collection in Aberdeen; and whether the level of that support will increase in the current year. [62028]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  Support from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) for the bacteria culture collection—the National Industrial and Environmental Culture Collections (NIECC)—in Aberdeen totalled £197,000 over the 12 month period to 31 July 2002. BBSRC is currently reviewing future funding for the collection in the light of a significant decrease in demand for cultures from UK industry and academic centres over the last three years.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Pensions
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what changes there have been in(a) cash and (b) real terms in the state pension between 1998–99 and 2002–03. [44030]

  Mr. McCartney
  Between 1998–99 and 2002–03 Basic State Pension has increased from £64.70 to £75.50. This is an increase of £10.80 in cash terms.

  If the Basic State Pension had been uprated in line with prices, the value in 2002–03 would have been £70.95. There has been a real increase of £4.55 in Basic State Pension between 1998–99 and 2002–03.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases have arisen in the past two years in which persons approaching pensionable age have been incorrectly advised in writing by the Benefits Agency that their additional pension will be nil. [60485]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available.

  Winter Fuel
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the winter fuel payments advertising campaign. [46471]

  Mr. McCartney
  This year's Winter Fuel Payment advertising campaign has closely mirrored campaigns from previous years which gave people two routes for claiming; a Helpline and a claim form on press adverts. During the press advertising the Department gathered information from people who rang the Winter Fuel Payment Helpline to find out where they had found out about the Helpline.

  As of 15 March 2002, 278,643 claim forms had been issued from the Helpline of which 217,678 had been returned along with 4,494 Internet forms. The Helpline had also received 22,915 coupons in response to national press advertising.

  Targeting Fraud Website
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many hits the Targeting Fraud website has received; how many cases of suspected fraud have been reported to the website; how many of these suspected cases have been investigated; how many of them have led to a successful prosecution; and how many of them have led to a custodial sentence. [56418]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The website is only one part of the Targeting Fraud advertising campaign, just as prosecution is only one way of punishing fraudsters. The campaign is succeeding in raising awareness of benefit fraud and reinforcing the message that committing fraud is wrong.

  The available information is in the table.

  Targeting fraud website from 7 May 2000 to 31 March 2002

  Number of hits

  11,653,514

  Number of cases of suspected fraud reported

  11,802

  Number of cases accepted for action by investigation staff

  2,734

  Number of resulting investigations completed

  673

  Number of resulting benefit rate changes

  2180

  Number of prosecutions so far

  4

  Number of resulting custodial sentences

  3n/a

  1The figure is for the number of hits to 30 March 2002. The number of hits is recorded on a weekly basis and cannot be broken down further.

  2Figures 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 the Targeting Fraud Website.

  Source:

  Internet Team, DWP Communications and Fraud Information By Sector system.

  Rent Service
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 79W, on the Rent Service, if he will call for a report from the Rent Service on the basis of its estimate of the likely increase in the number of localities following the Court of Appeal judgment on local reference rent restrictions in Stockport; and if he will publish the report. [56540]
  674W
  Malcolm Wicks
  To commission a report would place an unnecessary administrative burden on the Rent Service.

  Grants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which organisations and outside bodies which were in receipt of grant in 1997–98 are no longer; what the annual saving is(a) individually and (b) in aggregate; which organisations and outside bodies which were not in receipt of grant in 1997–98 now are; and what the annual cost is (i) individually and (ii) in aggregate. [62044]

  Mr. McCartney
  The organisations and outside bodies currently receiving grants from the Department for Work and Pensions are the same as those receiving grants from the constituent parts of the Department during 1997–98.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he(a) suspended and (b) plans to reinstate the CSA deferred debt scheme; and if he will make a statement. [61999]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Section 27(5) of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 means that no new Temporary Compensation Payment agreements may be entered into after 31 March 2002. Regulations under section 27(9) of the Act to revive the scheme have been laid before the House today.

  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he plans to allow the Child Support Agency the power of surveillance in tackling fraud; and if he will make a statement. [63693]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Child Support Agency has wide information gathering powers, including being able to require that employers and accountants provide them with relevant information.

  These powers have been buttressed by the creation, in section 13 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, of two new criminal offences, of failing to give information and of knowingly giving false information. These offences carry fines of up to £1.000. The provision has been in force since January 2001.

  Ministers have therefore taken the view that the Child Support Agency need not use the powers granted to the Department by its inclusion, as a relevant public authority for the purposes of sections 28 and 29 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, in Schedule 1 of that Act. An important additional factor in that decision is that surveillance is intensely resource-intensive and diversion of resources into such activity cannot be justified when the Agency's focus must be on implementation of the new child support scheme. The position on the use of surveillance is kept under review.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost was of the Department's 2001 staff Christmas party; and how many people attended. [61666]
  675W
  Mr. McCartney
  The Department for Work and Pensions does not hold an official staff Christmas party, nor does it provide funding for individual staff Christmas parties within its organisation.

  Second State Pension
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he has taken to publicise the second state pension to carers. [62385]

  Mr. McCartney
  Most people will automatically benefit from the state second pension without having to do anything new or different. Our publicity activity therefore focuses on the groups who may not automatically start building up state second pension and may need to take appropriate action, primarily carers and parents.

  We have produced information both on our website and as a leaflet to inform these two groups about the state second pension and to outline any action they may need to take to build up entitlement. We are also currently conducting promotional activity for carers and parents about state second pension, which includes press advertising in national and local press and relevant magazines and direct mail to relevant advisory organisations.

  We anticipate carrying out further promotional activity in the future to continue to ensure that people are aware of the action they need to take to benefit from the availability of the state second pension.

  Vaccine Damage Payments
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the target date is for the implementation of the new rules on vaccine damage payments. [62605]

  Maria Eagle
  The Regulatory Reform (Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979) Order 2002, which introduces the new rules on Vaccine Damage Payments, came into force on 16 June 2002.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average time taken by each local authority in England and Scotland to process new housing benefit applications was in the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [63692]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Under Best Value, we have set a range of performance indicators for Housing Benefit which are designed to ensure that authorities provide their communities with a faster, more accurate service which is more secure against fraud, and which provides value for money and takes account of the views and needs of clients. Authorities are required to set challenging local targets against the indicators and, from April 2002, have been set aspirational targets for speed of processing.

  The first full year in which data was collected on the performance of local authorities against Best Value performance indicators was 2000–01. Information on the average time taken by each local authority in England to process new Housing Benefit claims for 2000–01 has been placed in the Library.
  676W
  Information on the average time taken by each local authority in Scotland to process new Housing Benefit claims for 2000–01 is in the Accounts Commission publication "Performance Indicators 2000–01: Benefits, Finance and Corporate Issues", a copy of which is available in the Library.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial aid she estimates infrastructure reconstruction projects in Afghanistan still require. [61761]

  Clare Short
  The preliminary needs assessment that was prepared for the Tokyo conference estimated, under a low case scenario, that Afghanistan's funding requirements over the next five years would be $8.3 billion, excluding humanitarian inputs. It is doubtful whether Afghanistan will have the capacity to absorb this amount in the short term: our estimate is that a total of $1 billion per annum will be required for a combination of humanitarian, recovery and reconstruction activities. Provided donors deliver on the pledges made at Tokyo, sufficient funds should be available.

  Southern Africa
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether she has discussed the famine in southern Africa with CDC Capital Partners. [62425]

  Clare Short
  CDC is not involved in famine relief.

  Urban Slums
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent projects her Department has undertaken to reduce the number of people living in urban slums in developing countries. [63512]

  Clare Short
  Increasingly we are providing assistance to developing countries through Direct Budget Support to enable developing country Governments to take forward their own priorities under their Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) agreed with the international community. All PRSPs include a section on addressing urban poverty issues.

  In addition in India, for example, we have supported the Government of Andhra Pradesh in their programme for urban services for the poor. This programme works at a policy level with the 32 class 1 municipalities in the state, and provides support to encourage investments in upgrading slum areas. This experience has also been taken into account with new work on urban poverty reduction in Kolkata (Calcutta) and in Kenya and Jamaica where DFID has supported work to help local organisation of the urban poor initiate improvements in the living conditions of the urban poor.

  In addition, we are directly supporting the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) in their work to provide guidance and best practice advice to developing countries in reducing the numbers of people living in slum conditions and are working with the

  677W
  collaborative UN Urban Management Programme. The latter provides working examples of improved practice at the local government level.

  We are also collaborating globally with 17 other partners, including all G7 members, in the Cities Alliance which has the overall objective of "Cities Without Slums". In practical terms, we have helped them develop the Community-led Infrastructure Finance Facility which will provide better access of local community groups to local bank funding of their own projects. This is seen as a long-term process for people to take command of their own improvements in living conditions.

  Water Conservation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent projects her Department has undertaken to support water conservation projects in developing countries. [63510]

  Clare Short
  The term water conservation may refer to increasing storage of water resources, greater efficiency in the use of water resources, or to the conservation of valuable aquatic ecosystems. DFID has supported a substantial number of activities seeking to address all of these. The number is too great to list here, but the projects and programmes set out give an illustration of the type of engagement DFID are undertaking:
  Increasing storage of water resources

  Current projects include:

  Sustainable management of West Bank and Gaza aquifers

  Augmenting groundwater resources by artificial recharge

  Community management of groundwater resources

  Guidelines for implementing environmental flows.

  Greater efficiency in the use of water

  DFID has funded many research projects looking at ways in which the water efficiency in irrigation can be improved and has encouraged Governments to take up the results. These include:

  Raising irrigation productivity and releasing water for inter-sectoral needs.

  Improving community spate irrigation systems

  Improved irrigation in peri-urban areas.

  Conservation of aquatic ecosystems

  Examples of DFID support include the Uganda Lake Management project and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Water and Nature Initiative, particularly the elements looking at wetland economics and ecosystem based livelihoods.

  DFID is also directly supporting developing countries in preparing and implementing comprehensive policies and strategies for integrated water resource management. To have these strategies in the process of implementation by 2005 is one of the internationally agreed targets to which DFID is committed.

  DFID is also supporting a number of global initiatives that are promoting water conservation in all its interpretations. These include the Global Water Partnership, the International Hydrological Programme, the World Commission for Dams (and the subsequent Dams for Development Unit), Water for Food and Nature Dialogue and the International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage.
  678W
  Monitoring of water conservation activities and consequences is also supported through agencies such as the World Water Assessment Programme and the Joint Monitoring Programme of WHO and Unicef, both of which DFID contribute to.

  Agricultural Irrigation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is on the subsidy of freshwater extraction for use in agricultural irrigation. [63511]

  Clare Short
  For all water uses, the Department for International Development is fully committed to the Dublin Principles (from the International Conference on Water and the Environment in Dublin in 1992) that (i) fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and the environment, and (ii) water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be regarded as an economic good. DFID are also committed to Agenda 21 (which was prepared at the Earth summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992) which provides that water resources must be managed for sustainable food production and development.

  Experience shows that management autonomy, adequate financial resources and tariffs that provide an acceptable return are all important for success improving efficiency in water use and in sustainable management of water resources.

  DFID policy is that water users should pay the full economic cost of providing water, while at the same time ensuring that there is equity in access to water. Users should pay for the level of service provided, but with scope for subsidies to lower volume users.

DEFENCE

  ISAF (Afghanistan)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial support will be given to Turkey in taking over the leadership of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [43007]

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial support the Turkish Government will receive in respect of their leadership of ISAF; what proportion of this cost will be borne by the UK Government; and which Government Department will bear the cost. [50052]

  Mr. Hoon
  The US Administration has submitted a request to Congress for a significant amount of funding for Turkey's leadership of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Approval is still awaited for this. Any questions on this subject should be directed to the US themselves. The United Kingdom will not be giving any financial assistance, but has agreed to leave in Afghanistan for use by ISAF some computer and communications equipment and a fire engine.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the UK will relinquish the leadership of the International Security Assistance Force. [43529]
  679W
  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom formally relinquished the leadership of the International Security Assistance Force on 20 June 2002.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what date has been set for the transfer of the leadership of ISAF from the UK to Turkey; how many UK forces will stay in Afghanistan after this transfer; and if he will make a statement. [62895]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement on operations in Afghanistan that I made in the House on 20 June 2002,Official Report, columns 407–21.

  Monthly Manning State
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of the latest Monthly Manning State in the Library; and if he will make it his policy to place each new edition in the Library immediately it is printed each month. [57636]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to Tri-Service Publication UK Regular Forces Strengths and Changes and Tri-Service Publication 3: UK Armed Forces Strengths and Requirements. These are both available in the Library of the House and are updated on a monthly basis.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much and what proportion of the departmental expenditure limit for 2002–03 will be accounted for by staff costs; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [61021]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 2002–03 staff for service and civilian personnel costs are planned to be £9.777 billion. This is some 40 per cent. of the budgeted Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) of £24.597 billion provided for in the Main Supply Estimates (Cm 5510).

  In 2001–02 the provisional outturn is £9.377 billion which represents some 38 per cent. of the DEL agreed at Spring Supplementary Estimates of £24.690 billion. In Main Estimates 2001–02 (Cm 5109) staff costs were planned to be £9.533 billion within a total of £23.770 billion, some 40 per cent.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what ethnic monitoring is conducted by the Army. [63199]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Army monitors its equal opportunities climate through the use of both quantitative and qualitative data. It is currently looking at recruitment progress of ethnic minority personnel in relation to their non-ethnic counterparts and the representation of ethnic minorities in the Army. In addition, the armed forces are currently undertaking a full re-survey of the ethnic origin of all personnel in line with the revised categories contained in the 2001 census.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of soldiers in each of the guards regiments are members of an ethnic minority. [63214]
  680W
  Mr. Ingram
  The data detailed represents the proportion of soldiers, trained and untrained, in each of the Guards Regiments that have been recorded as members of an ethnic minority. Due to the current ethnic re-categorisation survey being undertaken within the Ministry of Defence the figures are as at 1 October 2001, which is the latest available data.

  Regiments

  Percentage

  Grenadier Guards

  3.0

  Coldstream Guards

  0.8

  Scots Guard

  1.3

  Irish Guards

  3.3

  Welsh Guards

  1.3

  Total

  1.9

  The figure does not include those with unspecified ethnic origin. Guards in an unspecified regiment have not been included.

  Colchester Garrison
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the original estimate was for(a) the gross cost and (b) the consequent annual rental in respect of the redevelopment of the Colchester Garrison; and what his latest estimate is in each case. [63351]

  Mr. Ingram
  The detailed figures are commercial in confidence, and at this stage I am therefore withholding the information under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the key milestones for the public finance initiative in respect of the re-development of the Colchester Garrison, stating the(a) given, (b) 90 per cent. and (c) 50 per cent. probable timetable in each case. [63352]

  Mr. Ingram
  On current plans, the project should reach financial close by October 2004. A risk programme with percentages is still subject to negotiation with RMPA Services.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers are living in temporary accommodation at Colchester Garrison; and when new single living accommodation will be available to replace the temporary accommodation. [63353]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are some 130 soldiers living in temporary accommodation in Colchester Garrison. Under the private finance initiative, some single living accommodation would be available, on current plans, in mid-2007, and the remainder in 2009. We are investigating whether there is any scope for bringing forward these dates.

  Sikhs
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Sikhs are serving in the armed forces. [63614]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: There are currently 63 regular armed forces personnel who have recorded their religion as Sikh.

  Ordnance (Kenya)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 24 April 2002,Official Report, column 263W, on ordnance (Kenya), when he expects the information described to be made available. [63758]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: I hope to be in a position to provide the information before the summer recess.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Scottish HQs
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many global companies have headquarters in Scotland. [59377]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is not possible to provide this information from the Register of Companies.

  All limited companies with a registered office in Scotland are registered at Companies House in Edinburgh. The register does not hold separate information on the global or national nature of the company. Companies who are not protected by limited liability do not have to register at all.

  Arms Exports
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what level of debt to the Export Credits Guarantee Department as a result of arms sales(a) was created in each of the last five years and (b) remains unpaid for each of the last five years. [62039]

  Ms Hewitt
  The table indicates ECGD claims payments in respect of exports of defence equipment in the last five years for which audited figures are available. Most of these claims have been rescheduled through the Paris Club, thus deferring the debtor country's obligations.

  Year/market

  Claims payments (£000)

  Recovery status

  1996

  Algeria

  28,295

  Rescheduled in Paris Club

  Egypt

  6,565

  Rescheduled in Paris Club

  Jordan

  14,865

  Rescheduled in Paris Club

  Kenya

  2

  Rescheduled in Paris Club

  1997

  Algeria

  12,585

  Rescheduled in Paris Club

  Egypt

  1,402

  Rescheduled in Paris Club

  Jordan

  24,742

  Rescheduled in Pans Club

  Kenya

  48

  Rescheduled in Paris Club

  1998

  Indonesia

  20,899

  Rescheduled in Paris Club

  Jordan

  10,141

  Rescheduled in Pans Club

  Kenya

  14

  Rescheduled in Paris Club

  1999

  Indonesia

  151,216

  Rescheduled in Paris Club

  Zimbabwe

  973

  Recovered in full

  2000

  Indonesia

  180,169

  Rescheduled in Paris Club

  Zimbabwe

  890

  Awaiting recovery

  682W
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the level was of export credit guarantee coverage for arms sales in each of the last five years. [62038]

  Ms Hewitt
  According to ECGD's last five published annual report and accounts, guarantees in support of exports of defence equipment were provided for the following amounts:

  Year

  £ billion

  1996–97

  0.37

  1997–98

  0.76

  1998–99

  1.7

  1999–2000

  1.58

  2000–01

  2.73

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria are used in the granting of the right to sub-post offices to issue vehicle licences where there is strong local demand. [62797]

  Mr. Timms
  Acting as an agent, Post Office Ltd. is dependent on the level of service required through post offices by the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency. I am informed by Post Office Ltd. that criteria used to place the motor vehicle licensing (MVL) facility include availability of office space, car parking, local customer demand and the need to maintain a geographical spread. Currently 4,091 offices offer MVL services.

  Current figures also indicate that 90 per cent. of people are within one mile of a post office which offers these MVL services.

  Architectural Businesses
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what help is provided to small and medium sized architectural businesses to facilitate their involvement in(a) Government funded building projects and (b) urban regeneration projects; [62789]

  (2) what assistance is given to small and medium sized architectural businesses to enable them to make successful bids for urban regeneration funded projects. [62788]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department of Trade and Industry is working with the construction industry (including architects) to promote and embed the principles of rethinking construction. This initiative emphasises the need to integrate the construction team (including suppliers, contractors, professional advisers and clients) in order to deliver a high quality product that adds value to the client's activities. As part of this initiative, the Department has helped to fund the development of Design Quality Indicators which provide a means to assess the quality of a design as seen by architects, suppliers, clients and end users. These indicators will be launched jointly by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) and the Construction Industry Council on 8 July. I, along with my Ministerial Design Champion colleagues, have also committed to the production of action plans to ensure that construction
  683W
  projects taken forward by this Department adhere to the principles of rethinking construction and take fully into account the need for high quality design.

  The Department is also working very closely with CABE to promote understanding within both the public and private sector of how fundamental good design is both to the delivery of value for money and to the delivery of buildings which add to the quality of life of those using the building or living in the community around it. CABE undertakes a wide range of activities to encourage and facilitate improved design that are aimed at architects, suppliers and clients. These include: grants to develop and maintain architecture centres throughout the UK which provide a source of expertise and advice for both architects and clients; provision of training for both architects and clients to improve skills and improve understanding by clients of the sort of service they need from architects; design competitions to encourage small and new practices to develop projects and to showcase their skills; and the development of a digital website to showcase regeneration projects and projects covering a variety of different types of public buildings both to provide advice on how to deliver a good project and also to showcase the talents of architects.

  The Office of Government Commerce, with CABE, has met with the Royal Institute of British Architects to discuss the issue of access of small and medium sized architectural firms to Government contracts. This dialogue is ongoing. In addition, CABE is working with individual Government Departments to promote a diversity of design firms on specific projects, most recently with the Department for Education and Skills on Neighbourhood Nurseries and SureStart.

  Broadband Access
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what financial assistance has been provided to(a) local authorities and (b) regional development agencies to encourage internet service providers to roll out broadband internet facilities to villages and small towns throughout the United Kingdom; [62100]

  (2) what incentives are offered by her Department to encourage internet service providers to roll out broadband technology facilities to villages and small towns throughout the United Kingdom. [62099]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: The Government have made available a £30 million fund to help the Regional Development Agencies and devolved Administrations develop innovative schemes to extend broadband networks.

  The Government's broadband strategy was set out in the UK Online annual report, and included measures to maximise competition in the broadband market and facilitate easy access to broadband services.

  Structural Funds can also be used for broadband access projects provided they meet the criteria set out in the Single Programming Documents agreed with the Commission for each English region and the devolved Administrations.

  Export Finance (Energy Production)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 978W, on export finance, if she will list (a) the project name, (b) the country location, (c) the capacity in MW, (d) the estimated carbon emissions and (e) the value of the loan guaranteed for the seven coal-fired power stations for which the ECGD has provided Overseas Investment Insurance and other insurance. [63324]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is ECGD policy not to publish details of cases involving Overseas Investment Insurance or other insurance facilities. This is to protect ECGD's own operations as there is a risk that knowledge by the buyer of the presence of export related insurance may increase the risk of action that may lead to a claim being paid. Details of insurance are also commercially sensitive on the part of the UK exporter or investor, as the presence of investment or export related insurance may harm their relationship with their buyer, local partner or the host Government. The same sensitivities do not apply so much to ECGD's guarantee or finance facilities as by nature these are usually more complex products and all parties will generally be aware of the presence of ECGD support. This approach is consistent with that adopted by export credit agencies in other countries.

  According to information already published the insurance cases in respect of seven coal-fired power stations involved a total capacity of 4,960 MW and annual CO2 emissions of approximately 17.9 million tonnes per year.

  Coal Plant (Philippines)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the ECGD has received(a) an application for support and (b) an expression of interest from UK firms for possible ECGD support regarding the proposed coal plant at Pulupandan in Negros Occidental, the Philippines. [63197]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD has no record of any applications for support or any expressions of interest from UK firms in relation to this project.

  Energy Consumption
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary State for Trade and Industry what the estimated level of energy consumption was per square metre within the UK in(a) commercial, (b) retail and (c) Government offices in each year since 1997. [63374]

  Mr. Wilson
  Figures are as shown in the table.

  Gigajoules per square metre per year

  Energy consumption

  1997

  2000

  Commercial offices

  0.88

  0.91

  Retail sector

  1.00

  0.98

  Government sector

  1.09

  1.05

  These figures are from the Building Research Establishment (BRE). Figures for 2000 were published in BRE's Report "Carbon Dioxide Emissions from non-Domestic Buildings: 2000 and beyond". Comparable figures are not available for 1998 and 1999.

  World Trade
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her answer of 26 February 2002,Official Report, column 1129W, on the WTO, if she will make a statement on progress with measures to make the WTO more transparent and open and its rules easier to understand, including details of measures proposed by the UK Government. [63440]

  Ms Hewitt
  On 14 May 2002—after four years of negotiation—WTO members agreed improved procedures for the circulation and derestriction of WTO documents. This marks an important step forward in making its operations more transparent.

  The UK Government supported moves towards even greater relaxation of the rules on restricting documents, but some other WTO members, not least from developing countries, remain concerned about the implications for their negotiating positions within the organisation and the practicalities for smaller delegations.

  The UK Government believes that greater transparency and openness both within the WTO and with Civil Society—while preserving the Inter-governmental nature of the organisation—can only bring benefits in strengthening and explaining the system of multi-lateral trade rules.

  The UK also actively supports measures to improve the ability of developing countries to participate fully in the WTO negotiations and, more generally their capacity to understand and implement WTO rules. The 2000 White Paper on International Development "Eliminating World Poverty—Making Globalisation Work for the Poor", commits the UK to providing £45 million of support to Trade Related Technical Assistance and Capacity Building in 1998–2003. To date £37.8 million of this has been formally committed.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the annual cost to developing countries of TRIPS. [63426]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has made no specific assessment of the annual cost of developing countries of TRIPS.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Telecommunications Council held on 18 June; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including their voting record; and if she will make a statement. [63600]

  Mr. Timms
  I represented the UK at the Telecommunications Council in Luxembourg on 18 June.

  There was a policy debate on the Commission's eEurope 2005 Action Plan. The presidency forwarded conclusions to the Seville European Council on 21–22 June. The Commission emphasised the potential economic and social benefits of widespread access to interactive information society services, and the adaptability of the Action Plan to the needs of an enlarged EU in due course. The Commission also stressed the importance of content development, and parallel work to make the information society accessible to the disabled. I spoke in support of the
  686W
  Action Plan's dual focus on markets for broadband access, as well as on the demand for applications, content and service provision, and asked the council to signal its full commitment to the Action Plan.

  On the reform of ICANN, the private sector company based in the United States that manages the internet domain name system, there was unanimous agreement among member states that ICANN's role should be limited to core technical functions and that the role of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) should be strengthened and internationalised to ensure that public policy issues remain the concern primarily of the GAC rather than ICANN. The negotiating remit agreed by member states earlier this month under COREPER's mandate from the March Telecommunications Council will be used by the Commission in the continuing ICANN reform negotiations at Bucharest later this month and in Shanghai in October.

  The council reached political agreements on two proposed Decisions on the Interchange of Data between Administrations (IDA) and adopted a Decision on telecoms Trans European Networks (TENs) without the need for a vote. There was also an agreement on a general approach to the extension of the Safer Internet Action Plan, now known as eSafe, on which the presidency will now try to pursue a first reading deal with the European Parliament. The council also agreed conclusions on the new internet protocol IPv6.

  The Commission gave a presentation on the state of play on the Commission instruments needed to complete the new communications package: significant market power (SMP) guidelines are likely to be adopted in June; a public consultation on the Commission's recommendation on relevant markets has been launched, and is expected to be adopted in September; decisions establishing a European Regulators Group and Radio Spectrum Policy Group are expected in June; a Commission directive on competition in telecoms markets is expected before the summer.

  There were presentations from the Commission on its proposal for a directive on the re-use and commercial exploitation of public sector information, and on its 11 June 2002 communication on the roll-out of third generation mobile access and services. The Commission also gave short presentations on the Eutelsat privatisation process, and on open platforms for digital television and 3G mobile on which a Communication is expected at the end of this year.

  Pension Transfers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on pension transfers from the public sector with specific reference to the ECJ Beckmann case. [62995]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 June 2002]: The Government are currently giving consideration to the decision in the case of Katia Beckman and Dynamco Whicheloe Macfarlane Ltd. delivered by the ECJ on 4 June 2002 in the context of other revisions to the TUPE Regulations following the consultation exercise undertaken at the end of last year.
  687W
  The outcome of the consultation and decisions taken in the light of the responses received will be announced in due course.

  Industrial Diseases Compensation
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress being made by the coal health claim with claims for compensation for(a) pneumoconiosis and (b) other non-smoking-related respiratory diseases. [64220]

  Mr. Wilson
  Claims for pneumoconiosis are made under a British Coal scheme which commenced in 1974, for which the Department assumed responsibility in April 1998. Under the scheme nearly 87,000 claims have been received. The majority of claims have been settled by way of one-off payments. In some cases, where a claimant is in receipt of reduced earnings allowance and/or incapacity benefit from the DWP, claimants also receive a weekly loss of earnings payment.

  With regards to other non-smoking-related respiratory diseases, such as asbestosis, these claims are handled on a claim by claim personal injury basis by the Department's claims handling agents, IRISC.

  Military Exports
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what military supplies have been delivered to(a) India and (b) Pakistan in the last two months. [63344]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 20 June 2002]: I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) of 18 March 2002, Official Report, column 54W.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what applications for export licences for arms to(a) India and (b) Pakistan have been turned down in the last two months. [63345]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 20 June 2002]: Between 1 April 2002 and 31 May 2002 the Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation (ECO) refused two Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) applications to end users in India, and four SIEL applications to end users in Pakistan covering items on the Military List.

  Energy Strategy Unit
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which advisory experts from the engineering and scientific community are attached to the Energy Strategy Unit. [60048]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 17 June 2002, Official Report, column 27W.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the EU Scientific Committee on cosmetic products and non-food products intended for consumers 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 688W
  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. [63638]

  Ms Hewitt
  The EU Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products intended for Consumers (SCCNFP) was set up to consider scientific and technical questions concerning consumer health relating to cosmetic products and non-food products intended for the consumer, especially substances used in the preparation of these products, their composition and use, as well as their types of packaging. The UK is represented on the committee by Ian White, Consultant Dermatologist at St. Thomas' Hospital, London. The SCCNFP met approximately 30 times in the last year and the European Commission funds their work. The main focus of the committee's work of late has been consideration of the use of ingredients in cosmetics particularly hair dye ingredients.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the mandate of the Scientific Committee for Occupational Exposure Limits to Chemical Agents 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. [61724]

  Mr. Darling
  I have been asked to reply.

  The purpose of the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL) is to provide scientific advice to the European Commission (EC) to underpin regulatory proposals on exposure limits for chemicals in the work place, within the framework of the Chemical Agents Directive 98/24/EC (CAD) or the Carcinogens at Work Directive 90/394/EEC. Its mandate is to examine available information on toxicological and other relevant properties of chemical agents, evaluate the relationship between the health effects of the agents and the level of occupational exposure, and where possible recommended values for occupational exposure limits which it believes will protect workers from chemical risks.

  SCOEL has met four times in the past year.

  The EC invites the UK Government to nominate two members for the Committee. All SCOEL members act as independent scientific experts, not as representatives of their national Governments. The current UK nominees are a Senior Toxicologist at the Medical Research Council Institute for Environment and Health, and the head of the Industrial Chemicals Unit, Health and Safety Executive.

  Travel and subsistence costs incurred by SCOEL members are met by the EC. The estimated annual costs for staff time attending meetings and preparatory work are £20,000.

  There are 32 chemical substances currently under consideration by SCOEL. These are:

  acetic acid

  acrylaldehyde

  acrylonitrile

  1,3-butadiene

  2(2-butoxyethoxy)ethanol

  689W

  carbon disulphide

  chlorobenzene

  chromium, hexavalant

  cresols

  crystalline silica

  cyanamide

  cyclohexane

  diethylamine

  lead

  man-made mineral fibres

  mercury and its inorganic divalent compounds

  2(2-methoxyethoxy)ethanol

  methyenedianiline

  naphthalene

  nickel and nickel compounds

  nitrobenzene

  nitrogen monoxide

  nonylphenol

  phenol

  picric acid

  pyridine

  pyrethrum

  sulphuric acid

  tin compounds

  vinyl chloride

  white spirit

  wood dusts.

  The work of SCOEL is reported regularly to the Working Group on European Exposure Limits, a sub-committee of the Advisory Committee on Toxic Substances, which is one of the topic committees advising the Health and Safety Commission. All these committees include representatives of employers, employees, other stakeholding interests and independent experts.

  The EC uses the scientific advice from SCOEL to make proposals for occupational exposure limits. Limits based solely on scientific considerations are considered as adaptations to technical progress, and are incorporated in proposals for Commission directives within the framework of CAD. Limits that take account also of socio-economic factors are included in proposals for Council directives amending CAD or the Carcinogens at Work Directive. Such proposals are referred to the two Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  UK Nationals Detained Abroad
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK nationals are (i) being detained, post conviction and (ii) awaiting trial in(a) Egypt, (b) Jordan, (c) Lebanon, (d) Syria, (e) Turkey, (f) Iraq, (g) Iran, (h) Israel, (i) Algeria, (j) Morocco, (k) Libya, (1) Tunisia, (m) Pakistan, (n) Nigeria, (o) Sudan, (p) Ethiopia, (q) Saudi Arabia, (r) Oman, (s) Yemen, (t) Kuwait and (u) UAE. [63539]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: The following table gives details of British nationals detained overseas in the countries referred to. As legal
  690W
  systems differ considerably around the world, we have interpreted the 'pre-conviction' cases as those that are generally still subject to the initial local legal procedure. This includes, for example, all detainees on remand, those currently undergoing trial and those whose trials have finished but where sentences have not yet been passed.

  Country

  Number of British nationals in detention pre-conviction

  Number of British nationals in detention, serving prison sentences

  Egypt

  5

  1

  Jordan

  0

  0

  Lebanon

  1

  0

  Syria

  1

  0

  Turkey

  1

  1

  Iraq

  0

  0

  Iran

  0

  0

  Israel

  2

  1

  Algeria

  0

  0

  Morocco

  0

  11

  Libya

  0

  0

  Tunisia

  0

  0

  Pakistan

  3

  2

  Nigeria

  1

  0

  Sudan

  0

  0

  Ethiopia

  2

  0

  Saudi Arabia

  7

  3

  Oman

  2

  1

  Yemen

  0

  4

  Kuwait

  0

  1

  UAE

  8

  13

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK nationals are (i) in detention awaiting trial and (ii) serving prison sentences in(a) India, (b) Burma, (c) Malaysia, (d) Singapore, (e) Indonesia, (f) China, (g) Vietnam, (h) Laos, (i) Thailand, (j) Cambodia, (k) the Philippines and (I) Papua New Guinea. [63541]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 21 June 2002 J: The following table gives details of those British nationals detained overseas in the above countries. As legal systems differ considerably around the world, we have interpreted the 'pre-conviction' cases as those that are generally still subject to the initial local legal procedure. This includes, for example, detainees on remand, those currently undergoing trial and those whose trials have finished but where sentences have not yet passed.

  Country

  Number of British nationals in detention pre-conviction

  Number of British nationals in detention, serving prison sentences

  India

  12

  10

  Burma

  0

  0

  Malaysia

  0

  2

  Singapore

  0

  9

  Indonesia

  4

  4

  China

  0

  1

  Vietnam

  0

  1

  Laos

  0

  0

  Thailand

  9

  117

  Cambodia

  0

  1

  Philippines

  0

  217

  Papua New Guinea

  0

  0

  1 five detained awaiting deportation

  2 three detained awaiting deportation

  691W
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on giving assistance and representation to UK nationals detained abroad, before and after trial. [635441

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, HMG's consuls will be informed of the detention of a British national by the detaining authorities, if that person requests it. On being informed, the Consul will contact the detainee as soon as possible and if necessary follow this with a visit. One of the Consul's main duties is to ensure that the detainee has legal representation; the Consul can provide the detainee with a list of English speaking local lawyers. The Consul will do whatever he can to ensure that the welfare of the detainee is adequately provided for, that his human rights are respected and that he is not discriminated against because he is a foreigner. He will also raise any specific medical needs with the detaining authorities.

  Consuls visit convicted prisoners at least once a year, and more regularly if prison conditions are poor or if we have particular concerns about a prisoner. The Consul will continue to provide the same support as pre-trial. Furthermore, if we have concerns about a prisoner's health or are concerned that he did not receive a fair trial, we will consider making representations on his behalf or ultimately supporting a plea for clemency. We would look to our panels of pro bono doctors and lawyers to assist in such instances.

  UK Nationals Killed Abroad
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK nationals were unlawfully killed in(a) India, (b) Burma, (c) Malaysia, (d) Singapore, (e) Indonesia, (f) China, (g) Vietnam, (h) Laos, (i) Thailand, (j) Cambodia, (k) the Philippines and (/) Papua New Guinea during the period I May 2000 to I May 2002. [63540]

  Mr. Straw
  (holding answer 21 June 2002]: Our consular records show that the number of UK nationals reported as unlawfully killed in the following countries during the period 1 May 2000 to 1 May 2002 were:

  (a) India 7

  (b) Burma 0

  (c) Malaysia 1

  (d) Singapore 0

  (e) Indonesia 1

  (f) China 1

  (g) Vietnam 0

  (h) Laos 0

  (i) Thailand 10

  (j) Cambodia 0

  (k) Philippines 2

  (1) Papua New Guinea 1.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he pressed for the extension of the travel ban list of Zimbabweans supporting President Mugabe's regime at the recent GAC meeting of 17 to 18 June. [635431]
  692W
  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 21 June. 2002]: The principal objective at the 17 June Council was to review the EU high-level Troika visit to the SADC region from 20 to 22 May. In its conclusions, the Council expressed its continued concern at the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. The Council will review the targeted measures against Zimbabwe at its meeting on 22 July.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he has made to the Zimbabwean Government concerning surveillance and the British High Commissioner in Harare. [63652]

  Mr. Straw
  The British High Commission has asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Harare for assurances that they do not share the views expressed in the official Zimbabwean press on this matter, and that British High Commission staff will continue to enjoy the full protection to which they are entitled. We are awaiting a response.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British High Commission staff based in Harare are entitled to diplomatic immunity. [63651]

  Mr. Straw
  Fourteen UK-based members of staff at the British High Commission and seven members of the DOD Central Africa office in Harare, and their resident spouses, are entitled to diplomatic immunity.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department has taken to increase security(a) at the British High Commission and (b) for High Commission staff based in Harare. [63650]

  Mr. Straw
  Security of High Commission staff and the High Commission itself is kept under regular and close review. It would not be appropriate for me to list individual measures taken in recent months.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 17 June,Official Report, column 5W, on the High Commission, Harare, which members of the Zimbabwean Government attended the Jubilee celebrations at the High Commission. [63653]

  Mr. Straw
  None.

  Arms Trade
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether permission was(a) sought and (b) given, by his Department for the re-export of MP5 submachine guns by MKEK (Turkey) to Indonesia in 1999. [61987]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No such permission has either been sought or given by my Department. A licence is not required from the British Government in order to export items from Turkey to Indonesia.

  Nelson Mandela
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings were held
  693W
  between Government officials and Nelson Mandela during his recent visit to the UK to see Mr. Abdul Bassett al-Megrahi. [63649]

  Mr. Straw
  Former President Nelson Mandela made a private visit to the UK on 9–10 June, during which time he visited Mr. Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi in Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow.

  Mr. Mandela met no Government officials other than the Governor of Barlinnie Prison and his staff, and the Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service.

  India/Pakistan
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evacuation plans there are for British nationals in India and Pakistan if hostilities break out. [61197]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding reply 13 June 2002]: We have contingency plans for India and Pakistan, as we do for more than 100 other countries. We keep these plans under constant review. We do not discuss the detail of these plans in public, as doing so may make their implementation more difficult.

  Mr. Ian Stillman
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has taken to assist Mr. Ian Stillman in India. [62620]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised Mr. Stillman's case with the Indian Home and Foreign Ministers on 29 May 2002 during his recent visit to India. He asked that Mr. Stillman's application for transfer to a prison in Chennai be considered favourably and quickly. He also raised our concern about a Supreme Court Judge's comments about the disabled, made in connection with Mr. Stillman's case, on 6 May 2002.

  Our High Commission in New Delhi continues to do all it can to ensure that the Indian authorities are meeting Mr. Stillman's welfare requirements adequately.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Coroners Courts
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his review of the workings of coroners courts. [29265]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 22 January 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 11 June 2002, Official Report, column 1242W.

  Data Protection
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to the criminal conviction certificates to be issued by the Criminal Records Bureau, whether he will issue advice to employers requesting access to such certificates of job applicants;694W
  whether he plans to extend the statutory Code of Practice which cover other certificates to the criminal conviction certificate;whether he has undertaken research into the impact of the certificate on recidivism; if he will describe the activities, other than employment and visa applications, where the criminal conviction certificate is likely to be used; and if he will make a statement. [59266]

  Hilary Benn
  While it is possible that uses will be perceived for them in other circumstances, criminal conviction certificates (or Basic Disclosures, as they will be termed) are essentially intended for the purpose of employment checks, and also in connection with visa applications (instead of the use of the right of subject access under the Data Protection Act 1998). It is essential that people are not unfairly discriminated against because of information revealed in Basic Disclosures that they have been convicted in the past—not least because getting and holding down a regular job is likely to be a positive factor in preventing re-offending. In this, we have taken careful note of the results of recent research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the National Institute for Economic and Social Research. The Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) will therefore be producing a range of advice urging employers to treat such information in a fair and reasonable manner. The CRB is also continuing to work closely with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and the National Association of Care and Resettlement of Offenders (Nacro) on the production of guidance for employers. The current provision on a statutory Code of Practice applies only to higher-level Disclosures. We shall consider making provision to cover Basic Disclosures when there is a suitable opportunity. Meanwhile, the CRB has been working on an equivalent "good practice guide".

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vehicles' details are recorded on the Police National Computer: what data categories describe these vehicles and what types of markers are used in connection with vehicles; and how many vehicles(a) carry a particular marker and (b) fall within a particular category. [59256]

  Mr. Denham
  As of 23 May 2002 the estimated number of vehicles registered on the Police National Computer (PNC) database was 50,444,691. The database includes information on the make of the car, the model code, the colour, body type and engine size.

  The PNC database stores information, which identifies each vehicle. For example there are four groups, which are used as types of markers, and the categories associated with these markers are as follows:

  Vehicle state markers

  Scrapped

  Notification of a total loss of a vehicle by an insurer (V23) marked as likely to be an insurance loss

  Statutory of Road Notification (SORN) is current Vehicle Excise Licence (VEL) expired

  VEL is void.

  Exceptional characteristics

  Foreign vehicle

  A direct export

  A personal export

  Diplomatic privilege

  A cherished transfer

  A permanently exported vehicle.

  695W

  Of interest

  Stolen

  Police eyes only

  Record query

  Driving Vehicle Licence Agency (DVLA)-related status

  Notified as Void by DVLA

  DVLA notified that keeper has changed by owner

  DVLA notified of a keeper has changed by police/local authority

  The vehicle is In Trade

  If the vehicle has not been registered at DVLA (i.e. a V5 registration document has not been issued for it).

  Statistics are not maintained on either markers or the number of vehicles in each category due to the dynamic nature of the database. In addition to the 'markers' above, vehicles held on the PNC have 'Police Interest' reports in the following categories: LOS (lost/stolen), FOU (found), INF (information), SEE (seen and checked), COR (correction), REM (removed), DES (destroyed).

  The number of vehicles with 'Police Interest' reports as at 23 May 2002 was 894,549.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date the backlog team set up by the Home Office Pay and Pensions Service will have dealt with all requests for pay details from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in respect of its employees and pensioners which were outstanding on 21 May. [59255]

  Hilary Benn
  Having checked through the backlog of cases currently being dealt with by Special Projects team, there are 12 pay queries relating to staff of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel (CICAP). We aim to have completed the work on these queries by the end of June, subject to Pay Service being able to access all information needed to resolve them.

  Asylum Accommodation
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision he plans to make for the education of children of staff employed at the proposed Throckmorton asylum accommodation centres. [59604]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 12 June 2002,Official Report, column 1307W.

  Identification Parades
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the policy is on the reimbursement of loss of earnings to witnesses taking time to attend identification parades; and whether that policy permits a degree of discretion. [48733]

  Mr. Denham
  This is an operational matter for police forces and no central guidance is issued. It is for the force to decide in the individual circumstances of the case whether to provide a witness attending an identity parade with compensation for loss of earnings. The increased use of video identification parades will help to minimise delays in the identification process and reduce burdens on witnesses' time.

  Extradition
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent requests have been made by foreign Governments of the UK Government for extradition of named individuals; and what Her Majesty's Government's response has been. [62014]

  Mr. Blunkett
  In the year to 31 March 2002, the United Kingdom received 1301 extradition requests. In the same period, the outcome2 of cases decided was as follows:

  Number

  Fugitives surrendered

  58

  Requests withdrawn

  25

  Fugitives discharged at court

  13

  Requests refused by Secretary of State

  35

  1 The number excludes requests governed by the backing of warrants regime in place as between the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland. Those figures are not collected centrally. The number also excludes requests made directly to Scottish Ministers.

  2 Outcomes in any given year do not necessarily correspond to the number of requests received.

  3 Those five requests were from countries with which the UK has no general extradition arrangements.

  Consideration of remaining request is continuing.

  Community Policing
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will define operational matters with regard to community policing; and what guidance he issues on community policing. [61621]

  Mr. Denham
  I have no current plans to define operational requirements or to issue any guidance in relation to community policing. Future priorities for guidance will be set out in the National Policy Plan, subject to parliamentary approval.

  The Government are determined to maximise the amount of time police officers spend in the community. We are taking steps in the Police Reform Bill to empower support staff to carry out those functions which prevent police officers from leaving the police station and we are encouraging Basic Command Unit Commanders to take innovative steps to increase the visibility of their officers. Also, the Policing Bureaucracy Taskforce, chaired by Sir David O'Dowd, is looking at how we can cut unnecessary bureaucracy in the police service.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 22 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Abdul Hamid Afzali; [61692]

  (2) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 23 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Azad Bakhat. [61679]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 20 June 2002.
  697W
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has sent to chief constables about administrative matters since 7 June 2001. [62199]

  Mr. Denham
  Since 7 June 2001, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has sent one letter about an administrative matter which was addressed to all chief constables.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last 12 months the requirement to engage in a competitive tendering process has been waived by his Department due to national security obligations under paragraph 6(h) of the supply regulations. [62819]

  Mr. Blunkett
  In the last 12 months the Home Department has waived the competitive tendering process due to national security obligations under the supply regulations on three occasions.

  Burglaries
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the proportion of retail premises which were burgled in(a) Essex and (b) England in the last 12 months. [62369]

  Mr. Denham
  The Home Department does not collect separate information about the number of burglaries in retail premises. The numbers of offences of burglary in non-residential properties (which include retail premises) recorded by the police in Essex and England for the 12 months ended 31 March 2001 are given in the table. Both numbers have fallen compared to the previous year.

  Non-residential burglaries

  Geographical area

  Number

  Percentage change from previous year

  Essex

  9,452

  —4

  England

  412,310

  —7

  The survey of crime affecting retailers and manufacturers announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 23 April will provide up to date information on crimes against retailers. The results are expected to be available next spring.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what security measures are being taken to prevent terrorists from(a) smuggling into the United Kingdom a dirty bomb and (b) detonating such a device. [62708]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 19 June 20021: Since the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, the Government have conducted a thorough comprehensive review of all preventative and protective measures to counter terrorism, including the possibilities to which my hon. Friend refers. We have built upon the plans which we have developed over a period of years for responding to a wide range of terrorist threats, including
  698W
  those which might involve the threatened or actual use of radiological or nuclear materials. For security reasons, it is not our policy to disclose details of these plans.

  Additional resources that I announced following the Budget on 17 April 2002 have assisted in expanding the scope and effectiveness of these measures.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parades Commission
  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make an announcement on the Parades Commission's annual report. [64440]

  Dr. John Reid
  The Parades Commission's fourth annual report, covering the operation of the commission over the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002, was published on 20 June. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Car Crime
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by what means he monitors joyriding as a specific aspect of vehicle crime; what recent studies have been conducted on the perpetrators of this crime; and how many(a) arrests and (b) prosecutions have been effected over the last 12 month period for which figures are available. [60853]

  Jane Kennedy
  The PSNI considers the term "joyriders" an inappropriate one to describe car thieves. The terms that best describe the activities of car thieves are: "casual car theft"—where the opportunist criminal is casual about the car that they are intending to take, and will take any vehicle which is found to be vulnerable; "professional car theft"—where the organised criminal targets a specific make, model, specification and colour of car or possibly a specific car.

  Casual car crime is not monitored as a specific aspect of vehicle crime.

  There is a growing understanding that many cars are not stolen but are in fact "runabouts". A "runabout" is an old vehicle, without current licence, normally uninsured, which has changed ownership several times since the last notification to DVLNI. These vehicles offer significantly less risk to drivers than the use of stolen vehicles, and it appears that many of the vehicles being used by "casual car thieves" are not stolen, but are "runabouts".

  Concerned about the uses to which "runabouts" are put, the PSNI, from 19 March to 16 June 2002, undertook an operation known as "Clean Up". A substantial number of "runabouts" were seized. Some 943 vehicles were seized and owners reclaimed 145. Owners had to produce a vehicle licence or leave a surety of £120 until they produced a vehicle licence. To date 550 "runabouts" have been destroyed and the balance will also be destroyed over the next few weeks, except for a small number, perhaps 20–30, which are considered suitable for auction. The registration numbers, makes and models of all seized

  699W
  vehicles were forwarded to the Motor Insurance Information Centre who have to date not found any insured vehicles. The initial results of the operation found:

  A 25 per cent. reduction in road traffic collisions in West Belfast District Command Unit during the six weeks of the operation (measured against the preceding six weeks, and the same six weeks the previous year);

  Fire service identified a 40 per cent. reduction in arson of motor vehicles when measured against the preceding six weeks of operation "Clean Up" and a reduction of 24 per cent. when measured against the same six weeks the previous year;

  Following operation "Clean Up" there has been a 50 per cent. reduction in thefts from vehicles in the Belfast region.

  It is anticipated that operation "Clean Up" may result in a change in the method of changing the ownership of vehicles.

  Information on the number of arrests and prosecutions for "joyriding" is not available but I would refer the hon. Member to the following table which provides the recorded theft of vehicles/unauthorised taking offences and clearance rates for 2000–01.

  Northern Ireland

  Recorded

  10,806

  Percentage cleared

  11.4

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the(a) level of car ownership, (b) incidence of vehicle thefts, (c) level of stolen vehicle recoveries and (d) incidence of normal residence of individuals prosecuted for car theft was in each policing district in the last 12 months. [60854]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Environment (NI) has advised that the level of car ownership in Northern Ireland for the calendar year 2000 was 622,488 out of an overall figure of 730,730 for vehicle ownership.

  The table shows by district command units, the recorded number of theft of vehicles/unauthorised taking of vehicles and the percentage cleared in the year 2000–01.

  Information on the incidence of normal residence of individuals prosecuted for car theft by policing district is not available.

  Theft of vehicle/unauthorised taking offences recorded and percentage cleared 2000–01

  Recorded

  Percentage cleared

  Newtownabbey

  402

  8.5

  Belfast South

  2,312

  7.8

  Carrickfergus

  119

  10.1

  Belfast North

  1,023

  9.8

  Belfast West

  1,180

  7.9

  Antrim

  254

  15.0

  Lisburn

  1,223

  7.8

  Castlereagh

  325

  9.2

  Belfast East

  587

  10.9

  North Down

  264

  6.8

  Newry and Mourne

  379

  16.6

  Craigavon

  374

  20.9

  Dungannon and South Tyrone

  182

  19.8

  Downpatrick

  335

  12.2

  Newtownards

  305

  12.1

  Cookstown

  75

  22.7

  700W

  Theft of vehicle/unauthorised taking offences recorded and percentage cleared 2000–01

  Recorded

  Percentage cleared

  Armagh

  141

  29.1

  Banbridge

  100

  20.0

  Magherafelt

  90

  17.8

  Larne

  51

  17.6

  Moyle

  33

  24.2

  Ballymena

  117

  33.3

  Ballymoney

  44

  13.6

  Limavady

  110

  22.7

  Omagh

  151

  10.6

  Coleraine

  154

  14.9

  Strabane

  95

  21.1

  Fermanagh

  126

  21.4

  Foyle

  255

  18.8

  Northern Ireland

  10.806

  11.4

  Press Releases
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many press releases were issued by his Department(a) in each month between May and December 1997 and (b) in each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive. [59474]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is as follows.

  (a) Between May and December 1997

  Number

  May

  64

  June

  114

  July

  80

  August

  173

  September

  98

  October

  135

  November

  97

  December

  83

  Total

  844

  (b) In each year from 1998 to 2001 inclusive

  Number

  1998

  1,313

  1999

  1,055

  2000

  231

  2001

  248

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many press releases have been issued by his Department in each month of 2002. [59475]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is as follows:

  Between January and May 2002

  Number

  January

  25

  February

  28

  March

  27

  Aril

  31

  May1

  30

  1To date

  Domestic Violence/Sexual Attacks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what specialist resources are available for the investigation of domestic violence and sexual attacks; what action has been taken in this area in the past three years for(a) research, (b) education; (c) crime prevention and (d) officer training; and how many staff and how many staff hours were employed in these areas, and at what cost, in each of the last three years. [60861]

  Jane Kennedy
  The PSNI currently has 35 Domestic Violence Liaison Officers. All received initial training in domestic violence procedures which was followed up during 2000 by a further accredited course from the university of Teesside through which each officer gained a certificate in Professional Policing (Domestic Violence). Each officer performs a minimum 40 hour week, working on a nine-to-five basis.

  The work of these officers supports the front-line uniform response officers who are required to take decisive action at the scene of a domestic dispute. In addition, it is hoped that by autumn 2002 the PSNI will have completed work to enable uniform officers to access an Integrated Crime Information System (ICIS) database containing background information surrounding a potential violent incident prior to arrival at the scene.

  The role of the Domestic Violence Officer is currently under review and it is intended that external agencies will be consulted as a basis of determining a multi-agency perspective on how to improve the service offered to victims of domestic violence. The PSNI makes use of research undertaken by its partners in the multi agency response to the problem.

  Leaflets and posters have also been distributed by the PSNI throughout Northern Ireland on domestic violence. These have recently been translated into ethnic minority languages and are available in various areas of public contact.

  All PSNI officers receive Child Abuse and Rape Enquiry (CARE) training. CARE unit detectives receive specialist training on child abuse and rape trauma syndrome. There are presently 12 CARE units, including five CARE suites staffed by a total of 85 highly trained officers. The CARE suites provide a non-threatening environment for the interview of children, comfortable interview rooms for victims of sexual offences and well equipped medical facilities where forensic medical officers can carry out examinations.

  The Police Service of Northern Ireland, through its CARE Co-ordinator, carries out research into the various aspects of both child abuse and sexual offending. It works in liaison with the ACPO portfolio holders in relation to the development of educational lessons within the service provision.

  In addition to the staff employed in CARE units, other officers from District Command Units and CID undertake work on sexual attacks.

  Due to the variety of staff who provide support in both these areas of police work information regarding the number of staff hours and staff costs could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TREASURY

  National Statistics
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer of 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 559W, on national statistics, to cover financial year 2001; and if he will make a statement. [60417]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Matthew Taylor. dated 24 June 2002:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about which statistical series National Statistics ceased collecting, calculating and publishing in the financial year 2001. (60417)

  The scope of National Statistics is evolving and expanding and their coverage sometimes changes to reflect changes in the underlying administrative systems (e.g. the tax systems) on which some of the statistics are based. During 2001 the following National Statistics series were removed from publication for mainly operational reasons:

  (i) Department for Education and Skills

  Statistical Bulletin—Youth Cohort Study. Publication has ceased because this information is now published in three Statistical First Releases.

  Statistical Volume—Statistics of Education: Student Support, England and Wales. Publication has ceased because the data are now published in two Statistical First Releases and on the Internet.

  (ii) Home Office

  Jury Disqualifications—this information is no longer collected. This followed an assessment of their fitness for purpose with key stakeholders.

  Deaths Reported to Coroners and Scientific Procedures on Living Animals are still collected but have been withdrawn from scope following a review of all Home Office National Statistics.

  Section 95 (Compendia)—this publication was withdrawn from scope and the data collected are now available on the Internet.

  (iii) Department for Work and Pensions

  Income-related benefits: estimates of take-up—culation and release of Family Credit take-up statistics previously contained within this publication has ceased because the benefit was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit.

  (iv) Office for National Statistics

  Jobcentre Plus vacancy statistics—this series has been suspended because of a discontinuity caused by the roll-out of Employer Direct. The figures will be reinstated at the earliest opportunity.

  (v) Department for International Development

  Oda/GNI ratio—data is still collected but has been withdrawn from scope.

  Development Counts—still produced but has been withdrawn from scope as the publication is not under the editorial control of the statistics department.

  EU Stability Pact
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last assessed the extent to which planned public expenditure would need to be reduced to comply with the EU stability pact; and what his conclusion was. [63328]
  703W
  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on 30 April 2002,Official Report, column 734W.

  Bank Notes
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) financial advantages he derives and (b) costs he incurs from the diversity of bodies able to issue bank notes in Northern Ireland: and what bodies regulate issuing banks. [63433]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Exchequer benefits from not bearing the printing and destruction costs associated with non-Bank of England sterling notes in circulation. However, the Exchequer also suffers a reduction in seignorage income, as the legislation does not require the issuing banks to wholly back their note issue with Bank of England notes. The Inland Revenue Stamp Office monitors the level of issuance by these banks.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many bank notes of each denomination from each issuing bank were in circulation in Northern Ireland on the last day for which information is available. [63432]

  Ruth Kelly
  Values of the notes in circulation for each of the issuing banks, as at 8 June 2002, are as follows:

  £

  Bank

  Value1

  Value2

  Total

  Bank of Ireland

  482,688,297

  278,105

  482.966,402

  Ulster Bank

  257,892,500

  70,076

  257,962,576

  Northern Bank

  267,053,976

  439,105

  267,493,081

  First Trust Bank

  244,908,000

  —

  244,908,000

  1Value of notes of £5 and over in circulation.

  2Value of notes of £5 and under in circulation.

  Details of the denominational breakdown of notes in circulation are not provided to the authorities.

  Notes:

  In addition, notes issued by the National Bank are not in active circulation any longer. The amount outstanding is £61,507.

  Bee Keeping
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will exclude the bee keeping industry from(a) insurance premium tax, (b) filing fees to the Financial Services Authority and (c) the Financial Services Compensation Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [63523]

  Ruth Kelly
  Insurance Premium Tax is a consequence of writing contracts of general insurance and it applies to almost all general insurance where the risk is in the UK.

  The FSA are aware of the concerns of the Bee Diseases Insurance Limited and discussions are ongoing.

  Aviation Insurance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of Government support for aviation insurance. [63765]

  Ruth Kelly
  UK airlines, airports and other service providers can purchase third party war and terrorism cover from the Troika insurance scheme, set up and 704W
  reinsured by the Government, above a primary layer purchased in the commercial market, up to the level enjoyed before commercial cover was cancelled following the terrorist attacks in the US on 11 September, to a limit of US $2 billion.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Vaz: To
  ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the impact of enlargement of the EU on the UK economy. [63491]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Department has not made its own study of the impact of EU enlargement on the United Kingdom economy. However, independent economic studies by the European Roundtable of Industrialists and the Centre for Economic Policy Reform show that EU enlargement will increase UK GDP by £1.75 billion per year and create 300,000 jobs within the EU-15. Copies of these reports are in the House of Commons Library.

  Wages
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the(a) average wage and (b) median wage for (i) men and (ii) women in each year since 1997. [63673]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated 24 June 2002:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the average and median earnings since 1997. (63673)

  The table below gives the information you require.

  £

  Men

  Women

  April each year

  Average

  Median

  Average

  Median

  1997

  408.70

  349.70

  297.20

  260.40

  1998

  428.80

  363.70

  310.30

  270.40

  1999

  444.30

  374.80

  327.90

  285.40

  2000

  464.10

  389.70

  343.70

  296.70

  2001

  490.50

  407.70

  366.80

  313.20

  The data relate to full-time employees on adult rates whose pay was not affected by any absence.

  Gold Reserves
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been raised from the sale of gold reserves since 1997; and what the value of the gold would be at today's prices. [63790]

  Ruth Kelly
  The 395 tonnes of gold sold by the Government, as part of the restructuring of the United Kingdom's foreign currency reserves announced in May 1999, raised proceeds of $3.5 billion (around £2.4 billion at exchange rates at close on 19 June), which have been invested in interest-bearing foreign currency assets. At the price of gold at close on 19 June the 395 tonnes of gold would be valued at $4.1 billion (around £2.7 billion at exchange rates at close on 19 June).

  Endowment Mortgages
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the proportion of people with endowment mortgages who have policies which are unlikely to pay off the loan. [64313]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Association of British Insurers reported on 13 May 2002 that there is now a significant or high risk that 61 per cent. of the current 10.2 million mortgage endowments (covering 6 million households) will not pay out enough to pay off the target sum, usually the amount of the mortgage loan. This is based on the first 1.25 million re-projection letters and cannot be taken as a representative sample. The percentages are likely to change.

  FSA research conducted in spring 2001 indicated that only three out of 10 policyholders had taken action to remedy their potential shortfall. Of the seven out of 10 households that have taken no action, around half had good reasons. For example, they had repaid the loan by other means and were continuing to fund the endowment as a savings vehicle.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much compensation has been given to consumers who were mis-sold endowment mortgages since 1992. [64315]

  Ruth Kelly
  Since 1988, when the system of financial service regulation came into force under the Financial Services Act 1986, and up until the end of the first quarter

  Mid 1996-based population projections 2002 to 2012 for all persons under 20 years of age—London GOR

  thousands

  Age group

  2002

  2003

  2004

  2005

  2006

  2007

  2008

  2009

  2010

  2011

  2012

  0 to 4 years

  492.5

  490.2

  487.3

  484.4

  481.6

  479.1

  477.1

  475.8

  475.3

  475.5

  476.4

  5 to 10 years

  568.8

  565.1

  563.4

  560.3

  558.3

  556.2

  552.5

  549.7

  546.5

  543.3

  540.4

  11 to 15 years

  442.9

  450.4

  452.3

  455.1

  456.4

  452.4

  450.3

  448.6

  446.0

  444.6

  443.1

  16 to 29 years

  339.9

  344.7

  353.8

  359.1

  364.3

  372.6

  376.2

  378.0

  380.5

  376.7

  373.1

  Source:

  ONS

  Drug-related Deaths
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths there were in each of the last 10 years in(a) Buckinghamshire, (b) Chesham and Amersham and (c) the UK from (i) heroin overdose, (ii) other drug overdose and (iii) suicide other than by a drugs overdose. [62792]

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

  Deaths related to drug poisoning1, and suicides other than by drugs overdose2, England and Wales 1993 to 20003

  Number of deaths

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  (a) Buckinghamshire county4

  Drugs mentioned on the death certificate

  (i)(a) heroin/morphine5only

  6_

  7_

  6_

  7_

  7_

  7_

  3

  7_

  (i)(b) heroin/morphine5with other drugs

  6_

  7_

  6_

  6_

  7_

  7_

  6_

  6_

  (ii) other drugs (heroin/morphine5 not mentioned)

  6

  13

  9

  11

  15

  15

  10

  12

  Suicide other than by drugs overdose

  42

  37

  26

  23

  35

  36

  28

  33

  706W
  2002, some £151 million in compensation has been paid to endowment policyholders following the complaints process. In addition, and as a result of the Financial Services Authority's (FSA) regulatory activities, some 20 firms have agreed proactively to compensate policyholders who were mis-sold their policies. This involves around 218,000 in policies, leading to total compensation of around £315 million due to be paid.

  Demographic Change (London)
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the Government's projection is for demographic change in London over the next(a) five years and (b) 10 years for the age groups (i) 0 to four, (ii) five to 10, (iii) 11 to 15 and (iv) 16 to 19 years; and if he will make a statement. [64121]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Iain Coleman, dated 24 June 2002

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the projected demographic change in London over the next five and 10 year period for people under the age of 20. I am replying in his absence. (64121)

  The attached table shows the projected population in each age group for each year from 2002 to 2012 in the london Government Office Region. The figures are derived from the 1996-based projections published by the Office for National Statistics in the volume Subnational Population Projections, series PP3 No. 10.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Cheryl Gillan, dated 24 June 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many deaths there were in each of the last 10 years in (a) Buckinghamshire, (b) Chesham and Amersham and (c) the UK from (i) heroin overdose, (ii) other drug overdose and (iii) suicide other than by a drugs overdose. I am replying in his absence. (62792)

  Figures for deaths related to drug poisoning are currently available for 1993 to 2000 for England and Wales. Information for the United Kingdom as a whole could not be collated on a comparable basis in the time available. The information requested is given for 1993 to 2000 in the attached table.

  707W

  Deaths related to drug poisoning1, and suicides other than by drugs overdose2, England and Wales 1993 to 20003

  Number of deaths

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  (b) Chesham and Amersham8

  Drugs mentioned on the death certificate

  (i)(a) heroin/morphine5

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  7—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  (i)(b) heroin/morphine5 with other drugs

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  (ii) other drugs (heroin/morphine5 not mentioned)

  3

  3

  7—

  7—

  5

  3

  6—

  3

  Suicide other than by drugs overdose

  8

  8

  6

  7—

  7

  5

  4

  4

  (c) England and Wales

  Drugs mentioned on the death certificate

  (i)(a) heroin/morphine5 only

  126

  197

  263

  353

  332

  468

  575

  716

  (i)(b) heroin/morphine5 with other drugs

  61

  80

  94

  113

  113

  178

  179

  210

  (ii) other drugs (heroin/morphine5 not mentioned)

  2,065

  2,127

  2,206

  2,255

  2,413

  2,276—

  2,189

  2,042

  Suicide other than by drugs overdose

  3,930

  3,818

  3,771

  3,554

  3,526

  3,799

  3,836—

  3,643

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

  292 (drug psychoses);

  304 (drug dependence);

  305.2–305.9 (nondependent abuse of drugs);

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

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

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

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

  2Selected using the following codes from the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision: E950.6—E959, E980.6—E989 excluding E988.8.

  3 Data are for occurrences of death per calendar year.

  4 Data are for residents of Buckinghamshire county, based on geographic boundaries as at 2001. The figures therefore exclude data for Milton Keynes, which became a unitary authority in 1997.

  5As heroin breaks down in the body into morphine, the latter may be detected at post mortem and recorded on the death certificate.

  6 Zero deaths.

  7Less than three deaths.

  8Data are for residents of Chesham and Amersham parliamentary constituency based on geographic boundaries as at 2001.

  Orphan Funds
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps he is taking to arrange discussions with the assurance sector concerning their orphan funds; [64474]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with the assurance sector concerning the use of orphan assets in the life assurance sector in the United Kingdom; [64357]

  (3) when he last met representatives of the insurance sector to discuss the use of orphan funds. [64476]

  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury Ministers have contacts with insurance companies and their representatives form time to time to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Historic Buildings (VAT)
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend the reduction of VAT on the renovation and repair of historic buildings. [63546]

  John Healey
  Reduced rate items are limited by agreements with our European partners. EC law allows a reduced rate of VAT for works to housing, but does not permit a reduced rate for works to other types of building. However, in response to representations made by the Government, the European Commission has indicated that it will consider a reduced rate of VAT for listed places of worship in their general review of the reduced rates, which is due to take place in 2003.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Heyes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the prescription pre-payment certificate scheme with reference to the evidence cited in paragraph 6.74 in the Wanless report. [60402]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Wanless report noted that 85 per cent. of prescriptions are dispensed free of charge and that the level of charges for those who have to pay is capped by the pre-payment certificate arrangements. We are taking steps to make pre-payment certificates more accessible. From 1 October, the prescription pricing authority (PPA) will take responsibility for issuing these certificates. The application form will be redesigned and carry the PPA's address, all patient material will be revised and pharmacists will be encouraged to publicise the availability of prescription pre-payment certificates. Once the new arrangements are in place, we can examine the opportunities for further improvements to access.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  King Edward VIII
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to her answers of 10 and 11 June 2002, refs. 57217 and 57416, on the abdication of King Edward VIII, if she will list the categories of official papers relating to the abdication of King Edward VIII that will be reviewed by Departments. [62434]
  709W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to him on 11 June 2002,Official Report, column 118W. It is hoped that the results of the review, including the categories of official papers held by Departments, will be known and put into effect by the end of the year.

  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to her answers of 10 and 11 June, refs. 57217 and 57416, on the abdication of King Edward VIII, if she will list which official papers relating to the abdication of King Edward VIII have not yet been released. [62433]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to him on 11 June 2002,Official Report, column 118W.

  It is hoped that the results of the review, including a list of official papers held by Departments will be known and put into effect by the end of the year.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures are(a) in place and (b) under discussion in her Department in order to ensure compliance with the WEE directive. [60751]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister of State for the Department of Trade and Industry on 12 June 2002.

  Land Registry
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to implement the recommendation contained in the Land Registry's Quinquennial Review to compel the owners of property to declare the true and beneficial owners of property in the Land Registry; and if she will make a statement. [63093]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Land Registry and the Lord Chancellor's Department will jointly consider and consult other Government Departments on the recommendation by autumn 2003. Depending on the outcome of that consultation and ministerial agreement they will consult stakeholders and the public on the principles and details by spring 2004 and announce the results of the consultation by autumn 2004.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the inter-departmental steering group to take forward the proposals contained in the Land Registry Quinquennial Review has met since June 2001. [63091]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The inter-departmental steering group has met on seven occasions: 23 July, 17 September, 25 October, 20 November 2001 and 9 January, 19 March and 27 May 2002.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans are being formulated by the Land Registry to make public a list of 710W
  previous owners for each property registered by the Land Registry; and if she will make a statement. [63092]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Section 69 of the Land Registration Act 2002, which is likely to be brought into force in the autumn of next year, provides that the chief land registrar may, on application, provide information about the history of a registered title. Rules making provision about applications for the exercise of this power are currently being drafted and will be the subject of public consultation, as part of a wider consultation exercise, later in the summer.

  Judiciary
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement as to the change in arrangements concerning the advertising of vacant posts in the judiciary. [61844]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, is committed to a system of judicial appointments that is fair to applicants and ensures that vacancies are filled promptly by candidates who best meet the published criteria. To this end, he published a consultation paper in April of this year on ways in which the selection procedures for the Circuit Bench and Recordership might be restructured or streamlined. Competitions for these appointments in 2002–03 have identified more suitable candidates than there are vacancies. The competitions for these appointments that would normally have begun in April 2002 have therefore been suspended for between six and 18 months. Any new vacancies that arise during this period will be made from reserve lists.

  Similarly, in respect of the High Court Bench, there are many suitable candidates remaining from the 2000 selection round. Very few vacancies are expected over the next year. In the circumstances it would be both inappropriate and impracticable to mount a full scale recruitment exercise. The Lord Chancellor has, however, decided that people with appropriate judicial experience should not be denied the opportunity to be considered for these vacancies. Some 2000 holders of judicial office have therefore been invited to express interest in these appointments.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of(a) judges, (b) recorders and (c) assistant recorders are (i) women and (ii) non-white Caucasian. [61859]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As at 1 May 2002 all 107 High Court judges were of white origin, six of whom were women. The following table provides information on the Circuit Bench, District Bench and Recorders as at I May 2002. It shows the total number, the number and proportion of women judges and those judges who have stated on an ethnic monitoring questionnaire that they are of white origin. Applicants and part-time judges whose appointments have been renewed are asked to complete a questionnaire about their ethnic origin, but they are not obliged to do so. Many of those who have been appointed for some years will not have been asked to complete
  711W
  an ethnic origin questionnaire. The post of Assistant Recorder was abolished in April 2000 an all Assistant Recorders became Recorders.

  Total

  Women

  Have stated they are of white origin

  Have not completed an ethnic origin questionnaire

  Circuit judges

  610

  57

  350

  253

  Percentage

  9.3

  57.4

  Recorders

  1,324

  162

  1,185

  100

  Percentage

  12.2

  89.5

  District judges

  435

  80

  240

  183

  Percentage

  18.4

  55.2

  Deputy District judges

  774

  155

  579

  183

  Percentage

  20

  74.8

  District judges magistrates courts

  103

  20

  89

  11

  Percentage

  19.4

  86.4

  Deputy District judges magistrates courts

  152

  30

  138

  5

  Percentage

  19.7

  90.8

  Ethnic Minority Events
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many ethnic minority events(a) she and (b) her Ministers have attended since 7 June 2001. [62781]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department does not separately classify or record events as being ethnic minority events. However, since 7 June 2001 the Lord Chancellor has attended one event and his Ministers have attended 17 events where an ethnic minority issue was integral to the purpose, identity and character of the event.

  Wigs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent discussions she has had with the judiciary concerning the wearing of wigs in court. [62935]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Following a public opinion survey which we will shortly be conducting in England and Wales, the Lord Chancellor will issue a consultation paper containing proposals on possible alternatives to the current modes of court dress for judges, lawyers and court staff. The Lord Chancellor is in regular contact with the Lord Chief Justice and the other Heads of Division and has kept them informed on the progress of the project.

  Youth Courts
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Department has to reduce time spent in the pursuit of evidence and documentation in youth courts. [60326]

  Yvette Cooper
  A number of recent initiatives are under way that will impact on timeliness in youth court cases, for example, measures are being developed to admit in evidence digital photographs, which have been used instead of a physical identification parade. My Department is also working with the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Law Society and others to increase the use of technology to transmit documentation electronically and to present digital images in court.
  712W
  Judicial appointments statistics, including women and ethnic minorities appointments, are published regularly on the LCD website (www.lcd.gov.uk).

CABINET OFFICE

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much the Department has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61059]

  Mr. Alexander
  For details of my Department's spend on staff training and development for the years 1997–98 to 2000–01, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham on 15 May 2002, column 715W.

  Estimated expenditure on staff training and development in 2001–02 is £4,025,000 and is broken down as follows:

  £thousand

  Core Cabinet Office

  1,603

  Central Office of Information

  1588

  Government Office for the regions

  1,666

  Centre for Management and Policy Studies

  168

  1Includes training partly funded by the Civil Service Modernisation Fund

  The 2001–02 Resource Account is undergoing final adjustments and awaiting audit. As a result, the figures quoted are subject to change.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Explosives
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the final draft consultation on Manufacturing and Storage of Explosives Regulations will be completed; when the regulations will be published with supporting evidence; under what powers the regulations will be implemented; and whether they will comply with the Health and Safety Executive's Mission Statement. [62566]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.
  713W
  I am advised by the Health and Safety Commission on policy on the safety of the manufacture and storage of explosives.

  In March, the Health and Safety Commission published a consultation document setting out its proposals for new regulations on the manufacture and storage of explosives. The consultation period has just ended. The Health and Safety Executive will be considering the responses to the proposals before making recommendations to the Health and Safety Commission. If it approves the revised proposals, the Health and Safety Commission will then make recommendations to me.

  It is for the Health and Safety Commission to decide if and when to make recommendations to me, however I understand that it is hoped to submit the proposals to the Health and Safety Commission in the first half of next year.

  The regulations will be made under Section 1 of the Health and Safety at Work (etc.) Act 1974. Section 1 (2) gives the Health and Safety Commission remit to replace existing legislation such as the Explosives Act 1875 with regulations and Approved Code of Practice "designed to maintain or improve the standards of health, safety and welfare established by or under those attachments". I am sure that there is absolutely no question of the Health and Safety Commission making recommendations to me that were not fully in line with its remit or with its Mission Statement to ensure that risks to people's health and safety from work activities are properly controlled.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the planned manufacturing and storage of explosives regulations will improve safety for(a) the general public and (b) those that handle explosives; what scientific advice he has received and how the regulations will apply to that advice; and what (a) explosives site controls and (b) explosives frequency controls the regulations will include. [62567]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Health and Safety Commission on policy on the safety of the manufacture and storage of explosives.

  The Explosives Act 1875 has been successful in securing a high level of protection both for the public and for workers employed in the manufacture and storage of explosives. However, over the years the Act has been overlaid with a large number of items of secondary legislation. The proposals are intended to further improve the safety record by: simplifying the existing legislation and making it easier for dutyholders and enforcers to understand; updating the regulatory framework to take account of changes in the industry and technology; and taking the opportunity to incorporate industry best practice.

  The major controls in the proposals are:

  a duty on anyone manufacturing or storing explosives to take appropriate measures to prevent fires and explosions, to limit the extent of fires and explosions, and to protect people in the event of a fire or explosion;

  anyone manufacturing or storing explosives must have a licence from HSE or the local authority—or be registered with the local authority;

  requirements to maintain separation distances around buildings where explosives are being manufactured or stored.

  714W
  The measures are intended to prevent explosions occurring in the first place. The separation distances requirements are intended to ensure that explosives buildings are not located in places where they would present an intolerable level of risk to members of the public.

  The proposals have been subject to extensive and very detailed consultation with employers, trade unions and local authorities as well as with the Ministry of Defence and other interested bodies such as professional associations. They were also subject to scrutiny from the FISC's Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances.

  The proposals on separation distances take full account of extensive explosion tests conducted by the Ministry of Defence. They are the product of work by a working group that includes internationally-respected experts on explosives and risk assessment and control. The report of their work has been published by the Health and Safety Executive, copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy relating to the acceptable level of danger of uncontrolled risk to the public relating to the storage and manufacture of explosives; and if he will list(a) serious injuries and (b) deaths caused by explosives in each of the last five years, broken down by (i) domestic and (ii) commercial premises. [62568]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Health and Safety Commission on policy on the safety of the manufacture and storage of explosives.

  The Health and Safety Commission published a consultation document in March setting out proposals for regulations on the manufacture and storage of explosives. I expect to receive its recommendations for new regulations in the course of next year. The regulations will include requirements on those manufacturing or storing explosives to take appropriate measures to prevent explosions including revised requirements on separation distances to be maintained around explosives sites. Under no circumstances should the risks be uncontrolled.

  The revised proposals are designed to ensure that the maximum level of risk to someone living or working in the vicinity of explosives factory or store is one in a million. This level is generally accepted as the benchmark for the broadly acceptable level of risk to members of the public from industrial activities.

  HSE has not received any reports during the last five years of accidents involving either the manufacture or storage of explosives that have resulted in death or serious injury to members of the public.

  Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what are the annual costs to the nuclear power industry of compliance with the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999. [63198]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.
  715W
  The annual costs to industry as a whole are estimated to be £1.3 million to £1.4 million in current prices. It is not possible to disaggregate the costs to the nuclear power industry.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister to which Minister English Heritage is accountable in respect of London planning matters. [62269]

  Mr. McNulty
  English Heritage is a non-departmental public body responsible for advising the Government on all aspects of the built heritage in England. It is sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport but it also works closely with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which is responsible for planning. It has a statutory role as consultee in certain planning and other heritage casework in Greater London and in the rest of England. This role is set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 and the joint DETR/DCMS Circular 01/2001.

  Out-of-town Shopping Centres
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many planning permissions for out of town shopping centres have been granted since 7 June 2001. [63445]

  Mr. McNulty
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Travellers (Bournemouth)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many traveller(a) caravans and (b) families were on unauthorised sites within the Borough of Bournemouth in each year since 1997. [63325]

  Mr. McNulty
  The ODPM does not collect cumulative figures for unauthorised gipsy and traveller encampments. A biannual count of gipsy caravans camped on both authorised and unauthorised sites is carried out by local authorities each January and July. The figures are collated by the ODPM. The count gives a snapshot figure for the day the count is carried out. A copy of the statistics is placed in the Library of both Houses. Since 1997 the figures are as follows:

  Unauthorised caravans:

  January 2002—None

  July 2001—None

  January 2001—None

  July 2000—4

  January 2000—14

  July 1999—29

  January 1999—None

  July 1998—None

  January 1998—None

  July 1997—42

  January 1997—None.

  Figures for families have been kept only since 1999. A count is carried out at the same time as the count for gipsy caravans and therefore is a snapshot figure.
  716W

  Families

  January 2002—None

  July 2001—None

  January 2001—None

  July 2000—04

  January 2000—13

  July 1999—29

  January 1999—None.

  Firefighters
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on his policy towards allowing firefighters to retire from the force through(a) ill health and (b) injury sustained while on active service with full pension rights; and if he will make a statement; [64217]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reviews he is undertaking of firefighters' pension arrangements. [642 1 8]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have at present no proposals to change the arrangements which allow firefighters to retire from brigades with an ill-health pension and injury award when a retirement results from injury on duty.

  The Fire-fighters' Pension Scheme is kept under review and we continue to discuss amendments to the scheme with the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which represents fire service interests.

  Children in Care
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many girls under 18 years of age, not of UK nationality, were taken into local authority care in(a) 1999, (b) 2000 and (c) 2001; how many remained in care for less than one week; and what nationalities they were. [62216]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the nationality of looked-after children is not collected centrally.

PRIME MINISTER

  Staff Training
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister how much his office has spent on staff training and development in each of the last five years. [61060]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office today.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out the guidance given to Ministers in respect of the criteria applied in answering written parliamentary questions. [61971]

  The Prime Minister
  Section 1 of the Ministerial Code includes guidance to Ministers on their conduct in relation to Parliament.
  717W

  Official Photographers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions during the last 12 months an official photographer has accompanied him on official visits(a) overseas and (b) within the UK; what (i) travel expenses, (ii) costs of equipment and processing, (iii) staff payment and (iv) other costs were incurred on each occasion; what publications official photographs have appeared in during the last 12 months and what terms and conditions were attached to the publication of such photographs; and whether photographs taken on official visits are available for use in non-governmental literature. [62830]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  EU Applicant Countries
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) EU applicant countries he has visited and (b) EU

  Appointee

  Post held and body

  The right hon. Lord Morris of Aberavon QC

  Member of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  Dr. Mike Philips

  Trustee of the National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Professor Jacqueline McGlade

  Trustee of the Natural History Museum

  Dame Rennie Fritchie

  Commissioner for Public Appointments

  The right hon. Lord Maclennan of Rogart

  Member, Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  Professor Martin Daunton

  Trustee, National Maritime Museum

  Raymond Miles Esq.

  Trustee, National Maritime Museum

  Dr. Derek Langslow

  Trustee, National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Professor Sir Christopher White CVO

  Trustee, Victoria and Albert Museum

  David Rayner Esq. CBE

  Trustee, National Museum of Science and Industry

  Sir Angus Grossart CBE

  Trustee, National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Professor Tom Pritchard

  Trustee, National Heritage Memorial Fund

  John Baker Esq. CBE

  Chairman, Senior Salaries Review Body

  The right hon. Lord Sutherland

  Surveillance Commissioner

  Sir Charles McCullough

  Surveillance Commissioner

  The right hon. Sir Michael Hutchison

  Surveillance Commissioner

  Lord Bonomy

  Surveillance Commissioner

  The right hon. Sir John MacDermott

  Surveillance Commissioner

  Dame Bridget Ogilvie

  Trustee, National Museum of Science and Industry

  Air Chief Marshal Sir Peter Squire GCB DFC

  Trustee of the Imperial War Museum

  Tom Phillips Esq. RA

  Trustee of the National Portrait Gallery

  Sir John Kerr GCMG

  Trustee of the National Gallery

  Miss Judith Mayhew

  Trustee of the Natural History Museum

  Professor Roderick Smith

  Trustee of the National Museum of Science and Industry

  Sir Andrew Turnbull KCB CVO

  Official Head of HIM Home Civil Service

  William Cockburn Esq.

  Chair, School Teachers Review Body

  Ms Janet Langdon

  Member. School Teachers Review Body

  Peter Gedling Esq.

  Member, School Teachers Review Body

  Tony Vineall Esq.

  Member, School Teachers Review Body

  P. Tett Esq.

  Member. Prison Service Pay Review Body

  Sir Howard Davies

  Trustee, Tate Gallery

  Sir Ron Cooke

  Trustee, National Museum of Science and Industry

  Richard Haythornthwaite Esq.

  Trustee, National Museum of Science and Industry

  The right hon. Lord Mayhew of Twysden QC

  Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

  Professor Sir Martin Rees

  Trustee, British Museum

  Sir John Boyd KCMG

  Trustee, British Museum

  Admiral Sir Jock Slater

  Chairman, Imperial War Museum

  Dr. David Landau

  Trustee, National Gallery

  Donald Moore, Esq.

  Trustee, National Gallery

  Professor Christopher Baines

  Trustee, National Maritime Museum

  Ian Dahl Esq.

  Trustee, National Maritime Museum

  Victor Benjamin Esq

  Trustee, National Maritime Museum

  Lord Puttnam of Queens CBE

  Trustee, National Museum of Science and Industry

  Sir Christopher Mallaby CMG CVO KCMG

  Trustee, Tate Gallery

  Julian Opie Esq.

  Trustee, Tate Gallery

  The right hon. Chris Smith MP

  Member, Committee on Standards in Public Life

  Professor Alice Brown

  Member, Committee on Standards in Public Life

  Sir Michael Perry CBE

  Chair, Senior Salaries Review Body

  Dr. Bleddyn Bryn Roberts

  Member, School Teachers Review Body

  718W
  applicant Heads of Government he has met since 7 June 2001. [63442]

  The Prime Minister
  I visited the Czech Republic on 8 April 2002. Since 7 June 2001, I have met the Heads of Governments of Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia and Hungary in London. I have met the Heads of Government of the EU applicant countries at all the European Councils held since 7 June 2001.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what public appointments he has made since 7 June 2001; and if he will list the names of the persons and the organisations to which they have been appointed. [63441]

  The Prime Minister: Since 7 June 2001 I have made the following appointments and re-appointments to public bodies:

  Countryside, Liberty and Livelihood March
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet the Countryside, Liberty and Livelihood march on London on 22 September. [63924]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister what visits he has made to Gibraltar since June 1997; and what the purpose of each visit was. [63923]

  The Prime Minister
  I have not visited Gibraltar since June 1997. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited on 3 May 2002.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times in the last five years he has visited the Falkland Islands; and what plans he has to visit the islands. [63922]

  The Prime Minister
  I have not visited the Falkland Islands in the last five years and have no plans to do so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence visited the Falkland Islands on 11–12 March 2002.

  NFU/Countryside Alliance
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times he has met representatives from the(a) National Farmers Union and (b) Countryside Alliance since June 1997; and what topics were discussed. [63919]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings.

  Hunting With Hounds
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to meet a hunt before the end of the consultation period for the Hunting with Hounds Bill. [63920]

  The Prime Minister
  No. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Rural Affairs has met a variety of people, including those involved in different forms of hunting, as part of the process he announced to the House on 21 March 2002.

  Tibet
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with Li Ruihuan, Chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, concerning the situation in Tibet, during Chairman Li's recent visit to the UK; and what response he received. [63860]

  The Prime Minister
  My discussions with Mr. Li Ruihuan focused on India/Pakistan and the war against terrorism. However, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor also met Mr. Li and raised Tibet and other human rights concerns with him.

  Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will rescind the authority vested in Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell to give instructions to civil servants. [63811]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Cabinet Committees
  John Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes are planned to the membership of each Cabinet Committee. [64492]

  The Prime Minister
  I have revised the composition of Cabinet Committees in the light of the recent machinery of government changes. I have also established three new committees: a sub-committee, CJS (IT) on information technology in the criminal justice system; MISC20 on social and economic aspects of migration; and MISC21 on the Government's response to parliamentary modernisation. MISC16, having fulfilled its specific remit to review the practice on tackling illegal working and policy on managed migration, has been wound up. These issues will now be taken forward by MISC20. The full list of committees, their terms of reference and their membership has been placed in the Library of the House and will shortly be available on the Cabinet Office website (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk).

HEALTH

  Joint Triage Protocols
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to develop joint triage protocols between NHS Direct and GP out-of-hours co-operatives. [54268]

  Mr. Lammy
  NHS Direct uses an extensive database of triage protocols designed to cover the wide range of presenting conditions of callers. They are designed to assess the acuity of patient condition and may result in referral to a range of providers including care at home, pharmacist, general practitioner (in or out of hours) and accident and emergency.

  NHS Direct has full clinical control over their protocols and involves a wide range of health care professionals including many with experience of out of hours primary care, in their development.

  NHS Annual Reports
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much NHS annual reports cost to produce and deliver in(a) Gloucestershire and (b) England in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [54663]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 8 May 20021: The Department does not collect centrally data on production and distribution costs for annual reports produced by national health service bodies.

  The Department published 'NHS Plan-A Progress Report for 2000–01' by the Modernisation Board in January 2002. I refer the hon. Member to the response

  721W
  given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) on 9 May 2002, Official Report, column 354W.

  Brain Injury
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects people with brain injury to benefit from the vocational services framework provisions. [56433]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Health and Safety Executive together with the Department for Education and Skills are working together to prevent people from becoming ill or injured as a result of work and to reduce workplace absence due to sickness whatever the cause.

  One of the aims is to ensure the development of rehabilitative initiatives to increase the prosperity of currently inactive people by facilitating, wherever practicable, an early return to their existing job or alternative work. We are exploring the possibility of building on existing good practice through the auspices of NHS Plus.

  NCSC/CHI Merger
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement setting out the timetable for the merger of the National Care Standards Commission and the Commission for Health Improvement. [56610]

  Jacqui Smith: Primary legislation will be required to establish the functions of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection which will bring together the work of the Commission for Heath Improvement, the independent healthcare functions of the National Care Standards Commission and the health value for money work of the Audit Commission.

  We hope to introduce legislation as soon as possible.

  Cervical Screening
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 18 March 2002,Official Report, column 167W, how (a) his Department and (b) the local primary care trust is measuring the success of attempts to increase uptake of cervical screening among Asian women. [57094]

  Ms Blears
  The coverage of the cervical screening programme is assessed as the proportion of women resident in a health authority who have had a screening result at least once in the last five years. Coverage has always been used as an indicator of quality in the cervical screening programme, as well as highlighting inequalities. Coverage rates for cervical screening are not collected by ethnic group nationally.

  The new informed choice leaflet, "Cervical Screening: The Facts", which is sent out with every invitation for screening nationally, has been translated into Gujarati, Punjabi, Urdu, Bengali and Hindi.

  The NHS Cancer Plan required all primary care organisations to review their screening coverage rates and draw up plans to improve accessibility of screening for women in socially excluded and minority ethnic groups.
  722W
  Luton Primary Care Trust continues to monitor the uptake of cervical screening among Asian women through working with local general practices to promote cervical screening and from statistics collected from the local sexual health clinics.

  MMR Vaccine
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to record nursery children having a single(a) measles, (b) mumps and (c) rubella vaccination. [57138]

  Ms Blears
  Information on immunisation status of children at nursery school is not routinely collected.

  Care Direct
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is provided on the Care Direct schemes in rural areas; and if he will make it available. [57456]

  Jacqui Smith
  As announced in February last year, Care Direct is being piloted in six local authorities in the south-west of England—Bournemouth, Bristol, Devon, Gloucestershire, Plymouth and Somerset. The second phase of pilots, starting in the autumn this year, will cover the remaining local authorities in the south-west.

  The director of social services in Cornwall is leading the implementation of Care Direct for the county council. Implementation plans are now being developed to meet the needs of older people living in Cornwall. These will supplement and build on the existing services for older people in the county and I am certain that the new service will be especially responsive to the needs of the rural community that it will serve.

  Local information about Care Direct in Cornwall will be made available nearer the time when the service becomes operational, but wider publicity about the service can be found now on the Care Direct website www.caredirect.gov.uk.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects NICE to publish guidance relating to atypical antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia. [56592]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence issued its guidance on the use of newer (atypical) antipsychotic drugs for the treatment of schizophrenia on 6 June 2002.

  Osteoporosis
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of orthopaedic beds were taken up with osteoporotic hip fracture patients in(a) Hull and the East Riding and (b) England and Wales, in the last two quarters for which figures are available. [57572]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the number of orthopaedic beds is not collected. Information on the average daily number of beds by broad ward classification is published annually for each national health service trust on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uld hospitalactivity. The latest available data are for 2000–01.

  Carers Groups
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to mitigate the financial penalties on Carers Groups caused by the abolition of local inspection units. [57608]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 23 May 2002]: I believe this question concerns the impact on domiciliary care providers of the new regulatory arrangements under the Care Standards Act which require them to register with the National Care Standards Commission from 1 April 2002, and pay a registration fee.

  Our policy is to set fees to recover the full cost of regulating and inspecting service providers. We decided, however, that full cost recovery should be phased in over five years, in order to allow providers to adjust to the new fee regime and to avoid destabilising the care sector.

  We consulted extensively on the fee structure before finalising it. The fee levels for each service have been determined according to the total costs for that service and in all cases have been set at a level lower than full cost recovery for that service. Thus in the first year of regulation by the Commission domiciliary care providers will only pay 24 per cent. of the actual cost of registration and inspection. In addition, we have agreed to make a concession to small agencies and set the annual fee at 50 per cent. of the level for other agencies. A small agency is defined in the regulations as one where no more than two members of staff, including registered persons but excluding someone employed solely as a receptionist, are employed at any one time.

  Cosmetic Treatment
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by his Department on the relative effectiveness of(a) Dysport and (b) Botox for cosmetic treatment. [59416]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 May 20021: The Department has not made any assessment of the relative effectiveness of Dysport and Botox for cosmetic treatments.

  Care Provision
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) intermediate care beds and (b) registered care homes there were in (i) London and (ii) Kingston borough in (A) 1997 and (B) 2001; and if he will make a statement. [60076]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are no intermediate care figures for 1997. This is a new service and a new data collection. The only figures available are for May 2002. There are 92 intermediate care beds in total in Kingston. 55 beds at Tolworth hospital, 29 at Surbiton hospital and eight beds at Hobrick house residential home. The total number of London beds for 2001–02 was 939. Kingston has an above average number of beds for their population compared to other London boroughs.

  Previous data had been collected at health authority level.

  The table shows the number of registered residential and nursing care homes, private hospitals and clinics in Kingston and London area in 1997 and 2001.
  724W

  Registered residential1 and nursing2 care homes in Kingston and London areas in 1997 and 2001

  Number

  1997

  2001

  At 31 March

  Kingston

  London

  Kingston

  London

  Residential care homes of which:

  67

  2,213

  63

  2,239

  Local authority staffed homes

  5

  299

  5

  241

  Independent homes

  62

  1,914

  58

  1998

  Dual registered homes

  4

  44

  2

  86

  Nursing homes3,4 of which:

  19

  406

  20

  462

  General and mental nursing homes

  17

  330

  16

  347

  Private nursing homes and clinics

  2

  76

  4

  115

  Total care homes

  90

  2,663

  85

  2,787

  1 Homes registered within Kingston-upon-Thames local authority, exclude children homes.

  2 Homes registered within Kingston and Richmond health authority.

  3 Registered general and mental nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics.

  4 Figures for registered nursing homes relates to the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual returns.

  Good progress is being made towards meeting the NHS Plan target of 5,000 additional intermediate care beds by 2003–04. The target of 1,500 additional intermediate care beds by March 2002 has been met comfortably and as a result London has benefited from more intermediate care beds. A proportion of these additional beds will be in independent care homes.

  Intermediate care is not a single service model—it is a range of services that can be provided in a range of settings to meet the individual needs of service users and their carers—the key is the principle of patient centred care and the assessment process that underpins it. The appropriate settings can include designated rehabilitation facilities, nursing and residential homes, sheltered housing, a range of community based options and, of course, people's own homes.

  Cardiac Care
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for heart bypass operations for patients from Essex hospitals was in each year since 1995. [60542]

  Mr. Lammy
  Essex residents are treated mainly at two specialist out of county hospitals; St. Bartholomews and The London National Health Service Trust, and Papworth Hospital National Health Service Trust.

  Annual figures are not available.

  Over the last three years for St. Bartholomews and The London NHS Trust the latest available average waiting time information for these operations is 6.62 months

  Over the last two years for Papworth hospital NHS trust the latest available average waiting time information for these operations is 4.48 months.

  Source:

  Essex Health Authority Monthly Performance Returns

  Mental Health
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the difference is between(a) earmarking and (b) ringfencing in the context of the additional revenue

  725W
  and capital allocated to mental health services in 2002–03 to ensure that the funding reaches front line services in (a) England and (b) North Yorkshire. [60507]

  Jacqui Smith
  The additional £75 million allocated to health authorities in 2002–03 was earmarked for mental health. These are funds that are identified at health authority level with the intention that they be spent on the purpose for which they were allocated. This allows national health service organisations maximum flexibility to use the resources available to meet national and local needs.

  The Secretary of State has a power under section 97(6) of the NHS Act 1977 to ring fence sums so that they can only be issued for the purpose for which they are issued. This power is used very sparingly.

  The earmarked allocation is being monitored though to investment via the service and financial framework negotiations and reports. Department officials are working with front line NHS organisations to ensure sufficient emphasis and investment has gone into the NHS Plan commitments to ensure progress ready for the 2004 target dates.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the role of ward hostesses is in mental health trusts. [61460]

  Jacqui Smith
  The exact role of a ward hostess would be for local determination. However, in general terms the role would focus around meeting the needs of patients' food and drink requirements. The hostess should be integrated as a member of the ward team.

  NHS Dentistry
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been made available to the Morecambe and Lunesdale constituency for NHS dental provision. [60776]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on funding of national health service dental provision is not available on a constituency basis.

  The gross fees paid to general dental practitioners (GDP) within the old Morecambe bay health authority area, for providing NHS dental treatment, were £9.28 million in 2001–02. Additional sums are paid to GDPs, for example to reimburse business rates. Funding for hospital and community dental services is drawn from the health authority's main allocation. This information is not identified separately.

  In 2001–02 the following additional funds were made available to Morecambe bay health authority to improve NHS dental services:

  £308,000 revenue and £312,000 capital to establish a personal dental services dental access centre pilot scheme (DAC). The DAC has surgeries in Barrow and in Lancaster, to offer unregistered patients access to dental services. The revenue funding available for the current year for this DAC is up to £820,000 and a further capital payment will be made of around £160,000. The service aim is to treat up to 17,000 patients a year when both centres are fully operational.
  726W
  An allocation of £270,800 was made in 2001–02 to GDPs from the modernisation fund for grants to local dental practices to provide practice improvements and additional facilities.

  £7,500 was allocated to the health authority from the dental action plan fund to enable additional patient registrations to be secured.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what has been the(a) cost and (b) saving from the pursuit of the Department's Public Service Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced; [60887]

  (2) what the (a) cost and (b) saving has been from the Department's pursuit of Service Delivery Agreement targets in each year since they were introduced. [61634]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department's public service agreement set outs the key outcomes it is committed to deliver with the resources provided, and its service delivery agreement sets out the key steps towards delivery of those targets. Every year the Department publishes performance against its targets—including on value for money and the resources it has used, in its departmental report.

  Action Zone (Tyne and Wear)
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many homes in Tyne and Wear have been insulated as a result of the Health Action Zone campaign there. [61430]

  Ms Blears
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 1087W.

  Ward Housekeepers
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the job description of a ward housekeeper. [61461]

  Mr. Lammy
  The main elements of the role are ensuring the delivery of cleaning, catering, and minor maintenance, together with other specified tasks to meet individual patient needs as determined by the ward sister/charge nurse. A full job description is available in a document published by NHS Estates—'A First Guide to New Modern and Dependable Ward Housekeeping Services in the NHS"—published in November 2001.

  Youth Treatment Centres
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the definition is of a youth treatment centre; what conditions they treat; where they are located; and how many children are treated in each. [61458]

  Jacqui Smith
  Two youth treatment centres were opened in the 1970s to provide long-term care and treatment for a small minority of severely disturbed and antisocial children whose specialist treatment needs could not be satisfactorily met by the forms of residential provision that existed at that time. The first centre, based in Brentwood in Essex, closed in 1995 and the second based in Birmingham in the Midlands closed in 2000. The children and young people that may have been considered
  727W
  for placement with youth treatment centres are now cared for in local authority provision r placed by the youth justice board as appropriate to their needs.

  School Fruit
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 29 April 2002,Official Report, column 624W, on school fruit, which varieties of fruit are distributed as part of the national school fruit scheme; and from which countries each fruit is imported. [61525]

  Jacqui Smith
  Apples, pears, bananas and easy peel citrus are supplied as part of the national school fruit scheme. The contracted suppliers and distributors of fruit to the scheme have reported the following countries of origin for the four fruit types:
  Apples: UK, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, Chile and the USA

  Pears: UK, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa and Chile

  Easy peel citrus: Spain, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay

  Bananas: Cameroon Republic, Ecuador Windward Isles.

  Health Care Professionals
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health under what circumstances he plans to demand patient information from health care professionals. [61424]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have no plans to demand patient information from health care professionals. While the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002 permit me to introduce a requirement for patient information to be disclosed in support of work on cancer or communicable disease surveillance, I will

  Abortions in England and Wales 1997–2001 performed under 10 weeks gestation, percentage NHS funded

  Year of termination

  Health authority of residence (2001 boundaries)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  England

  Avon

  64

  63

  64

  60

  53

  Barking and Havering

  44

  49

  42

  50

  71

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  47

  55

  58

  51

  47

  Barnsley

  58

  70

  63

  69

  72

  Bedfordshire

  48

  44

  48

  51

  53

  Berkshire

  78

  80

  78

  75

  78

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  49

  58

  51

  57

  62

  Birmingham

  59

  56

  62

  66

  67

  Bradford

  73

  70

  67

  68

  65

  Brent and Harrow

  75

  77

  74

  73

  75

  Buckinghamshire

  64

  63

  66

  67

  72

  Bury and Rochdale

  53

  56

  49

  63

  65

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  79

  77

  75

  77

  76

  Cambridgeshire

  82

  82

  82

  84

  81

  Camden and Islington

  51

  55

  55

  57

  55

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  64

  82

  86

  87

  76

  County Durham

  93

  89

  88

  88

  88

  Coventry

  92

  95

  87

  92

  96

  Croydon

  75

  75

  53

  53

  68

  Doncaster

  84

  81

  83

  83

  85

  Dorset

  42

  44

  41

  46

  45

  Dudley

  54

  53

  53

  50

  65

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  49

  40

  40

  43

  40

  East Kent

  64

  65

  67

  72

  80

  East Lancashire

  84

  81

  84

  88

  86

  728W
  only do so if so advised by the independent patient information advisory group. In the absence of such a requirement, the regulations are permissive rather than prescriptive, allowing but not requiring information to be disclosed.

  Hearing Aids
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to monitor whether(a) primary care trusts and (b) health authorities are making funding available to provide the best quality hearing aids to all patients. [61078]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued guidance on hearing aid technology in July 2000. Directions have been issued obliging health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding so that clinical decisions made by doctors involving NICE recommended treatments or drugs can be funded.

  We expect all health authorities and primary care trusts to meet their statutory obligations to provide appropriate funding for treatments recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The new strategic health authorities will manage the performance of their constituent national health service bodies in meeting these commitments.

  Abortions
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health authority in England and Wales the percentage of NHS-funded abortions occurring within 10 weeks gestation of pregnancy in each of the last five years. [61073]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is set out as follows.
  729W

  Abortions in England and Wales 1997–2001 performed under 10 weeks gestation, percentage NHS funded

  Year of termination

  Health authority of residence (2001 boundaries)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  East London and The City

  39

  39

  43

  43

  33

  East Riding

  88

  88

  89

  90

  89

  East Surrey

  49

  51

  60

  58

  70

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  47

  43

  54

  52

  54

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  92

  91

  92

  87

  88

  Gloucestershire

  82

  77

  79

  79

  83

  Herefordshire

  87

  84

  88

  91

  87

  Hertfordshire

  52

  61

  59

  61

  63

  Hillingdon

  47

  55

  59

  55

  62

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and SE Hants

  82

  82

  85

  86

  82

  Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster

  51

  56

  53

  54

  54

  Kingston and Richmond

  44

  43

  40

  39

  38

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  40

  58

  59

  58

  51

  Leeds

  75

  64

  59

  72

  70

  Leicestershire

  77

  81

  83

  83

  79

  Lincolnshire

  85

  84

  88

  89

  89

  Liverpool

  82

  74

  71

  68

  60

  Manchester

  55

  57

  71

  82

  86

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  54

  52

  49

  48

  44

  Morecambe Bay

  86

  87

  76

  82

  77

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  92

  92

  94

  93

  95

  Norfolk

  91

  92

  90

  90

  90

  North and East Devon

  94

  94

  94

  94

  95

  North and Mid Hampshire

  40

  42

  42

  54

  64

  North Cheshire

  79

  76

  75

  73

  79

  North Cumbria

  97

  98

  98

  97

  96

  North Derbyshire

  84

  86

  86

  88

  90

  North Essex

  50

  57

  53

  52

  52

  North Nottinghamshire

  77

  82

  83

  84

  84

  North Staffordshire

  62

  71

  68

  64

  63

  North West Lancashire

  39

  48

  48

  60

  73

  North Yorkshire

  79

  72

  72

  71

  71

  Northamptonshire

  66

  68

  64

  63

  62

  Northumberland

  97

  96

  94

  95

  95

  Nottingham

  69

  79

  84

  80

  78

  Oxfordshire

  89

  88

  84

  82

  79

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  31

  45

  30

  26

  37

  Rotherham

  76

  69

  74

  77

  78

  Salford and Trafford

  47

  46

  59

  66

  71

  Sandwell

  73

  70

  68

  70

  79

  Sefton

  78

  71

  67

  64

  75

  Sheffield

  81

  77

  78

  82

  86

  Shropshire

  61

  68

  72

  75

  78

  Solihull

  29

  27

  29

  48

  55

  Somerset

  91

  86

  85

  82

  81

  South and West Devon

  89

  87

  95

  96

  92

  South Cheshire

  74

  70

  66

  68

  74

  South Essex

  61

  64

  62

  64

  68

  South Humber

  89

  92

  93

  93

  91

  South Lancashire

  52

  47

  53

  57

  67

  South Staffordshire

  57

  64

  68

  75

  78

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  75

  71

  76

  76

  77

  Southern Derbyshire

  76

  81

  86

  76

  78

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  74

  71

  68

  65

  63

  Stockport

  64

  59

  63

  63

  73

  Suffolk

  87

  86

  87

  88

  85

  Sunderland

  95

  88

  87

  88

  88

  Tees

  97

  95

  94

  96

  96

  Wakefield

  63

  50

  51

  63

  71

  Walsall

  51

  45

  46

  48

  48

  Warwickshire

  90

  85

  81

  87

  88

  West Kent

  59

  75

  76

  73

  77

  West Pennine

  62

  58

  52

  73

  81

  West Surrey

  64

  64

  68

  66

  70

  West Sussex

  38

  42

  47

  50

  55

  Wigan and Bolton

  60

  58

  62

  68

  73

  Wiltshire

  51

  55

  55

  59

  69

  Wirral

  84

  66

  75

  73

  83

  Wolverhampton

  44

  38

  38

  58

  67

  730W 731W

  Abortions in England and Wales 1997–2001 performed under 10 weeks gestation, percentage NHS funded

  Year of termination

  Health authority of residence (2001 boundaries)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20011

  Wales

  Bro Taf

  61

  56

  66

  73

  70

  Dyfed Powys

  90

  92

  90

  89

  90

  Gwent

  93

  92

  90

  86

  88

  Morgannwg

  93

  94

  92

  91

  89

  North Wales

  83

  82

  82

  81

  84

  1Provisional

  Care Homes
  Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he is planning to issue guidance on standard 27.3 of Care Homes for Older People National Minimum Standards to(a) set out the ratios of care staff to service users and (b) provide a system for calculating staff numbers required. [63816]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department commissioned the residential forum to produce the guidance. This was published on 27 March. On the same day I issued statutory guidance to the National Care Standards Commission, under Section 6 of the Care Standards Act. The guidance sets out how the Commission should apply the regulations and standards in relation to staffing levels in care homes, to ensure that the approach to staffing levels is not rigid and that it avoids placing additional burdens on care homes.

  Copies of the Residential Forum's guidance are available from:

  Social Care Association (Education) Thornton House

  Hook Road

  Surbiton

  Surrey KT6 5AN

  Tel 020 8397 1419.

  My guidance to the Commission on applying the Residential Forum's guidance is available on the Department's internet website at: www.doh.gov.uk/ncsc.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what (1) assessment his Department has made of the impact the new care standards proposals will have on the level of care home fees; [61980]

  (2) what action his Department is taking to deal with the ongoing disputes between care homes and local councils over the level of fees; and what assessment he has made of the impact of disputes between care homes and local councils on bed blocking in hospitals; [61977]

  (3) if he will increase the level of funding to local councils in England for fees for care homes; [61979]

  (4) if he will introduce an arbitration system for dealing with disputes over the level of fees for care homes. [61978]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government is providing records levels of funding for social services. Resources have increased nationally by 20 per cent. in real terms between 1996–97 and 2002–03, an average real terms increase of 3 per cent. per annum. In addition, as announced on 17 April, we are increasing the resources for personal social services by an annual average of 6 per cent. in real 732W
  terms from 2003–04 to 2005–06. Councils have been incentivised to use some of their 6 per cent. annual increases to stabilise the care home market and fund home care services for older people.

  Included within these additional funds are resources provided to meet the cost care homes incur in meeting the care standards. We expect local authorities to reflect this in the fees they pay homes, as laid out in the "Building Capacity and Partnership in Care" agreement. The Department will continue to review the progress that is being made in the implementing of the agreement.

  The setting of fee levels are a matter for local decision and we have no plans to intervene in local negotiations.

  Care Home Fees
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of local authorities who are not making up the shortfall between preserved rights income and care home fees at the point of change; and if he will make a statement. [61512]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have issued guidance to local authorities on how to implement the abolition of preserved rights. When negotiating fees, councils should take account of the additional resources they are receiving to meet any shortfall between the old income support rates and the cost of care.

  Lynde House Care Home
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of the report into Lynde House care home in Twickenham carried out by Mary McClaren in the Library. [61786]

  Jacqui Smith
  No. The report into Lynde House Nursing Home was commissioned independently by Kingston and Richmond health authority, which regulated Lynde House under the Registered Homes Act 1984, and is not the responsibility of the Department. Under the Health Authorities (Establishment and Abolition) (England) Order 2002, responsibility for the findings of the report will fall to Richmond and Twickenham Primary Care Trust and the South West London health authority, which replaced Kingston and Richmond health authority on 1 April 2002.

  The National Care Standards Commission took over responsibility for the regulation of all care homes in England on 1 April 2002. The Commission will, of course, bear in mind the findings of the report and any other relevant information when inspecting the care home in future.

  Carers' Special Grant
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much carers' special grant has been allocated to(a) Barnsley and (b) Doncaster in each of the last four years. [61789]

  Mr. Lammy
  The table shows how much carers' grant has been allocated to Barnsley and Doncaster in each of the last four years.

  Carers' grant

  £000

  Metropolitan borough council

  Barnsley

  Doncaster

  1999–2000

  96

  113

  2000–01

  234

  281

  2001–02

  325

  390

  2002–03

  396

  475

  Chiropody
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, (1) pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 691W, on chiropody, for what reason the Government have decided not to publish Feet First II; [62065]

  (2) if he will place the outcomes of the review of chiropody services, Feet First II, in the Library. [61843]

  Jacqui Smith
  We currently have no plans to publish the review of "Feet First", nor to place a copy in the Library. Since the review was undertaken the focus on policy has shifted from professionally-led guidance to patient-led services. We want to ensure national health service organisations like the new primary care trusts make decisions on services based on their local populations' clinical needs. To help them make these decisions, and to ensure clinical input, chiropodists have been involved in the development of national service frameworks (NSF) for older people and diabetes. The NSF for older people, which was published in March 2001, sets performance measures for accessing chiropody/podiatry services.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many, and what percentage of children who left(a) a residential care home and (b) foster parents at the age of 16 years were not in education, employment and training at any one time between the ages of 16 to 18 years in the last five years for which figures are available. [61784]

  Jacqui Smith
  At present, the Department does not hold statistics that would allow us to answer this question. Since the introduction of the quality protects programme, individual local authorities should be compiling their own data about the progress of young people who they were looking after on the sixteenth birthday from August 1998, so that they have information about the education and employment outcomes of young people who have been in their care.
  734W
  The Children (Leaving Care) Act was commenced in October 2001. As part of the arrangements for monitoring the Act, local authorities are now required to submit details to the Department about the education, training and employment of 19-year-old care leavers, who had been looked after in their seventeenth year. The first set of data from this sample will be published in autumn 2002. It would then be possible to match this data with other information about young people's last placement prior to leaving care, to research whether for this cohort of young people there are significant correlations between placement type and education and employment outcomes.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 151W, on children in care, if he will provide such information as the Department has on the numbers of (a) mentally and (b) physically disabled children in care. [63872]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department carried out a children in need census in February 2000 which showed that in a typical week, there were about 29,000 children who were receiving services and were regarded as disabled, of whom 8,000 were children looked after. This report can be found on the children in need home page of Internet at www.doh.gov.uk/cin/ cin/2000.htm (paragraphs 30–32 refer).

  These figures were considered too unreliable to publish at local authority level, because of confusion in some authorities as to whether to include all disabled children or only those who need services by virtue of their disability or disabilities. No further breakdown is made in relation to children who are mentally disabled and/or physically disabled.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 151W, on children in care, which survey the information regarding the number of children in care births came from. [63870]

  Jacqui Smith
  The results of the survey, funded by the Department, were published in 1992 by the national children's bureau under the title "Prepared for living? A survey of young people leaving the care of three local authorities" (authors: N. Biehal et al.). The publication is available in the Library.

  Gunshot Wound
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there is a requirement upon hospital staff to notify police when persons are admitted with gunshot wounds. [61414]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: Hospital staff are not required to notify the police when persons are admitted with gunshot wounds. Health care professionals are guided by their professional codes of conduct regarding patient confidentiality and the disclosure of information outside the clinical team.

  Epilepsy
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of NHS care for(a) adults and (b) children who suffer from epilepsy; and if he will make a statement; [62329]
  735W
  (2) what the Government's response has been to the National Sentinel Audit of Epilepsy Related Death; and if he will make a statement. [62328]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have recently welcomed the publication of the Government funded National Sentinel Audit of Epilepsy-Related Death. The audit looked at investigations into epilepsy deaths, care provided prior to death and contact with bereaved families. We have given a commitment to consider the recommendations of the audit and develop an action plan by September 2002 to try to improve epilepsy services and reduce the number of preventable deaths from epilepsy.

  We recognise that people with epilepsy can sometimes experience difficulty in receiving appropriate services and adequate treatment for their condition. We are undertaking a range of initiatives to improve services for the care and management of people with epilepsy. For example, we have:

  Provided funding to the Joint Epilepsy Council (JEC) to develop a "national statement of good practice for the treatment and care of people who have epilepsy", which was published in May 2002. The statement makes a series of recommendations for good quality epilepsy services. It is intended to facilitate commissioning and will be of use to national health service purchasers, providers and service users.

  Asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to develop a clinical guideline (due in summer 2004) for the diagnosis, management and treatment of epilepsy to help address widespread variations in clinical practice and contribute to the improvement of services. This will be supported by a technology appraisal (due autumn 2003) of the clinical and cost effectiveness of new anti-epileptic drugs in children and adults, to help promote appropriate uptake and equitable access.

  Announced that the national service framework for long-term conditions (NSF) is expected to develop standards of care for specific neurological conditions, including epilepsy. The NSF is expected to be published in 2004. Implementation is expected to start from 2005.

  Developed the expert patients programme, which aims to provide training in self-management skills for people with long-term chronic conditions. The first pilot phase will include people with epilepsy.

  Provided funding to the National Society for Epilepsy for its living well project. The project aims to promote independent living by providing locally based short-term courses for people with epilepsy to develop self-help and self-management techniques.

  Dentists
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have ceased to perform NHS work since 1 May 1997; and what the net effect of this has been on the NHS budget. [62647]

  Mr. Lammy
  The available information is for the number of dentists leaving the general dental service (GDS) in England and is shown in the table for the years 1997–98 to 2001–02.

  The number of leavers covers all reasons for leaving the GDS including final retirement from dental work and dentists taking career breaks as well as those who left to practice solely privately. Figures from 1998–99 onwards are inflated by the transfer of some dentists from the GDS to some personal dental service (PDS) pilots. The total number of dentists includes principals on a health authority list, assistants and vocational dental practitioners.
  736W
  The effect on the national health service budget of those dentists leaving the GDS cannot be estimated because the dentists left for a variety of reasons.

  Since 1997–98 more dentists have joined than left. The number of GDS dentists has increased from 16,387 at March 1997 to 18,254 in March 2002, an increase of 1,867. Dentists are able to vary the amount of work they do in the GDS.

  General dental service (GDS): number of dentists who left the GDS from 1997–98 to 2001–02

  England

  Principals

  Assistants

  Vocational trainees

  Total

  1997–98

  738

  85

  77

  900

  1998–991

  761

  106

  105

  972

  1999–20001

  780

  157

  95

  1,032

  2000–011

  875

  181

  136

  1,192

  2001–021

  859

  193

  164

  1.216

  1 Figures affected by the transfer of some dentists from the GDS to the PDS.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) children and (b) adults are registered with an NHS dentist within Leicestershire health authority; and what percentage of people covered by Leicestershire health authority are registered with an NHS dentist. [62646]

  Mr. Lammy
  Arrangements are now in place to ensure that patients can gain access to national health service services by calling NHS Direct. This means that even if a patient chooses not to register with a dentist it will still be possible for that patient to access all forms of dentistry that are provided by the NHS.

  The number of children and adults registered with a general dental service (GDS) dentist and the percentage of population registered with a GDS dentist in Leicestershire is shown in the table at 30 April 2002.

  General dental service: number of patients registered and percentage of population1 registered with a GDS dentist in 2002

  Leicestershire2

  At 30 April 2002

  Number of patients registered thousands

  Population registered percentage

  Total

  458.4

  49

  Adults

  321.5

  45

  Children

  136.9

  63

  1 ONS 2000 mid year population estimates based on the 1991 census.

  2 From 1 April 2002, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland health authority has assumed responsibilities for the previous Leicestershire health authority.

  Nursing Care Payments
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were eligible for nursing care payments of(a) £35, (b) £70 and (c) £105 in each primary care trust; and if he will make a statement. [62843]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 975W.

  Hospital Pharmacies
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to allow hospital pharmacies to fulfil prescriptions from GPs. [62353]

  Mr. Lammy
  Hospital pharmacies could be providers of local pharmaceutical services under pilot schemes to be set up under the Health and Social Care Act 2001 and, as such, would be able to dispense prescriptions written by general practitioners.

  National Care Standards Commission
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will instruct the National Care Standards Commission not to inspect premises for adherence standards which are the responsibility of other agencies; [62964]

  (2) if he will list those National Care Standards which are duplicated in the rules of other agencies; [62965]

  (3) for what reason local authorities remain the enforcing bodies for health and safety in care homes following the creation of the National Care Standards Commission. [62966]

  Jacqui Smith
  The national minimum standards do not duplicate the rules of other agencies although they may refer to them for completeness. The national standards are designed to ensure care provision is fit for the purpose and meets the assessed needs of residents. It is for the National Care Standards Commission to decide in the particular circumstances of each individual home whether the home conforms to the standards necessary to meet the assessed needs of its residents.

  The commission must take national standards into account when making a decision as to whether an establishment complies with statutory requirements under the Care Standards Act. However, providers and their representative organisations urged that the commission should be allowed to take a range of other factors into account and the commission may also take into account any other factors it considers reasonable or relevant to do so. For example, compliance with other statutory requirements, as assessed by the relevant regulatory body.

  With the exception of environmental health issues, the responsibility for enforcement of health and safety requirements in care homes, as with all other establishments, rests with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). There is a degree of overlap in some areas between health and safety requirements and national standards but these are complementary rather than two organisations covering the same angle. The commission is currently working with the HSE and Local Government Association to develop a memorandum of understanding to clarify each other's roles and responsibilities in health and safety matters. The memorandum will be underpinned by locally agreed protocols. This will aid clarity in liaison with other bodies should adverse incidents arise and ensure protection of vulnerable people in care.

  Cosmetic Prosthesis Services
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the development of a national programme of cosmetic prosthesis services. [63212]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have no plans to develop a national programme of cosmetic prosthesis services. The national health service already provides silicone cosmesis coverings for prosthetic limbs free of charge to prosthetic limb users. We have made funding available for these coverings totalling £4 million for three years from April 2001 and the full range of prosthetic limb components is now available from disablement service centres.

  Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to his answer of 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 168W, on hospital discharges, in which paragraph and page number in the NHS Plan the target to reduce the number of delayed discharges from hospital by 20 per cent. between March 2002 and March 2003 is set out; [63871]

  (2) whether his target to reduce delayed discharge by 20 per cent. in the period March 2002 to March 2003 is for (a) the number of people that experience delayed discharge and (b) the number of bed days that a person is kept in hospital awaiting discharge. [63814]

  Jacqui Smith
  The NHS Plan target to reduce the total number of people that experience delayed discharge is in paragraph 12.9 on page 102 and states that we will end widespread bed blocking by 2004. The target to reduce the number of people that experience delayed discharges from hospital by 20 per cent. between March 2002 and March 2003 was set for the national health service as a milestone to progress to this overall target. This is expected to also reduce the number of bed days that people are kept in hospital awaiting discharge.

  Long-term Care Beds
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 167W, on long-term care beds, how much in cash terms the 6 per cent. in real terms increase in personal social services will be in each of the next three years. [63867]

  Jacqui Smith
  The increases in personal social services resources over the next three years which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17 April 2002 are in cash terms 10.3 per cent. for 2003–04, 6.9 per cent. for 2004–05 and 8.8 per cent. for 2005–06, an average annual increase of 8.7 per cent.

  Long-term Health
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 167W, regarding long-term health, what generic issues relevant to people with long-term conditions will be set out as part of the NSF for long-term health conditions. [63869]

  Jacqui Smith
  Following the recent announcement of the scope of the national service framework (NSF) for long-term conditions, we expect to appoint an external reference group (ERG) by the autumn. The ERG will
  739W
  undertake detailed work on developing the NSF and give consideration to the specific conditions and generic issues to be included. Some examples of the generic issues that the ERG could consider include patient and carer involvement, information, rehabilitation, pain management, and care and support in the home.

  Headache Disorders
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he plans to include primary headache disorders in the national service framework for long-term medical conditions. [63694]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department has recently confirmed that the national service framework (NSF) for long-term conditions will focus on developing standards of care for specific neurological conditions and some of the generic issues relevant to people with a long-term condition.

  An external reference group (ERG) is expected to be appointed by the autumn. The ERG will undertake detailed work on developing the NSF and will consider the specific conditions to be included. We will draw the ERG' s attention to the submissions we have received from Headache UK on headache and migraine.

  Local Government Funding (Harrow)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the social services element of Harrow council's local government settlement. [63901]
  740W
  Jacqui Smith
  There is frequent contact between the Department and Harrow council on various issues including the social services element of Harrow's local government finance settlement.

  Carers
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that carers are included in risk assessments relating to professional care providing teams with equivalent health and safety needs; and what recent research he has conducted into the health and safety needs of carers, with special reference to training needs. [62273]

  Jacqui Smith
  The national strategy for carers, "Caring about Carers", gave advice to social services departments and to the national health service on promoting carers health and safety, including the need for training, and quoted studies about the effect of caring on people's health and safety. The Department also commissioned a report, recently published, from the Office for National Statistics on the "Mental Health of Carers". Earlier this year the Health and Safety Executive published guidance on manual handling, "Handling Home Care", which highlights issues for service providers and their care staff and for service users and their families.

  The duties of undertakings, in respect of the health and safety of persons not in their employment, are laid down in section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (SI(99)3242).

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Higher Education: Pay
Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to increase the pay of university teachers.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the pay of staff in the higher education sector is determined through negotiations between higher education employers and the unions. The Government have increased publicly planned funding for higher education in England by £1.7 billion in the six years to 2003–04, a real-terms increase over that period of 18 per cent.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In asking this deeply unsound Question, perhaps I may assure him that I am not seeking to make a political point. However, is it not the case that the Government, as the ultimate providers of funds for universities, have a profound effect on what moneys are available for pay? Furthermore, is it not the case that over the past decade and a half, while there have been step changes in the pay of many groups in the public sector such as the police, nurses and so forth, we now have a situation where a university professor can earn less than half the salary of a headmaster of an important comprehensive school? Should not this issue be addressed in the Comprehensive Spending Review if our universities are to remain the great national asset that we want them to be?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the terms in which he has asked his supplementary questions. He is right to point out that academic pay is an issue. That is why we have allocated specific sums of money to assist with the problems of academic pay. The noble Lord will recognise that we are seeking to address particular areas of shortage. Furthermore, he is absolutely correct to say that this issue must be considered significant in the spending review, and that is exactly what the Government intend to do.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, first, given that a 30 year-old university lecturer can earn less than a 25 year-old primary school teacher, are the Government confident that they will not have to face the same crisis in recruitment and retention in the university sector as they now face in our schools?
1052
Secondly, given that women lecturers consistently earn 20 to 25 per cent less than men, what are the Government doing to ensure that the universities address this issue? Is the gap in pay being closed?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with regard to the second question put by the noble Baroness, it is certainly the case that the Government have addressed the issue of ensuring increased equality of pay in higher education. I think that the noble Baroness will recognise that efforts have been made in negotiations precisely to address this matter.
Turning to the question of recruitment and retention among university lecturers, there are specific areas where issues need to be addressed. However, overall the situation is by no means at crisis level. I think that the noble Baroness would recognise, too, that it is probably unfair to draw straight comparisons between teachers in one area of education and another. We value all teachers and therefore we would not want to do anything but take pride in the enhancement of salaries among school teachers which has taken place in recent years.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for conceding that there are problems to be addressed in this area. Perhaps I may ask him how and when it is proposed to address them.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the issue is already being addressed because we have increased by a significant amount the money available for staff pay. An increase of some £170 million has been made available to fund staff pay over the past three years. However, we recognise that in specific areas there are problems with regard both to retention and recruitment, such as in medicine. That is why a joint committee of representatives from the health and education departments has been set up to ensure that the extra students coming in to study medicine will be fully funded and that appropriate resources will he made available to meet those needs.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for admitting that there is a problem in this sector. Can he say whether he has studied the age profile of professors and lecturers in higher education? Has he noticed that very many more staff are in the higher age range, with far fewer at the lower end? Does he agree that that may coincide with the fact that salaries are not very attractive?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is certainly the case that a large number of university lecturers fall into the higher age bracket. That is a reflection of the very significant expansion in higher education which took place some 30 to 40 years ago; many of those staff were appointed and began their careers at that time.
I should like to offer the noble Lord some reassurance with regard to junior staff. The number of students successfully completing PhD courses is increasing significantly. At this point, therefore, there is no tremendous anxiety about the pool from which

1053
staff for higher education may be drawn. However, we must consider whether such students will choose to move into higher education. That is a matter to which we are addressing our thoughts.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that one-third of the whole of university expenditure goes on academic salaries and that, through the funding council, the Government fund 50 per cent of university income plus another 12 per cent through other public bodies, making a total of 62 per cent? I do not see why, when the Minister replied to my noble friend's Question, the Government tried to disclaim responsibility for the appalling state of academic salaries.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hope that I was not in danger of disclaiming responsibility. I was seeking to reflect the obvious fact that negotiating machinery exists for decisions to be taken on HE pay. That machinery is used by the HE institutions and the unions and it is not for the Government to intervene in the process. The noble Baroness is right that the total sum available to the negotiators is an important factor in the outcome of such negotiations. That is why sums of up to £170 million over three years have been allocated specifically towards increasing higher education pay.
Earl Russell: My Lords, further to the question about the pay of women lecturers, does the Minister agree that the time when they tend to fall behind is when they are in their late thirties, which is both the time of the heaviest pressure to publish and the last practical years for child bearing? In the light of that, would it be sensible in considering publication to give more weight to quality and less to quantity? Does the Minister think that there are sound academic reasons for that approach anyway?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl's final point—of course quality is the issue. I share with the noble Earl the concern that, of all professions, higher education should continue to manifest discrimination against women to the extent that it does. Forty to 50 years ago, when the first attempts to improve opportunities and equality for women in society began, we would have anticipated that higher education would blaze a trail rather than be somewhat tardy in its approach to these matters. That is why we have devoted specific sums towards the issue of equality and we expect that important factor to be taken into account by HE employers.

Freedom of Information Act 2000: Section 77
2.45 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwellasked Her Majesty's Government:
When it is proposed to bring into force Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, Section 77 is not yet in force. When it is, it will make it an offence for a person to destroy or alter a record requested either under the Freedom of Information Act or the Data Protection Act where this is done for the purpose of preventing its disclosure.
As I announced to your Lordships on 13th November last, the Freedom of Information Act is to be implemented in stages: first, rolling programmes of publication schemes and then the individual right of access to information in January 2005. It had been contemplated that Section 77 should also come into force on 1st January 2005. However, consideration of the noble and learned Lord's Question, as well as representations made by others, has prompted me to consult within government about the possibility of bringing the section into force earlier. I hope by October to be in a position to announce the Government's decision once consultation is complete.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, while thanking my noble and learned friend—not only formally—for that encouraging Answer, while I am on a winning streak may I tempt him a little further? Does he recollect that some time has passed since Mr Maurice Frankel pointed out that if Section 77 remains unimplemented while other sections of the Act are in force and applications are made, we may find that the quarry has escaped through a back window? Does my noble and learned friend agree that if burglars were given more than two years' warning that the police intended to visit their house with a search warrant, we might have less overcrowding in our prisons?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a colourful way of putting it but a little wide of the Question. Certainly two members of the advisory group on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act—the Information Commissioner herself and Mr Maurice Frankel, the director of the campaign for freedom of information—made representations on the subject of earlier implementation of Section 77. Mr Frankel made the point that Section 77 would merely penalise what public authorities must already recognise would be unacceptable—that is, the destruction of requested records to subvert an applicant's right of access. On the other hand, I hasten to say that there is no evidence whatever that any government department is deliberately destroying records to frustrate valid access requests. None the less, as I said, prompted by the noble and learned Lord's Question and the representations that I have described, I am consulting across government about the possibility of an earlier implementation of that section.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, when is it intended that Sections 19 and 20 of the Act dealing with publication schemes should be brought into force? Has the noble and learned Lord had equivalent second thoughts about accelerating the regrettable decision not to bring the main part of the Act into force until January 2005?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, no, I have not had second thoughts, and that remains the position. As regards Sections 19 and 20, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Desai: My Lords, in as much as Section 77 applies only to public authorities, are there any plans to extend it to the private sector?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, when Section 77 is brought into force, it will apply to a request under both the Freedom of Information Act and the Data Protection Act. The Freedom of Information Act applies only to public authorities. The Data Protection Act applies to both public and private bodies, but the offence under Section 77—as Section 77(1)(a) makes clear—applies only to requests to public authorities.
The Section 77 offence was created to ensure consistency of approach between freedom of information and data protection in the public sector. The Freedom of Information Act, unlike the Data Protection Act, does not apply to the private sector.
I have no evidence at all that destruction of records to which people are entitled under the Data Protection Act is occurring in the private sector, but if any noble Lords have information in that regard, I shall, of course, consider it.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I welcome the noble and learned Lord's reply, particularly as regards the earlier implementation of Section 77. As Section 77 applies to public authorities and creates an offence in relation to withholding information, are the Government primarily concerned with protecting government departments, for the time being at any rate? That was not the impression given previously.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Government do not intend to protect government departments. Section 77 will provide a protection for the individual when it is introduced; but there is no evidence whatever—and the Information Commissioner would confirm this—that any destruction of documents by government departments is taking place.

Identity Fraud: Entitlement Card Consultation
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Sharplesasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many government departments now issue entitlement cards as identification documents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, three departments do so. The DVLA issues photocard driving licences. The Home Office is issuing application registration cards to asylum seekers. The passport, which helps travellers prove their entitlement to consular assistance, is the
1056
other widely accepted proof- of-identity document in the United Kingdom. The Passport Service is seeking to develop a card form of the passport book.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his helpful reply. With fraud running at a rate of about £1.2 billion a year, would it not be a good idea to introduce a voluntary entitlement card to cover all aspects? I believe that a consultation White Paper will be published shortly on this matter. Does the Minister know when it will be available?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. Identity fraud is a growing crime. A figure of £1.2 billion is the current estimate—although it is difficult to be definite. It is clearly one of the issues that will be debated when the Government publish a consultation paper in the summer on the pros and cons of an entitlement card. Without being able to give a precise answer as to the date, the last two days appear to imply that summer is getting closer, do they not?
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, given the appointment of my noble friend to the Home Office, might he consider doing what his predecessor felt unable to do? Will he rewrite the language and use the term "national identity cards"? That is what we are talking about in principle. Is it not true that in every area of public administration—health, taxation, law and order, credit regulation, the benefits system and higher and further education among ithers—there is an overwhelming need for the introduction of a national identity card? That is now the overwhelming view of the British public, as would be found if only we were to test their view in opinion polls.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, my noble friend is well known for the vehemence of his advocacy of the need for an identity card. I do not think that the Government are interested in an identity card. All that an identity card does is to prove one's identity—or to seek to do so.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Filkin: The issue, therefore, is to what extent an entitlement card which effectively allowed a range of other documentation to be collapsed into it could be of benefit to the public. The Government are unlikely to take a hard view one way or the other but they are keen to see a full and thoughtful debate about the benefits to the public of an entitlement card which might mean that they no longer needed to carry a range of other cards and identity documents.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, approaching this subject from the opposite direction to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, are the Government aware that there is a risk, and in some circles considerable concern, that we are approaching the introduction of a national identity card by stealth? Does the Minister

1057
agree that, if we are to have a national identity card, there must be an open debate about it and the Government will have to prove their case? They will have a seriously difficult case to prove.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I strongly agree on the importance of an informed debate about the pros and cons of an entitlement card and the possible benefits to the public. That is why the consultation paper, when it comes out in the summer, will set out those arguments and seek to engage the widest possible cross-section of the community in reflecting on what might be the benefits and the costs of having or not having an identity entitlement card. This House will no doubt play a vigorous role in the discussion and appraisal of that consultation paper.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I must say, first, that I tremble with anxiety at having been so presumptuous as almost to have got in the way of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. That said, I beg the Minister to go further than merely discovering that an identity card is about revealing identity. It could have other uses. I ask the Government to open their mind. My noble friend asked a very sensible question, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I should have hoped that the noble Lord would take the great risk of accepting those encouraging questions.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I have not been here long, but long enough to know that it never pays to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. That was exactly what I sought to signal when I made what the House thought a slightly semantic point. A document that merely purports to prove identity does not add great benefits to an individual citizen. If, on the other hand, a card identified one's identity but also acted as a driving licence and a passport, and gave access to a range of public services, it could be of benefit and constitute an advance. An identity card by itself might not be so advantageous.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my noble friend Lord Woolmer of Leeds has asked Her Majesty's Government how many separate electronic databases they hold on average on each male and female United Kingdom citizen? The question was asked as long ago as 15th March. It relates without question to the issue of identity cards. Will my noble friend give some indication as to when a reply is likely?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the short answer is considerably sooner than if the question had not been answered in oral Questions today. I do not seek to answer it totally. Clearly, a Written Answer should come rapidly forward. This is not a Home Office responsibility, I am delighted to say, but to the best of my knowledge there are some five major databases operated by central government or the devolved administrations: the departmental central index which holds national insurance numbers; the NHS central
1058
register; the UK passport central database; and the databases of drivers and vehicles held by DVLA. No doubt there are others, and I shall do my best to ensure that the proper Written Answer comes as soon as possible.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of his honourable friends in another place stated quite clearly that the document for discussion would be out in the spring or in early summer?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I think that the House is clear that it has been an appalling spring and a rather late summer.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will my noble friend give more information on one of his three options for photo-identity cards—those for asylum seekers? Do they get the cards when they arrive in Calais or when they land in this country? When are they convertible into an asylum entitlement card?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the cards are currently issued to people who are registering a claim for asylum in this country at Croydon. That started in January. They will be progressively rolled out across the rest of the asylum management process during the course of this year. As the noble Lord implied, the aim is to reduce fraud or any multiple applications that have been known to be made by some asylum claimants.

Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel
3 p.m.
Baroness Wilcoxasked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the priority they give to drawing up authoritative advice on measures to minimise airline passengers' risk of deep vein thrombosis, whether they give similar priority to ensuring that this important advice is understood by those passengers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's first priority, as recommended by the noble Baroness's committee, is for research to investigate possible links between air travel and deep vein thrombosis. We have made £1.2 million available to ensure that the World Health Organisation's project goes ahead. We are the only country to have provided funding.
The noble Baroness has raised a legitimate point about passengers' understanding of advice. The Department of Transport will discuss the matter with the airlines and the travel industry.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he confirm that that welcome change of heart will also cover the extent to which intending passengers, particularly those in vulnerable groups, get clear information in time to seek

1059
potentially life-saving advice before they travel? Does he agree that in-flight advice is too late for that unfortunate few?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the existing advice, which was started in November 2001, is available via airlines, and presumably from the travel industry. It is also available from health practitioners and from NHS Direct, as well as through the Internet. It can reach intending passengers as well as actual passengers. The Department of Health produces health advice for travellers, which is available to anybody. The noble Baroness's point is well taken, but it is being addressed.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the NHS does not, as a matter of routine, collect information regarding the travel patterns of people with thromboembolic disease? Does he agree that if we are to understand the potential links between DVT and air travel, this information should be collected?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree entirely. That is exactly why we are putting all that money into the World Health Organisation project. Some £1.8 million is being put in, most of it from this country and the rest from the European Commission. In the first instance, it will provide large-scale epidemiological research into the relationship between DVT and long-haul air travel—exactly the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I declare an interest, having suffered from DVT some years ago. I felt a real clot at the time! The committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, did a seminal job in drawing the attention of the public to this danger. To what extent do GPs and others in the medical profession make information for travellers available in their surgeries? Has the Minister found any resistance among the airlines to drawing the issue to the attention of passengers, not when they get on the plane, but when they buy their tickets? In my experience, preparation for the journey will do the trick.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, addressed that important issue very well in her supplementary question. The airlines make such advice available. My understanding is that they are all co-operating in making it available as they sell tickets or prepare to sell tickets, not just when people board planes. I confirm that health practitioners have information to give to their patients. The information is also available from NHS Direct.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the minimum distance between seats on aeroplanes is set by the CAA, based on safety recommendations for evacuation of aeroplanes? Has the CAA looked into those minimum distances in the
1060
light of the medical evidence now available and in view of the report produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and her committee?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the issue of seat pitch has been a matter of great controversy recently, as the noble Viscount knows. The issue of whether seat pitch—in other words, being confined and unnecessarily immobilized—is the principal or only link with deep vein thrombosis has still to be proved. That is why the World Health Organisation research is so important.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the research is being undertaken, one possible means of reducing the potential risk of DVT would be for airlines to be required to reduce the number of rows of seats on flights lasting four hours or more, thus increasing the seat pitch?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are serious issues there as well. There are other possible causes of deep vein thrombosis. It could be caused not just by seat pitch, but also by the nature of the atmosphere, what passengers eat or drink — particularly whether they drink water—or whether they take advice about moving around the cabin or what exercises to take. All those issues are important. Seat pitch is clearly one that the airlines will have to take seriously as part of that range of issues.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the European Council, Seville.

Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Employee Share Schemes Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Second Report
3.8 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Perhaps I may give some background. Your Lordships will remember that the issue relates to the Convention on the Future of Europe, which was established to prepare

1061
the way for the next intergovernmental conference. It contains representatives from all the national parliaments of Europe. We have two alternates from this House—the noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Maclennan of Rogart—in addition to the two representatives appointed by the Commons.
Thought has been given to how the four Members of the two Houses can best report back to Parliament. A message was received from the Commons on 13th June. The House of Commons has ordered the establishment of a Standing Committee on the convention. Its object is the consideration of reports from the United Kingdom parliamentary representatives to the convention. It has no other function and it has no decision-making powers. This is a Commons committee and it was the decision of the Commons, on their own initiative, to set it up. I know that many of your Lordships may regret that it is not a Joint Committee, but that is what the Commons decided and we were only told about it once they had decided.
However, the report of the Procedure Committee sets out a new procedure whereby Members of this House will be able to contribute fully to the work of the committee. Any noble Lord who wishes to attend will be able to take part in all the debates in the committee with the limited provisos that they may not move Motions, that they may not vote and that they will not count towards a quorum. They will be able to question the Commons representatives, which they would not necessarily be able to do were they also to set up their own committee. In addition, the Lords alternate representatives will be permitted to appear before the Standing Committee, make statements and answer questions in the same way as the Commons representatives.
Noble Lords will also be aware that the European Union Committee of this House is already keeping the work of the convention under review. It has already taken evidence from the four representatives and the Minister for Europe, Mr Peter Hain. That work will continue in parallel with the formal process of reporting back, which is described in the Procedure Committee report.
Starting with a blank sheet, we might well have preferred a Joint Committee but we are where we are and it is important that we should make the best of it. I emphasise that this approach in no way precludes noble Lords from debating issues that arise from the convention as it develops or from tabling Motions on that subject from time to time. The only procedural limitations on Members of this House, as I said, will be that they will not be entitled to vote, move any Motion or count towards a quorum. I can think of very few occasions on which votes will be called for in that Standing Committee.
A number of questions were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, in a Written Question, and were answered last week by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. If anyone has not yet read them, I commend them because they answer a number of outstanding questions.
1062
Moved, That the 2nd Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 130) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
Convention on the future of Europe
On 28 January 2002 the House appointed two Alternate Representatives to the Convention on the future of Europe. At the same time the House of Commons appointed two Representatives. Consideration has been given as to how these four members of the two Houses can report back to their colleagues at Westminster on their work in the Convention and respond to questions.
The House of Commons has now appointed a Standing Committee on the Convention on the future of Europe but in which the Lords Alternate Representatives and any other member of this House may participate. Procedurally, this is a new departure. The Standing Committee is not a conventional joint committee of the two Houses, and members of this House would not appearing before it as witnesses before a Commons committee, which is a procedure provided for in Standing Order 24 (Lords' attendance at Commons select committees). What is proposed in the new Commons Standing Committee is an entirely new procedure, whereby members of the House of Lords can participate in a Commons-appointed committee. There will be some procedural limitations on members of this House (they will not be entitled to vote, move and motion or count towards the quorum), but these limitations would not prevent either the Alternates from reporting on, or other Members of this House from debating, the issues considered at the Convention.
Details as to when and where the new Standing Committee will meet are not yet settled. But members of this House will be kept informed about meetings in the same way as for Lords Committees, by means of the Committee sheet appended to the Minutes of Proceedings, by the Committee Office's Weekly Agenda (available from the PPO) and by other means such as the parliamentary website.
The Procedure Committee recommends that members of the House of Lords should be able to participate in the work of the Commons Standing Committee, as provided for in the Commons Message received on Thursday 13 June. If this recommendation is agreed to, the Leader of the House will move a resolution giving leave to members of the House of Lords to do so.
The Procedure Committee recognises that the European Union Committee will itself wish to ensure that the work of the Convention is fully and properly monitored, but welcomes the creation of an additional forum in which the Parliamentary Representatives and Alternates can report back to members of both Houses on the work of the convention.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for setting out the background to the report of the Procedure Committee.
I want to ask one further brief question in addition to those to which the noble Lord kindly alluded. As he rightly said and as the report states, this is an entirely new procedure—it is a novelty. A committee of this kind has not in living memory or in parliamentary records ever previously been set up. As he said, the arrangement places on noble Lords certain procedural limitations, although it obviously provides an opportunity for those noble Lords who are interested in such matters to attend and participate.
If noble Lords are not going to be full members and attend as individuals, will it be possible for them, in effect, to sign on and therefore ensure that they receive detailed minutes, proposals of Motions, the timing of meetings, the location of meetings, the subjects to be

1063
addressed and so on? That would allow them to participate effectively and not simply scan the committee procedure papers and hope to be able to turn up at the right time. There is a danger that unless the information is provided effectively—unless it is the same as that provided to Members of another place—we will fluid ourselves in a second-class status. I seek an assurance on that matter.
The report goes much wider but the fundamental issue is about the role of your Lordships' House in relation to the work of the European convention. Such matters go a little beyond the bailiwick of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal might respond when he moves the next Motion on the Order Paper; I leave it for him to decide how to deal with the wider issues.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for having presented the matter so clearly to the House. The convention is clearly an important development in the work of the European Union; it represents an opportunity for national parliaments to be involved in considerations in advance of the intergovernmental conference. It is therefore extremely important that both parts of this Parliament, and Parliament together, work out how we handle these matters.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, will know, my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart and the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, are in Brussels today; there is a meeting of the convention as we speak. My noble friend told me that he very much welcomes this interesting innovation and the fact that there will be an opportunity for himself and the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, to appear before the Commons committee.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, and as the Procedure Committee determined last week, this is an entirely new procedure. It is perhaps unfortunate that there was not more consultation between the two Houses before such an innovation was introduced, or even suggested to us. It does not appear to be a particularly good example of joined-up Parliament. I hope that in the work of the Joint Committee on the reform of this House and elsewhere, we try to ensure that, in future, when such decisions are taken, there is fuller consultation.
None the less, in the light of what has been said and of the assurances given to the Procedure Committee, this arrangement will be a useful part of the process by which Parliament will be able to discuss such matters. However, it will be only part of that process. As the Procedure Committee report makes clear, it is important that our European Union Committee continues its work considering such matters and that your Lordships' House has an opportunity to discuss them. That debate need not necessarily take place between now and the Summer Recess, given the programme that we know is ahead of us, but I hope
1064
that we have a report from the European Union Committee before then and a debate at an early stage when we return in the autumn.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Roper; I do not like this at all. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I am not sure whether I should address my question to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, or to my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, who will move the next Motion on the Order Paper, which is also about the convention.
Apparently, the other place is doing us a favour; it is allowing us, very kindly, to be represented on its committee but not to be members of it. I do not want to be represented on its committee. I would much rather have our own Select Committees, which generally do a much better job than the other place. They are much more objective—the European Union Committee is a supreme example.
To be honest, I am reluctant to agree to this Motion because I am very unhappy about it. I do not like it at all. I should much prefer that it was not before us. I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff; this Motion is about the second report of the Procedure Committee. I hope that the House does not like that procedure; I do not. The idea that we should be done a favour, as it were, and allowed to attend a Standing Committee of another place is not something that appeals to me. Those sitting on Select Commit tees in another place, as I have said previously, invariably are not at all objective and usually finish up with very great differences of opinion. That is perfectly right, but we do not get a truly objective report of the kind that our Select Committees provide.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, wishes to stand down his Motion, as it were, and leave it to my noble and learned friend Lord Williams to tell us his view. It is a bit crazy. We have on the Order Paper a Motion on the procedure of the House relating to the convention and we have another Motion relating to the convention itself, which will be moved by my noble and learned friend. I should be glad for an explanation. Where on earth are we going?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I warmly agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said. I do not like this idea at all. However, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on the restrained way in which he told noble Lords the bad news. When he said, with a clarity that I can only envy, that we are where we are, he was introducing us to a new situation and a very uncomfortable one. Will someone explain whether the House of Commons has behaved rather carelessly or with deliberate bad manners? Personally, I believe that it is probably the latter. I hope that we can reopen this matter in some way. I also hope that the Leader of the House will restrain his natural modesty and carefulness and will play a part in the matter by speaking out clearly for your Lordships to explain their very strong distaste.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, perhaps we could hear from the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Chairman of Committees has already referred to the work of the European Union Committee in this matter. It is true to say that we have already taken one session of evidence on the convention from the four parliamentary representatives. We intend to take further evidence in 10 days' time from Mr Peter Hain, the Minister for Europe, specifically on the issue of the convention. He mentioned it in passing during an earlier session.
As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Roper, wanted us to do, we intend to publish a report on the matter and hope to do so before the commencement of the Summer Recess. That report could of course be the subject of a debate. But I believe, as I know do many members of my committee, that at some point a debate should be held in government time led by a Minister so that we can hear the Government's view on the convention rather than simply that of the European Union Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked about receiving notice of meetings, and so on. All members of the European Union Committee will receive notices of meetings from our committee Clerk. If other noble Lords would like to be added to that list, they have only to let us know and we shall do our best to accommodate them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, may we be told whether we are discussing the item on the Order Paper under the heading "Procedure of the House" or whether we are discussing that together with the following item on the Convention on the Future of Europe? In that way we shall know whether to make substantive points on the first Motion or whether to leave them until we reach debate on the second Motion.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. We are discussing the first Motion. The second Motion is an enabling Motion and will follow this one. This is the one on which I suspect the substantive discussion will take place.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, as an apprentice in proceedings in this House, having entered the House only last year, perhaps I may intervene briefly to put an alternative view. Looking at the report, I see some longer-term implications in its wording. It says that procedurally this is a new departure. I want to know whether that means that the rules on order in the other place will now be amended so that a new Standing Order will allow for a committee of this nature to sit and involve Members of this House. That would be a departure from historic procedure.
1066
If that were to be the case, I can imagine circumstances in the future in which it might be of great benefit to this House for such an arrangement to be available. That would particularly be so over coming years when we consider aspects of procedural reform which affect not only this place but also the operations of the other place. In those circumstances, the committee which might make recommendations to the House of Commons would do well to have in mind the views of those who were able to sit on that committee, if this were a precedent. It should make its views known and have them considered by Members of the House of Commons.
Therefore, I say to my noble friend: let us consider carefully what the committee says. If it is simply the fact that we have not been consulted fully, that disturbs us. Let us look in this tangled undergrowth to find something which may be of benefit to us in the longer run.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the terms so accurately described by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, have an uncanny resemblance to the terms under which we first allowed the Commons to attend Parliament over 700 years ago. Perhaps I may express the hope that we shall use our opportunity as skilfully as they have done.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I listened very carefully to what my noble friend Lord Barnett said. I partially agree with him and partially disagree. The essential feature of the work of the committee is that it will consider the future of Europe. Of course, in that respect I believe it is imperative that as many views as possible are taken from the Houses of Parliament. What is being contemplated here falls far short of that. I am not saying that this House should have exactly the same representation as another place, but our views should be heard. It is no good coming to the Chamber today and saying, "Well, our views will be heard but only just." There is absolutely no reason why the members of the committee should not participate on an equal basis. Frankly, that is not the case here, and I cannot agree with the new procedure.
A number of debates have taken place in this House on this issue. No one in their right mind would come to the conclusion that the views expressed have been meaningless. For that reason, I believe that, when it comes to scrutinising what Europe will look like in the future, no one should come to the conclusion that this House has no part to play whatever. In my view, the report presumes something about which we have not yet reached a conclusion. But it also presumes that we have no right to any views at all except by permission of the House of Commons, and that is entirely wrong.
Therefore, I believe that we should carefully put forward representations as expressed by a number of noble Lords today to those who really matter. What was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is by the way. In my view, the fact that the committee has

1067
considered some evidence is neither here nor there. If the House comes to the conclusion that the committee is wrongly comprised, it should say so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it seems that this is the time to speak if one has anything to say on this matter. I was not entirely enlightened by the reply given to me by the Chairman of Committees. Therefore, in case I miss the boat, I might as well say the few words that I want to say at this stage.
First, I welcome any proposal to have a wider and informed discussion about the European convention. That is extremely important since the convention is being used to take forward further integration through the imposition of a European constitution, a legal personality and further powers to the Commission and Parliament in areas of defence, foreign affairs, economic policy and taxation.
In my view it is a useful innovation that Members of your Lordships' House should be able to participate in questions to representatives and in discussions, together with Members of another place. All too often, both Houses operate in isolation. In this House we do not take as much note as perhaps we should of the House of Commons, and certainly the House of Commons does not take as much note as it should of this House. It may well be that this innovation will help to achieve understanding between both Houses. They should be directly informed of each other's views. That is important when we discuss matters European, which have a vital effect on the constitution of our nation.
I accept that noble Lords cannot move Motions, vote or be counted as part of a quorum. However, I should like assurance either from the Chairman of Committees or the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House that Members of this House will be given every opportunity to participate equally with Members of the House of Commons and not be treated as second-class participants. Will their views, for example, be recorded in Hansard? Will they be able to raise points of order or participate in discussions on points of order?
This is a novel procedure, and all noble Lords cannot possibly be expected to read every Order Paper, minute and Hansard report every day. Therefore—again I emphasise that this is an innovative procedure—could all noble Lords be sent an individual letter about the new Standing Committee informing them of its establishment, the access to it which noble Lords will have, the restrictions on their actions and, indeed, the date of its inaugural meeting? Unless we do that and all Members of the House understand what is happening and how they can participate, this will be a flop. Having said that, I hope that we can proceed with the experiment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I confess that I came into the Chamber today with, I hope, a totally open and neutral mind. Frankly, the longer I have heard the debate continue, the less enthusiastic I appear to be about the Motion before the House. Surely, the danger
1068
is that if Members of this House can go down to the other end and participate in a Select Committee with no rights to vote—
A noble Lord: No.
Lord Richard: My Lords, they would be participating, would they not, in the proceedings of the committee?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. It is not a Select Committee but a Standing Committee, which is different.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not think that that undermines the point I am about to make. The danger is that this House will be seen to be committed to whatever the Standing Committee in the House of Commons produces. The Committee will be able to say, "We do not need to take any further account of the House of Lords because the noble Lord, Lord So and So, and the noble Baroness, Lady So and So, turned up and participated in a meeting".
The other difficulty is the question of who noble Lords represent. There is a danger that they will be seen as representing this Chamber, whereas they represent no one but themselves. If every Member of this House is entitled to participate in a House of Commons Standing Committee, frankly, the mind boggles. The Members of the House of Commons Standing Committee are carefully chosen. Presumably no one will choose our representatives to go down to the other end and participate in the affairs of the Standing Committee. We shall all be entitled to do that. What a thought.
It seems to me that the first part of the Motion to be moved by my noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal makes sense. Our representatives to the convention should be entitled to appear before the Standing Committee of another place. However, I find difficulty with the second part of the Motion, which is that somehow this Chamber should become involved in what is happening in that Chamber.
It seems to me that the proper way to determine Parliament's view on the convention is either to set up a Joint Committee, which clearly will not now be possible, or for each House to produce its view. The Commons will produce its view on the convention; this Chamber will produce its view and then no doubt one will be able to see to what extent they coincide.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I shall try to tie up one or two of the problems raised. While it is fresh in my mind, perhaps I may reply to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The Motion by Mr Robin Cook states:
"There shall be a standing committee, called the Standing Committee on the Convention, for the consideration of reports from the United Kingdom Parliamentary Representatives to the Convention on the future of Europe".

1069
That is the beginning and end of this Standing Committee. The Motion continues:
"Provided that no proceedings under this paragraph may continue after the expiry of a period of one and a half hours from their commencement, except with the leave of the chairman".
The next point is important:
"At the conclusion of proceedings under the preceding paragraph, the committee shall consider only a motion proposed from the chair, 'That the committee has considered the report of [date] from the United Kingdom Representatives to the Convention on the future of Europe' and the chairman shall put any Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on such a motion, if not previously concluded".
It is clear from that that the object is to hear and receive the reports on behalf of the House of Commons. They will be debated and Members of your Lordships' House will be entitled to attend and participate in that debate. However, the conclusions of that debate will in no way bind this House. We shall undoubtedly have our own debates from time to time as this proceeds.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, raised the question of notice of meetings, as did several other noble Lords. The noble Lord set out the question clearly but it may be of help to other noble Lords if I repeat the Written Answer given to the noble Lord by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons:
"Members of the House of Lords will receive notice of the meetings of this Committee as they do of other House committees—i.e. in the minutes of proceedings; in the Committee Office Weekly Agenda (available from the PPO); by way of daily committee broadsheets posted around the House",
which noble Lords will have seen on the noticeboards, and which state which committees are sitting,
"and on the screen in the Central Lobby; and on the website."
Then, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon,
"Members of the European Union Committee will also receive notice directly … Any other Member wishing to receive information about the meetings of this committee directly … is invited to contact the Clerk of the European Union Committee on extension 6083".—[Official Report, 21/6/02; col. WA 111.]
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, raised the question of whether there should be more joint discussion on the setting up of the Standing Committee. I believe that the general view of the House is that there should have been. However, unfortunately there was not. As I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton pointed out that we are where we are, regrettable though that may be. However, this is only part of the proceedings of finding out what is going on in the convention and what this House wants to say about it.
I hope that I have explained to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, why there are two Motions. The second one, which the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House will move shortly, is a facilitating Motion to allow Members of your Lordships' House to go down to the other place. It would be generous of the House to allow them to do that.
I do not dare cross swords with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the history of how the Commons came into being. He is almost certainly right, as usual.
1070
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that opportunities had to be provided to hear the views of noble Lords. Well, there will be. The views of this House will not go unheard. First, I would not want that to happen and, secondly, I would not have any way of stopping it.
If one takes the whole package, it will be a useful experiment. It may not be perfect. It may have been better to have a Joint Committee. But this is a Standing Committee and we do not have Standing Committees in your Lordships' House for good and sufficient reasons. But it is an opportunity for Members of your Lordships' House to make their views known at the other end of the corridor, which does not happen often. That is quite valuable.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Can he explain to us whether it will require changes in the Standing Orders of the other House? What is the advice from the Clerk?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Commons resolution which I quoted gives that right. So there is no need for a change to Standing Orders. It states:
"Notwithstanding Standing Order No. 86, the standing committee shall consist of those Members of the House nominated for the time being to the European Scrutiny Committee … and to the Foreign Affairs Committee … together with the Parliamentary Representatives".
It therefore relates to a Standing Order which already exists and which has been extended. It states specifically that Members of the House of Lords may attend.
I hope that that deals with most of the queries raised.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I am not clear—I do not think many noble Lords are—whether we are debating what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, described as "part" of the arrangements for monitoring and looking into the convention, or whether we will debate that on the next Motion. Can he clarify which it is? Like others, we would like to develop the important wider points which arise from the initial Motion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as the Chairman of Committees indicated at the outset, the substantive question is presently being discussed. Thereafter I shall move a purely formal, consequential Motion.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, that is extremely helpful. Many noble Lords raised fundamental issues, rightly so, about the broader way, of which this is only part, by which your Lordships' House, with all its vast accumulated experience and expertise on European affairs, can contribute in an ongoing and interactive way—this is not supposed to be a one-way hand-me-down to us from the convention—to the issues being shaped by the convention.

1071
We are left in no doubt that huge issues of fundamental importance to our democratic future are being discussed. Apparently a new basic treaty is being drawn up along with new human rights legislation to replace the European Convention on Human Rights. A working group on the role of Parliament has been set up. I do not know what that is looking at or whether we have been asked to make contributions. A new President of the Council of Ministers has been proposed. The Commission has produced 50 ideas about what to do. All that is rolling past us at this moment.
We have the excellent European Union Committee which has had one hearing with the four delegates—they are called representatives but that is incorrect; they are, if anything, delegates. That was an extremely interesting hearing. At that hearing the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, acutely observed that national parliaments believe themselves to be underweighted and under-represented in the convention. He went on to say that he felt they were being given the status of "visiting gypsies". That is not an encouraging start to what is supposed to be the involvement of our national parliaments, including this House, in the work of the convention.
The European Union Committee had that excellent hearing. It is to have a hearing with the Minister shortly, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon said. It will produce a report at the end of the summer. I suppose that means we may have a chance of debating this topic, if the Government can find time, in October. But meanwhile a massive number of major issues will have begun to form, be set and be discussed elsewhere, but not here. Is the Lord Privy Seal really satisfied that that is an adequate opportunity for your Lordships' House as a whole to contribute to this enormously important work, where decisions are to be made for which, in years to come, we shall be blamed if we have not raised our voices at the right time?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his intervention. It is clear that if we approve the second report, the Leader of the House will move a resolution which will then allow Members of your Lordships' House to attend a Standing Committee of another place. I am not happy with what has been described as a "useful experiment". I do not believe it will be useful at all.
We should at least think again about this, if we do not reject it altogether, to consider whether we need this "favour" or whether we should leave it to our excellent European Union Select Committee and, if necessary, an additional sub-committee, to look at the whole issue. We do not need to be minority players. Noble Lords who have had experience of the other place and its Standing Committees will know that any Members of your Lordships' House slipping down there to say hello but with no power to vote or anything else will not be listened to. I should like my
1072
noble and learned friend to speak in the ear of the Chairman of Committees and suggest that he withdraw this Motion for the time being.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, as a member of the European Union Select Committee, perhaps I may make a brief intervention and ask whether our committee asked the Minister for Europe whether we could have joint reporting arrangements, provided those did not undermine our already existing arrangements.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the answer is probably yes. I look upon this whole matter as being an addition to the process which would normally take place. Clearly I am not part of the usual channels and I am not part of the Government's programme. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, will understand that.
I hope that the Government will provide time for proper discussion on what the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, rightly said is a vital issue. From my experience on the European Select Committee I saw this in the beginning. My views on it do not need to be recorded here and now. I have views which are on the record from the past. There is no doubt that this is something this House must take seriously.
I am sure that our Select Committee will do a first-class job in sifting the evidence which is coming forward. We must bear in mind that the purpose of the Standing Committee is to take reports. It will not make any decisions on those reports. It will still be up to us to consider the matter in as much detail as we possibly can in the period between now and later in the year. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, is correct in saying that things can be set in concrete while we are watching them dry if we are not careful. It is important therefore that the House uses its facilities through our admirable Select Committee to ensure that the matter is debated as widely as possible.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the noble Lord apply his mind to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett? Will he consider withdrawing this Motion now—he may come back to it tomorrow if that is the right way to go—in order to discuss the views expressed today before pressing the House to accept it? I would not be of a mind to do so today.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I asked specifically whether, because this was an innovation, all noble Lords should he written to individually with an explanation of what the Motion is all about; what they can and cannot do; how long the committee will last and whether all of us—I take it that that is the proposition—can go along and attend those meetings. This debate has been rather confusing. I believe that individual Members should be informed of exactly what it is about.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord is confused by the debate. The short answer to whether noble Lords should receive a letter on the subject is no. Members of your Lordships'

1073
House have plenty of opportunities to become informed: by reading Hansard, by looking at the forthcoming business, by reading notices on noticeboards, or by reading the reports of our Select Committee. To write letters to every Member of your Lordships' House would be over-egging the pudding.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I do not see what variant there could be on the Motion that is before the House. This is the position; this is the decision of the Procedure Committee. It may be right or it may be wrong, but I would be sorry if we turned down the opportunity to participate in the procedures at the other end of the building where Members of your Lordships' House—this answers the other question put by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—can see matters evolve. I hope that noble Lords will not resist the Motion. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Convention on the Future of Europe
3.51 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved to resolve, That the Commons Message of 13th June be now considered; that the Alternate Representatives to the Convention on the Future of Europe appointed by this House may make statements and answer questions on the discharge of their responsibilities in the Standing Committee on the Convention appointed by the Commons; and that they and any other Lord may participate in the committee's proceedings, but may not vote or move any Motion or be counted in the quorum.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a Message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

European Council, Seville
3.52 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the European Council in Seville on 21st and 22nd June. This was the last summit of the successful and very professional Spanish Presidency.
"By 2004, the European Union will have welcomed up to 10 new member countries with more to follow. This is an historic opportunity which the Government welcome. Excellent progress on the timetable has been made under the Spanish
1074
Presidency and, at Seville, we reaffirmed our commitment to complete the negotiations by the end of the year.
"In preparing for a union of 25 member states we need to reform the way we operate. We have agreed a series of measures that will allow us to streamline the Council agenda in order to shorten Council meetings and to make sure that issues decided by specialist Councils are only, exceptionally, put before the European Council. We have set a limit on the size of delegations. And, in order to prepare meetings of the European Council, the General Affairs Council will become a General Affairs and External Relations Council, split into two separate parts with separate meetings, separate agendas and, if member states desire it, different Ministers taking part.
"We have opened up Council legislative meetings to the public.
"We have further reduced the number of specialist Councils. There were over 20 three years ago, 16 now, and we will further reduce them to nine, concentrating in one Council the whole of the European Union's agenda of competitiveness which is at the heart of the economic reform agenda. Our campaign for simpler, better regulation with proper consultation with business and industry was endorsed.
"The European Council itself will henceforth set a multi-annual strategic programme for the whole of the European Union for the following three years, with an annual work programme set by the General Affairs Council. This is a significant evolution in the role of member governments in setting the EU's agenda.
"In a letter to Prime Minister Aznar a month ago, I proposed that at Seville we should: give a remit for action to strengthen the EU's borders, including Community funding; make progress on returns to Afghanistan now that normal government is being restored; benchmark the performance of third countries and use our network of agreements to improve co-operation in handling migration issues.
"Since the Tampere summit we have, across the European Union, introduced tough penalties for people smuggling and people trafficking, and agreed visa security rules, and a Europe-wide database for identifying illegal immigrants. We are setting minimum reception conditions for asylum seekers and have established a European Refugee Fund to help countries, including our own, deal with this problem.
"At Seville, first, we decided on measures to combat illegal migration including action on visas, re-admission agreements and a repatriation programme, including early returns to Afghanistan.
"Secondly, this year we agreed to take steps to achieve co-ordinated management of external borders, including joint operations at those borders.
"Legal migration can and does bring real and substantial benefits to countries, including Britain. Our aim is not to prevent legal migration; on the

1075
contrary, subject to proper rules, we welcome it. It is to stop illegal immigration and asylum-seeking which is not genuine because that debases the system and harms the interests of the legal immigrant. And it is about ensuring that the people traffickers who trade in human misery cannot exploit weaknesses. You have only to look at the success of the joint Anglo-Italian operation in Bosnia to see what can be achieved. There, an airport was being used to transit illegal immigrants into the European Union. Unaccounted arrivals have now been cut by 90 per cent. But we are dealing here with clever, organised criminal gangs. If we shut down one route, they come looking for the next.
"So, the third element is about the integration of immigration policy into the Union's relations with third countries based on the following: all new cooperation or association agreements with third countries will have a migration clause and a commitment to re-admission; re-admission agreements with all relevant countries will be completed as soon as possible; there will be a systematic review of relations with third countries to gauge the extent of their co-operation in migration issues.
"A majority of states, including Britain, wanted to go further in hardening the language on third country returns. A minority were concerned that this looked as if we were prepared to harm our development objectives. In the end, the compromise was that, in respect of any new agreement, returns to third countries would be an integral part of the negotiation on all aspects of the agreement.
"In respect of existing agreements where there is non-co-operation, we reserved the right to adopt any measures or positions in respect of a third country we decide upon, provided they are consistent with our contractual commitments and development objectives. I have no doubt that this will now form a key part of our relations with third countries, although the test, of course, will be in the practical effect of the measures proposed.
"The World Summit on Sustainable Development meets in Johannesburg in two months' time. I have made clear for the past year my strong commitment to the aims for this summit. Many leaders, including myself, will be there. The European Council gave a strong message of support for the policies of sustainable development. We re-affirmed our commitment to breaking down trade barriers, including on agriculture. We called for initiatives at Johannesburg on water, sanitation, energy and health—all top UK priorities. I urge the House to give this programme its full support.
"The conclusions of the summit have been placed in the Library of the House. I draw the House's attention to the declaration that we issued on India/Pakistan and to the statement of the Council which takes note of a national statement by Ireland.
"Finally, we discussed the grave crisis in the Middle East. We agreed that there must be an end to the violence so that the Israelis and Palestinians
1076
can re-launch the peace process as rapidly as possible. As I have said many times, this must result in a secure Israel recognised by its Arab neighbours; and in a viable Palestinian state.
"I repeat my praise of the six months of the Spanish Presidency. On economic reform, reform of the Council and on the sensitive issues of illegal immigration and asylum, they have made substantial progress. The direction of policy is clear. It is the pace that we need to quicken. But that is a far cry from where the agenda of reform stood five years ago. For Britain, the policy of constructive engagement is right, proves itself consistently and under this government, will be maintained"
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.59 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House for repeating that Statement. I begin by condemning the new bomb outrages in Spain. I hope that he will convey to the Spanish Government the sense of anger and the solidarity of this House. I welcome the declarations on the Middle East, on India and Pakistan and on sustainable development.
However, the overall truth about the Seville summit is stark. The Prime Minister said that Barcelona was a "make or break" summit and yet it failed. Before Seville the Government's spin doctors said that we had two objectives: firm action against nations failing to stop what Mr Blair called "sophisticated global people trafficking and exploitation rackets on an unprecedented scale" and resistance to any question of a European border police force. But we failed on both counts. We got what we did not want and we did not get what we wanted. Yet again, the spin was strong but the delivery was weak.
Is it not astonishing that one Minister was openly briefing against the Government's declared aim on the trade in asylum seekers? We must be entitled to expect the Government to enter a summit with a united voice, otherwise what prospect is there of any other country taking seriously our negotiating position? Against that background, was it surprising that the Prime Minister was mugged and humiliated on his asylum proposals?
Will the noble and learned Lord explain what concrete progress has been made on asylum? At the Tampere summit there was an agreement to act, but as the Prime Minister admitted last week, action did not follow as it should have done. Why should it be different now?
The Government have a new rallying call: the need for uniform asylum rules in the European Union. We have had a common approach since 1997, but it has failed. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us what new rules were agreed at Seville with this issue top of the agenda? And, following the summit, what hope is there for unanimity behind tough proposals? The communiqué says that inadequate co-operation on illegal trafficking,
"could hamper the establishment of closer relations between that country and the EU".

1077
How will such feather-duster language deter the ruthless criminal gangs of which the Prime Minister himself spoke before the summit?
Would it not be a better course to return to the pre-1997 situation: firm action by individual governments and concrete co-operation between nation states? Of course we welcome the bilateral approach to France over Sangatte. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us when he expects agreement on its closure? Surely closing Sangatte is treating the symptom and not the cause? Surely Seville has left tough EU action on the causes as far off as ever? Will the noble and learned Lord tell the House whether the United Kingdom Government will apply sanctions against governments that connive at human trafficking, as the Prime Minister said he wanted to?
The Statement failed to mention the plan for European border police, which was part of the summit conclusions signed by Britain. A co-ordinating body is to be set up without delay to prepare an EU force, and the Justice Commissioner said that a force will be in being in five years' time. Will the United Kingdom contribute to the cost of an EU border police? Will it contribute personnel? If so, will the force have powers to arrest British citizens? Surely this is another example of British objections being ignored? We were told—and we are still being told—that that would never happen on the road to delivery.
Will the noble and learned Lord confirm that early implementation of a European arrest warrant was discussed? Will he give an assurance that Parliament will be able to reject the arrest warrant and that, if it does so, the Government will not implement it? The power of arrest goes to the heart of personal liberty. Only our Parliament should be permitted to give that power over British citizens to a foreign jurisdiction.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord knows the implications of the Danish presidency's unwillingness to chair the Defence Committee. Will he confirm that the chair will instead fall to Greece for a full 12 months? If so, what are the implications for relations with Turkey, the accession of Cyprus, and, if that is not achieved, the accession of other applicants?
Was there any discussion of further action against the tyrannical Government in Zimbabwe; any discussion with Spain on the proposed referendum in Gibraltar; and did the French Government at last give undertakings to lift their unjustified ban on British beef?
Rarely was any EU summit more hyped, but rarely has a summit delivered less. The Government are seen as failing at home. The Seville summit is evidence that the Downing Street culture of hype and spin is increasingly failing abroad.
4.5 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Although I hope I can do so with due moderation, I must say that the Statement on this far-reaching and important meeting bears little relationship to the
1078
presidency conclusions. It is as if out of two possible interpretations of the summit the Government have deliberately chosen the minimalist one.
That is a great shame because this House and the other place must be able to obtain answers to questions about what happened at the summit. The Statement relates in detail to only one substantial aspect of what was discussed and almost nothing else. That makes the job of this House and another place in assuring accountability to Parliament much more difficult. I hope that in future the Government will give more adequate Statements about summits of such importance.
However, I warmly congratulate the Government, and indeed the summit, on their part in a great historic achievement by any standards: by the end of this year—a much earlier date than many of us supposed—there will be an additional 10 members of the European Union. I want to place on the record that outside this country, it is widely regarded as a major achievement of this country and the other European member states. It is an astonishing achievement to have brought the whole of Europe together within the Union.
I am afraid that that is where my congratulations stop. I turn to the annex on the reorganisation of the Council meetings. It is highly significant, although it was hardly mentioned in the Statement. It will lead to the setting up of nine specialist councils. So far there has been no discussion on how those councils can be made more fully accountable, although the Statement makes it clear that most major decisions will no longer go to the four council ministers, but will be dealt with by the specialist councils.
That throws up substantial questions about how we can hold the specialist councils accountable on crucial matters. The Statement referred to making the council's procedures open. With great respect, they will be only partially open because the openness will be restricted to televising discussions on issues subject to co-decision making. Many issues not subject to co-decision making can be made accountable only to national parliaments. That is where we want the openness of the council to be established, with full media coverage of what goes on there. No one can hold accountable anyone who meets in secret. After nearly 50 years, it is high time that the Council meets for legislative purposes fully openly and attracts the media to its proceedings.
I turn to asylum and immigration, on which I part company with the Leader of the Opposition. As he will appreciate, we believe that steps forward have been taken; in particular, the decision to move towards a common definition of the minimum standards required for claiming asylum; a common standard on the reunification of families; and a common standard on the right to emigrate legally into the European Union.
However, I have two questions for the Leader of the House. First, what consideration, if any, has been given to a proper policy of legal immigration in a continent that is growing steadily older and where

1079
increasingly semi-skilled and unskilled jobs are going to people outside that continent? Will the noble and learned Lord tell us whether there is a serious approach to a legal immigration policy, which would ease some of the pressures on illegal immigrants?
Secondly, we are delighted that the presidential conclusions referred to the need to uphold international agreements, including the Geneva Convention 1951. Will the noble and learned Lord give us an assurance that the Government fully accept those conclusions? Will he recognise that as a civilised continent we need to accept that there are justified asylum seekers as well as illegal immigrants and that steps taken to stop the latter must not have repercussions to stop the former?
I turn to the European security and defence policy. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us more about the position of Cyprus? As I understand the situation, it has been impossible to proceed with that policy, even though the welcome conclusion of the summit statement made plain that—and this is important—no "binding mutual defence commitments" are imposed on any members. That puts to rest the—I think—absurd rumour about a European army.
Furthermore, what will happen if the declaration on the Middle East—yet another of those worthy declarations we hear about almost daily—is simply disregarded by the Government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, as so many others have been?
Finally, in the report on the convention there is a government reference to the need for a full debate. There is also reference to the fact that in this country no such debate has taken place. Later this week we shall discuss the Education Bill. We must consider seriously why in our discussions on the national curriculum, on which our children are educated, there is no discussion of Europe and no consideration about how citizenship of Europe as well as the United Kingdom can be taught. If any country needs a full debate, it is this one. The polls show that most people know little about Europe. Can the Government say when that full debate will be introduced? Will they consider bringing forward the referendum on the single currency so that the debate in this country can at long last be started?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said right at the outset. We all condemn these acts of terrorism. Indeed, in Spain, I am familiar with them. I have visited the Basque Parliament in Vitoria: the courthouse next door was blown up. And when I was in Madrid, looking at questions of European expansion and the way that a second Chamber might be reformed, there were several car explosions. That is completely intolerable to any fair-minded outsider, in particular when one bears in mind the extent of autonomy granted to the Basque lands, which must be one of the most generous acceptances of autonomy in any part of Europe.
1080
I am grateful also for the noble Lord's welcome of the statement on the Middle East and India and Pakistan. The noble Lord must not always believe stories about spin. Some of his remarks almost seem to be spin-worthy rather than based on actuality.
We have accomplished a great deal. Perhaps I may repeat one or two items to which the noble Lord referred when dealing specifically with an immigration policy. This applies to the question of the noble Baroness about the necessity of having a common approach on immigration. I agree with her entirely. The Home Secretary's recent intervention, based substantially on the work that Ms Barbara Roche and Jack Straw started to develop at the Home Office, made it plain that a good deal of controlled and legal immigration is extremely beneficial to the host economy. If one has sensible approaches and rational debate, not chauvinistic prejudice or xenophobic prejudice, it is capable of being of lasting benefit to the economy and culture of the country. The two go together.
It is interesting that now that Spain is in the European Union, the number of unlawful Spanish workers living in France—for example— its close neighbour, has declined dramatically. That is a fairly clear indication of how a reasoned approach brings benefits.
Specifically, Seville agreed that, with regard to relations with third countries, new co-operation or association agreements would have a migration clause and a commitment to re-admission. That is a common stance. It agreed that re-admission agreements with all relevant countries would be completed as soon as possible. There is to be a systematic joint review of relations with third countries to gauge the extent of their co-operation on migration issues.
The noble Lord asked for specifics. We agreed action on visas, re-admission agreements and a repatriation programme including early returns to Afghanistan. One million people have already returned to Afghanistan. We have also agreed to take steps for the co-ordinated management of external borders, including joint operation at those borders. None of those things are capable of being attended to successfully in their entirety overnight, but this is significant progress.
I cannot give a precise date for the closure of Sangatte. I can say that the Home Secretary is meeting his opposite number tomorrow.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about the sanctions which one can apply to traffickers in human beings. The criminal law is available to deal with them. It is difficult to introduce sanctions, except in the measured way that I have suggested, subject to proof that certain countries have been encouraging, allowing or turning a blind eye to, human trafficking.
Parliament has an opportunity to discuss the arrest warrant. If my memory serves me right, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has an oral Question tabled to be answered in the next few days.

1081
A specific question was asked about Greece. The noble Lord is quite right: Denmark will chair, which is allowed for if one country does not wish to deal with the matter.
Cyprus and Turkey remain difficult. The hope is—it is the express policy re-affirmed in Seville—that a united Cyprus will accede to the European Union as a single state.
Zimbabwe has been discussed on a number of recent occasions. There was a clear GAC statement on 17th June, which is just a few days ago. The next GAC—22nd July—will look at the situation in greater detail. The House of Commons has an opportunity to debate Zimbabwe tomorrow—25th June.
The noble Lord asked whether there was any discussion of Gibraltar. There was not. He asked whether the French Government agreed to reconsider their views on the British beef question. Last Wednesday evening in Paris the Prime Minister raised that issue with M. Chirac, not as part of Seville, but as an urgent question.
The noble Baroness, with her sense of history and modern geopolitics, described this as an huge historic achievement. I recognise that because of time constraints the Statement simply tries to point to a few important headings, but the body of the conclusions and the annexes are capable of offering us this historic opportunity.
The noble Baroness asked me—I hope she was smiling—whether I was able to give a date for the European referendum. Since I presently wish to continue in my modest position in your Lordships' House, I am not able to give any views on that. She asked whether we should have a full debate. In my view, yes. I think that we should have full debates in this House on all matters of genuine pressing public importance. However, that is a matter for the usual channels. I have indicated my view.
I have dealt with the question of Cyprus. The noble Baroness asked about the Middle East. The policy was reiterated. The policy of Her Majesty's Government has always been safe, secure boundaries for the state of Israel upon which there can be no negotiation, deviation or backtracking. There must be recognition by all Arab countries and Israel's neighbours that Israel has a right to exist, which this country has rightly and resolutely defended since the founding of the state of Israel more than 50 years ago.
The question was asked what will happen if the statement is disregarded? I think that your Lordships already know that Secretary of State Powell is eager to have a conference on Middle East matters as soon as possible. We stand by our international agreements. We must bear in mind that some of these agreements are historically quite old. I suggest that one should look at international agreements as being the tools of human advancement and that one ought to re-scrutinise them periodically. I do not say that that was necessarily the approach of Seville. I simply point out that one needs constantly to review international
1082
agreements, some of which were effected long before the question of—for example—economic migration on the scale that we know was ever contemplated.
In summary, I suggest that this was an extremely successful conference. Spain is a significant cooperator with the United Kingdom. It is fair to say that since 1997 our modern relationships with Spain have never been stronger.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord answer one or two tiny questions? Three or four years ago, I sat on a committee chaired by Lord Middleton considering the effect on the common agricultural policy of the arrival of Poland, Romania and and other east European countries. That committee decided unanimously that without complete and radical reform of the CAP, it would be impossible for the eastern European countries to enter the European Union. One or other had to go.
To further help the noble and learned Lord to answer this question, I have a farm partner who has taken over 12,000 acres in Poland. He has raised grain production from four tonnes to eight tonnes per hectare. Poland was in serious grain surplus producing mode before that. How on earth are Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Hungary going to enter the European Union unless the problems of the CAP are thoroughly addressed? They were ignored at Nice; they have been ignored at Barcelona. The CAP represents 50 per cent of European Union expenditure. That is not how to run a railway, even under Stephen Byers.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Earl raises perfectly legitimate questions. There is a necessity to reform the CAP. Of course, as I think that the noble Lord would agree, that obtained long before the question of the accession of Poland or Romania. Those two potential accession countries are in different categories, as the noble Lord will know. Poland is in the first wave; while Romania and Bulgaria, although I think that the noble Lord limited his remarks to Romania, aim to accede by 2007. No one pretends, and no one pretended at Seville, that those are not difficult questions but I respectfully suggest that it is of advantage to the Poles for Poland to be a member of the European Union.
To take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, it is to the advantage of the European Union that the former eastern bloc countries which, after all, have lived in tyranny for a substantial part of the last half of the 20th century, join us. If we can assist them to do so, they will benefit and so will we.
At the risk of being tedious, I repeat a point that I have made on previous occasions. So often, we in this country overlook the extraordinary achievements in the construction over many centuries of a civilised civil society. It is humbling to visit countries in parts of Europe that have not had those benefits. We must try to be optimistic, although I recognise that many of the noble Earl's points are valid.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, have the Government reached from their salutary experience at Seville the

1083
sensible view that using harsh and populist rhetoric along with unworkable solutions is not the way to achieve progress on asylum and immigration? The way to achieve that is through solid progress in the Council. What the Seville summit has done is to tell Ministers to make decisions, which is what they should have been doing all along. Have the Government also concluded that the way to reach those decisions in the Council, some of which have been sitting on the table for the best part of three years, is by majority voting?
Have the Government also considered whether they should re-evaluate their general opt-out from the asylum and immigration provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam? We know that on a case-by-case basis, the Government have opted in to most of the asylum provisions—most of which, of course, have not yet been agreed. They have also opted in to the measures on illegal immigration—of which, ironically, a considerable number are already in place. But they have not opted in to any of the measures concerning legal migration, including measures that would give 1.5 million people in this country who are legal, long-term residents but not citizens greater rights to move to live in another EU country. That would fulfil the aspiration for the flexibility and mobility of workers around the EU.
Have the Government drawn those conclusions—to use majority voting and cease the generalised optout—to reinforce the construction of a common immigration and asylum system? That is the way to proceed, not creating a bit of hype occasionally at summits, which tends to unravel.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a good point about the inefficient way in which European institutions work. It is important to bear in mind that the current 20 council configurations will soon he reduced to nine: general affairs and external relations; economic and financial affairs; justice and home affairs; employment, social policy, health and consumer affairs; competitiveness; transport, telecommunications and energy; agriculture and fisheries; environment; and education, youth and culture. Some power will be devolved to those configurated bodies.
I agree that harsh and populist rhetoric from whatever quarter does not assist in resolving those problems. I repeat my agreement with my right honourable friend Mr Blunkett, who said that we need a rational and informed debate on immigration, which may well be economic migration rather than asylum seeking. I must say that Mr Letwin gave a civilised response to that; he is also eager to have that debate. The debate itself will be of benefit to the way in which we conduct political affairs in this country, and its conclusion will be of benefit to those who want to migrate and who have skills to offer this country.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that, far from being disappointing, the summit revealed remarkable progress on a wide range of subjects. Far from adopting a dogmatic approach, the summit showed
1084
that pragmatism has been able to secure significant progress on matters that five or 10 years ago would have been thought to be in the world of fantasy? I shall give two examples. The first, of course, is the gradual introduction of a co-ordinated and integrated management of external borders.
But on another issue frequently debated in this House, namely European security and defence policy, is there not pragmatic progress without much dispute on a police mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina—taken over from the United Nations, I think the communique states—and in Macedonia, taken over from NATO? I hope that the Official Opposition will take the opportunity to welcome that, but does not the summit represent pragmatic progress across a wide range of matters?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend is right. In fact, wanting to know something about the topic, I read the conclusions of that document, which I commend to any of your Lordships who have not had that pleasure. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and my noble friend. The statement does not necessarily do full justice to all of the work that was done.
If one considers ESDP, the operation in Macedonia to which my noble friend referred continues. It has been enormously successful when we consider not only the alternatives but the situation that we know existed only a few years ago. I agree with my noble friend. That pragmatic, incremental approach has been extremely valuable. That continued approach is one reason why so many countries want to join the European Union. If my noble friend had asked me 15 years ago whether I could ever contemplate a time when Poland, Romania or Bulgaria might be seeking to join us, I would have thought that he had taken leave of his senses.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord accept from someone who laboured in those rather arid vineyards for some time congratulations on the procedural and administrative changes that have been made to the working of the Council? They will seriously improve the way in which it sets about its work. The reduction in specialist councils was long overdue; there were far too many of them with far too little to do. That will cut down the bureaucracy.
The decision to set out the medium-term objectives of the European Union on a systematic basis—an idea that I believe was first proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, many years ago and which has taken a long time to come to fruition—will also bring an element of clarity to the way in which the European Union goes about its work. The changes that have been introduced are extremely important.
I express some sadness at the fact that the vast majority of the British press seemed to think that they were reporting the World Cup in the Far East rather than a serious discussion of the European Union's immigration policy. To my mind, the outcome was a reasonable compromise between several conflicting

1085
objectives. It was good to see that the European Union had not totally lost sight of the fact that it must provide refuge for people from countries in which they are persecuted or are in danger of their life. We should not introduce an immigration policy that comes down on such people. At the same time, however, there are serious matters that must be dealt with, and it is hard to see how they could be dealt with effectively by individual states taking separate and different action. The remit to take things forward collectively represents the only way. I hope that the Government will not tire of pressing for early decisions on that matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for the knowledge and expertise that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, brings to the debate. He will agree that arid vineyards can, sometimes, be productive; the arid vineyards of Rioja Alta produce excellent wine. The noble Lord is right that, in 2002, there is no sensible prospect of individual solutions operating other than to everyone's disadvantage in the difficult area of immigration and asylum.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, following the recent summit, will the noble and learned Lord say how any asylum seeker can be assessed as being non-genuine, unless he or she has been carefully interviewed and until such time as there is a common EU definition of who and what is a refugee?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is a fairly widespread understanding of what a refugee is and of what an asylum seeker with a well founded claim is. I agree that one must be careful, subtle and decent in interviewing those who may or may not be genuine; they are entitled to civilised and decent treatment and behaviour.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, there has been great emphasis on asylum and immigration. Can the Minister clarify exactly what was agreed at the summit? As I understand it, co-operation between police and immigration authorities is to be enhanced immediately. Is it also true that work is to begin immediately on the establishment of a common European Union corps of border guards, complete with their own command, uniforms and, probably, arms, and that that corps is likely to be operative in five years' time?
I ask that question because Antonio Vitorino, the justice commissioner, said that co-operation would start with co-ordination but evolve in the medium term—four to five years—into a fully fledged European guard force. How does that square with what Mr Straw said? He said:
"Such is the opposition to the principle of a European border force that it will not feature, except as an acknowledgement that discussion took place".
1086
Is that the policy of the British Government? Will it be adhered to in spite of the fact that the Italian plan for a fully integrated border police force was, apparently, warmly welcomed by national leaders except—I hope—Mr Blair?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no member state is calling for the EU to move immediately to a European Union border police force and nor does the declaration made at Seville. Seville did call for an immediate increase in joint operations, more co-operation between national immigration liaison officers and more common risk assessment and training. The Commission was also called on to produce a study on burden sharing. Those are all rational, sensible moves and are fully supported by the United Kingdom. Indeed, we called for them before Seville.
The example of Sangatte demonstrates that it is in all our interests to strengthen external borders. There is no question of the United Kingdom's abandoning or weakening its national border controls. In the longer term, we have nothing against a European border police force, if it is capable of being effective in protecting the external border.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred to the Italian study. Even that study does not call for an immediate move to European border police; it calls for groups or—not my word—nodes of national immigration officials to consider different aspects of strengthening the external border, which would cover airport security and other joint operations, with a central secretariat to co-ordinate the work in Rome. Some think that such ideas are unduly bureaucratic, but it is important that national immigration officers work together.
There are other ideas. The Austrians, the Belgians and the Finnish are making proposals relating to contact points, the extension of immigration liaison officer networks, technical support, rapid responsibility and joint operations. The Commission is proposing joint operations, risk assessments and training and the pooling of surveillance equipment.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord always presents himself as a person of great optimism, but does not he become a little depressed, at times, at the way in which agreements with other European countries are broken with impunity? Has France made the slightest attempt to implement the spirit of the Dublin convention, which assumed that people arriving in a Community country and appearing to be asylum seekers would have their application processed and would be granted asylum or returned to the country from which they had come or their country of origin?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I prefer to view life optimistically. Sometimes, as the noble Lord knows, optimism is justified. To his astonishment and mine, we came to an agreement on a possible way forward for working practices in the House. If he had

1087
been a pessimist or I an inveterate grouch, neither of us would have spoken to each other, but all ended in harmony, light and a decent lunch.
The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, have both said that Dublin should be revisited, and I am sure that that is right. We do not have perfect co-operation with France on every conceivable aspect, but, by and large, France is a good partner in Europe.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend take note of the obvious support in the House for the insistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that there should be a full debate on the matters discussed today? Will the Minister be certain to emphasise, in preparing the Government's part in that debate, the fact that hundreds upon hundreds of European regulations emanating from Brussels already go through for execution without the slightest intervention of either House of Parliament? The power of Parliament to express a view or take any effective action about the proposals is being progressively diminished. That matter should be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this chimes, I believe, with what I was gently putting to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, has not been alone. In one way or another, most of your Lordships have criticised the fact that there is an increasing body of Europe-derived legislation which has insufficient scrutiny. But that is precisely one of the recommendations to be found in that excellent document relating to the Leader's Group on working practices, where we suggest that your Lordships do just that. I was very heartened by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said that his committee was happy to review the question with a view to producing more effective scrutiny. That is true of all secondary legislation, but not least European-derived legislation. I am happy to endorse my noble friend's stance.
As regards a full debate, I believe that I have made my own view clear. Subject to the agreement of the usual channels, this is the sort of debate we ought to be having—informed, constructive, rational and lacking in populist rhetoric.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill
4.40 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
In October last year my right honourable friend the Home Secretary promised a comprehensive and radical reform of our nationality, immigration and asylum systems. The White Paper Secure Borders, Safe Haven and now this Bill, which has been constructively debated in another place, are major steps in taking the Government's commitment forward.
1088
Before I come to the contents of the Bill, I should like to put it into its wider context by just referring briefly to four issues: first, the contribution that legal and managed migration can make. We recognise that migrants bring significant benefits to this country in terms of their contribution to our economy and to the richness of our diverse culture. The White Paper outlined the Government's proposals for sensible, controlled avenues of migration to fill labour and skills gaps in the UK economy.
Our first priority remains, of course, getting the UK unemployed into work through Welfare to Work and New Deal policies. But managed migration can complement those domestic policies by providing legal avenues for entry to the UK for those with the skills required to contribute to our economy and society.
There are acknowledged recruitment difficulties at both the high and low skill end of the UK labour market. The number of work permits issued has doubled over recent years. Earlier this year we introduced the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme. That programme aims to attract those of very high calibre to the UK to look for work. We have also issued a consultation document on reviewing the Working Holidaymaker Scheme. At the low skilled, seasonal end, we are also reviewing the Seasonal Agricultural Workers' Scheme. We are looking at ways of building on the principles of that scheme to meet the demand for casual or seasonal workers in specific sectors of the economy.
Legitimate routes to enter and work in Britain are an essential part of a sane and comprehensive policy of managed migration and how we address asylum seeking. It is relatively early days for this policy, but we shall look to where and how it makes sense to go further and faster.
As we discussed last week, it makes sense to recognise the need to address the root causes of both asylum claimants and of economic migrants. That will require a medium term strategy over a number of years. We need to tackle the many pressures that force people to migrate or seek asylum. The Government are making a contribution to that through the work being done by DfID and others to help address the root cause of displacement in source countries by tackling poverty, reducing conflict, promoting good governance and helping countries to promote human rights. A good example is the reconstruction work in Afghanistan. Clearly, there is a need for the wealthy part of the world to recognise both the moral and the practical self-interest of more work to reduce the pressure for people to leave poor countries or those where they are threatened with civil strife to come to other parts of the world.
DfID is working hard to address the root causes of poverty, discrimination and lack of capacity to protect human rights that make people, particularly women and children, vulnerable to trafficking. It is supporting initiatives focused on tackling trafficking in the Balkans, West Africa and the Mekong region of

1089
South-East Asia. We provide support to civil society organisations such as Anti-Slavery International and Save the Children which work on these issues.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before my noble friend continues, perhaps I may ask him something which I should have raised earlier. The other House considered this Bill, but large sections of what has been contemplated by the Government were introduced in such a way that no debate took place. Does my noble friend consider that that was a useful operation or not?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, if my noble friend has patience with me, I shall be coming shortly to other sections of the Bill. As regards the amendments introduced and signalled by the Government, quite clearly they will be one of the prime areas for scrutiny by this House. The Government would not have brought them forward at that relatively late stage in the Commons if they did not consider that there was a pressing reason for doing so. Therefore, the short answer is that I believe it was necessary although, as ever, it would have been desirable if more time had been available for them to be scrutinised in the other place.
The final point I wish to make about root causes concerns the resettlement schemes through UNHCR. We had a good debate on that subject last week. We recognised that this again is at an early stage. In programmes like that it is possible that people who are genuine refugees in remote parts of the world also have the opportunity to claim asylum in other countries rather than those who, through their geography, are proximate to a safe third country.
Also in this general context, I believe that the need for action in the European Union and world action has been well debated in our recent discussion on the Statement on Seville. It is quite clear that we cannot pursue in isolation from the rest of Europe our immigration and asylum policies that respond to the challenges and opportunities of increased migration. Both my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I have recently reiterated to our partners in Europe that we need to take forward European-wide action founded on four common principles and values that we should be proud to uphold; namely, that the EU must clearly state that it opposes racism; that it should be recognised that the EU has benefited considerably from immigration in the past and is likely to do so in future; that it must ensure that migration is properly managed and not open to abuse; and that the EU needs clear and consistent policies on immigration and asylum.
Finally, in terms of the context, we should see the clear connection between the duty of the Government and society to seek to integrate people who make successful claims for asylum. Clearly, we signal that in the White Paper promoted by Barbara Roche last year. There should be a link between that and our policies on racism and perhaps through the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, social inclusion and by addressing community cohesion, particularly in some
1090
areas of our country where society is not yet as integrated as one would wish. Integration has to form a part of a positive policy to genuine asylum claimants just as managed migration has to economic migrants.
I turn now to the Bill. Part 1 and Schedules 1 and 2 contain proposals for a new approach to the acquisition of British citizenship to give it real meaning and to help new citizens to play a full part in our society. That includes a new citizenship ceremony and a pledge and regulations to specify how the requirement for naturalisation applicants to demonstrate knowledge of our society and sufficient command of English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic can be met. But there will be a waiver for both language and citizenship tests for the vulnerable to whom the requirement would make the acquisition of British citizenship impossible if too high a hurdle were set.
We should also be able to deprive of citizenship, in careful circumstances, those such as war criminals whom we are satisfied have obtained it by fraud, false information or concealment. Where possible, we will seek to take British citizenship away from terrorists and others who have engaged in conduct seriously prejudicial to the whole state. The Bill will enable us to do so.
Part 2 of the Bill includes measures that contribute to the Government's radical overhaul of the asylum system. Vouchers were replaced in April by cash, ahead of schedule. New application registration cards have been issued since January to help to ensure that only those entitled to support get it. The first induction centre is up and running in Dover.
Just to put the challenge we face from asylum applications into context, UNHCR estimated that there are 12 million refugees worldwide and 9 million more are stateless, displaced or of concern. For almost 40 years following the Second World War, the UK never received more than 4,500 asylum applications per year. That increased tenfold within two years and the increase in some European countries was even more dramatic.
The UK's share of those seeking to be recognised as refugees has doubled over the past 10 years, from around 30,000 to 71,700 in 2001. Around 9 per cent of applicants were granted asylum in 2001, with a further 17 per cent being granted exceptional leave to remain. A high proportion, 74 per cent, were refused on the ground that their claim was unfounded; that they were economic migrants rather than refugees. Of those whose claims were refused in 2001, 19 per cent of those who appealed, not of the total, successfully appealed against the decision. In 2001, there were 9,185 removals of principal applicant failed asylum seekers, including voluntary departures. That represents a large increase from the position in 1992, when 1,345 were removed. A point to make here is that 10,000 is a significantly smaller number than 70,000. If we are to succeed in reducing the attraction and the success of traffickers in extracting money from people who want to come here in pursuit of economic migration, we have to be more successful at returning those people who are not refugees to their source countries.

1091
In 2001, the UK accounted for 21 per cent of asylum applications in Europe and ranks eighth on the list of EU countries for applications per head of population, at 1.5 per 1,000.
Part 2 of the Bill takes us further in our reform of the asylum system by providing new accommodation centres for asylum seekers. Potential sites for the establishment of the trial centres were announced by my noble friend Lord Rooker on 14th May. The Home Office intends to apply for planning permission for each site where an accommodation centre is proposed. The House knows that government departments are required to use the Circular 18/84 procedure to submit planning notifications. The Home Office will submit the notifications using the ordinary, rather than the fast-track procedure, which mirrors the ordinary planning application process. Local authorities have eight weeks in which to respond.
Notifications in respect of the Bicester and Newton sites have already been submitted and decisions are expected shortly from the relevant local authorities. The Home Office intends to lodge appeals if the planning authorities object to the notifications.
Accommodation centres are a vital part of streamlining the asylum system, speeding it up and making it seamless. Such centres will ensure that asylum seekers are properly supported and accommodated during their claim. As agreed in the other place, we are considering placing a time limit on the time families with children spend in an accommodation centre and assessing children's needs when residence of six months in a centre is approaching.
In the trial centres, essential services will be provided on site to minimise the burden on local services and to create self-contained communities within the centres. We are looking actively at the feasibility of locating adjudicators on site and there will be access to legal advice. Those issues were both promoted vigorously in the other place.
Asylum seekers will not be detained in accommodation centres, but it is important for the whole system to work that asylum seekers can be tracked at all stages. Thus there will be some conditions of residence, to be set out in regulations, and sanctions if they are not met. Conditions will be the minimum necessary to ensure the smooth running of the centres.
As was indicated in the other place, we are also looking into the possibility of there being visiting committees and an inspection mechanism. We shall bring forward the necessary amendments at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings in this House.
Discussion is taking place in Europe on the draft Asylum Procedures Directive, which seeks to guarantee fair and efficient procedures across the EU, including access to national asylum procedures. At present, support for asylum seekers varies across Europe, with some countries providing compulsory access to accommodation and financial support, and some not doing so. Furthermore, there is wide variation in the level of financial support. In the
1092
majority of countries, applicants whose asylum claims are rejected have a right of appeal to an independent judicial body.
Part 3 and Schedule 3 contain provisions about other support and assistance for asylum seekers, including powers to make support conditional on regular reporting, and to require supported asylum seekers to live in accommodation provided for that purpose. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured by the fact that we will bring forward an amendment in Committee that the order for the withdrawal of the cash-only option will be subject to affirmative resolution.
We also want to ensure that we deal in a humanitarian way with all those who need our support. The Bill allows us to ensure that we are able to support those failed asylum seekers who are unable, for reasons beyond their control, to leave the country. We already work with the International Organisation for Migration to facilitate the return of those who are willing to leave at any stage during the asylum process. We are taking a power in the Bill to enable us to extend the support provided to meet the cost of their immediate arrival, reception and longer-term reintegration. As I mentioned previously, the Bill also gives us a power to fund a gateway for those refugees whose lives cannot be protected in their current place of asylum, which we will operate with the UNHCR.
Local authorities are facing increased pressure for support from those who have refugee status in or citizenship of other EU member states and seek to come here to gain residence and access to public funds. We are taking measures in the Bill to provide legal clarity of the obligations of local authorities and to ease the pressures on them. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is also pursuing these issues through negotiations with our European partners.
A necessary part of an end-to-end asylum system is removal and we intend to press ahead with the expansion of removal centres for those who will not co-operate with return, despite the events at Yarl's Wood. We shall of course take into account any lessons to be learnt from those.
If we are to speed up removals then we need to concentrate our resources. Among the provisions in Part 4, we are repealing the unimplemented provisions in the 1999 Act for routine bail hearings because they are no longer consistent with an expanded, properly functioning removals system. Existing arrangements by which bail can be sought remain in place.
It is not acceptable that those who have been granted refugee status but who have become a danger to our community by committing serious crimes should remain here. The Bill will allow us, in accordance with the Geneva Convention, to return to their own country those who are sentenced to two years' imprisonment or more.
For the asylum system to work effectively, procedures for appeal and judicial review have to be clear, fast and not open to abuse. The current system does not meet those criteria. Part 5 and Schedules 4 to 7 streamline and simplify the immigration appeals

1093
process as set out in Part IV of the 1999 Act. Most of the appeal rights will be unchanged, but practical and procedural problems are addressed.
We shall reduce the opportunity to frustrate removal by continually bringing new grounds of appeal and the Bill allows us to provide adjudicators with the power to set closure dates for appeal hearings to stop delays caused by multiple adjournments. The majority of appeals will still be suspensive; that is, appellants can remain in the UK while they are being considered. But some, including those where an asylum or human rights claim is clearly unfounded, will no longer be allowed to do so. We are also introducing a statutory review process to replace judicial review in some cases. Cases would be decided on the papers by a single High Court judge.
Among the procedural matters in Part 6 and Schedule 8, there is a power to charge for work permits, on which we are consulting, to cover the cost of the service and to help us to maintain the existing, exceptionally high service standards. In future, advice on work permit applications will be included within the regulatory scheme administered by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner. There are also powers to require local authorities, banks and employers to provide information about suspected immigration offenders.
There are measures to assist the smooth passage of those entering legally and the stay in this country of those here for legitimate purposes, thus allowing immigration officers to focus on tackling those who are seeking to enter illegally. These include an enabling power to require the provision of certain biometric data, such as iris scans, from those who are seeking to come to, enter or remain in the UK. The Bill also includes a power to develop an authority-to-carry scheme which would enable us to tackle potential security threats and immigration offenders before they set out for the UK.
We are addressing the findings of the Court of Appeal in the Roth judgment by amending the civil penalty and carriers' liability provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The new provisions will establish a more flexible penalty regime, introduce a statutory right of appeal and modify the provisions for the detention of transporters.
Part 7 introduces new offences and other measures aimed at tackling illegal working, facilitation of illegal entry and people trafficking. We are increasing the penalty for facilitating illegal entry from 10 years to 14 years to indicate that we view it as seriously as drug smuggling. We are committed to strengthening the law to clamp down on the evil crime of trafficking women and children for the purpose of sexual exploitation. We have acted quickly by including in the Bill measures to close the loopholes that allow foreign nationals and those from the EU to be brought into or through the UK for this purpose. We will do more in other legislation subsequently.
1094
We will combat illegal working by clarifying the range of documents that can be used to show entitlement to work. This will make it easier for employers to comply with the existing legislation. We will also make it easier for immigration officers to gather evidence about illegal working offences and, if appropriate, to bring prosecutions.
In conclusion, I reiterate that we should welcome legal migration and open up effective channels for those who fulfil skill shortages and employment needs in this country. We should combat racism and use the full force of the Government and the range of other measures that I have spoken to briefly against those who seek to use immigration or asylum pressures to promote racism in our country.
We must manage the asylum process fairly and vigorously in order to reassure our society that we are in control of the situation and that we stand firm on the values to which I have referred. We should manage it in a way that deters trafficking, smuggling, criminality and illegal economic entry. But, at the same time, we must continue to uphold the proud principle in our society of giving sanctuary to those who have a need for it. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.(Lord Filkin.)
5.1 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, those of us who have witnessed, as I have, the lines of men, women and children wending their desultory way across the fields of northern France back to the warehouse known as Sangatte, or who have seen the attempts of those who stow away in lorries or ships to reach these shores, can be left in no doubt about the desperation felt by people who are so determined to seek a future in this country that they put themselves and their families at such risk.
We must take a system that is undeniably chaotic— I acknowledge that it was not in perfect working order in 1997, but it has got substantially worse since then—and turn it into an orderly system that achieves two vital objectives: first, the rapid, effective admission of refugees fleeing persecution; and, secondly, the equally rapid and effective removal of those seeking to use this method to get round the immigration rules rather than face up to them. It must balance the needs of people who are desperate with those of our nation to control the flow of immigration through proper and fair rules. It must be effective because if it is not the whole immigration system will be brought into disrepute and control over it will be lost.
I echo the words of the Minister that the great advance we have made is that there is now a general recognition that the issue needs to be addressed in a rational manner and that we need a system that is not only balanced but effective. The great majority of the measures in the Bill are welcome. That will be no surprise because we welcomed the White Paper on which the Bill is based in most respects. We support the naturalisation provision in Part 1 in general. My noble

1095
friend Lord Bridgeman will give our response to Part 1 in some detail later. I shall concentrate on a few of the other parts of the Bill.
Part 2 provides for the establishment of accommodation centres. We are broadly supportive of the concept. Again, that is hardly surprising as it strongly echoes the proposals we put forward before the last general election. But our welcome is for the concept and not always for the detail of the way the Government propose that the centres should operate. They are not currently structured in the way that we believe they need to be if we are to have rapid processing of claims so that those who are refugees and who, in so many cases, have fled from appalling persecution quickly find a home in this country and those who are misusing the asylum system are speedily dispatched from these shores.
Our objections are on three grounds: location, size and the facilities provided. In regard to location, we believe that the centres should not be sited in rural areas. That would be detrimental to the interests of asylum seekers and could cause concern and fear among local residents. They should be sited in locations which are suitable to the cultural and other needs of the residents. The accommodation should he near towns and cities and integrated with the local communities. After all, integration is crucial to preventing segregation, which would be detriment al to race relations and impede possible resettlement. I am disappointed to hear today that the Government appear determined to press ahead with their decision to notify the sites already listed. I hope that during the course of our debates on the Bill we shall be able to persuade the Government that they should seek other sites.
As to size, the Government plan to pilot the scheme with about 3.000 places in four accommodation centres, which means about 750 people in each centre. They have set themselves a target of clearing applications in about six months. So even my simple maths tells me that that means only about 6,000 of the 80,000 applications a year will be processed in the accommodation centres. That leaves an overwhelming number to be processed on the same basis as at present and with the same dispersal systems as we have now. Although the Government's changes on vouchers and the appeals process are welcome in the main, they are making no significant changes to the processing of most applications.
If the building of the accommodation centres goes ahead at full speed and there are no local planning problems, we are still likely to have to wait about three years before the centres are up and running. So this is not a major shift from chaos to order; it is an experiment about what might be a solution one day.
We believe that a large part of the chaos is caused by the paper chase and the people chase around the UK as appeals move people and paper from place to place. Our third objection, therefore, is that the Bill does not provide enough of the right facilities and services on site for the residents. What goes wrong at the start of
1096
the application process arises from there being not enough appropriate legal advice and not enough reliable, judicially accepted country risk assessments.
We should gather together in one place the relevant legal expertise that the Bill envisages, the relevant medical and interpretative expertise, the caseworkers who make the initial decisions and the adjudicators. Then we would really start to have a one-stop shop, not the half-built version that the Government propose.
When my honourable friend Mr Letwin sought to introduce a new clause on Report on 11 th June to ensure that adjudicators would make their decisions on site, the Home Secretary stated that he was prepared to consider an amendment in this House and that he would talk to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the chief adjudicator about the best way to organise it. We would welcome an effective amendment on this matter when it comes before your Lordships. I emphasise the word "effective.' because we shall wish to scrutinise the amendment.
To make the process work, we must also have a system of country risk assessments which carries weight and will stand the test of judicial challenge. How do we achieve that? By doing what the Refugee Council proposes—that is, by having a documentation centre independent of the Home Office which would be responsible for producing country risk assessments. Independent risk assessments would carry credibility because they would not be influenced by a desire to achieve a particular result in appeals.
On Report, the Government hinted that they would bring forward proposals soon. From what the Minister said today, I look forward to seeing the amendment. I also look forward to seeing an amendment in regard to visiting committees, to which the Minister referred, which reflects fully the concerns raised in an amendment in another place proposed by my honourable friend Mr Matins.
The one-stop shop that, we envisage would be able to achieve fair decisions in a much shorter time than envisaged in the Government's plans. We could process claims within weeks rather than months. That would be fairer to everyone. The longer the process takes, the more compelling becomes the argument to allow children to receive education in mainstream schools rather than on site, and to allow asylum seekers to work.
Our practical proposals would ensure that these problems will not arise as the processing of claims should take a maximum of 10 weeks. This target maximum of 10 weeks should appear on the face of the Bill. Without it, there is no incentive to get the whole system working properly for the residents.
Turning to other parts of the Bill, I can be briefer. We welcome Clause 126, which introduces new offences of people trafficking to fight the organised gangs that are currently making huge profits from the trade in human misery and exploitation. But we shall need to examine them to ensure that they are effective UK-wide.

1097
We support the consolidation and streamlining of the appeals process. There is no doubt that if people are able to make several different concurrent or serial appeals, the system will remain in chaos. It is right that the whole appeals system should be consolidated and in general we support those measures. But—and it is a big "but"—we shall need to examine the amendments which the Government introduced at a late stage in the other place. I anticipate that the House will rightly want to examine in some detail the issue of non-suspensive appeals.
We shall need to scrutinise carefully the matters that, I am sure, will be raised later today by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. He was kind enough to copy to me the e-mail that he sent to the Minister giving notice of his intention. I am grateful to him for his courtesy and look forward to listening to him.
We were briefly reminded in an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that a regrettable feature of the Bill is how much of it has not yet been scrutinised by Parliament. In another place, the Bill grew by a third in length due to government amendments. Yet many of these were not—and could never be—examined by another place. Over 120 government amendments, 12 new clauses and the new Schedule 8 on carriers' liability were guillotined in Committee and on Report. One-quarter of the Bill which left Standing Committee in another place was never discussed as a result of the operation of the timetable Motion.
It was constitutionally impossible for my honourable friend Mr Letwin to amend new Clauses 82 and 101, which were introduced in another place on Report as new Clauses 14 and 15. These provisions will not only deeply affect the lives and the sense of fair play of certain individuals; they are also highly contentious in respect of their compatibility with the Human Rights Act. We believe that some parts of Clauses 82 and 101 will have to be disentangled from the other provisions with which we agree in order to ensure that they work more fairly.
In conclusion, immigration and asylum are among the most emotive issues facing us today. That will continue to be so. As the representative of the UNHCR said at the briefing meeting on the Bill last week, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, an asylum system is more likely to be cost effective and work properly if it provides humane treatment with appropriate standards of care and fair procedures. We believe that much of Bill tries to achieve that, but not all. We look forward to improving it.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for arranging a meeting with Members of this House which was addressed by the deputy director-general of the immigration and nationality division, Dr Chris Mace. We found the meeting extremely helpful. We
1098
understand the problem that the Government are facing, but we do not necessarily subscribe to some of the solutions offered in the Bill.
Perhaps I may also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, to her Front Bench duties. This particular task is not new to her. She has rightly identified some of the crucial areas for debate and we are in sympathy with the points that she has made. Let us hope that in Committee and at other stages we can co-operate to make the Bill better than it is at present. At the same time, perhaps I may say how sad we are to lose the services of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, whose contribution and friendship are always valued.
I want to make one complaint about a matter which is not for the Minister but for the usual channels. Three consecutive days have been set aside for the Committee stage. That time limit makes it almost impossible. The Opposition Benches do not have the kind of resources that are available to the Government. To be able to deal with a substantial number of amendments in three days is an impossible task—bearing in mind the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that the Bill hardly received the type of scrutiny that it should have received in the Commons, and we are possibly faced with the same position in this House. I hope that the usual channels will take note of this and that we shall never again be faced with such a situation.
I should also like to thank a large number of immigration agencies which have helped us in terms of providing briefing about the issues identified in the Bill.
This is the fourth Bill in 10 years. We do not dispute that the United Kingdom's asylum and immigration system requires radical reform. When the White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven was published in February, we welcomed measures that were designed to provide a more holistic approach.
Immigration and asylum maters are fairly emotive, as has rightly been pointed out. Despite the nature and effects of all past and present legislative measures, the circumstances surrounding them remain fairly contentious. We do not dispute that immigration policy must protect our national interest. However, no country can remain static if it is to benefit from social and economic changes taking place in the world community. We must respond to that change.
There is a serious flaw at the heart of the Government's immigration and asylum legislation. Too often, fairness has been sacrificed in preference for a firmer policy. The heavy emphasis on excluding the ineligible rather than giving prompt attention to the rights of those who are eligible has led to administrative practices which result in particular adverse effects on genuine entrants to the United Kingdom; and it does not help when it seems central to the Government's thinking.
I repeat a point that I have made previously. Is it not a fact that the greater the emphasis on excluding the ineligible, the more extensive the legislative checks must be? The more complicated they are to administer,

1099
the greater is the delay and hardship for those who are eligible and the greater is the concern about their welfare.
Is it any surprise, if such measures are taken to extreme in matters which are not susceptible to documentary proof, as is the case with victims of torture and persecution, that our obligation under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees must be questionable?
The history of immigration is littered with ill-conceived measures. Perhaps I may give an example. In the 1950s, the Labour government set up an interdepartmental committee to consider the possibility of legislative and administrative methods to deal with the matter of immigrants. So preoccupied were Ministers with the numbers entering the UK that the welfare and integration of the newcomers was not even discussed. In fact, at the time, the key policy recommendations were that:
"any solution depending on an apparent or concealed colour test would be so invidious as to be impossible of adoption. Never the less it has to be recognised that the use of any powers taken to restrict the free entry of British subjects to this country would, as a general rule, be more or less confined to coloured persons".
I believe that a similar cycle is recurring.
Therefore, is it any surprise that all immigration and asylum legislation since the 1950s has been based on such exclusions? We rely more on the tabloid newspapers than on social research. We fail to appreciate that there are changes taking place throughout the world. We are now part of a global economy. Migration on an international scale has helped to contribute towards the prosperity of many of the western nations. Let us consider the huge economic benefits to the countries that have adapted to the change. America, Canada and some of the European countries are a case in point.
I want to deal with two broad areas where immigration has positively benefited the United Kingdom. The last available figures from the Labour Force Survey indicated a total of well over a million foreign nationals working legally in the UK. Therein lies one of the strengths of the financial services sector. It is estimated that one in seven City workers were born outside the United Kingdom.
The second point that we should never forget is that, for decades, there was substantial emigration—people moving out of the United Kingdom. Taken to its extreme, this has serious consequences, as I shall explain later.
It is evident that since the Immigration Act 1971, primary immigration to the United Kingdom is no longer possible. It has been cut to the bone. There is also confusion at the heart of the debate on this subject. A debate about what a modern immigration policy should look like needs to be defined. It needs to draw on complex and inter-related issues; and this must be backed by proper research. Instead, the message that we are fed, which permeates from the policy-makers, is that asylum seekers are bogus, devious and dishonest.
1100
Asylum matters require sensitive handling. The policy should focus on our moral and legal obligations. We should be less preoccupied with which political party has been most effective in adopting robust policies to deter people seeking refuge here. A start has to be made that clearly distinguishes our policy on three fronts: primary immigration, economic migrants and asylum seekers. If we clarify those areas, we are at least on the way to a rational debate on the issue. The Government have at least tried to do that in the Bill and I welcome that.
We uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the right to seek political asylum. The 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees gave that right legal expression. We support that. Is it not a shame, therefore, that the convention is rendered meaningless if those in search of such protection and assistance are unable to reach the territories of state parties to the convention? While paying lip service to the convention, successive legislation has acted as a barrier to human rights protection, attempting to prevent those at risk of persecution from fleeing their persecutors.
We have seen dramatic footage of countries torn apart by war, terrorism, hunger and famine. We see images of masses of people on the run, carrying whatever possessions they can salvage. That vividly portrays the plight of destitute people. When the television cameras have gone, we no longer see the human suffering or the fear, grief and bewilderment, until we see some of them knocking on our doors. We then place them in detention—another prison, another confinement—with no guarantee that they can live here.
Asylum lasting only 10 years is a relatively new phenomenon. The entry of more than 70,000 people has skewed the debate on migration. Our aims should be not only about protecting our society and economy from external pressures. We need clarity about economic migrants and those in real fear of persecution. We need to manage the opportunities at a time when there are skills shortages in this country. We also have a declining and ageing population. Mismanaging immigration could have dire consequences for generations to come.
There is clearly no such thing as absolute control. It simply has not worked. I repeat that it will not work in the future. I was a member of the group that produced the Runnymede report on The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. There is a message here for politicians. First, the sense of panic that the issue instils and the subjectivity with which it is discussed lead to bad law, giving rise to challenges in the UK courts and among international human rights bodies. Secondly, it prevents or obstructs an objective and forward-looking examination of the need for the benefits of immigration. Thirdly, it undermines Britain's development as a cohesive but diverse society.
The White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven. set out a number of encouraging proposals, included in the Bill, which we welcome. There is a recognition of the importance of migration to business development

1101
in particular. The work permit review has led to some welcome improvements. The Bill contains provision to amend British nationality legislation. We welcome provisions for citizenship ceremonies and for ensuring that applicants have sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom before naturalisation.
I know of no one who objects to an oath or a pledge bearing allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It is a reality that Commonwealth citizens respect Her Majesty the Queen more deeply than do some people born in this country.
However, a golden opportunity to redefine citizenship has been missed. No one will fail to give loyalty and respect the rights, freedoms and democratic values of their adopted homeland, but we have singularly failed to define what duties and obligations are all about. The confusion about Britishness and about multi-culturalism will continue unless we clearly define what citizenship is all about. It is more than signing a piece of paper pledging loyalty to an adopted homeland. Citizenship is all about interdependence, self-reliance, openness, liberty, diversity and pluralism. It is not about taking all the benefits without putting something back. It is about accepting new values and new culture, encompassing all that is good in our values and what is good in others.
Citizenship is a process determined not just by a stamp in our passport, but by values that enhance not only our status, but also the status of the country that is our adopted homeland. If, by the example of good citizenship, we contribute towards dignity, justice, fairness and equality for all our citizens, then Britishness would be less relevant. The periodic arguments about ethnicity and multi-culturalism would be also less relevant. Let us hope that Part 1 of the Bill is the first step in the right direction, but much more work is needed here.
We welcome the replacement of the voucher system with a cash system and the resettlement programme. We said that the voucher system would not work and we were proved right. However, we are concerned that reforms are outweighed by measures that will undermine the quality of protection afforded to victims of human rights violations. We are also concerned about depriving any British citizen—born, registered, or naturalized—of citizenship if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interest of the United Kingdom. That concern was endorsed by the Select Committee on the Constitution. We shall probe this in detail in Committee, because the principle goes to the heart of the constitution. Are we going to create a nation of refugees who have nowhere to go and no rights to enjoy? The condition of accepting British nationality is the renunciation of any other citizenship. How can a citizenship that has been renounced be restored? Equally, the dangers faced by persons of dual nationality cannot be underestimated. The Secretary of State should not be vested with such
1102
draconian powers. The courts have enough powers to deal with those who have done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I may not have heard the noble Lord correctly, but I thought that he said that a condition of taking up British citizenship was to renounce all other citizenships. I do not think that that is right. It is perfectly permissible to have more than one citizenship and to have a British passport.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I talked about dual nationality. Obviously, there is a serious problem for people with more than one nationality. However, in the majority of cases, people who take up British nationality are asked to renounce their existing citizenship. I shall be corrected if need be.
I shall refrain from commenting on the 17th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill is a member of that committee and I look forward to his contribution on the report.
The Bill contains many proposals that affect children. At the heart of the debate must be the acceptance that refugee children are children first and refugees second. Should parents with children be housed in remote accommodation centres? Should they be denied a mainstream education? Why is the dispersal policy, which has worked in European countries, not working here? The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is the standard by which the UK's treatment of refugee children should be judged. The policy goes against the grain of our inclusive society. Going to school is a vital and integral part of helping refugees integrate from the date they arrive, even if it is for a short period. It should not be difficult to establish a dispersal policy that caters for education in schools rather than accommodation centres, removal centres or detention centres.
We are also concerned about plans to detain more people by increasing detention spaces from 2,700 to 4,000. The provision for automatic bail hearings in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is to be repealed. If detention is to increase, there must be even more, not fewer safeguards. We have been heavily criticised by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the UNHCR and others, particularly for the lack of an independent judicial review of the decision to detain. More people are detained for longer and with less scrutiny in the United Kingdom than in any other European country. The detention process lacks natural justice. The former HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, stressed that,
"it is an important point of principle that when it is deemed necessary to deprive someone of his or her liberty, this should be overseen by the judicial process".
It is for that reason that we supported the need for automatic bail hearings. That part of the 1999 Act was never implemented and is now to be repealed. Depriving asylum seekers of their liberty through an administrative decision made by an immigration official is unacceptable.

1103
Detention has to be justified in a court of law. Liberty of an individual is far too precious. No one should be detained indefinitely without charge and without having their decisions justified in court.
Let me take up the matter of appeal, which is contained in Part 5 of the Bill. It prohibits an asylum seeker from making an appeal while in the UK against refusal of asylum if the Secretary of State certifies their case as unfounded. It prevents an asylum seeker from appealing in the United Kingdom regardless of the merit of their claims. It is proposed that they can be removed to a third country that is considered safe.
There was no mention of that draconian measure in the White Paper. It has been pushed at a late stage of the Bill's passage through Parliament, giving the impression that once again there is a knee-jerk reaction to our overworked appeal system. It is a policy that is being made on the hoof without giving due attention to the problems that lie at the heart of the asylum system. That part of the Bill failed to receive detailed scrutiny in the Standing Committee in the other place; let us hope that we can put it right in Committee.
Finally, where do we stand on these issues? We want to make sure that, at their fourth attempt, the Government get the Bill right. We want to ensure that while recognising the right of a country to determine its immigration policy, it should never override the protection of those who are victims of torture and persecution. We want to ensure that those waiting for decisions on their claims must be supported with proper advice in a cost-effective way. We want the dispersal policy to work but it must never be exclusive so far as the development of children is concerned. We want to ensure that detention policies should contain more, not fewer, safeguards.
The new asylum package, which is not even part of the Bill, gives the game away. We shall certainly wait for further measures to be proposed in this regard. Above all, we need to raise the level of political debates on these issues. So far, we have failed to give a lead but there is still time to tackle poverty, disease, hunger, war and terrorism, which are at the root of the process of global migration. It requires a global solution and it simply will not go away.
5.33 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, we are all highly conscious that the issue that we are considering this afternoon is a very serious one, both because it involves the safety of genuine asylum seekers and because of the wider political background in this country and Europe. It is crucial that the public should have confidence in our asylum and immigration policies. It is therefore somewhat disturbing, as has already been indicated, that there have been four Bills in 10 years on this subject. It is vital that the Government get it right this time.
It is not only legitimate but essential that this country, like others, should have an immigration policy that is transparent, fair and non-racist. That policy could be based on the nation state as an economic entity. We need to and should value having
1104
a certain number of people who come every year to fill job vacancies and who wish to share our democratic way of life, whether they are professional or nonprofessional and skilled or non-skilled. The fact is that immigrants have made and continue to make a huge contribution to our economic life, as well as our life in other respects. It is also worth reminding ourselves that 150,000 British citizens emigrate every year.
I begin in this way because if we have an honourable immigration policy—one that is clear, fair and non racist and one that has a rational basis and which is supported by the general public—it is essential to that policy that illegal immigrants are deterred and that economic migrants, however much sympathy we can and do have for them, should not be allowed entry under the different category of "asylum seekers". I therefore understand and sympathise with the policy of this Government and previous governments in trying to achieve a system in which genuine asylum seekers are identified and supported and in which those whose asylum claims are unfounded should be returned to their own country. That makes for many sad and heartbreaking cases. But if it is clone humanely—against the background of a clear, fair and non-racist immigration policy—it is not a dishonourable policy.
I therefore support the general thrust of the Bill, which is to identify and support genuine asylum seekers and, as quickly and humanely as possible, to return those whose claims are not accepted to their country of origin.
Against the criteria of what is humane, I very much welcome the end of the voucher system. My concerns about the issues of accommodation and education of children will be raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
I want to focus on only two clauses in the Bill: those to do with bail provision and rights of appeal. Detention may be a regrettable necessity but it should be used only if it is strictly necessary. There should therefore be the maximum opportunity for people to live in the community on bail. The introduction of automatic bail hearing provisions in Part III of the 1990 Act was seen as a small step towards greater judicial oversight of detention. However, despite several implementation dates being announced, Part III was never implemented and is now to be repealed under Clause 57. That will mean that many asylum seekers will continue to be deprived of their liberty as a result of administrative decisions that are made by immigration officials and that do not have to be justified in any court.
Although asylum seekers will not be prevented from applying for bail for themselves, the proposed repeal of Part III is alarming for a number of reasons. First, asylum seekers may not know that they have the right to apply for bail. Secondly, asking asylum seekers to provide sureties is unrealistic. They have to find someone to guarantee that they will comply with asylum procedures and, in most cases, provide a cash sum that can run to several thousand pounds. Thirdly, lawyers often feel that the requirement for surety

1105
means that potential bail cases do not reach the merits threshold that is necessary for them to be publicly funded.
The Immigration Law Practitioners Association, for example, is very concerned about the large number of detainees who remain in detention purely because, as asylum seekers who are newly arrived in the United Kingdom, they do not know two people who are able to stand surety for them. The onus should remain on the Home Secretary to show why detention is necessary in any particular case.
The Medical Foundation views that repeal with equally grave concern. It argues that the implementation of those provisions in the 1999 Act is essential to ensure compliance with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government seek to justify repeal by stating that the number of asylum seekers being held in detention has increased substantially since 1999. That in no way justifies the abolition of a much-needed legal remedy against arbitrary detention; on the contrary, it reinforces its most urgent need.
So long as detention of asylum seekers is genuinely used in circumstances in which it is demonstrably necessary to ensure removal, there is no reason to believe that routine bail hearings, as provided for in Part III of the 1999 Act, would significantly interfere with the efficacy of the asylum determination and removal process. In Standing Committee E in the House of Commons, Ministers claimed that, with a detention estate of 4,000 places, implementation of Part III of the 1999 Act would result in the Immigration Appellate Authority having to deal with 37,200 bail hearings per year rather than with 12,000 per year under existing bail provisions. However, Ministers did not say how they arrived at the figure of 37,200 bail hearings per year. Some experts consider it to be open to serious doubt. If detention was used mainly at the later stages of the asylum determination process in order to ensure the removal of failed asylum seekers, it would be of relatively short duration and the necessary number of routine bail hearings would be reduced accordingly.
My other main concern is about the abolition or restriction of certain rights of appeal. Success at appeal for asylum seekers currently runs, I understand, at about 30 per cent. That is a very high percentage. But the legislation before us proposes removing the vital suspensive effect of an appeal in "clearly unfounded" cases and restricting the right to seek judicial review in the courts.
There is particular concern in relation to Clause 82. Subsection (2) prohibits an asylum seeker making an appeal against refusal of asylum while in the UK if the Secretary of State certifies his case as unfounded. Subsection (3) prevents an asylum seeker appealing in the UK, regardless of the merits of his claim, if it is proposed that he can be removed to a third country which is considered safe. But an appeal against failure to protect against persecution will clearly be meaningless if it is to be carried out from the very country where such threat to life or freedom occurs.
1106
An appeal against refusal from a third country outside the UK, such as a European state, will be equally meaningless. Removal to a third country will make it extremely difficult to appeal against unfair and arbitrary decision-making. What legal basis does an asylum seeker have to remain in, for example, France while pursuing an out-of-country appeal against unfair refusal of his claim in the United Kingdom? Even if an asylum seeker were to remain in a third country while pursuing an appeal against an unfair decision, he would be unable to access the necessary welfare entitlements or legal resources to pursue his appeal.
Finally, refusals of asylum revolve principally around the credibility of the applicant. Adjudicators require the presence of the applicant in order to make findings on credibility. Paper appeals generally fail as a result of that. Therefore, an appeal from outside the UK would usually fail automatically and be worthless, as indeed was the case before the introduction of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, which established an in-country right of appeal.
I recognise that government have a very difficult task. On the one hand, they must identify genuine asylum seekers and support them and, on the other, ensure that those whose claims are unfounded are dealt with as quickly and humanely as possible. But I do not believe that we can or should pursue the latter aim by dismantling or restricting safeguards which we regard as basic in other areas of law or by keeping people in detention a moment longer than is absolutely necessary. For those reasons, I should like to see regular bail hearings and the right of appeal restored to all asylum seekers, including those whose original application is judged to be "clearly unfounded".
5.42 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, first, I apologise to the House because a tug-of-war is to take place between your Lordships' House and the House of Commons. I shall have to leave in order to do my duty on that front. Therefore, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I am not present for the debate later in the day.
I came to this country with a work permit 37 years ago. I hope that that will be considered to be an argument in favour of and not against work permits. My general point is that the policy on immigration and asylum followed not only by our country but by Europe is totally and utterly wrong. It makes no economic sense in the context of the long-term needs of Europe where the level of the population is falling and where, as we know, we shall have difficulty sustaining our pensions because we shall not have enough able-bodied people to work. As was shown in a UN report two or three years ago, Europe will need something like 150 million to 200 million extra people in order for the age distribution to be sustained to a point where pensions are easily affordable. That report had to be suppressed. I believe that, for obvious reasons, the EU asked the UN not to release it.
Therefore, in a sense, I believe that we are being active in the wrong way. The United States has always had a better policy on immigration and has therefore

1107
benefited from immigration, both legal and illegal, in a way that Europe has not. It is not that Europe is more crowded than America or that somehow we cannot afford immigration. It is simply that Europe is far more xenophobic—I shall not use the word "racist"—than America.
Many things that we take for granted about immigration are wrong; for example, that people who want to come to this country are absolutely unwelcome unless they can somehow prove they are completely destitute, in need of asylum and so on. In the context of the long-term needs of the economy, an ideal immigration policy would say that it makes far more sense for people to be admitted, trained and integrated. I do not believe that we are achieving that with our immigration policy. We are saying openly in the Bill that we shall welcome people in certain highly skilled categories. That is very good. We shall have a far more liberal work permit scheme. That should be welcomed. But we have arrived at that position too late.
However, it is not simply the case that the economy needs highly skilled people; it also needs unskilled people. It is a fallacy to believe that we need only software programmers and not plumbers or building workers. Perhaps not now but in the future, we should examine far more carefully the areas where there is need for more people. If a ready supply of people who want to come to this country is available, we should not ask ourselves why they are coming here; we should ask how we can get more to come.
It is a paradox of globalisation that we readily welcome the free movement of capital—indeed, we strongly urge other countries to adopt free movement of capital—but are very reluctant to adopt the free movement of labour. In my view, the reason is that a nation state is an enemy of the free movement of labour. Historically, we have afforded greater privileges to citizens than to foreigners. Because citizens receive welfare rights, we do not want any old foreigners, no matter how destitute, coming to this country and suddenly obtaining rights which we have earned over a long time.
Thereby hangs a paradox. We cannot admit to ourselves that some people can be admitted on a half ration, as it were. We do not want to do that. We admit people only on a full ration. But, given that we admit people only on a full ration, we do not want to admit them at all. That is the paradox.
In America, before I came to this country, I was eligible to apply for a green card before becoming a citizen. Having a green card made me eligible not to vote but to be drafted. That is when I left. The important point is that half the categories of people who are not yet full citizens and who are not yet fully entitled to rights can be placed in a kind of entrance hall. At that stage, one can say that certain citizenship duties must be fulfilled before a person can become a citizen.
Again, we are reluctant to do that, and that is why we get into a muddle. Ours are all-or-nothing policies. Either a person is fully a citizen or he is not: there are
1108
no categories in between. Therefore, we send back economic migrants who are perfectly rational creatures and who would help us if they came to our country. But we cannot admit economic migrants. We can admit only people who come here involuntarily because they are in trouble. Therefore, we discourage voluntary migration and encourage involuntary migration. That is a paradox which we should consider more carefully. I do not believe that very much will happen in the Bill with regard to that, but perhaps we shall all think a little more about how to separate out genuine asylum seekers from economic migrants. Having done that, we should not regard economic migrants as being below contempt and send them back to their countries as soon as possible. Instead, perhaps we could find half-way houses for them. We could provide them with temporary permits so that they could work here and eventually, after five years or so, return to their countries. If we did that, we would get more benefit from economic migration and less hassle than we have at present.
We have set impossible standards for ourselves. We insist that everyone we allow in has to be a full citizen, not a half-citizen. We must remember how valuable refugees can be and have been in the past. I should declare an interest as a member of the Council for Assisting Refugee Academics. As the council's recent paper shows, since 1933 it has supported 18 Nobel Laureates and over 100 members of the Royal Society and the British Academy. All those people came as refugees. However, because in the 1930s they came as refugees from European countries, we were much kinder to them than we are to refugees from non-European countries. We must examine our—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. I have looked at the debates. In 1904 and 1905 the reception given to people who came here, largely from Russia and other countries, was appalling. Whether they were white did not matter. Does my noble friend recognise that since 1904 many of those people have made a real contribution to this country, like my noble friend?
Lord Desai: My Lords, I recognise that. I remember Tom Mann, who was a leading trade unionist, going to the dockside and saying to his people, "You are our brothers but I wish you had not come". But they came and made a good contribution. The fact that people are unwelcome at one time does not mean that they cannot make good contributions. Most short-term judgments are wrong in that respect.
We complain about people having to stay here pending appeal or about people who cannot be deported although their applications have not been accepted. It would be a good idea at some stage—I do not know how we can do it—to find a way of using such people in a productive way, which we have not done. Many of those people are no doubt talented. Many asylum seekers may be doctors, teachers" or other professionals. They are not all "ragged" people. We need to take a more positive attitude to migration and asylum.

1109
I have heard mention of biometric evidence. As a frequent flyer to New York I have a visa which allows me to go through much faster than anyone else because my palm print is on the record. Apparently, a palm print is a unique identifier and is much less intrusive than many other means of identification. If Americans can do it, we should be able to get it done properly. Therefore, people who apply for asylum should perhaps be asked to give a palm print, which could be stored.
The problem is that we are not willing to admit people because we do not want to give them full rights. When they come we cannot process them quickly. Therefore, we have a problem with delays building up. As delays build up, the press and various other racist opinion force us to treat those people very badly indeed. We should be able to have such people in some type of half-way house so that, first, while they are here, we know who they are and where they are so that they can be traced; and secondly, they can be used productively so that whether they stay or go, at least while they are here we can benefit from their presence and they can benefit from spending their time here in a productive way rather than in a sad way.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Best: My Lords, I want to raise the key issue mentioned by the Minister of the integration of those asylum seekers who are given leave to remain as refugees. My particular concern is about the housing of those who are dispersed away from London and the South, mostly to the conurbations of the North. When those asylum seekers hear the good news that they have been given refugee status, they are also informed that they will have only 28 days in which to move out of the accommodation which has been provided for them by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS).
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, of which I am director, is funding an asylum seekers and refugees housing network, organised for us by the Housing Associations' Charitable Trust. As a member of that network I have been able to meet a number of asylum seekers and refugees and learn about the housing difficulties which they face. In effect, a decision on their status, paradoxically, is also an eviction notice.
Of course, their new homes must be vacated when they become entitled to stay in this country to make way for another asylum-seeking household. But I suggest that the obligation to leave within 28 days is, for many, unreasonable. In particular, if those decisions are now expected to come through much more quickly, the timescale for those households to become in any way integrated in the locality—including in learning the English language—is too short. It can take several weeks after getting refugee status to get a national insurance number, without which formal work or any benefits cannot be obtained. Within the period of four weeks the household will also need to find accommodation and work their way through the incredible tangle of the housing benefit
1110
system. Although the nation has accepted them as residents in this country, the chances of integration, fitting into the community and getting a job, are slim with such a tight timetable.
For those of us concerned with overall housing shortages—the latest statistics show another rise in homelessness—that presents extra challenges. Although people have been dispersed as asylum seekers to areas of relatively low demand for housing, if they receive no help in staying there, it is likely that many will return very swiftly to London and the South East where they have contacts and networks. Families will then present themselves to the London Boroughs as homeless, and despite the pressures in London, those local authorities will have an obligation to find them housing. That is exactly the outcome which the policy of dispersal was intended to avoid.
I suggest two ways in which pressures on London and the South East can be eased, a further escalation in the homelessness crisis can be avoided and the families and individuals can be given a much greater chance of integrating into the local communities to which they have been sent. First, if the period for the notice to leave, currently 28 days, was extended to two months, a little more time would be bought for those households to obtain a national insurance number, receive the guidance they need and find the accommodation they require. The cost of an extra month's rent will not be high as the accommodation will not be in a high-priced area, but it could greatly increase the chance of the household staying in the neighbourhood to which they have been dispersed and settling there. There are promising signs in some places that the policy of dispersal is beginning to work and new communities are forming. That process could be much helped by giving those the right to remain another month before they are required to leave their home.
My second suggestion is that during the period of grace, before the refugee household is evicted, there should be an obligation on the Home Office to ensure that help and support are available. Currently what help is available comes haphazardly from the private sector housing providers, which are not paid to do this extra work, from local authorities, from excellent community refugee organisations, faith communities, housing associations and others. But there are no formal mechanisms for making certain that such help is given.
In the same way that the Homelessness Bill was amended by your Lordships to improve the service of advice and guidance which local authorities are obliged to give to those in severe housing need, so too an amendment to this Bill could help ensure that people obtain the support they need in form-filling, a search for a property, introductions to reputable landlords and the rest.
Without those two measures I fear escalating problems of homelessness which will exacerbate problems in London, undermine the policy of dispersal and sabotage the prospects of integration for many refugee households. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a reassuring statement on that issue.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I must declare an interest as the President of YMCA (England), which does work with refugees and asylum seekers, and as a member of the Oxfam Association.
I am concerned to learn that much of the Committee stage of this Bill will occur when I have to be in Russia and Chechnya on Council of Europe business. I regret that I shall not be here for those proceedings.
At the outset of my remarks I pay tribute to the many non-governmental organisations working in the front line of what this Bill is all about. Their insight and briefings are always invaluable.
In welcoming my noble friend to his first major Front- Bench assignment in his new ministerial role, we should not underestimate the burden he is carrying. He brings to the task a great deal of relevant professional experience. We wish him well. This whole realm of policy is extraordinarily complex and highly demanding; it is also emotionally charged. We should all have the humility to keep asking ourselves what we would be doing and what we would be advocating if we were in my noble friend's place. Our criticisms will therefore, I hope, be constructive.
Having said that, I hope that my noble friend, for his part, will avoid tilting at windmills as a distraction from recognising the validity of criticism that may be made. Nobody that I have heard in this House advocates an open-door policy. It is not on the agenda. It is not a practical possibility. On the other hand, everybody that I have heard recognises that there is a challenge which must be faced. The debate is about how to face it.
There is a good deal in the new policy to be welcomed; for example, the abolition of humiliating vouchers; the concept of positive resettlement programmes; and the attention to citizenship, even if that raises issues about how far those whose citizenship is established and unquestioned would always understand what we shall expect newcomers to understand. Meanwhile, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was right to raise anxieties about provisions for the removal of citizenship in certain circumstances.
But the context in which we approach legislation and the perceived motivation behind it are crucial to its success. If we are to give a lead in finding the right way forward based on firmness and justice in the protection of refugees, it is, for example, essential to be accurate about the dimensions of the challenge we face. We must not allow sensationalism in some less responsible quarters of the tabloid press to lead us by the nose into a world of hyped illusion. We must be clear about whether numbers are accelerating or declining and, whichever it is, by how much. We also need to be clear about total numbers. It is frankly disturbing, as we have said before in this House, that recent research demonstrates that many people in the United Kingdom believe the numbers involved here to be 10 times as large as they really are.
That does not mean that there is not a social challenge in immigration to be addressed. But it does mean that we must at all costs avoid inadvertently
1112
pandering to that exaggeration and allowing it to influence our actions. To do that would be particularly sad when there is also so much reliable evidence that the majority of people in the United Kingdom are well informed and deeply concerned about the pressures and persecution that force people to uproot and move. We should be building on that concern with far more information about the waves of immigration we have so well accommodated in our nation's past and about the great contribution made by those immigrants and their descendants—not least in government and Parliament—to the strength of the United Kingdom.
We must be careful at all times about language and the messages it sends. Nuances matter greatly. There is a significant difference between saying in effect, "While of course there are legitimate asylum seekers, our main preoccupation and priority is to repatriate bogus asylum seekers", and saying, "While of course there are those who are not legitimate asylum seekers, whatever the pressures that led them to move—and we must deal appropriately with that—our main preoccupation and priority remains to stand by and protect those whose need is real".
Similarly, to rename detention centres "removal centres" indicates a very clear primary preoccupation to refugees and the public alike. When claims are made about "success rates" achieved in repatriation, the implications are again obvious. The word "success", if it is to be used, should refer to success in protecting those at risk. What we should surely want to be able to claim is effectiveness in determining cases and ensuring the safe repatriation of those who do not qualify, always assuming that safe repatriation is indeed what we are achieving.
Meanwhile, however they originated, headlines about the Royal Air Force repatriating by the plane load those who do not qualify, hardly assists in encouraging support and positive public attitudes. To describe the 1951 convention as having been introduced in a different world and being in need of revision because of its current operational implications, can all too easily be open to the interpretation that, because of the scale of the refugee challenge, the principle enshrined in the convention has become inconvenient. That leads us into dangerous waters, if principles become seen as variable in the face of expediency. Again, this is why it is imperative constantly to keep clearly in mind the grim realities that compel people to leave their homes and move.
Clearly, effective international action which works is needed if the challenges are to be met. But in our approach to co-ordinated European Union action we must be careful not just to shove the burden on to those outside the European Union in Europe and beyond. Whatever the necessary immediate action, the international policies, if they are to prove effective, cannot simply be about controlling entry; they must also be about resources for economic and social development in deprived parts of the world; they must be about the fair trading system which enables the deprived meaningfully to join and benefit from global economic activity; they must be about environmental policies (global warming will yet dwarf our present migration difficulties); they must be about pre-emptive

1113
diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping, conflict resolution and security sector, military and civil, reform. They must be about building and resourcing convincing systems of justice throughout the world. But they must also be about effective economic and social policies here in Europe, not least on housing. Too frequently the main burden of migration falls on those least well equipped to carry it—the relatively poor and disadvantaged. It is in a socially dynamic situation that integration will be most easily accomplished.
Without the matrix approach we shall be like bad doctors, frantically treating the symptoms but ignoring the causes of the illness. Candidly, I am far from relaxed about the distinctions drawn between refugees in general and asylum seekers, and indeed between them both and so-called economic refugees and migrants. The anxieties, stress, pressures and suffering which lead economic refugees or migrants to move can be appalling. Here in the United Kingdom if a steel mill or a car plant closes, the people thrown out of work who go off in search of a new life for themselves and family elsewhere in the country are seen as model citizens. Yet despite all our rhetoric about a globalised economy, the people who have no alternative but to do the same thing across frontiers are frequently regarded as pariahs—the very term "economic refugee" or "economic migrant" can be used to denigrate.
We have the free movement of capital across the world, but not of labour. So long as that imbalance remains unaddressed, there will be an inevitability about people-trafficking, fed by human need and economic forces as the market adjusts itself. Such a massive distortion in the global market makes the matrix of social and economic intervention polices to which I referred indispensable. There is no option. What is in effect our hypocrisy can at times be grotesque. We have rightly called for tough action against cynical and cruel traffickers, but at the same time we have enjoyed the menial low-paid services provided to the economy and to society by illegal immigrants.
On children, the Bill does not self-evidently reflect the spirit of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Indeed, it is distressing that the Government have entered a reservation on that convention as it applies to refugee children. As the British Refugee Council and others insist, children are children first and refugees second. Surely we all agree on that. It is unacceptable that innocent children should ever be compelled to be in detention. And the arrangements for education of children who will have endured great trauma should be convincing. Those arrangements should contribute to and in no way inhibit integration for children who, ultimately, will stay. That is why there is so much room for doubt about what is proposed in terms of segregated education. Access to nursery education in the community is perhaps one of the single most important contributions that can be made to effective integration.
1114
On support, the Bill leaves a good deal of room for anxiety. If in our general social welfare provisions for British citizens we have established a minimum standard below which people should never fall, what possible justification can there be for refugees being expected to survive below that level? Are they not people too? The prospect of the "support only" arrangements being withdrawn from any refugee is disquieting. The infirm may well understandably decide to stay on with family and friends, even if the authorities want them to leave. That could increase the burdens on the already socially hard-pressed.
The accommodation centres raise a number of questions. How will they be evaluated and by whom? What are the risks of institutionalisation, particularly if, despite good intentions, stays in them prove, for some at least, to be considerably longer than anticipated? Is there room for a legal maximum on the length of stay? Will the centres not prove to be too big and isolated? What about access to a meaningful range of services? Would smaller community-related centres be a better proposition? What of guaranteed access to legal advice? Has there been enough consideration of the well-being of single women in such centres? Of course, there is the issue of education. The creation of those centres seems to involve much effort and resources for what may be only 10 per cent of total numbers. Can we be certain that there is not an unhealthy element of public relations and tokenism governing policy in that respect, and could the resources be put to more convincing use?
Arguably, the greatest single area of doubt surrounds the legal dimensions of the Bill. Does my noble friend accept that experience repeatedly demonstrates that the constant availability from day one of good legal advice helps—not hinders—the administration of policy in that fraught sphere? Is not the absence of proper legal scrutiny of executive action always wrong? Why is there no general right of appeal or of judicial review while still in the United Kingdom? How can the removal of automatic bail hearings for those detained be justified? I know that it has been argued that the provision for such hearings can be used to frustrate the administrative process—that is a dubious argument in itself—but where is the evidence for that? As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has pointed out, such hearings have not yet been introduced.
Again, as the right reverend Prelate argued, to enable appeals to be pursued from outside the United Kingdom after removal is hardly convincing. Is it really suggested that it makes sense for someone to be expected to appeal from their country of origin when that is the very country in which they claim to be in jeopardy? What about making an appeal from a third country? Can we be certain that the applicant will have the right to stay in the country during the appeal? To take just the European Union, the absence of harmonised interpretation of the convention is highly relevant; for example, some member countries accept the danger of persecution by non-state agents and others do not. Above all, as the right reverend Prelate

1115
argued, in the appeal procedure the credibility of the applicant is crucial, but the applicant will not be available.
Surely it is significant that currently one third of Home Office decisions are overturned and some experts believe that with good legal advice it would be more. What exactly is the Bill about in that respect? The qualifications and training of officials making what can be life and death decisions should also be taken more seriously. At present, the situation is far from consistently reassuring. Similarly, medical evidence, both physical and psychological, is still not always taken as seriously as it should be. There is then the worry about the list of so-called safe countries. Could we not now, as has already been suggested, take the opportunity of the Bill to introduce arrangements for independent assessment?
The great statesmen of the post-Second World War era had vision and determination. They had come through a terrible conflict. In the Declaration of Human Rights and the Refugee Convention, they crafted statements of what they knew to be essential if civilised values were to prevail and extremism of right, left or any other kind was to be defeated. They were not woolly people; they were tough realists. They had far fewer economic resources at their disposal than we have. I wonder how they would react to our current neurotic preoccupations, weighing deterrence against protection. One measure of the quality of our civilised values and of our compassion must surely be how we treat the most vulnerable in our midst.
As the Jubilee and many sporting occasions like the World Cup remind us, diversity is the joy of creation not a threat. It is something to be enjoyed and celebrated—not smothered. Positive approaches to immigration, refugees and asylum will make the outcome more successful. A negative culture surrounding the legislation, however important, will inevitably he self-fulfilling in making a cheerful self-confident, multi-cultural society with effective integration more difficult to achieve.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the Home Secretary introduced the Bill on 24th April he said that he hoped that there would be unanimity as to its contents. He assumed that any disagreement expressed at that time was simply due to misunderstanding and could easily be cleared up.
What has happened? We have just heard several speeches that must sound to the Minister—for whom I have the greatest compassion—rather unlike sweetness and light. During the past eight weeks, in the House of Commons large parts of the Bill have been re-written and expanded and a number of further amendments have been promised by the Home Secretary for introduction in this House.
Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights has produced a long report making a number of criticisms of the Bill on the grounds of human rights, and in particular in relation to the treatment of children. The House of Lords Select Committee on the
1116
Constitution has drawn attention to what it regards as a major change to our country's constitution to 'which the House should give serious attention. If the Bill as it stands becomes law, for the first time the Secretary of State will be able to deprive a British-born citizen of his or her citizenship if he or she has another citizenship as well. That is no small matter.
The Prime Minister has just returned from the European summit in Seville and has reported in a carefully spun way a number of impending changes to Europe's asylum arrangements, some of which are likely, directly or indirectly, to affect the Bill. He has agreed, as we heard earlier, contrary to the Government's stated intention, to go along with a European joint operation to police Europe's external borders, which presumably includes the United Kingdom's entire coastline, our ports and our airports, thus creating, without delay, harmonised border controls.
Will such impending harmonisation, along with other decisions taken at Seville, render parts of this Bill redundant or call for strengthening of some clauses or even new clauses? The truth of the matter is that in dealing with the Bill the House is aiming at a moving target. At the outset and in the original White Paper the Home Secretary said that we need a balanced approach. Of course, he is absolutely right.
The trouble is that the weights keep changing on each side of the scale. The balance involves so many people for whom the Bill is vital: those genuine and desperately seeking asylum under international law; those who seek a better life by emigrating legally or illegally to this country; and our own citizens, British born or naturalised, whose liberty and life chances Parliament exists to protect. We must never forget that.
If a proper balance is to be achieved, exceptionally careful and conscientious consideration will he demanded from all noble Lords on all sides of the House. From the speeches we have heard so far" the signs are that that will happen.
To save time in Committee, I should like to ask the Minister three questions at this stage: a general question on the Seville summit's effect on the Bill, and two questions about detailed provisions affecting Scotland. First, how do the Government see decisions in Seville broadly affecting the number of asylum seekers and aspiring immigrants—legal and illegal—who have to be dealt with in this country in the short and long term? The Prime Minister must have taken that issue into consideration in all his contributions to the debate in Seville. He must have had expectations which perhaps the Minister will give us.
Anticipated numbers are critical in considering many parts of the Bill: accommodation centres; the speed of processing; the follow up of refusals and so on. The Prime Minister was unable to persuade his colleagues that the European Union should withhold aid from countries that fail to co-operate in returning whence they came those found to be illegal immigrants and those who fail to be accepted as asylum seekers. Since our problems with illegal entry from France have

1117
not been catered for at Seville, is there likely to be an agreement soon with France, and if so, how soon? What will be the Seville summit's effects on the broad numbers to be catered for by the Bill? That is relevant and important.
Secondly, I ask about Clauses 126 and 127, which are the only clauses that do not apply to Scotland. I appreciate that they create a new offence for trafficking in prostitution and that, unlike the rest of the Bill, they are technically not concerned with matters reserved for Westminster. But the international promotion of prostitution in or from the UK is not going to stop south or north of the Scottish Border. People may be landed in Edinburgh with a view to their working in London, or landed in Hull with a view to working in Glasgow. If different legislation is enacted in the Scottish Parliament or already exists in Scottish law, or if the Scottish Parliament does not legislate at all, how will that affect Clauses 126 and 127? Has the Scottish Parliament ever considered the matter? I should be grateful if the Minister would answer that question, or if he would write to me. I realise that the issue is complicated, but it is important the House should get it right. It is a devolution matter and we must not make a mistake.
The third question is one of fact. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 deals with citizenship ceremonies, oaths and pledges. Paragraph 2 inserts into Schedule 5 to the British Nationality Act 1981 a requirement for aspiring United Kingdom citizens to swear an oath of allegiance to "Queen Elizabeth the Second". Scotland never had Elizabeth I as Queen. Therefore, the oath of allegiance in the United Kingdom Parliament in this House and another place is simply to Queen Elizabeth, not Queen Elizabeth II. That takes account of the facts of the United Kingdom.
I understand that an amendment was tabled in another place to bring the Bill into line, but it was not selected for discussion. The point has to be made by a Scots speaker. It is essential that the Bill be changed. Can I take it that the Government will table the necessary amendment? We should not take up the House's time with a long argument about whether the Queen is Elizabeth I or Elizabeth II. A slip-up has been made that should be corrected as soon as possible.
Much of the Bill is good. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who said that we must all imagine what it is like to be the Minister, who has to put into practice policies that will work in a country where the balance of all those concerned must be maintained. I am sympathetic, and I expect other noble Lords on this side of the House are too. But it is a moving target and there is much work to be done in this House. I look forward to the Committee stage.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I too must excuse myself for not being here later. Sadly, I am not dressed for a tug-of-war like my noble friend Lord Desai, but I shall be attending a long-arranged meeting to discuss violence against women.
1118
I congratulate my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on changing in the White Paper the basis of immigration policy, founded on racist principles for the past 30 years or so, to one based on the UK's economic and social needs.
I fear that I cannot be so complimentary about some parts of the Bill or certain sections of the White Paper. I wish to begin by examining the damage that is done when asylum seekers are scapegoated, because it does not end there. Asylum seekers have become synonymous with illegal entrants, even though there is no legal route for entry. However, I applaud the Home Secretary's commitment to open up such a route. Illegal entrants in turn are regarded as back-door immigrants, and so the connection, however perverse, is made with those who have settled here lawfully for generations. I learn every week of British women and children who are attacked and told to "go back home".
Intolerance towards certain sections of the minority community has come full circle to the days of the "rivers of blood" speech. Even the most settled and longstanding British citizens are again feeling unsafe and unprotected by the state. Against that background, it was ill advised for the Home Secretary to allow into the White Paper the comment that the Government expect British citizens from ethnic minority communities increasingly to marry within the UK.
Unwise subsequent comments on the "isolationist behaviour" of certain communities feed the irrational frenzy of bigots and racists. They have rightly been met with understandable outrage from much of our community, which does not see the Home Secretary's responsibility as including telling members of one section of British society whom they should marry. It also demonstrates that even at the heart of the Government we allow the continued and unhelpful link to settled communities of the current issues of migration, immigration and nationality.
While I hear that such statements may have been an innocent forecasting of social trends, the impact of tying them with the plight of Asian women in Britain seriously undermines any good intention and directly gives out the unwelcoming message that they have never been accepted as part of society. That lack of sensitivity, in addition to the issues raised of citizenship, loyalty and language, is unwelcome in the context of nationality and immigration. Are we surprised that those messages are picked up in media attacks on asylum seekers and economic migrants, which many of us had hoped would be countered by firm leadership, direction and good example from the Government?
It has to be said: those who play with fire should not complain if they get burned. I must say to the Government that they should not tacitly expect the media to build up antipathy towards asylum seekers in order to deter them coming here and certainly should not be surprised at the impact on members of ethnic communities who have been British citizens for generations. We need leadership to state that such

1119
attacks against asylum seekers are unacceptable not least because of their knock-on effects on the streets of inner cities.
Secondly, together with a number of the national NGOs—the Immigration Advisory Service in particular—I am concerned at the proposal to deprive people of their British citizenship, which clearly impacts principally against those with dual citizenship. It cannot be implemented against those who would become stateless, many of whom are from ethnic communities. We do not know what "vital interests" mean. We are worried that on uncorroborated evidence of another country's intelligence services the Home Secretary could certify that the information should not be made public on grounds relating to matters of a political kind and that the appeal against deprivation should be heard in camera by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I note also that that has retrospective effect and will apply to existing British citizens. That will inevitably be seen as a threat to a certain section of the British community.
In that context, I am not convinced that the extension of the probationary period from one to two years for spouses is the right approach to deal with, in particular, sham marriages. Although many women's organisations have campaigned for this, I know that there are measures in place already to protect those who are abused. There may be police powers which could be used to deal with or to deport spouses where domestic violence has occurred. The Government have not explained their rationale or put forward any evidence of the nature of any supposed abuse. I think that we should know, for example, how many supposedly sham marriages have been reported under the 1999 Act by marriage registrars, and how many have been found to be proved.
I welcomed the abolition of the so-called and notorious primary purpose rule within a few weeks of the first Labour Government, as did many of us, in 1997. But surely the way to deal with alleged marriages—if they exist—is to examine the marriages at the time of application in greater detail.
I shall not comment on the Government's proposals to extend the working holidaymakers' scheme, as these appear in a separate consultation document and are not part of the Bill. But I hope that in the harmonisation of immigration policy, which is now central to the European Union, the Government will not allow any erosion of the special provisions which emanate from the historic links between the UK and Commonwealth countries. I seek some an assurance on that.
I now turn to the provisions in the Bill which have raised the greatest controversy. First, I wish to state that I do not believe that a policy of deterrence, which has as its consequence making life miserable for asylum seekers in this country, is either effective or humane. There are other ways in which we can make our procedures swifter and efficacious, such as those suggested to the Government by the Immigration Advisory Service. Those include an independent documentation centre on country of origin reports,
1120
giving early access to legal advice and a fast track to acceptance of those whom the Government will not remove in any event; greater use of reporting rather than detention; and a planned, assisted departure programme for those who are not entitled to remain. The Home Secretary has rightly claimed that the system must enjoy the confidence of the public. One does not achieve that by seeking to exclude fairness and judicial scrutiny from the actions of the executive. I am also worried that we should not rush into legislation without considering the loss of confidence if measures fail.
The proposal—inserted at the last moment in the Commons by the Government—to remove failed applicants before they can exercise a right of appeal is, I am advised, contrary to Article 32 of the UN convention relating to the status of refugees and, in any event, is likely to be unworkable in other than perhaps a few cases. Unless we have harmonisation across the European Union of the interpretation of the convention we shall not be able to return asylum seekers to countries which, for example, do not accept non-state agents of persecution. It is unlikely that any country will take back undocumented asylum seekers whom the Government allege have passed through their territory. Bearing in mind that a majority of asylum applicants in the UK are in the in-count ry with an existing immigration status, we should be told how many the Government think that will apply to. We know from the Home Office's own internal report on impediments to achieving its aims, the auditors VantagePoint advised scrapping Article 15 searches under the Dublin convention, which has already been discussed, on the basis that it applied to only 6 per cent of cases and the searches took some three months compared with the recommended one month. Are the new proposals another white elephant? I welcome the comments made earlier by my friend the Leader of the House that there may be a rethink on Dublin. I also welcome the moves towards a common policy agreed in Seville over the weekend as we need a strategic plan on these issues. That has been restated several times.
There is now widespread agreement that large-scale rural accommodation centres are not the best way forward. I share the view, not only of those 10 organisations who sent a letter from the Immigration Advisory Service to the Home Secretary but also others, including noble Lords who have made contributions, and the experience from other European countries that the need is for smaller units with access to mainstream facilities which, consequently, will not place an unbearable strain on them.
In such a short time, I cannot deal with many of the complexities such as language, the rights of children and the issue of citizenship, which require a great deal of attention. I shall just make a few more comments dealing broadly with the legal issues. First, although they should never have been introduced in the first place, I am delighted that the fees, which so marred the excellent initiative of the Government to bring in family visit appeals, have now been dropped from the Bill for ever. Already we have seen an increase in the

1121
number of family visit fast appeals, which were inhibited while the fees remained. It is sensible for judicial scrutiny, wherever possible, to be by adjudicators who are experts in immigration and asylum law. That is why I hope that, for example, centre manager decisions to exclude asylum seekers from accommodation centres can be appealed to adjudicators rather than on judicial review. That principle applies more widely in other parts of the Bill.
I cannot see how in Clause 89 the move to a review by a single judge on written representations only as against judicial review is a step forward. Will the Minister confirm that some two-thirds of all judicial review cases are successful and that, although many applications for judicial review are presently refused, very many are successfully admitted on renewed oral applications? If the single judge is unable to have the benefit of counsel arguing the case, is he or she not likely to give permission for judicial review in any event giving the benefit of the doubt to the applicant?
Perhaps I may conclude on a note on which I hope that the whole House will unite, including the Government. I should like to think that we could unite on implementing routine bail applications which the Government introduced in the 1999 Act but never implemented. I understand why Ministers state that these provisions would be administratively inconvenient—especially with an increased detention estate—but I do not see how the advice then tendered to the Government as to the need for such provisions in order to comply with the Human Rights Act has changed in the interim period. Surely, if anything, the need for routine external judicial scrutiny of decisions to detain is greater rather than less in such circumstances.
Even if I cannot persuade the Government on that issue, I hope at least to succeed on another fundamental issue that falls under Part III of the 1999 Act: namely, the presumption of liberty. That point has been reiterated by several speakers. I hope that my noble friend will rise in his place now to assure me that the Government will at least preserve that essential and inoffensive provision which does no more than afford to immigration detainees who are alleged to have committed no crime the safeguards afforded to criminals under the Bail Act 1976.
Although it has had a controversial start, with goodwill from all parts of the House the Bill can be so improved as to be seen to he a major step forward in nationality, immigration and asylum provision. Perhaps we can become some sort of role model for the rest of the world to follow, which is the hope of us all.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, my contribution to this debate is to draw attention to the concerns expressed by the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, of which I am privileged to be a member, about the human rights implications of this controversial Bill. Our substantial concerns were expressed in the report published on Friday. I am glad
1122
to be speaking while the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, is in her place, she being an important member of our committee.
In a real sense, the committee has become Parliament's legal adviser on human rights. Our report is unanimous and transcends partisan party politics. Indeed, the chair of the committee is Jean Corston MP, who is also chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party. We hope that our report will result in significant improvements to the Bill during its passage, with the active co-operation of the Home Office. At the end of our report, we append a Home Office memorandum and submissions by non-governmental organisations reporting from the front line, as it were. I hope that my summary of the report will not be regarded as a substitute for reading the whole of it.
We observe at the outset of the report that,
"the way a state treats powerless and vulnerable people is an important indicator of the vitality of its human rights culture … Immigrants and asylum-seekers, lacking a political base in the United Kingdom, are particularly at risk of having their dignity and rights undervalued in the legislative process and subsequent administrative action".
We also point out in paragraph 4 that the Home Office's failure to reply promptly to questions raised by the Select Committee,
"made it impossible for us to report on the Bill in time for our conclusions to be useful to the House of Commons".
We recommend:
"In future, if a Department cannot meet the deadline for replying to our questions",
about a Bill with important human rights implications,
"especially one which is programmed in the House of Commons, the Government's business managers should ensure that the Bill's timetable is set to give time for the Committee to Report".
I gave notice to the Minister that I would raise the committee's concerns during this debate. We hope that he will be able to tell the House that the Government will respond positively to that point, as well as to our other human rights concerns. I bear in mind that the Minister has personally signed the Section 19 statement under the Human Rights Act 1998 that, in his view, he considers the provisions of the Bill to be compatible with the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Currently, the Home Secretary is empowered to deprive of British citizenship only those who became British citizens by registration or naturalisation. There is at present no power to deprive a British citizen born in this country of the citizenship that is his or her birthright. Clause 4, which applies to all British citizens, would empower the Home Secretary to deprive any British citizen, including one born here, of citizenship if the Home Secretary was satisfied that the person,
"has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of … the United Kingdom, or … a British overseas territory",
if he does not think that that would make the person stateless.
At paragraph 26, the committee draws attention to the serious consequences of depriving our fellow citizens of their citizenship. Those adverse consequences include,

1123
"loss of the right to a United Kingdom passport, which may affect people's ability to travel, especially if the other State of which a person is a citizen were to deny a passport to the person for political reasons. Inability to obtain a passport could make a person's alternative nationality little more than an empty shell. In addition, deprivation of British citizenship would entail loss of British diplomatic protection; loss of status; loss of the ability to participate in the democratic process in the United Kingdom; and serious damage to reputation and dignity".
The Home Office points out that the real threat to human rights from that draconian power springs from subsequent decisions taken as part of immigration control, where there would be adequate opportunity to ensure that effect was given to convention rights. Certainly, the expatriation and banishment that could result from the exercise of this power is the most serious detriment—in effect a punishment that would be inflicted even though the person stripped of British citizenship had not been found guilty of any crime. Such a punishment for no established crime is surely offensive to cardinal principles for which our constitution stands, and on which the Constitution Committee has separately reported.
But the Joint Committee on Human Rights is also concerned about the wider consequences of loss of British citizenship. The Home Secretary is rightly concerned to promote a concept of equal citizenship and shared democratic values based upon allegiance to this country. That is a vital objective of public policy if we are to succeed in creating a plural and tolerant society. But the positive value and worth of British citizenship will be diminished if it can be so easily removed by a subjective ministerial decision without even an obligation for the Home Secretary to show that he has reasonable grounds for doing so.
I remind your Lordships that in 1968, a previous government gravely damaged British citizenship by removing the right to enter and live in this country from 200,000 British passport holders on racial grounds. I declare an interest as counsel who went to Strasbourg to have that held to be inherently degrading.
In paragraphs 29 and 30, we explain our reasons for disagreeing with the Home Office's argument as to why it is appropriate to dispense with any requirement for objective, reasonable grounds and why existing legal principles would not afford an adequate remedy against the abuse of that power. We hope that the House—and, indeed, the Home Secretary—will accept our conclusion that,
"it is a far more effective guarantee against arbitrariness, and a better way of assuring good administrative decision-making (as well as being far more compatible with the rule of law which underpins human rights), to require public authorities to justify the deprivation of a person's status to a standard of reasonableness, than to require the person subject to the decision to establish that it is wholly unreasonable".
Next, we deal with the arrangements for making residents of asylum centres aware of their legal rights and for providing effective access to timely legal advice to those in asylum and removal centres. We deal with that important subject in paragraphs 43, 44 and 87 of the report, where we state that we would expect the Home Office to be able to inform Parliament,
1124
"of the steps which would be taken, in all accommodation centres, actively to discharge the responsibility to inform people of their rights and of the accessibility of appropriate legal advice".
In her powerful speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, rightly emphasised the great importance of that aspect of the Bill.
In paragraphs 46 to 62, we criticise the Government's reluctance to undertake to take positive steps to secure the rights of children in accommodation centres under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. They include the right to be free from discrimination; the right to have their best interests treated as a primary consideration; the right to education on a non-discriminatory basis: and the right to participate in attention to some of those aspects.
We also draw attention, in paragraphs 66 to 74, to the right of destitute asylum seekers or their dependants, who have been required to leave accommodation centres without fault on their part, to a standard of accommodation and other support that is adequate to their needs. En paragraph 68, we refer to the extent to which the National Asylum Support Service can be relied upon to provide adequate support to asylum seekers in the community. We express concern at evidence of serious shortcomings in the ability of NASS to cope with the demands of assisting the asylum seekers dispersed around the country, a problem compounded by its inaccessibility to supported asylum seekers and their families.
In paragraph 76, we criticise the lack of clarity in the definition of the Home Secretary's powers to make regulations allowing assumptions to be made about a person's means when deciding whether he or she, or a dependant, is destitute. We draw attention to the need for careful parliamentary scrutiny of any regulations made under the Bill to withdraw the support-only option for assisting asylum seekers.
In paragraphs 78 to 79, we criticise the Government's reluctance to recognise the absolute nature of the obligation to avoid treating people in ways that amount to degrading treatment and are in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention. The Government's approach makes it sound as though it is a matter of administrative discretion, whereas the United Kingdom's duties under Article 3 are absolute, as every human rights lawyer or first-year law student ought to know. It is a matter of entitlement, not of discretion, and we hope that the Minister will accept that that is so.
In paragraph 80, we refer to the lack of flexibility and sensitivity to a person's circumstances in the proposal to limit the level of non-accommodation support to asylum seekers to only 70 per cent of income support. That may be unfairly discriminatory. We expect the level of support to be sufficiently flexible to take account of cases in which asylum seekers are not receiving accommodation as well as other support.
In paragraph 84, we draw attention to the possible ambiguity of the condition for authorising detention of a person who is liable to removal. We recommend that, because of the importance of the right to liberty—

1125
to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford so insistently and rightly drew attention—Clause 49 should be amended to limit the Home Secretary's powers to cases in which there are reasonable grounds for their use.
We emphasise, in paragraphs 88 to 89, the need for the best interests of children to be treated as a primary consideration in decisions whether to remove members of the family of someone whose removal has been ordered and whether to detain children. We emphasise again and again—in paragraphs 98, 99, 101, 104 and 108—the need, when the Home Secretary makes a certificate depriving someone of a right of appeal, to ensure that the individual is not removed from the UK before having an effective opportunity to seek the assistance of the courts in enforcing convention rights. That point was also emphasised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. In that context, I ask your Lordships to bear in mind what we wrote in paragraph 98 of our report. We concluded:
"In our view, it should not be possible to remove a person before he or she has had the opportunity to challenge, before an independent and impartial tribunal, the Secretary of State's certificate asserting that the person's claim to have had a Convention right violated is clearly unfounded. Removing a person in such circumstances might sometimes give rise to a violation of ECHR Article 13 (the right to an effective remedy … We draw this to the attention of each House".
I hope that noble Lords will find that summary useful, as the House proceeds to examine the Bill in detail. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has not found it necessary to draw attention to so many serious issues affecting human rights in any of our previous reports. It is highly regrettable that, because of the inexcusable delay in the Home Office's reply to our questions, our report had to be published too late to inform the debates in the other place, so that detailed scrutiny can take place only in this House. My noble friend Lord Dholakia and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, rightly drew attention to that point in their criticism of the regrettable features of the Government's handling of the Bill in another place.
I hope that we may look forward to a positive response from the Minister on those concerns at the end of the debate and thereafter. We want him not simply to write to us but to deal with the points here and now and hereafter, so that we may know where we are. We have not been concerned with the many wider political and social aspects of the Bill, such as the right to bail issue, which we do not think, in itself, violates the European Convention. There are many other such issues, but we are concerned only with the human rights implications and with questions of legality.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, will the noble Lord kindly reflect on the provisions that give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the power to repeal by order even the curtailed right to judicial review given by Clause 89? Will the noble Lord speculate on the reasons that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might advance for repealing
1126
that curtailed right, other, perhaps, than that an order would be subject only to a debate of an hour and a half and would not be subject to amendment?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I share the noble and learned Lord's bewilderment about that. It is not a matter to which the committee drew attention, but I find it baffling. I must choose my words carefully, but, in some respects, the Bill calls to mind the words of Winston Churchill about a similar power—the power to detain without trial. As noble Lords will remember, he described it as being,
"in the highest degree odious".
6.58 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, many of us who take a close interest in asylum issues are saddened that the Government have been seduced by right-wing demagoguery into making the recent changes to the Bill. The Government seemed to be seeking to do something honourable and create a policy that was coherent, clear, fair and non-racist. The publication of the White Paper gave some hope that knowledgeable voices would be listened to, but it is clear that, despite submissions and warnings, those voices have not been heeded in any meaningful way. Research, even that conducted by the Home Office, has been ignored. Major parts of the Bill have gone undebated in the other place.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said, the other place did not have before it the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, because the Home Office had failed to meet the deadlines for its response. Many of us who are involved in human rights are concerned that the Bill has substantial implications for human rights. It seems to us indicative of an attitude of mind towards human rights that no account could be given to that report in the debates in the other place.
Many aspects of the Government's policy are deserving of support. I was one of the critics of the voucher system. I was really heartened by the decision to end it. I welcome the Government's tougher custodial sentences for vile trafficking in human beings, particularly of women and children for sexual purposes. I also applauded the opening up of legitimate channels of entry for economic migrants. I believe that it is clearly beneficial that there should be citizenship classes to encourage civic participation and enhance knowledge of our duties as citizens and the rights which citizenship bestow. It seems to me that it may be a project which could be expanded to embrace more systems.
I agree with the Home Secretary that some knowledge of English is hugely important if people are to enjoy a genuine sense of engagement and belonging in this country. I have seen far too often how women in immigrant communities can feel exiled and marooned because they cannot help their children with reading, cannot attend parent-teacher meetings, take control of their own healthcare needs or acquire skills for themselves. It sometimes leaves them at the mercy of

1127
over-controlling or abusive partners. Their isolation can sometimes lead to mental health problems. Statistically. Asian women commit suicide at a higher rate than any other section of the community. It is one of those unspoken scandals in our society.
However, while accepting some of the positive proposals coming from the Home Secretary, I share the view of many that asylum and immigration issues do not require many of the proposals contained in this Bill. It is wholly contradictory to espouse a policy of social inclusion, extolling the virtues of assimilation and citizenship, yet to put asylum seekers into detention camps.
It will not surprise noble Lords that one of my main concerns with this Bill is the way in which judicial scrutiny from the actions of the executive is, in certain circumstances, excluded. How can it possibly be just to expect people to conduct an effective appeal from another country? There is no guarantee that an asylum seeker, removed to a third country, would be allowed to remain there in order to exercise his or her right of appeal back in the UK. The British Government would no longer have any jurisdiction over what happens to them.
How does an adjudicator judge the credibility of an appellant when the appellant cannot give evidence? How will legal aid work? Will foreign lawyers be expected to fathom the complexities of UK law or will UK lawyers communicate by fax, e-mail or rotten telephone lines, if such wondrous technology is readily available to the applicant?
Refusal of asylum revolves principally around the credibility of the applicant. How fair would an appeal be when the appellant cannot give evidence in person on vital matters so that their credibility can be assessed and material facts verified? Just think of the problems which a woman has giving voice to experiences of rape and sexual humiliation, as many refugees have to do. On paper, an adjudicator has no sense of the reality of that violation.
It is important to consider the extremely poor and often arbitrary nature of Home Office decision-making on asylum claims. Frequently it is junior officials who certify that someone does not have a case for asylum. There is an absence of adequate training, staff supervision and internal quality control within the Home Office. A culture of disbelief informs initial decision-making, which is further compromised by poor and very adversarial interviewing techniques. Imagine what it feels like when you are a person who has come from an experience of torture and degradation to be questioned repeatedly by someone with little competence in that field. Many of these relatively inexperienced officials have little understanding of the countries or the cultures from which the asylum seekers come. Little attempt is made to ensure that the resulting decisions are checked by better qualified and more experienced staff.
So we have junior officials making life and death decisions which lead to the ejection of a refugee before he or she has the chance of a proper judicial review here in this country. It is a scandal and utterly
1128
shameful. It is no wonder that the Joint Committee of Human Rights was so critical of this Bill. I also share the concerns of many immigration lawyers about access to good legal advice. The enjoyment of due process depends on effective access to appropriate legal advice. Like many, I have little confidence in the current arrangements.
On the subject of accommodation centres, I wish to emphasise the position of women and children. Eighty-two per cent of asylum seekers are single men. That will not surprise us given the circumstances in which people flee. I am very concerned about t he well-being of women if placed in accommodation where they will be so hugely outnumbered. I do not have to remind the Minister that many of them are already very vulnerable women because of the experiences which have caused them to flee—rape, sexual assault at the hands of oppressors. Many single women, single parents and widows, could find themselves very exposed in such a male-dominated environment among men who are lonely and isolated and who have many problems of their own.
I mean no disparagement at all to asylum seekers: it is a fact of the human condition. But to place such women in accommodation centres and so hugely outnumbered, makes them a sitting target for physical and sexual abuse. Only 18 per cent of asylum seekers are families. Those comparatively small numbers of refugees who come with children could easily continue to be dispersed with access to mainstream education and social welfare, as at present. The numbers are really not large.
I, too, wish to remind the Government of their responsibilities under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children's needs are very different from those of adults and our responsibilities are therefore the greater. To segregate refugee children from other children in mainstream education flies in the face of everything we are seeking to do to combat racism. There must be a way of alleviating pressures on schools without creating such a divisive system. What we should be talking about is the better management of dispersal and better resourcing of it.
This experiment of accommodation centres has huge risks attached to it. I sincerely hope that the Government have given some thought to the perils of the arrangement. It is my view, shared by many others who have experience on issues of domestic violence and sexual abuse, that such centres cannot he safe environments for women and children. But if such a scheme were to work it would mean creating separate facilities for single women and families with safeguards to protect women and children. So the cost will not be small. Would it not be better to divert it again into the management of dispersal. I issue a warning. I do hope that the Government realise what they are doing.
The issue of asylum is an issue of justice. Like so many, I have a great sense of pride that Britain has, on the whole, been a sanctuary for the persecuted. My own mother-in-law came here as a refugee in 1938, fleeing Nazism in Vienna. She was a doctor. From the

1129
beginnings of the National Health Service, when she had her qualifications recognised, she devoted herself unstintingly to the healthcare of her patients in a very under-privileged part of Birmingham. Our country has been hugely enriched by people like her who come to our shores. We should give no sustenance to those who disparage refugees; people who are driven by desperate measures to settle here.
I regret aspects of the Bill. It does no credit to us, particularly to a government committed to social justice. I hope, therefore, that Ministers will think again about what has been said in the course of the debate.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Best, is no longer in his place. Nevertheless, I urge the Government to reflect carefully on the practical proposal that he put forward earlier today. I have known him for well over 35 years. I have always found him in various capacities to be extremely well informed.
After more than 30 years in your Lordships' House I have come to realise that it is not sufficient to say something once only. It seems that it requires copious repetition before a concept begins to sink into the official mind. I repeat, therefore, what I said at the Third Reading of the 1999 Bill and last Tuesday, 18th June, during the debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Sandwich. There are, I believe, three principles which should guide policy on immigration and refugees: knowledge of English; family reunion; and connection with Britain. I refer to Hansard for the reasoning behind this basic proposition which so far no one has questioned.
I turn to the current Bill and note that it is the fifth Bill on the subject in 11 years. I have taken part in debate on all of them and I wish that it had not been necessary. Although I once carried an amendment on a Division, thanks to an ambush kindly arranged by the noble Lord who is now Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, I can imagine the groans that rose from many noble Lords when yet another White Paper and Bill came in sight. The sorry record under all recent governments shows that these matters cannot be solved by legislation alone but depend on common sense and good administration. Good administration, I am sorry to say, is something that neither the Home Office nor the National Asylum Support Service has been successful in providing. For those reasons I shall concentrate today on one aspect of this complex subject—an aspect which the Bill does not mention; namely, the quality of the initial decisions in application for refugee status and exceptional leave to remain.
At present the annual rate of applications plus the backlog of cases well exceeds 80,000 cases. In recent years the number of favourable decisions has been roughly doubled by successful appeals. It cannot be satisfactory that about half the initial decisions are later shown to be wrong. I suggest that this arises
1130
because the Home Office has consistently refused to listen to the views of refugee representatives and practitioners, and academics who have studied the subject.
Professor Goodwin-Gill, Professor of International Refugee Law at Oxford, wrote about the previous Bill in The Times of 28th October 1999:
"The Home Office maintains more or less exactly the procedure it had when I first dealt with the Asylum Unit at Croydon some 25 years ago".
He continued:
"What is needed is a decentralisation of Home Office authority, a radically revised decision-making process, that puts applicants and their representatives face to face with those who decide their fate, and a better understanding of … human rights".
He added:
"You can't judge credibility on the basis of someone's written report"
The first approach to better decisions is to provide adequate training at all levels, especially at the front line at ports and places of interview. Staff supervision and internal quality control within the Home Office come next. The "culture of disbelief" whereby field workers routinely disbelieve applicants' stories and accounts of their own countries should be ended. One official should oversee cases from start to finish. That is not the position at present. Decision makers should have to defend their decisions to appeal adjudicators. High quality interpreters should always be provided for applicants who may not understand official English or have difficulty in expressing themselves. As has been mentioned, decisions will always be better when applicants have been advised by lawyers or experienced practitioners. Such advice will also help to identify torture victims at an early stage. Applicants should not be expected to complete a 16-page form or to go to an important first interview without proper advice.
If these simple steps are taken, huge quantities of appeals will be avoided. The appeal and tribunal procedures come under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor rather than the Home Office. I welcome the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, for better co-operation between the two departments and improvements in the appeal procedures.
Suggestions have been made for independent determination of status and for an independent documentation centre open to all parties containing factual information about countries of origin. Canada has both those facilities. They are desirable but far more important are immediate steps to improve the quality of initial decisions. I had planned to discuss such improvements with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, before Second Reading but, alas, that had to be postponed. I commend the suggestions I have made to Her Majesty's Government and urge them to start on them tomorrow without waiting for the Bill eventually to become law. The need is urgent. There can, I suggest, be no reasons for delay.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, it may come as no surprise to noble Lords to hear me say that I shall confine my remarks to Schedule 8 on carriers' liability. It is a small part of the Bill but it affects the livelihood of a number of small and large businesses.
I was impressed with the way the Minister introduced the Bill by saying that we must manage the asylum process. That is good. It means that the Government are taking responsibility for what is necessarily a government responsibility; but it has not always been that way. The Government also have a duty to maintain the internal market trade routes. The Government have put on the SRA a duty to encourage cross-Channel rail transport—passenger and freight. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group.
It has seemed sometimes in recent years that the Government's only concern was to turn transport operators—road, rail or sea operators—into unpaid frontier guards of fortress Britain, fining anyone who failed even if he or she were not at fault; and there was no real appeal. The Government lost on that point in the case of Roth in the Court of Appeal earlier this year. There were appeals against the fines on lorries and lorry drivers.
There is now a new code of practice with revisions. However, it was published on 11th June, less than two weeks ago. I do not believe that it has been considered in another place. There are strong arguments—they are supported by the Freight Transport Association—for changes in that code of practice and the schedule to the Bill. It is argued that CO2 checks on vehicles could constitute an automatic defence; that an independent ombudsman or tribunal should consider appeals; and that fines be per offence and not per illegal immigrant. The maximum fine is £4,000. On occasion 50 people have been found in a container. Whether it involves one or 50 people, it is either an offence or not an offence. However, the level of fine at 50 times £4,000 will put some operators into bankruptcy, whether or not they are guilty. A case can also be made for removing the fines associated with operator liability for the driver.
I turn now to more detailed points with regard to rail freight. Obviously I am concerned to ensure that companies and individuals are not fined unfairly for acts over which they have no control. This originated in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 under the definition of the "responsible person", referring to anyone who could possibly be blamed for bringing in illegal immigrants hidden in lorries or on trains. It was a very wide definition. Consultation was minimal and at the time there appeared to be little understanding of the contractual arrangements between the railway companies.
The matter reached an all-time low when the Home Office installed a man at the Dollands Moor yard near Folkestone. He counted all the people getting off the trains. On the basis of that number an invoice was sent daily to E WS charging £2,000 per person. The officials did not bother to catch the people; they let them run away into the countryside. However, the invoice was always sent.
1132
Occasionally people have chosen to take freight trains to go back to France. One person thought that it was the normal means to return for a family wedding. I do not know whether on that occasion the Home Office considered refunding the £2,000. That level of fines nearly killed the business because EWS had no powers to tell the French railway operators what to do. However, to some extent that was mitigated when in February this year the Home Office wrote to EWS confirming that it accepted that the company was not the "responsible person" within the definition.
That came about partly because last November SNCF stopped operating its train services because members of its staff were being attacked. At long last the two governments began to take the matter seriously. They accepted that prevention of the entry of illegal immigrants is a matter for governments. I suggest it is primarily the responsibility of the government wishing to keep people out. It is difficult to expect the French to take too seriously an operation to keep in their country people whom they probably do not want there in the first place. However, we are where we are and it is good that EWS has been told that it is no longer to be considered the "responsible person".
The new legislation suggests that at last the Government are listening to the industry. Amendments to the code and to the schedule appear to confirm that EWS, its customers, aggregators and consignors, together with SNCF, are not to be the "persons responsible" under their current contractual arrangements. I shall be grateful if my noble friend on the Front Bench could confirm that. Although it is still a matter of concern, the provisions in the Bill appear to be a great improvement on the previous code and schedule.
Finally, I turn to the question of repatriation. It is nice, if it is true, that EWS and other operators are no longer to be held liable for new fines for bringing people in, despite all their efforts to detect and prevent them. However, one has to ask the next question: why do such operators still have to pay the air fare home of those people not granted asylum? Noble Lords will have heard in times past that many people whom we define, rightly or wrongly, as economic migrants, are well instructed by those who arrange their journeys. Immigrants are told to destroy all sources of identity as they enter this country. Under the Dublin contention, they then cannot be sent back. That ensures that the Government cannot return them from Folkestone to Calais, but must arrange a flight to, for example, Romania.
However, during the processing of asylum applications, suddenly it becomes possible to identify where people have come from. At that point, carrying companies have to pay for their air fares home. It applies to airlines as well as to freight operators. Over the past three or four years, that has cost EWS Railways more than £200,000. It appears that the legislation of the 1971 Act is virtually the same as that set out in the 1999 Act. However, the Government lost their appeal in the Roth case because of

1133
incompatibility with Articles 1 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Filkin would welcome an amendment to the 1971 Act to bring it into line with the new proposal on fines. The Government would not want to find themselves again in court under similar circumstances with regard to repatriation costs, given that they have already lost the case on imposing charges for bringing people in. I should be most interested to hear my noble friend's response to that point, as well as on the question of railway companies' liability.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the first Bill I saw through all its stages in your Lordships' House was the 1968 Kenyan Asians Bill, as it was then called, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has already referred. At the time, when winding up the debate at Third Reading, I said that it was a national disgrace. In so saying for the first time in my life, but not for the last, I made the headlines of the Evening Standard.
Since then we have seen a number of Bills on this subject. None has really done the trick or we would not be here today. None has been quite right. Things have moved on a little, however. I recall that the only party to stand against the 1968 Bill was the old Liberal Party, while the Front Benches of both other parties were vehemently in favour. Now we have a situation where great unhappiness has been expressed from the Back Benches of all three parties and the Front Benches of two.
I am sure that we shall have an interesting Committee stage on the Bill, although not nearly enough time has been allocated to debate the legislation—unless we are to sit until five or six o'clock in the morning. That goes against what the House wants to do and against what it does at all well. Noble Lords want to be able to consider sensibly matters that arise in Committee which were not debated carefully in another place. We need time to be able to do so. We need quite a long Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, who is not in his place at the moment, commented that he would be away for part of the time, a matter which he very much regretted. I know the noble Lord to be a very truthful man, but although I, too, am going to be away, I do not regret it at all. I am rather glad that I shall not be in the House for those long sittings.
Perhaps I may mention a few of the issues that will need to be considered with great care in Committee. I turn first to the imposition of unworkable time limits. It is proposed that the paper application to the High Court be made within 10 days. That is much too short a period. Similarly, there is to be the imposition of costs sanctions, which will make it increasingly difficult to secure representation, as well as deterring practitioners from challenging the often erratic processes of adjudicators.
The Government have proposed a vast array of costs powers to be conferred on adjudicators and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, with the objective of
1134
deterring appeals lodged against Home Office decisions. The powers are unnecessary as "quality control" in public-funded cases is already maintained by the Legal Services Commission and, additionally, the office of the Immigration Services Commissioner, the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar. All those institutions have oversight in these matters.
The proposals are a crude mechanism to make it increasingly difficult to get representation. This will be the inevitable consequence if representatives prove reluctant to argue an asylum seeker's case for fear of personal sanction. The reality is that most cases, win or lose, depend on an adjudicator's view of credibility. It is the duty of adjudicators, not advocates, to decide whether an asylum seeker's evidence is credible. It cannot be right to penalise those representing asylum seekers in such circumstances, not least when no parallel sanctions are proposed to deal with the Home Office's time wasting and inefficiency.
The rebranding of detention centres as removal centres obviously must be looked at very carefully. It is not a encouragement to people who are relying on British justice to be moved from a reception centre to an establishment which is actually called a "removal" centre before any decisions have been made.
The repeal of automatic bail hearings is a nasty, retrograde step. The provision for automatic bail hearings after seven and 35 days set out in Part III of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 would have provided some safeguards against indefinite detention resulting from administrative and procedural delays and errors. This is a requirement under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government accepted the need for automatic bail hearings in 1999 but the legislation was never implemented.
The current Bill suggests no alternative safeguards to those contained within Part III. This is alarming because the rights to apply for hail under existing legislation are inadequate and significant numbers of detainees do not have any access to the bail procedure currently available. We estimate that this affects some 60 per cent of those people who contact us for assistance.
Inadequacies in the rights to apply for bail under existing legislation are a problem. The merits test requires legal representatives to assess the potential for success. If they believe that there is a less than 50 per cent chance of success, they are prohibited from employing public funds to represent their clients in bail applications. The chances of success are often perceived to be less than 50 per cent, in many cases due to the requirement for sureties.
The White Paper, Secure Borders, Sale Haven, endorses the policy of detaining children in asylum-seeking families prior to removal and raises the option of detention in other circumstances. The Government have not said on what basis they deem this practice to be proportionate or necessary. The detention of children is incompatible with the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I add my voice very strongly to those who are

1135
arguing for the right of children to be educated in mainstream schools in this country. This is often not only very good for the children, of whom we must think, but, as we have heard from the various schools which have testified on this issue, it is often very good for the schools themselves.
There are a very large number of issues involved. It will take us a long time to amend the Bill. I trust that we shall be able to do it. I hope that the Government will face up to the problems and help us with it. On the whole, I have not found the Government to be unreasonable when one makes a serious case for changing things. If they wish the Bill to go through containing most of the measures that they want, they will have to meet the objections put forward by people who are considerably more qualified than I.
I do not believe that this is a good Bill. It has one or two good points but, basically, it needs so much amendment that we might as well start from the beginning again. I shall do my bit in the demolition that will be necessary before we can start rebuilding
7.34 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred to the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill 1968—the Kenyan Asians Bill. I remember catching the train from Manchester to join a demonstration in London against that measure. I remember marching side by side that day with Mr Peter Hain, who seems to be on the other side now. When I look at the present new Labour Government, I am not sure whether we who still believe what we believed 30 years ago are dinosaurs or men and women of principle. I suppose you choose which you think you are according to the position you hold.
It is true that these issues come back to haunt us time and time again. This being your Lordships' House, we shall have a civilised, rational debate about them and we will find noble Lords on the Government Front Bench being both civilised and rational. But we have to look at the overall political background from which this legislation is brought forward and at the moves taking place throughout Europe on immigration and asylum.
Throughout Europe, democratic politicians are running scared at what they perceive as the rise of the populist right. Some of its views are populist; some are downright racist; some are overtly fascist. The view is being put forward that, in order to counter the threat of these people—it is a very serious threat—we have to adopt sufficient of their policies, agenda and rhetoric to counter their challenge.
However, there are those of us who believe that this is a fundamentally flawed strategy. If one is fighting fascists and racists—which many of them are—or merely fighting the right-wing tabloid populism of the Daily Mail and the Daily Express in this country, the way to do it is to stand up and to argue rationally with them, to challenge them, to take on their argument, and to put forward rational and sensible policies. We should not assume that if this is what the focus group
1136
says, this is what we have to do. There are times when politicians have to provide leadership and educate the focus groups instead of simply listening to them.
For several years we have seen within Europe the tabloids, followed by the BBC and politicians, talking up the problem of asylum seekers. Not only is this issue being raised to a level completely out of context to the real problem, it is also distorting the argument about much more serious immigration problems, particularly the issues of people being brought into this country in bondage and being used as women prostitutes, child prostitutes, domestic slaves and in other ways which mean that they have no control of their own destiny.
At the same time, we have politicians raising expectations of what they will do as a short-term response to the public debate. We saw this at Seville. A week ago we were being told that the British Government would achieve this and achieve that. Now it turns out that they may have achieved about a quarter of it if they are lucky. There is a failure of political leadership which must be addressed. If it is not addressed, shifting onto the right-wing ground will not succeed.
But what do we see? We see the Home Secretary, Mr Blunkett, using a word which 20 or 30 years ago would have horrified everyone in democratic politics. He referred to schools being "swamped" by the children of asylum seekers. There may well he problems at a few schools in some inner cities, but no more than that. If there are such problems, it is the duty of all politicians not to use that kind of emotive language. It will only end up on the front page of the tabloids under banner headlines.
The Home Secretary puts forward proposals which may intrinsically be a good idea—for example, the idea that those who come to this country ought to learn sufficient English to be able to live and operate in this country. That is a perfectly sensible idea. Yet it was presented in such a way—it was done, as usual, through the "Today" programme—that it was seen as apportioning blame to those who did not have sufficient English in terms of the problems that had been occurring. Since we are basically talking about immigrant communities, particularly Muslim immigrant communities, immediately the link is made to the riots in Bradford, the disturbances in Birmingham, and so on.
The proposals for citizenship classes may well be sensible. But let us have a sensible debate about what such classes should consist of, and what British citizenship consists of in this modern era. Let us have a debate about the wording of the oath which it is suggested will be administered. Let us talk about what kind of oath it ought to be in a modern, democratic, multicultural society. Is it just one-sided, or are we saying that in a genuine multicultural society there have to be shifts of view on all sides?
The way in which the debate on arranged marriages has taken place has been an absolute disgrace. There is a perfectly sensible debate to be had —for example, whether a young Asian lass in Burnley should marry someone in Burnley or take a husband from the

1137
Punjab. That debate is taking place in a large number of Asian families and within the Asian community generally. But the way in which it was launched on the country was again a matter of blame. The approach was: here is a practice that is wrong and the blame for this lies with the Asian community; therefore, that is part of the reason why multiculturalism and integration are not working and why we have riots. That is the argument that comes across to people. It continues to be a blame culture, and many good ideas which could be debated in a sensible way are harmed.
This week, in relation to the meeting in Seville, the Foreign Secretary has spoken of "inoculating" Europe against the rise of the far right. That is a particularly unfortunate phrase to use. Often, when you are inoculated against a disease, you are inoculated with a mild or benign version of it, a non-toxic version, in order to ward off a worse version. There are no benign versions of racism and fascism. There are some things against which we must stand up and fight. They must be argued against in a sensible and rational way. You do not inoculate yourself against racism by taking in a small amount of racism yourself.
Therefore, it seems to me that the nature of the debate is wrong. The result—as we saw in the recent MORI opinion poll, which received a great deal of publicity—is that people associate the term "asylum seeker" with the term "illegal immigrant". The characteristics that they most associate with asylum seekers can be summed up in the words "desperate", "bogus" and "scroungers". Yet we know that of the people who come to this country and apply for asylum, about 45 to 50 per cent are eventually given permission to stay; about half are not bogus or scroungers—although some may be desperate. Even under what some of us consider to be a less than perfect system for assessing applications, they are being allowed to stay. Yet the same opinion poll suggests that people in this country think that we have a quarter of the world's refugees here. In fact, we have far fewer than many countries—Pakistan, for example. The truth is that we might have about 2 per cent.
It all comes back to an intellectual flaw, a schism, at the very heart of this country's policy, and that of all European countries, on asylum seeking. On the one hand the policy is: keep them out at all costs; do everything possible to keep them out; send EWS to the knacker's yard to keep them out; do whatever it is—and yet, once they manage to get here, despite all our efforts, we have to treat them in a civilised and decent way—I believe those were the words of the Leader of the House earlier today.
Putting it politely and mildly, there is a paradox at the heart of our policy. Unless and until that is sorted out, tackled and solved, all the other measures in the world simply will not work. People will keep finding ways to come here, and the Government will keep trying to find ways to stop them coming here; and, once they are here, we shall have to deal with their applications.
1138
I want to cover two brief points relating to the problems in the present operation of the asylum system. In my judgment—based on personal experience and on the experience of others—the National Asylum Support Service is as incompetent and inefficient as it has been since it was first set up. It has been operating for two years. Some parts of it may have improved, but others have got worse.
We still have instances in which a local authority—for example, Salford—does its best to come to arrangements with NASS as to the particular language group, ethnicity and nationality of those who will join its cluster. It will expect a bus carrying a particular national group, a particular language group. When people eventually turn up, they are completely different. That is typical. There are still many cases of people from the north of England being sent to Croydon for interview; at the same time, people in the south of England are being sent to Liverpool for interview. That is still happening. There is no sense in it.
We still have accommodation providers giving a far from adequate service. They are not supervised properly. They are getting away with murder and making big profits. Some of the accommodation providers in Lancashire which started out very badly—for example, Clearsprings received a great deal of bad publicity—are now doing quite well. They have got their act together and are employing people on the ground and are doing quite well. Another group, the Adelphi Hotels, from Hove, are probably worse than ever. All the local people would happily get rid of them.
The problem is that NASS has no grip on the situation and no control. It still has only one person in the North West. For three years, that person has had to carry out three different functions—struggling to keep control of the situation in the North West while everyone else, 300 or 400 staff, are based at the headquarters in Croydon. I believe that dispersal can work, but if it is to work NASS has to decentralise and has to base its staff in regions where this is happening.
My second point was made also by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who is not in his place. It relates to the processing of claims and the system under which people's claims are being assessed. The quality of the decision-making leaves an enormous amount to be desired. I do not have a great deal of direct personal experience of accompanying people to interviews at the offices at Croydon, but I know that it is a horrific experience. Anyone who knows a group of asylum seekers and who has followed their fortunes over the past couple of years will know that the decision-making is erratic, to put it mildly. You wonder how on earth some people have got refugee status, whereas other people who clearly have a well-founded fear of persecution and all the rest of it struggle and struggle and then disappear somewhere in this country at the end of the process because they dare not go back. The whole process is inefficient. It does not work properly. The quality of decision-making is not very good. I join

1139
all those who say that if we want a system that will work and will happen quickly, improving the quality of decision-making must be top of the agenda.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, the Government have taken many brave and wise actions to tackle immigration. The move to abolish the primary purpose rule when Labour first came to power has helped to reunite thousands of families, which would not have been possible under the previous government. Another courageous decision was to accept that the voucher system was not appropriate, because of the associated stigmatising and the difficulties caused. I am pleased that the Government have got rid of the voucher system.
I welcome the White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, which emphasises the importance of identifying human smugglers. Many illegal immigrants invest all they have in coming to this country in horrific conditions. While human traffickers get richer, the number of fatal accidents is increasing. That is a growing concern for the freight industry, referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, as well as for the country in general.
When discussing these matters, we parliamentarians and the media must take care not to use negative language that harms race relations in this country. Terms such as "bogus claims" do not help the good cause of providing shelter for many genuine refugees. More importantly, they are affecting society in general. People do not differentiate between third generation British citizens from ethnic minorities and those who have more recently entered the country. The Sunday Times reported the head of the Crown Prosecution Service as saying that British society is racist. I disagree with him and hope that he will sort out the CPS rather than adjudicating on the nation.
The majority of British people are still largely seen as hospitable, kind and caring towards people, without prejudice. There are thousands of examples of people who came to this country not speaking a word of English and have gone on to take great pride in considering themselves to be British. This was instilled in them not through an oath of allegiance or any other form of ceremony or forced indoctrination, but through the compassion and warmth that the people of this country bestowed on them, regardless of their ethnic origin. A sense of belonging can come from being included fairly into the practices of society. My mother has lived in this country for many years. I would not expect her to go and learn English to prove that she lives here. She has chosen this country as her home. This decision has not been made because of a ceremony or courses that she may have attended on arrival in the United Kingdom. Will my noble friend the Minister tell us what provision is made for the many uneducated parents of British citizens who have the right to join their family and who cannot speak English?
I feel proud to know that I live in one of the most tolerant countries in the world, which leads the global community in accepting people without prejudice.
1140
I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister referred to that earlier. It is important that we British citizens realise that these new citizens have different cultures. We should welcome the added diversity that these people will bring. However, I fear that we will be posing as hypocrites by not practising what we preach if certain parts of the Bill are not amended.
Another point to consider is the position of women who are placed in accommodation centres with predominantly young, single males. Many of these single women, single parents and widows may find themselves sitting targets for physical and sexual abuse. How will they seek help from abusive partners who have been detained in the same centre? The Immigration Appellate Authority's asylum gender guidelines highlight the fact that women already face particular difficulties in making their cases to the authorities, especially when they have had experiences that are difficult and painful to describe, let alone to prove. Many activities will be in communal areas and there may be cultural clashes in an already tense atmosphere. I urge the Government to reconsider their plans.
I understand that the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association welcomes accommodation centres as an alternative to detention centres, but believes that integration should begin on arrival. The Refugee Council says that a six-month period risks leading to institutionalisation and dependency. There are also widespread concerns about the proposed size of these accommodation centres. I hope that the Government will take these points into consideration.
The most important change in the Bill is in relation to education. I am concerned about the Government's proposals to educate asylum-seeking children separately from other children and outside the framework and standards of LEAs and the national curriculum. I believe that the clauses concerning education should be removed, as they are not compatible with the customs and norms of British society. I am sure that the Government could provide help for schools. Section 11 has been important for many schools with children from new Commonwealth countries.
This discrimination in access to the right of education will have adverse effects not only on the education of asylum-seeking children, but also on their integration into British society. Before their arrival in the UK, refugee children have experienced the kind of trauma that even we as grown adults would find difficult to overcome. They need to lead a normal life, within a free society. Noble Lords have referred to this point earlier.
Article 28 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to education,
"on the basis of equal opportunity".
Not only does mainstream education enrich the educational experience of the local children by teaching them peace and tolerance and the richness of other cultures, the refugee children need this important phase of growing-up. Studying in a normal

1141
environment would give asylum-seeker children a chance to learn key social skills as well as learning to regain their trust in society. After leaving the sheltered life of an asylum camp, they will undoubtedly have difficulty relating to normal life. Local children may reflect the opinions of their parents. If the asylum camps are not accepted, the refugee children will be easy targets for bullying.
Britain is a multi-racial community. Both asylum seekers and local children can benefit from the integration of cultures and races. Asylum-seeker children can educate local children in the important life lessons of understanding, tolerance and harmony, which can not always be taught from text books, by explaining what it is like to be persecuted. British children should feel proud that they belong to a country that is seen as a sanctuary.
Another important matter that I should like the Government to consider is amending the British Nationality Act 1981. I have a particular concern about certificates of entitlement to the right of abode for a Commonwealth citizen who is married to a British citizen. Under the present arrangement, a Commonwealth citizen claiming the right of abode must satisfy the authorities that, immediately before the commencement of the British Nationality Act 1981, he or she was a Commonwealth citizen. That particularly applies to Pakistanis and to a limited number of South Africans. In the case of Pakistanis, the right that people had had from birth until Pakistan's brief departure from the Commonwealth was taken away from them for good in 1983. The immigration appeals service has found that that is an unfair breach of legitimate expectations and I hope that the Government will amend the law to ensure that women from Pakistan married to British citizens at any time before 1st January 1983 are given the right of abode.
Finally, Britain has been home to many communities seeking asylum from persecution. Those people have brought a wealth of knowledge and expertise with them. Life is harder for today's refugees. They come here to start a new life and we should not begrudge others the opportunities. It is important that our policies should not leave any group to be seen to be posing as impostors; rather, they should show that those people are human beings with feelings who need to be embraced into our community and not left isolated.
8.1 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, it is clear that, whether one is in favour of completely free movement or of some kind of control, immigration and asylum represent one of the most difficult issues facing our country and western Europe. The diocese of which I have the privilege to be bishop—the diocese of St Albans—has close and growing links with three Roman Catholic dioceses in Italy: Pesaro, Urbino and Fano on the Adriatic coast. I have seen at first hand the remarkable work that those dioceses are doing in trying to provide social, pastoral and spiritual care to
1142
immigrants and asylum seekers. One only has to go to Loreto and look over the Adriatic across to the Balkan coast to realise how difficult it is to control, if one wishes to, the flow of immigrants. Those dioceses are now pushed to their limits in trying to cope.
In light of the earlier Statement on Seville, it would be enormously encouraging if the work of churches, faith communities and voluntary organisations throughout Europe on matters relating to immigration could be given a heightened role and due recognition. In saying that, I echo all that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said. He spoke up strongly and rightly for the role of voluntary organisations in this field.
It would be helpful in this debate if we saw the Bill not entirely through adult eyes but through the eyes of the children involved. Many of them have been uprooted from their own communities and taken vast distances, often in terrible conditions, and find themselves in a strange land. Physically, and spiritually, too, many are at risk. Many children have undergone traumas that might well scar them for life unless they receive appropriate and loving attention. The giving of attention to such children is of enormous significance. I echo much of what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Ahmed.
The proposal that those children should be educated for the time being in dispersed accommodation centres is bureaucratically understandable, although it raises huge questions. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, has already referred to that. Are Her Majesty's Government able to give any assurance that the spiritual and emotional needs of children will be taken seriously if they are sent to accommodation centres? If such centres will exist, will the teachers who are employed to look after those children receive significant training to ensure that the educational needs of those children are understood and met? Further, will chaplains representing all faith communities in our country be appointed to accommodation centres as part of what the Minister referred to as "essential services"? If the spiritual care of those children is not essential, I would dearly love to know what is. If chaplains are to be appointed, will they be given training and ongoing supervision? If they will not be appointed, why not? Would it not he a very serious infringement of the human rights of asylum-seeking children simply to have their spiritual wellbeing ignored?
Imagine yourself as one of the children in one of those centres and virtually unable to leave it. 1 commend to the House a most lovely children's novel published back in the 1970s called I am David by a Danish author, Anne Holm. It is a story of a child escaping from an internment camp in World War II who makes his way northwards to his home. He encounters beauty on that journey—a beauty that he met for the first time—and it brings a surge of joy to his heart.
I do not wish to appear sentimental but if the criterion of beauty is applied to the care of asylum-seeking children, will the clauses in the Bill stand up to such a test? I do not speak of beauty in a simple

1143
aesthetic sense; I refer to that kind of beauty that encompasses truth and ensures our profound wellbeing as human beings. That concept of course has to be fleshed out in good and just practice. Is it truly the case that placing traumatised children in accommodation centres will be in their best interests? Will normal child welfare provisions be put in place for them, in line with the Children Act or the Care Standards Act? Who will be their advocates? Who will given them a voice? And who will ensure that their deeply spiritual needs as children are seriously met?
I am very aware that such questions are easier to raise than to answer. I have the most serious sympathy and profound respect for all those who are trying to cope, not least the Minister, who is carrying an enormous burden. I hope that he will not mind my saying that our thoughts and, if I may say so, our prayers are with him as he tries to wrestle with the realities of this situation. If we could view the Bill through the eyes of a refugee child and frame our legislation accordingly, we might find that our understanding of justice would be broadened and deepened and that our claim to be civilised as a nation would be further enhanced.
1 turn to accommodation centres. I know that there is a distinction between removal centres and accommodation centres. In my diocese, there is a place called Yarl's Wood. I very much hope that we shall learn from the experience of such a place. I hope we shall learn that, both in preparing people for arrival at such centres and in helping with friendship and advocacy when they do, the role of voluntary organisations and faith communities will be taken with due seriousness. I hope, too, that the role of chaplaincy of all faith communities inside those centres, and the role of religious leaders of all faith communities outside, will also be given proper respect. Can we be assured that issues such as safety and fire risk in places which are bound by their nature to be emotionally volatile will he taken seriously?
Therefore, I ask the Government to assure not only this House but the local receiving communities that the lessons learnt from Yarl's Wood and other detention centres will, where appropriate, be applied to the accommodation centres which are being proposed. But, above all, it is my most earnest hope that we see those centres through the eyes of children. I hope that we look at the Bill and ask whether the centres will be in the best interests of the children, who will be the future citizens of our country and the world, and therefore whether the Bill stands up to proper moral scrutiny.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, Integration with diversity in modern Britain was the sub-title of the Government's White Paper published in February. Diversity of colour and ethnic origin is, of course, common in many, although not all, parts of Britain today. Indeed, because there are still some parts of Britain where someone who is visually different is a rarity, the
1144
diversity of background in London and in many of our major cities is even more noticeable than if diversity were spread more evenly through the country.
The idea that the United Kingdom benefits from diversity, as mentioned many times this afternoon, is becoming more widely accepted throughout the United Kingdom. I say that tentatively because we know that there are exceptions. But it is a relatively new concept that those who want to stay here permanently, particularly if they seek naturalisation as a British citizen, should be expected to make positive efforts to fit themselves for integration with the host community. What does "integration" mean in that context? Clearly it does not mean that the British citizen should transform himself into a caricature of a Scot or an Englishman, complete with bagpipes or furled umbrella, let alone that he should join, if I may say so to the right reverend Prelate, the established Church or shout for England in the World Cup.
It is possible to raise some cynical eyes at the requirements in the Bill for a sufficient knowledge of the English language and of life in the United Kingdom. It may even be a source of fun for the Government to suggest that there should be citizenship ceremonies, oaths and pledges. But I take it seriously, as it deserves, that if people are to live in close proximity in our towns and cities in peace and harmony, despite their varied ethnic or religious backgrounds—whether we like it or not, that basis of difference does cause difficulty for some people—they must share some values and attitudes to human rights. That includes acceptance of the rights of other diverse groups to live here as well.
New British citizens must be tolerant of other new British citizens. Of course, as the host country, we take it for granted that we must continue with our well-established policies to combat race discrimination. Perhaps we need to cover religious discrimination as well. But everyone, with few exceptions, who seeks British citizenship needs to acquire a good knowledge of our language, our common values of regard for others, the basic United Nations charter freedoms and our democratic institutions. I say "with few exceptions" to my noble friend Lord Ahmed because Clause 1 of the Bill, which refers to knowledge of the English language, allows for exceptions to be made under, I believe, a "waiver" from the Secretary of State. However, as a general principle, I believe that we should welcome the requirements for British citizenship. Personally, I welcome the thoughts expressed in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, earlier this afternoon.
As the White Paper puts it, new citizens need to be "committed" to British society. The Government have rightly placed an emphasis on promoting language proficiency and education for citizenship and on celebrating—I like that word—the acquisition of citizenship. I agree with all that, but I believe that we need to insist on an obligation on those who seek citizenship to qualify in those tests. I do not consider that the provision in the British Nationality Act 1981 about having a sufficient command of English was really enforced. But, when I listened to last

1145
Wednesday's debate on the Unstarred Question of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said—I quote it tonight because I believe that it is apt, concise and neat—that,
"knowledge of English is the key to employability and integration into society".—[Official Report, 18/6/02; col. 715.]
I would add only that I believe it is in the interests of everyone—of those concerned and of the rest of us—that that should be so.
When Mr Kenneth Baker—now the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking—introduced an asylum Bill in 1991, he said that that Bill had three main purposes. One was to accelerate the process of immigration control to cope with the growth in the number of asylum seekers; the second was to deal with—he used these words—the "great misuse" of asylum procedures; and the third was to extend rights of appeal. I have a feeling that the Minister, my noble friend Lord Filkin, may feel that some of his introduction today was on rather similar lines. It is certainly not the Minister's fault that, 10 or 11 years on, a Minister is having to say the same kind of thing.
As we all know, over the centuries this country has had a very good record generally on taking in those who may suffer from persecution, danger and torture in their own countries and who seek asylum here. Of course, it is in part because of that good record that many who are not genuine refugees, and who seek to improve their economic position, should try to enter by the asylum route. We all know the huge pressure that 70,000 plus applicants a year cause to our immigration services.
This country has various programmes for managed migration, especially the work permit scheme, from which my noble friend Lord Desai seemed to benefit years ago, and I am very glad that he did. However, he made the point that such programmes are important not only for skilled and professional people who come through these routes; there may well be need, and value, at particular times, including now, for unskilled people to come as well. Of course, if people are not skilled or professional and if, unfortunately, they pretend to seek refuge and to be genuine refugees, then they may encounter difficulties. But I suggest to the Minister that we want economic migrants, many of whom are welcome, and we want refugees who are genuine, and we want them admitted with reasonable speed. We also want those who are not welcome in either capacity to be dealt with speedily and fairly and then to be removed.
No one is likely to suggest, and no one has suggested today, that, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, we have an "open door" policy. No one wants that but we need reasonable, humane, fair and proper procedures. I quoted the words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, 10 years ago, which were similar to the words of the Minister today. I accept that we need to balance the fairness to applicants against the need to prevent abuse by those who are delaying by making multiple adjournments or in some other way. We cannot permit to go unchecked
1146
the exploitation of what are the essentially fair and tolerant procedures which we have, whether such exploitation is by applicants, their agents or advisers.
It is exceedingly difficult to achieve the right balance. No doubt we shall have considerable debate in Committee on such provisions as have been mentioned today by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and others. I refer, for example, to Clause 84, which precludes an appeal where the Home Secretary certifies that the appeal is sought simply to delay removal from the UK. The Law Society has expressed concern about Clause 84 and about the substitution in Clause 89 of a statutory right of appeal on a point of law from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal for normal judicial review. It does not like this statutory right of appeal because it is to a single judge and because no oral argument is allowed. Nor does the Law Society like the provision in Clause 82 for removal of asylum seekers, whose cases are "clearly unfounded", to a safe country, and the fact that any appeal has to be made from outside the UK. They may be Committee points, but my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws made several valid, pragmatic and practical points on that score.
I shall not make any Committee points today. At present, the Law Society puts forward some good arguments. However, it does not do the balancing act. It does not balance the points it makes against the need to combat the abuse and delaying tactics of some asylum seekers. I would also say—this is my final word to the Minister—that I am not sure that the Home Office has made sufficient argument and chapter and verse of the events of the past 10 or 20 years to demonstrate the sufficiency of abuse to justify radically different procedures from the sort of fair procedure points put forward earlier today by what I might call the human rights lawyers such as my noble friend Lady Kennedy and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. We look forward to the Minister dealing with such points, if not today certainly in Committee when we debate those clauses concerning appeal.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. He referred to one of the predecessor Bills to that we are debating today—the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in 1991. The noble Lord referred to that as extending rights of appeal, among other things. He said that the Minister replying to the debate might reflect ruefully upon its similarity to the present Bill and the introduction he made. I am not sure that that is a valid point as regards extending rights of appeal. The significant part of this Bill is intended to restrict rights of appeal. That is a point to which I hope to return and echo something of what has been said by noble Lords.
I welcome the Government's determination to grapple yet again with the problems arising from the extraordinarily difficult issue of asylum. I am sorry to speak a little harshly. There is nothing personal in what I am about to say to the Minister. I deplore with

1147
equal fervour what I can only describe as the autocratic and dictatorial action of the Government in declining to allow substantial and important parts of the Bill even to be discussed in the other place. I listened to what was said by the Minister when that point was put to him in an intervention. His explanation—for which he had no responsibility—was that the Government had been listening and chose to introduce important amendments at a late stage. There is a perfectly proper and practical procedure for dealing with those circumstances. The Government should change the business, go back to Standing Committee stage and have those matters debated. I would have been ashamed of resorting to a guillotine Motion to secure the avoidance of any debate in those circumstances. I hope that the Minister will find time to add to his explanation of why the other place was given no opportunity to discuss important matters, leaving this House with the task of scrutinising them all the more carefully.
I share the view which the Government espouse along with everyone who has spoken that amid all the pressures generated by the extraordinary flow of people seeking asylum we must not forget the benefit that the reception of asylum seekers has brought to our country in past years. One or two moving illustrations have been given in the course of the debate. We must not forget that the same experience may well and in all probability will fall to us in future years. However, I agree with the Minister that we have to manage the asylum scene, and so we do.
The key to successful management can be found in two concepts. The first is justice and the second practicality. I believe that properly understood it will be seen that those two complement each other and do not conflict. Current and recurring pressures on our system bring high risks of injustice. First, there is injustice to asylum seekers if their claims are not dealt with expeditiously, which means legal advice being made available to them at the earliest opportunity; in practice, when they are accommodated, if they are, in the new accommodation centres. That is essential in terms of justice. The second area of injustice is to the taxpayer, the ordinary citizens of this country, if the system has such manifest deficiencies that the burden of supporting and supervising asylum seekers once here has to be carried unnecessarily month after month and sometimes year after year.
To add to that, the arrival of some 750 increasingly disaffected asylum seekers in accommodation centres proposed to be set up in rural areas with, I believe, a capacity of some 3,000, may well have a disruptive and, to put it no higher, expensive effect.
As regards injustice to applicants, we must never forget our duty or tradition of fairness. If we do that we undermine something essential to our tradition, to our history and to the moral basis of our government and our state. Our immigration law is now extremely complex and detailed. The Bill should not simply empower legal advice to be provided in the accommodation centres; it should be made a duty so that applicants know as early as practicable where they may stand and are not misled, as so many have been,
1148
into believing that the longer they slay in limbo the greater their chances ultimately of being allowed to stay for good. Legal advice, if enough people are to be available to give it when it is most needed—that is, early—will cost a lot of money. But it will save the cost of unnecessary, protracted accommodation further down the line. The Treasury must look further than the immediate bottom line on the first page of the papers.
Early determination is not only our duty to applicants; it is economically advantageous in one other respect. If it is properly provided and properly funded, it will allow for co-located appeal machinery. My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns referred to the one-stop shop in what was rightly described as a "powerful speech". The one-stop shop must be the ideal. I see no indication in this Bill that the Government share that ideal. The key to it is enough money to provide for the whole legal machinery—advice, decision and appeal—in the same place and within a short time of each other.
In opening, the Minister referred to bringing clarity to the position of local authorities. He said that the Government wanted to ease the pressures upon them. Perhaps I may be allowed to make a specific point at this time, if not a Committee point. It is extremely important that local authorities should have the pressures upon them eased, none more so than those which provide the gateways for persons seeking asylum or immigration in other respects.
For 23 years I represented a Kent constituency. I continue to live in it and therefore know something of the pressures that Kent County Council sustains. The Home Office provides grants to local authorities who, once they have received asylum seekers, place them with other local authorities, as they are not only allowed to do but are obliged to do if they do not have the resources, whether of cash or accommodation, to deal with them. In the case of Kent, absence of accommodation resources obliges the council to place elsewhere all children over 17. There are 750 of them in this country at the present time who came in through Kent. However, Kent remains responsible for them simply because Kent was their gateway into the United Kingdom and the grant is on a reimbursement basis only.
Perhaps the noble Lord can find time to deal with this point, if not tonight, then later in writing. Only last week I am told the Home Office gave notice that the administration costs undertaken by councils will no longer be eligible for grant. What can be the justification for that unless it is Treasury parsimony, insisting on targets of savings? Two changes are needed: first, the reversal of that decision; secondly, the receiving authority, when a child is placed outside the gateway area, assuming responsibility for the child.
I fear I have talked too long, but I want to make a point once more about justice, Clause 89 and judicial review. I believe the Minister will be able to answer this point because he had some notice of it. What are the possible circumstances in which the Lord Chancellor might wish to repeal the provisions in Clause 89 which themselves provide only for a curtailed right of appeal

1149
from the decision of an immigration tribunal? It is an extraordinary proposal. Here is a curtailment of the right to judicial review on a point of law only, and then in subsection (4) we see the provision that the Lord Chancellor may, by order—albeit by affirmative resolution—repeal those provisions. What are the possible circumstances that might lead him to do that and why is that included in the Bill at all?
I conclude with a general point based upon this factor. All governments seem to suffer from fatal inroads into the immune system that normally protects them against the charms of florid, executive autocracy when it comes to considering judicial review. All governments, in my experience, are outraged by judicial review, and their very outrage is itself a measure of its importance to the rule of law.
Clause 89 curtails the right to judicial review when it should not. In my view, in subsection (4), the Government propose a power for the Lord Chancellor to take away something he should never contemplate taking away? Why? We are not told and I hope that the Minister can answer. The reason is that precedents have a horrid way of being followed. If we do nothing else in the subsequent stages of this Bill, I trust that we shall get rid of subsection (4).
8.36 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, this is the third Bill in seven years in which I have taken part, so I feel I can welcome the Minister and the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Ludford, to this debate. I am relieved that the political climate has improved and that this time there is much more consensus. Confrontation seems to have given way to a degree of contrition because so many mistakes have been made by both governments.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, fairly and firmly reminded us of some of the Labour Government's U-turns. At the same time we appreciate that a huge effort has been made in the IN D to reduce the backlog accumulated under the Tories. I doubt whether a Liberal Democrat government could have done much better because events move so quickly and much law is being made on the hoof, as we see in this Bill.
However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, there was too little time for consultation on the White Paper and many of the concerns of the voluntary organisations have been wholly ignored. Some clauses were introduced at the last moment and were hardly discussed at all in the Commons.
The Government's response to questions from the Human Rights Joint Committee came so late that its report could be published only last Friday, missing the Commons stages altogether, which makes scrutiny in this House exceptionally important. The Joint Committee is to be commended on bringing out a report of such quality.
Many of us who wish to amend the Bill—for example, where it fails to recognise the rights of asylum seekers in accommodation centres, and in later clauses
1150
on detention or removal—will be grateful for this rigorous scrutiny of every clause in the light of the ECHR and the convention, which partly makes up for the lack of attention in the Commons and ensures that we shall be able to do our duty in Committee.
As always, there is considerable public alarm about the number of applicants and reasons for asylum, much of it ill-informed as a recent survey showed. It is important to see our asylum seekers in perspective, especially against the wider European background.
In this island we tend to forget the vast tides of migration which have occurred in Europe since the last war and even in the last decade. I have been reading Neal Ascherson's account of the Greek diaspora and the return of the surviving Pontine Greeks from their ex-Soviet Black Sea settlements, some of which go back to the time of Herodotus, which seems to put this into perspective. The poorest countries always seem to carry the heaviest responsibilities for crises, usually not of their making. I believe that the EU countries should help to address this problem. Equally, it should not all fall on the shoulders of the Pas de Calais and Kent.
Surely it is time for all of us to look outwards and recognise that the world moves on and that our asylum seekers, let alone our recognised refugees, are a tiny fraction of the 12 million received elsewhere. What is different is that we are among those states that are proud of setting high standards of reception and processing and we must not let those standards drop because of our own legislative failures.
Spain did well to put this subject at the top of the agenda at Seville, and it was unfortunate that aid conditionality became an issue, or to my mind a red herring. It is quite obvious that good governance, as a criterion of aid, is linked with asylum and migration, and the more we can do to work with and support countries of first asylum the more we shall be able to improve our asylum procedures. That will also help in the context of anti-terrorism.
We also need to persuade our EU neighbours that uniformed border patrols and management of external borders are really a defence mechanism and are not an adequate expression of a common asylum policy such as that agreed at Tampere. All the Home Office brief says on the matter is that negotiations are continuing on so many of the issues. We learn from the summit of last weekend that the common asylum system is, at last, slowly moving ahead on a common definition, on penalties and even on some integrated policies, although in some instances the UK will have to make progress on its own. The UN resettlement quota, which we discussed last week in Clause 50, is one example, and NGOs are genuinely pleased that the Government are determined to move forward on this. I have listened to the Minister in European Union Sub-Committee F and I have noticed that he wears a serene expression that suggests a liberal tendency, but it disguises a resolution not to give too much away too early. I shall watch this space!
In my view it will require a firmer unilateral move by the UK, along with Scandinavian countries, if we are to ensure that the EU as a whole develops a proper

1151
policy of resettlement which will create a meaningful gateway for genuine refugees. I also welcome the highly skilled migrants scheme that was announced today and the plan for seasonal migrants. I welcome the efforts of the Department for International Development to improve conditions in countries of origin and the measures in Clause 126 against the trafficking of women and children. I say that as a hoard member of Christian Aid and a council member of Anti-Slavery International. That together with the new arrangements for voluntary departures in Clause 49 are areas of the Bill on which we can move forward.
However, there are others where the Government are either wobbling or taking a distinctly backward step. The wobble is in the clauses on the pilot accommodation centres because the Government cannot decide what they are, or whether they will come into being. All the NGOs and local groups affected and consulted—for what that has been worth—say that they are far too large and that they would be better if they catered for 100 to 200 rather than 750. The whole concept is under attack, with the Refugee Council saying that the Government would do better to concentrate on improving their dispersal policy as those centres will cater for only one-tenth of asylum seekers. I strongly sympathise with that view.
As we have heard, there will be many amendments on the position of children. The Children's Consortium, especially Save the Children, is strongly opposed to children and families being included, arguing that that would be in breach of several articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It says that there should be more induction centres to help children to recover from trauma and upheaval. Today we have heard that only one is now open, so that will take a long time. Other NGOs like Asylum Aid have real concerns about protection for single women, as has also been mentioned. Of course, there should be proper access to appropriate legal advice.
Clause 31 will be hotly contested as it removes the duties of LEAs towards children in accommodation centres. The Refugee Council and many others are concerned about separate education. Obviously, newly arrived children cannot go straight into mainstream schools and provision will depend on the average length of stay. NGOs are quite rightly sceptical after the past few years that governments will keep their word and limit the time that asylum seekers spend in such centres. One can sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who mentioned the half-way house which, in practice, may mean half-way education. We cannot live with that concept.
There are parallel concerns about "residency restriction". NGOs are saying that under some clauses—Clause 23—non-compliance with regulations could affect their claims. Under Clauses 37 and 38 offers of accommodation will affect the rights of asylum seekers to support. In fact they would fail the basic eligibility test of destitution under the 1999 Act. f hope that the Minister will deny that today, although the citizens advice bureau and others are determined to have the clause deleted.
1152
In Part 3 the amount of support will again be challenged as after the abolition of vouchers, there will still be imbalances in a system, which is a deterrent, deliberately weighted against asylum seekers, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, mentioned. Also in Parts 4 and 5 the Government are taking backward steps. Many question the notion in Clause 56 that detention can simply become removal at the wave of a wand. The number of detainees is to rise steeply. Repeal of automatic bail hearings in Clause 57(6) has caused deep disappointment and frustration among professionals who work alongside detainees. I declare an interest as a patron of the Haslar Visitors Group.
The Government say that the old Part 3 of the 1999 Act is incompatible with streamlining, but law practitioners respond that people could now be detained for much longer periods—more than in the European Union. Unless they are heard at specified points during their detention, they can simply disappear. Thousands have now been detained without any automatic access to judicial oversight. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, some very young children have been among them.
Bail for Immigration Detainees has quoted the case of "D" who was detained with her 18-month old child pending removal. A judicial review was lodged but no bail application was made and the mother and child were released only on health grounds after spending four months in detention.
The statutory review provisions in Clauses 70(1) onwards have NGOs literally up in arms because they appear to be a betrayal of this Government's own dearly-held human rights policies. Many noble Lords have emphasised that point. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford was the first and we heard the crystal-clear view of the Human Rights Joint Committee, expressed by the noble Lord. Lord Lester, when he quoted paragraph 98 of its report.
As I understand it, the new procedure will mean that any appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in the UK against certification of "manifestly unfounded" cases will be refused and cannot be judicially reviewed. NGOs feel that that is a political move that runs against the principle of judicial review and that ironically it stems from the high success rate of appeals to date.
The alternative plan for appeals to be heard in a "safe" third country is seriously flawed, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. For one thing, there is little likelihood of such appeals ever taking place. The Dublin convention has failed to stop "asylum shopping" and there is the definition of a "safe country". Zimbabwe was safe, but Zimbabwean asylum seekers could have been removed to face death or imprisonment if there had not been a public outcry. On the positive side, there is a Home Office proposal for an independent country information centre support by the Refugee Council which will certainly bring more confidence.
In conclusion, the Government are understandably trying to speed up the process of assessment, re view and removal in response to strong, but misinformed,

1153
public feeling. I recognise that there is a problem of common standards among legal practitioners which is being addressed. The present system is undoubtedly cumbersome and I have heard one judge call it "procedurally heavy". In that respect the suggestions of my noble friend Lord Hylton are valuable in relation to the importance of initial decisions. The Government cannot expect to streamline procedures without the due legal process that they themselves have championed in previous legislation. Like others, I look forward eagerly to the Government's response today and during Committee. It will need to be both convincing and of high quality.
8.49 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before speaking in the debate I should declare an interest as president of the Heavy Transport Association, patron of the Road Rescue Recovery Association and of course as being well briefed by other trade associations.
I suspect that I am singing from the same song sheet as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Unfortunately I missed part of his speech, but I know where he is coming from and I support him. My concerns centre around Clause 108 and Schedule 8 to the Bill and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. These provisions make a civil penalty against transport operators who inadvertently bring clandestine immigrants into the country.
I did not take part in the debates on the 1999 Act because I had other Front Bench duties at the time. But I believed then that either the 1999 Act was not ECHR-compliant, or ECHR was so badly drafted that the Government could call a fine a "civil penalty" and therefore avoid the difficulties of taking a case to court under the Immigration Act 1971.
Let us imagine that Mr Mugabe signed up to the equivalent of ECHR and then legislated against certain types of parasite on farms and that there was an automatic fixed civil penalty—that is, a fine—for every incident of parasite infection, and let us suppose that the fine was big enough to make the farmer bankrupt. I suspect that your Lordships would be growing extremely excited.
I accept that transport operators may not be loved by many, but everyone is happy to take consumer goods that are moved around Europe by trucks or by the trains of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I believe that noble Lords are not concerned about transport operators, perhaps because transport operators— particularly road transport operators—are based in Barking, Dagenham, Dartford and Salford, and not Islington or even Norfolk.
I understand the problem. Once a bogus or clandestine immigrant lands in the UK he has succeeded in his objective. But I find it peculiar that we have recently amended service discipline in the Armed Forces and interfered with our system of summary jurisdiction because it was felt that it might be slightly non-ECHR compliant, yet we introduced the 1999 Act, which provides that when clandestine immigrants
1154
are detected on a system of transport in the UK, the Secretary of State can impose a civil penalty—that is, a fine—of £2,000 per illegal immigrant. We are not talking about a £50 parking fine; it is £2,000 for each and every illegal immigrant. If there is an appeal, it is heard by the Secretary of State and the same group of officials is involved.
I accept that the Bill makes some welcome improvements, largely as a result of recent litigation to which noble Lords have referred, but I shall be tabling several amendments; first, to specify that if an operator uses independent CO2 screening facilities at a port he should be exempt from the civil penalty if clandestines still manage to enter the vehicle. Secondly, we must have an independent tribunal, preferably before imposing the civil penalty, but, failing that, it is essential to have a rapid independent appeal tribunal. Finally, as I explained, the basis on which the civil penalty is calculated is the number of clandestines detected and not the degree of negligence. I believe that that is wrong.
I shall leave my detailed arguments for Committee stage, but the Minister should be aware that the industry is deeply worried about this part of the Bill.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall disappoint the House because I am not going to talk about transport. My noble friend Lord Filkin has a reputation in this place for having a soft tongue. On this occasion I fear that he has to balance it with a hard stick. I plead with him not to be too hard tonight and on subsequent occasions. I compliment him on the fact that—as well deserved as it may be—he is on the Front Bench. He was there before, but now he is a real Minister and he has real power. He is going to offer us all sorts of opportunities on future occasions to change the Bill. I have every faith in him.
There can be no more sensitive issues in our political life than those raised by this Bill. I sense that this House is deeply troubled by what it sees. There has hardly been a speech in the debate in praise of the Bill. Many voices with real authority have been raised: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, a former Attorney-General and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, has been deeply troubled by what he has heard. My noble friend Lord Dubs, who was for a long time chief executive of the Refugee Council, of which I was chairman, is probably also deeply troubled.
Perhaps it is appropriate to say at the beginning of my contribution that my grandparents on both sides were refugees—or perhaps they may be termed economic migrants; that distinction was not made in the 19th century. They came here because they believed that they would be more welcome here than they were in their own country; the land of their birth. They also believed—perhaps they were being fanciful, I do not know—that they could change things and that their presence here, while not altogether welcomed by some, would be beneficial to the community.

1155
Life here was certainly better than that to which they had become accustomed. Work was desperately hard. Life, particularly for the menfolk, was often very short. Both my grandfathers died in their forties. I did not know them. When I look back and span my years in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as well as four years in the European Commission, I think of the good fortune that has smiled on me compared with them and I honour those who have been rather less fortunate than myself. Is so much for which my grandparents battled now to be forfeited? Is all this to be done by the new Labour Government?
Last Thursday was World Refugee Day. Millions of people have been rescued from persecution all over the world when they sought asylum in more benign countries. Those who reach out for a better way of life are entitled to be treated with dignity, even if they cannot be rewarded with a permanent right of abode. That was the burden of the intervention made by the Leader of the House earlier today. I earnestly hope that his words will be adhered to in practice. Therefore, I pray that we can conduct these debates with an understanding of the motives of those who seek refuge here and of those who seek to protect them.
I mention those facts because they undoubtedly colour my attitude towards the Bill. There are certain parts of the Bill which I find extremely realistic and beneficial and others which I find rather dangerous and therefore unacceptable.
I say in passing that it is not good enough that certain important provisions of the Bill were not considered by another place. I refer to major new changes which were made. I entirely agree with the proposition advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the other place had the opportunity to consider them. Of course it may he that there ought to have been a re-commitment of the Bill. But, whatever the position, it will not be enough to fall from my noble friend's lips tonight that they did not have the chance. They did.
I turn to certain details of the Bill. Perhaps before I do that I ought to preface what I have to say by referring to the 330 representations which were made by various organisations in response to the Government. They were not even considered. It is an appalling slight upon my noble friends in the Government and in another place that that should happen. What do they think these organisations are for? Do they think that they are the enemies of the state? I cannot believe that. Their work is sometimes forsaken, but in the main it is advantageous to the people on whose behalf they speak out.
I believe, together with other noble Lords, that Clause 82 prevents an asylum seeker appealing against refusal of asylum by the Secretary of State while the asylum seeker is in the United Kingdom. That is unacceptable. Why should such a person be denied the right of appeal? Ordinary people charged with crime that I used to represent are entitled to be heard. Is an asylum seeker someone different—someone who is not entitled to exactly the same rights as an ordinary person charged with crime?
1156
It means, in effect, that an asylum seeker who fears death, torture or persecution cannot have his or her case judicially considered. I believe there has been totally inadequate consideration of this draconian provision by another place.
What value can one place on a decision taken in a country where torture or persecution, or worse, is enabled to take place? Or, similarly, where an appeal takes place in a third country, can we be sure that the essential points of the appeal will always be taken? Will they always be entitled to retain the legal resources or welfare entitlements to pursue their appeal? Judicial oversight of these procedures is absolutely essential. Does anyone really and convincingly assert that all officials who deal with those cases are properly trained or supervised? Do they always comprehend what is going on in the countries from which the asylum seeker comes?
I turn to legal representation. A point made by a number of noble Lords tonight is that there is absolutely no provision in the Bill to ensure that an asylum seeker and his witnesses should be paid for the cost of travel to see his legal representatives for advice and for preparation of his case. It is plainly unsatisfactory that a publicly-funded solicitor should go to his client for a lengthy visit, which is the only alternative.
Are bail hearings no longer necessary to comply with the Human Rights Act? That was the clear advice given to and accepted by Her Majesty's Government in 1999. I say once more: why should asylum seekers be treated worse than persons accused of crime?
I turn to legal aid, or some form of legal funding to enable legal representation at asylum support hearings and hearings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, if indeed, they replace the system of judicial review, which I hope that they will not. Is not that a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as may be the streamlining of appeal in the overriding interests of speed at the possible expense of justice?
So I am deeply concerned about many of the Bill's provisions. I do not have time to mention all of my concerns now, but the removal of applicants before their appeal is one that I mention specifically. I submit that the abolition of oral rather than written argument before judges is also a serious matter where issues of credibility arise or where the facts may he highly complex.
Let us remember that what is proposed is that officials and inferior tribunals should replace judicial scrutiny. It is noteworthy that the recent review of judicial procedure conducted by Sir Jeffery Bowman made no mention of any such steps.
To conclude, if ever it needed to be tested that Parliament should avail itself of the right to further scrutiny, it is on this Bill. The House of Lords has a clear duty in that regard.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Bhatia: My Lords, this is the fourth time in the past 10 years that immigration and asylum legislation has been reviewed. I welcome that because it gives us an opportunity to amend some of the shortfalls of previous legislation and to make the Bill more of an enabling one.
I remind your Lordships that Britain is a signatory to various international conventions, most of which assert that the recognition of the inherent dignity of all members of the human family is the foundation of equal human rights. It is on the issue of equal human rights that I wish to share my thoughts with your Lordships. No doubt, we shall have the opportunity to propose amendments to the Bill's detail in Committee. A number of issues such as children and family relations, employment, race relations, and accommodation centres, need to be discussed with a view to amending the Bill.
As an immigrant myself, having come to this country about 30 years ago, I understand the feelings, fears and frustrations of an immigrant, be he an asylum seeker or a person seeking employment or citizenship. The Bill must be sensitive to those feelings, fears and frustrations. We must ask ourselves why people want to migrate to Britain.
As an immigrant, I asked myself the same question 30 years ago. I saw Britain as a fair and just society. It had a tradition of welcoming immigrants over the centuries. It was a tolerant, liberal and free country. Most importantly, it was the oldest democracy with equality and respect for human rights at its core. Those were the reasons that prompted me to come to Britain, and I have never regretted my decision. The fact that I stand before your Lordships today as a Member of the House bears testimony to my assertion that this country is fair, just and democratic, giving equal rights to all who live here.
So today, I want only to remind your Lordships of those principles of democracy that we all hold dear and, as we revise and review the Bill, to think about those who want to come to this country, whether fleeing persecution or even death or seeking employment or citizenship. That review should focus not on deterring or restricting immigrants but on considering them with compassion, generosity and fairness. We should also take the view that, based on our past experiences, immigrants can be contributors and an asset to this country.
I wish to submit that few people wish to leave their home and move to another country and another culture. Some migrate because they have been forced to leave their country—Uganda comes to mind as an example. Others move because they perceive danger coming their way and must leave ahead of being unlawfully arrested, tortured or even killed. When such people arrive on our shores, we must devise methods and processes for dealing with them that are humane and sensitive and not aggressive or confrontational. The success of our immigration officers should be based not on how many people they have turned back but on how many people have been allowed in. Over the years, I have observed the
1158
processes, and I have shared and understood the fears, frustrations, hurt and uncertainty that run through the minds of immigrants. I would not wish it on anyone, and, in legislating, we must understand the reasons why immigrants decide to come to Britain. We must frame rules that are fair and sensitive.
We have three choices when dealing with people who come to our door. First, we can refuse to open the door. Secondly, we can open the door and then slam it shut. Thirdly, we can open the door to allow the person to come in and listen to his reasons for entering the country. Traditionally, Britain has made the third choice. In the past 150 years of migration to this country, people of different nationalities, colours, creeds and languages have come in and made their contribution in a huge variety of occupations, trades and endeavours. It is one of the most remarkable success stories of this nation.
We have gained by encouraging immigration. One could easily prove that by considering the number of jobs created by Ugandans, the wealth that they have accumulated and created and the success that they have made out of the opportunity that we gave them when they arrived penniless 30 years ago. We welcomed them with understanding, and we gave them respect and equal rights to develop their full potential. The British people must not lose that attribute. The laws that we craft today should nurture that tradition of tolerance and fairness. A thread of human rights and justice should pass through every clause, every paragraph, every sentence and every word of the legislation. The legislation must reflect the history and the tradition of Britain. It must take into account the needs and frustrations of the migrants. I am deeply conscious that the migrants for whom we are legislating are not here to argue their case, so I wish to speak for them, as many others have done today and in the past.
On his retirement, a friend with whom I had worked in Oxfam for many years said to me, "Thank you for allowing me to touch and smell poverty. I had read about it, but it is different when you can touch and smell it". Similarly, the plight of those who come to these shores can be understood not by reading about it in the abstract but by gaining a full understanding of the issues and by learning from the past, when we opened our doors to those who were in distress and were fleeing from oppression and death.
In the ancient Vedas of India, it says:
"Our guests are our gods".
We must consider those who come to our door as humans, if not as gods. If we do, we will have done our bit for global human society.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I shall start by saying that, for the seven years up to 1995, I was head of the Refugee Council. That experience strongly influenced my attitudes to the issue. The way in which Europe and this country deal with asylum seekers will continue for many years to be a test of our commitment to human rights.

1159
When it is put to people in this country and all over Europe that we are talking about people with a well founded fear of persecution fleeing because they fear torture, imprisonment and even death, they accept that it is a human rights responsibility. However, the obscenity of people trafficking is a threat to the integrity of the human rights principles of the asylum system. It confuses public opinion, and people become critical and hostile, when they would otherwise be supportive and sympathetic. Most people realise that the asylum seekers who come to this country are highly motivated people who wish to get a job and contribute to society and their community in this country. But with people trafficking we have an entirely different process. Therefore, I welcome any moves to strengthen the provisions against people trafficking. I hope that those people will be caught and punished because they are playing havoc not just with the integrity of the asylum system but with lives, as many people die in the process of being part of the traffic to this country or Western Europe.
We should also be careful about the language we use when talking about asylum and refugees. It is all too easy to use emotive and prejudicial language. That is unhelpful. It simply inflames the more prejudiced elements of public opinion. It does not help towards the clarity of approach. I hope that everyone will continue to he very careful about how they describe asylum seekers and refugees.
There is a threat in Europe from the far Right. We have to understand the people who are susceptible to such influences even though not of the far Right politically. But such an understanding does not mean that we should pander to the views of the far Right, but be robust in the defence of our basic principles.
I believe it is right that we should move, if possible, to an Eli-wide approach to this matter for the reason that frontiers are easier to cross and so forth, provided that that approach is based on human rights principles and is not simply an attempt to close doors against people who have a proper and legitimate claim under the 1951 convention. Where people do not have such a claim it is vital that they should be removed if there are no other compassionate circumstances. The corollary is that we have to be robust in defending the right of people who have a claim under the 1951 convention.
Having said that, I believe that the pressure of asylum seekers and others is imposing enormous burdens on a liberal society such as ours. It is very hard for such a society to be as tough as it might wish with people who do not qualify under the 1951 convention. I have therefore come to the conclusion that, in parallel with an asylum policy, we need an immigration policy. I note that the Government have said something about that in the recent past. By an immigration policy I do not mean simply the work permit system which we have had for so many years, but a small quota of people who could qualify under what I might call a green card scheme. They would be people who have the skills which we need and who can apply from the countries in which they live to come here.
1160
I am not saying that it should be a large scheme, but if we had such a system it would enable us more robustly to say to people who do not qualify under the Geneva Convention, "Go back home; you can't jump the queue, but you have another way of getting to this country". I add that it would work much better if it were done Europe-wide so that there were not pressures in one EU country against another. That is the way in which we should move forward. If we do not, I believe that we shall continue to have legislation and try to respond to pressures, some of which are legitimate and some not. We may not get on top of the difficulties. I would like to see an immigration policy alongside an asylum policy.
Everybody agrees that there is a need for quick decisions provided the process is fair. What we should not do is throw fairness and integrity of procedure out of the window in the wish to have a quick decision. I have long been a supporter of quick decisions because that is the only way in which to treat people fairly and properly. If it takes years to arrive at a decision and people have already settled here, it is impossible to remove them. It is not even proper to do so.
I have long believed that the Geneva Refugee Convention should mean what it says, that people should seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. I do not mean if they are in transit at an airport. I f they have stayed any length of time in a country they should claim asylum there and be entitled to it, arid not be able to move on to where they want to go. There are two important qualifications. Where there are family links it is right that another country should accept an asylum seeker because of that link even if the first safe country reached was a different one. For example, if a person claims asylum in Germany and it is the first safe country to be reached, but that person has family in this country, it would be sensible if we said that it was proper for that person to come here and vice versa. If there are other links with this country, the system should be flexible enough to accommodate them. If an asylum seeker has been educated here, it may be more sensible for him or her to be given asylum in this country than in Italy, Spain or wherever. However, those are exceptions. In the main the principle has to be that people must seek asylum in the First safe country reached. That is the difficulty we have with Sangatte.
I have long believed that there should be accommodation facilities for newly-arrived people. It is a way of giving them stable accommodation for a period, advice, support and legal help so that they can proceed to make their asylum claim in calmer circumstances. I am worried about accommodation centres that will be located miles away from any of the support services. I refer to community groups which are very supportive of asylum seekers or those offering legal advice such as the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service. It is right that centres should be close enough for reasonable access.
If accommodation centres are large, arrangements will have to be made for schooling within the centres. But that is not an argument for large accommodation

1161
centres. It is an argument for small centres and a quick move into local schools. Yes, there will be extra burdens on local schools and help needs to be given to them. I accept that in the short term children who do not speak English can be taught English separately. But after that it is surely right that they should move into ordinary schooling. I think that that is the right way forward. That presupposes smaller accommodation centres in more accessible locations and such community support as possible.
We hear a great deal about the policy of dispersing asylum seekers. We have to be careful about how we do so. Of course, I am in favour of it in principle. When I was with the Refugee Council we were dealing with Bosnian asylum seekers under the Home Office scheme—those who had come out of Serb concentration camps, as I think they should be called. We sought to disperse people but in clusters so that there were enough people from the same background for mutual support; and local support could be provided. If one disperses asylum seekers in penny packets throughout the country, they will feel lonely and isolated and want to return to areas where they receive community support. I am in favour of dispersal but it must be done properly and sensibly.
We have to be careful about push-pull factors in Europe. I do not agree with many of the points made. We have a better system with regard to entitlement to work after six months in this country than do many other countries. It is proper, and represents human dignity, to say, "Yes, you have the right to work after six months here". But if we are one of the few European countries which allows that, there will be pressure to come here because people want to work. Asylum seekers do not want to live on benefits. In my experience, they are desperate to work and make their way. We should argue that there should be similar arrangements in other European countries as regards the right to work for asylum seekers. We should not make our system worse; other European countries should make theirs better.
I am concerned about detention on the arbitrary decision of an official. It goes against all our traditions of justice and rights for people. I am not sure that I fully understand the bail arrangements when asylum seekers are detained. I do not say that there are no circumstances in which someone may be detained. When a man or woman is being removed, it may be necessary to detain him or her. But when people come into the country there should be some safeguards against the say-so of an official. A simpler system would be to have the right to apply to an immigration tribunal and adjudicator. I am not sure that the bail system will be fast or flexible enough. I do not know what kind of bail system we shall have when the Bill goes through. I urge the Government to consider a straightforward, simple, quick system whereby the Home Office would have to demonstrate that there is a need to keep someone in detention; otherwise the presumption should be that he should not be detained and locked up.
1162
I should like to make two final points. First, along with many other noble Lords, I am concerned about applicants having to appeal against unfavourable decisions outside this country. Perhaps we could devise an arrangement within the European Union because the Union is a safe place. But to send asylum seekers to more distant countries where they would be totally out of the reach of legal advice and those who understand our laws, and who might be in danger in those countries, would be difficult. I am not happy about those arrangements as I understand them.
Secondly, on the proposal to learn the English language, I believe that it is highly desirable. Those people who have thrown in their lot with this country through the citizenship provisions should be able to speak the language. They cannot exercise their rights as citizens unless they do so. Therefore it is right and desirable to encourage immigrants to learn. Furthermore, they will be entitled to full civic, social and community rights in this country, which I believe is the only way for people to live happy and sensible lives. They must contribute on equal terms with others to life in this country.
9.31 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. The speeches have been instructive. I offer two further sets of thanks. The first goes to all those organisations that briefed us. We are fortunate in the remarkable strength and quality of the civil society bodies working in the area of justice and human rights. I welcome in particular the formation of the Asylum Coalition, comprising a number of distinguished and respected organisations. It we keep up the rate of introducing new asylum and immigration legislation every two years, those bodies will certainly have plenty of work to do.
Secondly, I thank all refugees and immigrants, including my noble friend Lord Dholakia and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who, I understand, unfortunately was on the losing side in the tug-of-war contest. I thank not only all the doctors, nurses, engineers and IT specialists, but also the cleaners, minicab drivers, late night shop assistants and construction workers without whom this great city would not function. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, himself the descendant of refugees, noted, last Thursday's International Refugee Day should have reminded us both of our obligations and of the benefits of refugees.
Ministers have been given much to think about in the course of a well-informed debate. Many Members of this House have had a great deal of practice on previous immigration and asylum Bills but, in the words of the Refugee Council, we seem to be in the grip of a permanent revolution on this topic. We need to introduce some stability. Again, we are embarking on a search for a set of policies that will be, at long last, durable and workable; indeed, that are worthy of enduring. Are we finally going to get it right this time?

1163
That will be the task of this House over the next few weeks, but we shall manage it only if we change the orientation of the Bill away from its obsession with control, deterrence and restriction—concentrating on the enforcement of negative decisions—towards protection, sound decision-making, respect for human rights and justice, dignity and humanity through processes that are dispassionate, independent and fair. That point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.
I happen to believe that it does not help that the Horne Office views everything from a law and order perspective. It groups crime, immigration, race relations and integration all under one umbrella. The dominant culture in the Home Office is one of control rather than of protection or integration.
There is no call to demonise asylum seekers or economic migrants. We face a serious challenge on immigrants and asylum seekers, but we do not have a crisis. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out, we need to put things into perspective and not hype them up. The UNHCR has commented that a decade ago Europe had 650,000 asylum seekers in a year; last year the figure was 350,000. That compares to 22 million being hosted in poor countries. Last year the UK had 80,000 asylum seekers, representing one-tenth of I per cent of our population. We take less than 2 per cent of the world's refugees, not 25 per cent, as many Britons believe. The numbers do not bear out the insinuation that the overwhelming majority of cases are undeserving. Some 30 to 40 per cent of applicants are accepted.
I was disappointed a few weeks ago by something the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said in a newspaper article. He was quoted as saying that economic migrants were abandoning their families. Evidence and reason suggest the opposite. Families will make what is, for them, a highly rational decision to invest in getting a young man out of danger or poverty so that he can earn money and send it back home to keep the remainder of his family alive.
Those who use derogatory language towards asylum seekers and immigrants—words such as "swamping", "soft touch", "scroungers", "cheats", "bogus'— never seem to make up their minds whether the charge they level concerns asylum seekers coming here to take our welfare benefits or our jobs. It cannot be both.
I am sorry that there is not more in the Bill about integration and preparation for work. Asylum seekers should have access to schemes such as the New Deal to increase their employability, as well as to EU funded schemes such as EQUAL. They should have the right to work after six months, although I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that this should be on an EU basis. Refugees should have a great deal more help in converting their qualifications, which, for many people, particularly those in the medical field, is extremely difficult.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that we need a much more coherent overall framework for immigration and asylum policies and that this should
1164
be done at the EU level, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, also said. But it must be based on human rights principles.
I am delighted that the UK proposal to cut aid was defeated at Seville by an interesting—I hesitate to say "unholy" in the presence of the right reverend Prelates—alliance of Sweden and France. We must put much more effort into creating prosperity and democracy in developing countries in order that people are not forced to leave them through desperation but to leave them, as we would expect, through curiosity to see the world and to have new experiences.
The sad thing about the run-up to Seville was that the rhetoric about deterring migrants was not matched by militancy about tackling poverty and human rights abuses, the root causes that act as push factors for people to risk their lives in leaky boats and airtight containers or by clinging to cross-Channel trains. Why was there nothing in the Seville conclusions about the abolition of the protectionism of the CAP, to which the Government subscribe, and the outrageous subsidies for farm exports from the EU and US, which we dump on developed country markets? What about cutting arms exports? Two weeks ago, when the Government were preparing for the potential arrival of refugees from the Kashmir region, they refused to impose an arms embargo on India and Pakistan, as suggested by my colleague.
In the rhetoric on illegal immigration we detect similarities with the Dangerous Dogs Act scenario—that something must be done. I am concerned that this raising of the temperature, far from making Europeans feel more secure, will play into the hands of organisations on the far right by stealing their clothes, as my noble friend Lord. Greaves said. Generating a greater sense of fear and suspicion increases insecurity. We risk a war against illegal immigrants causing collateral damage to tolerance and race relations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, drew attention to the dangers of creating hostility towards asylum seekers—including an increase in racial attacks— which would place black and Asian British citizens at risk of discrimination.
Instead of raising the barriers of fortress Europe we need a rational strategy consisting of three strands: a common asylum system, a managed, legal migration policy, and policies to stop illegal immigration. If the emphasis is placed purely on deterrence we risk branding all asylum seekers as illegal immigrants. By creating such perceptions, Europe risks drifting into a lowering of its humanitarian obligations.
One problem is that illegal entry is becoming the only way that genuine refugees can gey here. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the problems for transport companies of the carrier liability provisions.
Three years ago at the Tampere summit, the heads of state agreed to progress a balancedl package on the three aspects I have mentioned. But, although all the proposals are on the table from the European Commission, very few have been agreed by Ministers.

1165
Ironically, the area in which several measures have been agreed is tackling illegal immigration, including people smuggling and trafficking. Indeed, I believe that the penalties in the Bill derive from the implementation of EU law, and that is a welcome element.
But if we take the commitment to a common asylum system, Ministers have agreed very little. The reform of the Dublin convention, for instance, which would help to solve the Sangatte situation by obliging France to take responsibility for those asylum claims is blocked in the Council by a French veto. The Seville summit set a deadline of the end of this year to agree it, but what chance there is without qualified majority voting I do not know. We need an EU asylum system to stop both forum-shopping and pass-the-parcel".
In the third area that the EU set itself—a policy on legal migration—there is an almost complete lack of progress. It does not help that the UK declines to opt into EU common action in this area. In particular, the EU is refusing to sign up to some liberal measures to give the 1·5 million long-term legal migrants in this country who do not have British passports—Indians, say, or Australians—the right to go on holiday or to get a job in another EU country without going through a lot of red tape. But beyond that, we need an EU blue card scheme.
The Bill does too little to open up legal channels of migration for the unskilled as well as the skilled. The Government have talked about this in recent months, but it has not fed through into these proposals. Anyone who wants an overview of the rather messy situation in EU immigration and asylum policy would do well to read Quentin Peel's article in today's Financial Times. It is a very good description.
Several speakers have emphasised the need for an orderly process. There is no rule of law if we cannot ensure that people who are physically here have a right to be here. But the means that we use are open to debate.
Similar points have been made today, as in relation to the previous Bill four years ago—for example, in order to have a more efficient and better-managed process we must front-load the initial decision-making system. We need the right staff and facilities for efficient and quick decisions; for example, a decent computer system. We need an independent country documentation and assessment centre. We need legal aid and advice from the earliest stage and throughout the procedure. But the commitment to that in the White Paper is not carried through in provisions in the Bill. Speeding up the system just by cutting appeal rights is likely to create both injustice and more delay. It is often the Home Office itself that seeks adjournments because it is not ready.
There are no proposals in the Bill to increase the quality and standard of initial decisions—a defect that has run as a theme through the debate. I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden.
1166
Representing London, as I do in my other capacity as a Member of the European Parliament, I listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Best, who spoke from experience of the need for an effective dispersal system and for proper integration in the local community. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, also made sensible points about dispersal in clusters. There is a real problem of asylum seekers drifting back to London without the London boroughs having the necessary resources to cope with them. But removing the subsistence-only option would make that worse and would lead to a large number of destitute people in our city.
On accommodation centres, I share the view that the proposals need a great deal of change. There should be a time limit of six months on stays; such people should not be placed in rural areas; the centres should be much smaller than the 750 capacity, and by locating them in towns and cities, we can then integrate the children of asylum seekers in local schools. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, deprived local communities are not likely to be well disposed to further pressure on local resources, so we must invest in the communities that host asylum seekers.
I strongly agree with the numerous speakers, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who have welcomed some aspects of the Bill, such as the abolition of vouchers, citizenship classes and language knowledge. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, all of us need citizenship training. I welcome the cooperation with UNHCR on the refugee resettlement programme so long as that is additional to the refugee convention obligation. As my noble friend Lady Williams said earlier, the Seville summit conclusions included a commitment that the EU asylum policy must comply with international conventions, principally the 1951 Geneva convention. I am not sure that we heard the Government say that they fully support that commitment.
The merits of the Bill have been outweighed by expressions of concern, especially from my noble friend Lord Lester, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Clinton-Davis. The concern is whether the Bill adequately respects human rights. The report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights is a damning indictment of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to parts of the Bill being dangerous and unacceptable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, many aspects of the Bill do no credit to a government committed to social justice. She raised concerns about women in accommodation centres and was rightly worried about detention, which is greatly extended by the Bill.
Time is running out and I need to finish, so I shall not repeat what has been said about all the problems relating to detention, particularly detention of families, the lack of judicial oversight or automatic bail hearings. The defects of those provisions have

1167
been much commented on. There are also restrictions on appeal and judicial review. I know that the Minister will have made good note of those issues.
The Minister has a lot to respond to. I hope that he can reassure us on many of the points that have been raised so that the Bill can be vastly improved and this country can genuinely hold up its head in respecting its international humanitarian obligations.
9.47 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the hour is late. First, I echo the thanks expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, to every Member of your Lordships' House who has taken part in the debate and to a number of organisations that have given us very good briefing. I also echo the concern expressed from all parts of the House at the deplorable time treatment given to the Bill in another place. I particularly have in mind the strictures of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
My noble friend Lady Anelay referred briefly to Part 1. I shall concentrate my remarks on that part. We agree with the main thrust of the Bill, which follows the Government's intentions set out in the White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven. However, our support is not wholly uncritical and we shall raise a number of questions during our proceedings on the Bill. We certainly support in principle some form of examination of an applicant for citizenship to find out what they understand to be the British way of life and all that goes with it. Some questions have been raised about the phrase,
"sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom".
This is a subjective assessment. My honourable friend Mr Humfrey Matins drew attention to this in another place, in one of the few precious moments that he was permitted to debate. Is the "examination" to be the subject of an essay or will it be a series of tick-box questions? How much is oral and how much is written?
It is vital that we get this right. For many of the aspiring candidates for citizenship, this will be the most important and far-reaching decision of their life. Many will feel it a source of great pride and privilege to be accepted as a British citizen. We heard a heartwarming endorsement of citizenship of this country from the noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Ahmed. We owe it to these aspirants to produce a form of examination worthy of those aspirations, as well as satisfying critics in some quarters who claim that the idea reeks of condescension. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has given us a succinct illustration of the problems faced by those trying to structure a meaningful examination.
It is also important that the regulations giving effect to what one might call the examination for citizenship exhibit due sensitivity to those who should be exempt from the examination requirements. New subsection (2) to be added to the British Nationality Act 1981 will empower the Secretary of State to waive the requirement that a person must have sufficient knowledge of life in the United Kingdom. Such
1168
requirements are likely to apply to young persons, to those arriving in the afternoon of their lives and to those with special needs. We welcome that power of waiver; it is most important that it is applied with sensitivity and common sense.
I turn to the question of the requirement for a certain basic understanding of English as a condition of the granting of citizenship, which is set out in Clause 1(2). That was well set out in the White Paper and has attracted much criticism, which we consider ill-founded. Remarks such as "linguistic colonialism", I suggest, are wide of the mark, although I have to say that the suggestion from a Labour Member of Parliament before the publication of the White Paper that prospective spouses coming to Britain for arranged marriages should be required to learn English was rightly criticised as being a case of the state dictating who was to marry whom.
The tradition of this country has been to welcome immigrants with their own linguistic culture and to permit them to continue it without hindrance and for those who wished to take out British citizenship to do so with very little formality; the ability to speak English was not a consideration. On the whole, it just happened. However, the position today is that many of the communities in which English, Scottish Gaelic or Welsh are not the mother tongue are very large in terms of population. It may well be possible and a temptation for a non-English speaker to get by, as it were, and to get lost in his or her community. However, it is the view on this side of the House that the gaining of British citizenship should require an awareness—albeit in many cases a nebulous awareness—of British civic values. There can be no question that that is made immensely easier by a knowledge of at least one of the native tongues of the United Kingdom. Added to that is the well-documented statistic that knowledge of English a rid, in appropriate localities, of Welsh or Scottish Gaelic, undoubtedly add to the chance of getting a job. That point was articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who was quoting the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to another debate. We are persuaded of its necessity but it is important to stress that it is a new development in British mores. We must never forget that there are many loyal citizens of this country who have no English and, conversely, many who feel no affection or allegiance but whose English is excellent.
We welcome the proposal for a citizenship ceremony, which is a well-established procedure in several countries, notably Canada, Australia and the United States. In particular, we are pleased that there is an unequivocal statement of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. I am sure that the Minister will look into the question of rectifying the Scottish problems in that regard. The oath, taken with the pledge, are, in our view, an appropriate package for a new candidate for citizenship.
We have real concerns about Clause 4, which are shared by many noble Lords. Many will regard that clause as being contentious, involving as it does the deprivation of citizenship. It is vitally important that that clause is considered most carefully by your

1169
Lordships. Noble Lords will be aware that the Constitution Committee in its 6th report has drawn the House's attention to the fact that, whereas under the British Nationality Act 1981 the Secretary of State may under certain circumstances deprive of British citizenship a person who became a British citizen by registration, this power under the Bill is extended to all British citizens, including, that is, to British-born citizens. I grant that proposed new Clause 40(3) of the British Nationality Act provides that the Secretary of State may not exercise that power if it would thereby make a person stateless. The report goes on to say:
"This would no doubt remove the potential effect on most British Citizens but could affect such persons who have dual nationality".
In other words, the opinion expressed in the report is one of reasonable expectations, but we feel that that requirement in primary legislation is not sufficient. Further elucidation about the way in which the clause, particularly as it affects British citizens, will operate in practice is needed. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point. We shall, if necessary, return to it in later stages of the Bill.
As I said, there are a number of aspects of the Bill with which we on these Benches are in agreement. For the most part, they give effect to the White Paper, which we have welcomed in principle, and in most cases they are sensible improvements on existing immigration legislation. They include the removal of the minimum age for registration, the removal of the previous distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children, and also two important clauses. Clause 10 tightens up the regulations relating to entitlement to the right of abode in the United Kingdom, and Clause 11 clarifies the meaning of "unlawful presence" in the United Kingdom.
Of the contributions made by several of my colleagues, I want to mention in particular that of my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew. In a strong speech, he laid emphasis on fairness, on the saving of expense and on the basic practicalities of the Bill. If I may say so, he made a number of hits, and I hope that the Minister will rise to the occasion with some convincing replies.
As I said at the beginning, we agree with the general thrust of this part of the Bill. Any suggestions which we make for its improvement will, I hope, be constructive. However, I am aware that our general approval is not shared by many of tonight's speakers. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, left us in no doubt about that. Therefore, we look forward not only to the Minister's reply but also, during the later stages of the Bill, to an open debate on the concerns expressed by many noble Lords.
9.56 p.m.
Lord Filkin1: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate for their contributions. We have heard some thoughtful and deeply felt speeches. I am particularly grateful to those who managed to stay the course and waited to hear the response. Clearly, in the time that noble Lords will be prepared
1170
to stay, it will be impossible for me to answer all the points raised, but I shall try to address a fair number of them. We shall have an opportunity to go into others in more detail at later stages.
I was reminded both by my noble friend Lord Borrie and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, of the seriousness of the challenge that any government will face in the situations before us. They are not insuperable challenges, nor ones that we should view as concerning issues that are out of control. Nevertheless, they are serious in that they relate to how one balances humanity with realism, or, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, better expressed it, justice with practicality. In a sense, that is the dilemma. There are pressures on government and we are trying to meet both those tests at the same time rather than believing that we must simply deal with one or the other.
I was reminded of when, as a housing officer, I sought to deal with homelessness applicants. One faced exactly the same problem. People said that certain applicants were exaggerating and telling stories or lies in order to obtain accommodation for the homeless. Sometimes that was true and such people deprived other people of accommodation. Again, one faced the challenge of balancing those two pressures.
I turn, first, to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and to the interesting part of it on the subject of citizenship. He spoke about the importance of an active debate. I very much share that view, and that issue is one of my responsibilities in the Home Office. There is not time to do it justice now, but I should like to talk to the noble Lord later about how, when and in what ways we can try to promote an effective debate on citizenship.
The negative side of that is the deprivation of citizenship, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and my noble friend Lady Uddin. They said that they believed that that matter should be subject to review by the judiciary. We recognise that deprivation of citizenship is a serious step and that it may have serious consequences. It will not be a routine act but will be confined to the most serious cases. Decisions will be subject to review by the judiciary. A full appeal will be available and we shall be able to review the merits of decision-making. As has been mentioned, one cannot deprive a person if, by so doing, it would render him stateless.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he show us where the right to a full appeal on the merits for deprivation of citizenship appears in the Bill? I could find only some attenuated forms through judicial review on the basis of what are called "Wednesbury principles". Indeed, that criticism was made by the Human Rights Committee. I cannot see, although I may be wrong, that any part of the Bill gives a full right of appeal on the merits for a deprivation of citizenship.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall seek to do so, but not tonight. Therefore, I shall write to the noble Lord. However, it is my understanding that there is that right.

1171
I turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, about the value of economic migrants or of migration more generally, and to the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, similarly about the positive benefits of legal migration. As I signalled when opening for the Government, that is right. The Government strongly share the view that managed migration needs to have a much stronger recognition in society.
As has been signalled, we are an ageing population. There will be a need for skills and labour in a variety of forms. Clearly, no one believes that that implies an open door policy. It is not possible or sane to so contemplate, and no one has suggested that. There is not just a need for the highly-skilled; there is a case for looking wider, going further and having a positive approach to legal migrants. However, that must be matched at the same time by the control of illegal immigration. Many of us who have considered the issues believe that one has to make progress on both those elements at the same time.
We should not mince our words. Not much has been said in the debate about illegal immigration or the dangers and damage which that does to individuals, which is slightly surprising. We have hardly mentioned the fact that that is major criminal activity, promoted internationally; that very large sums of money are being made by some people out of people who are relatively poor and who often may not be those in greatest need of refugee status or even of a job in the United Kingdom.
Clearly the House is aware, even though we have not spoken of it, of the damage to people having to work in the black economy because of illegal workers, and the potential for exploitation and abuse, and of health and safety protections not being afforded to them. For all of those reasons I am certain, though we have not discussed it, that the House would recognise that illegal immigration cannot be part of any sane policy, but that does not imply that there is not a strong policy for the development of managed migration more vigorously in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said quite rightly that economic migrants can be in severe hardship. He is right, but it is not realistic to think that we can solve poverty in the third world just by providing access to employment in this country to everyone who could benefit from it. It is a tragedy that we cannot, but it is not realistic to think that we can.
I turn to the thoughtful but trenchant questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, regarding accommodation centres. As was said in another place, both opposition parties in principle lend their support to or claim credit for inventing accommodation centres but perhaps were seeking to encourage the Government to get it right.
First, the question of "not in rural areas" was raised. The consideration of rural areas for the first few pilot accommodation centres was in recognition of the fact that most of the people who are currently supported by NASS, or by the Government through NASS, are in urban areas. Some 45,000 people are provided with
1172
accommodation through NASS. Looking at the schedule, very few of those are outside urban areas and are often within some of the more deprived communities in our society. That does not automatically mean that everything should be in rural areas. Nor did my right honourable friend David Blunkett so imply. However, this is a national challenge and there is no reason to think that the poorest in our society should face some of the responsibilities for addressing it.
The issue of speed was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I agree with the noble Baroness and with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that if we can have good government or good justice quickly rather than slowly, that is by definition better. Speed matters to the people who are in the system awaiting judgment and who are being supported by the state while that goes through. Therefore the potential, if we get it right—I believe we shall—is that accommodation centres, well-managed, could provide good standards of support and refuge to people who have asked for such refuge and support and, at the same time, so order our affairs to enable the consideration processes to be dealt with together.
In that context the challenge to the Government by a number of speakers—including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—is to look positively at putting adjudicators on site in some way. Without going too far, that must make sense in principle. The question is whether in practice it is possible to achieve it. If vie can move the judicial process to the public or the appellants, rather than vice versa, one adds more humanity to it and, it is to be hoped, builds some expertise into the system. That could potentially work well.
The arguments against accommodation centres have sometimes been that they are not integrating people into society and that we ought to be doing that. I totally agree with that if we are talking about people who have been accepted for refugee status, whose asylum claim has been accepted. But that is not the people who are in accommodation centres. They are people who are being considered for refugee status but it has not yet been granted. As soon as a person is granted refugee status, they are free to leave the accommodation centre and go where they wish in Britain, with a leave to remain, and find accommodation one hopes with the support and follow-through that the Government signal may be necessary.
The issue then concerns the speed with which accommodation centres can deal with applicants. The current rate for the most recent cases of people who have applied for asylum is that 70 per cent or so are being dealt with within two months—not looking at the backlog. If we sustain that rate, then anyone who had a refugee status recognised on the initial interview would be able to leave the accommodation centre within two months. That seems to me to be good, right and proper.

1173
On the other hand, those who are not accepted but exercise their right to appeal clearly do not have refugee status and therefore continue to live in the accommodation centre until their case is determined, one hopes through an accelerated process such as that we have spoken about.
Obviously the rate of success of people who appeal, though there is success, is lower. Everybody who appeals does not necessarily succeed. So as the appeals process continues, the success rate shrinks. Therefore the argument for integration of people who will not be accepted as having a right of residence in the United Kingdom is a weak one. It does not benefit people who will be expected to leave the country that we half-integrate them into society. In the mean time, we have a duty to give them proper accommodation and shelter, and to ensure that their children are given the same rights and protection as our own children in terms of education, care and protection. That does not imply that they should be integrated if we are to disintegrate them later.
With regard to the "rural only" aspect, I should point out that we have already submitted planning applications in respect of two sites, and Pershore will follow shortly. If I gave the impression that that was under the fast-track procedure, I was wrong. I should have made clear it was under the ordinary procedure, which allows a full eight weeks for consideration of the application by the local authority. I shall not go into how the sites were evaluated. But we would be happy to consider and evaluate other sites that are brought to our attention. As David Blunkett indicated in another place, his mind is not closed on these issues.
We have made a commitment that there will be access to legal advice in the centres. The provision of that advice will depend on local circumstances. It could be an on-site lawyer, an out-reach service or through a solicitor in the local area. We are in discussion with the Legal Services Commission on what would be the best approach in each area or circumstance.
On education, I hope that we shall be able to come back in Committee to discuss that in more detail. But I believe that there is the potential for making a good and appropriate form of educational provision for children in accommodation centres. First, I shall mention a number of basic facts. The national curriculum will apply; Ofsted inspections will apply; and some LEA functions and responsibilities will still apply. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would be the first to point out, we have an obligation under the Human Rights Act to treat them no less well and fairly than our own children, even if they are to be in this country only for a limited number of months.
One also needs to recognise that potentially they will be moved, either to a permanent address in Britain because their refugee status has been accepted, or, unfortunately for them, out of the country. Therefore, an accommodation centre provides the potential to give some stability to their lives while that process goes through. We are committed to a proper and
1174
appropriate range of education provision, including nursery education, primary and secondary education, and some support for those aged 16 plus, although some may need to go out into the wider community for 16-plus education if they are there for any length of time. There is also the potential to provide some specialist support, recognising that such people could well have suffered trauma and that they could need additional English language tuition over and above what they would receive in a normal school.
The challenge to the Government is to demonstrate that in those circumstances children will benefit rather than suffer from the process. Clearly, they will not benefit more than ordinary British children, but taking their circumstances into account it will be a good and decent education. We intend to rise to that challenge.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also raised the issue of single women in accommodation centres. He is right to say that we need to be aware of the issues for single women. As one would expect, they will have their own residential units. They will not be mixed up with single men or anything of that kind. The whole point is to provide a supportive environment and appropriate security for all asylum seekers in that situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, also raised questions about the evaluation of accommodation centres. Evaluation criteria are set out fairly clearly in the White Paper. It is most likely that the Home Office's research, development and statistics directorate would set up a process for evaluating the pilots. Clearly, one wants a fairly full evaluation, and one that is not too slow so that any beneficial lessons can be put into practice elsewhere if and when we decide to roll out accommodation centres more widely because we consider that they are a success.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked where we are on independent country assessment, which is an important matter. We have agreed to set up an advisory committee. On Report the Home Secretary said that such a committee would have to be open and transparent and prepared to have consultations with the Government and the two main Opposition parties as to its make-up. That work will commence as soon as possible. That is a clear commitment.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, made one of the most powerful contributions to the debate in a fairly strongly contested field in terms of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to the Government. I shall touch on one or two of the points, but with regret, I shall not respond in full to all the points now out of respect for the work of the committee. It would not give adequate weight to the work that has been undertaken. Clearly, the Government respect the challenge placed by the Joint Committee. I thank the committee for its work. While I recognise the particular pressures on officials in the department at the time, I apologise for the fact that we were not as rapid as the committee would have liked in sending it our responses and evidence. I undertake to do better on future occasions.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, can the Minister indicate the time within which he will respond to the concerns

1175
of my noble friend Lord Lester? Within less than two weeks the Committee stage will be upon us and we would like to propose legal amendments to the clauses concerned.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall have to make a judgment with my colleagues in the department about which points it would be helpful and appropriate for the Government to respond to in writing prior to Committee stage and to which ones we feel we can respond only at Committee stage. Once I have had discussions in the department, I shall make direct contact with the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Lester, to try to indicate which points fall into which category, if that would be helpful.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the Minister referred to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the unfortunate handling of the matter, which reflects on the ability of the other place to debate human rights issues. I wonder whether I may raise a couple of points with him. Obviously, at this late hour it is pointless to go through each of the 14 points summarised in paragraph 112 of the report. First, will the Minister ask his colleagues in government to consider our proposal that in future the handling of human rights issues in terms of the business of the other place should be dealt with in a different way? That is a general point that goes beyond the Bill, to which the Minister obviously cannot respond tonight.
Secondly, the Minister was dealing with the important matter of the deprivation of citizenship, even of natural-born Britons. He mentioned to the House that he believed there was a full right of appeal. So that he can consider the matter properly, will he bear with me if I point out what I consider to be the problem without asking him to respond now? The citizenship appeal allows the Home Secretary to omit altogether political or other matters that he regards as being against the public interest to disclose. His decision is entirely subjective and he has no obligation to show objective reasonable grounds for taking away my citizenship as a natural-born Englishman, as it were.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights regards that point as objectionable. There is no remedy to those vices by way of full appeal. This is an important matter to which the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the Constitution Committee have drawn attention. I am not asking the Minister to answer this evening, but I thought it helpful to clarify the point on the hoof.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester. It was helpful to spell out the nub of the issue. That will help us in our consideration. I shall see that the points about the proposed handling of human rights issues are brought to wide attention in the Government as well as in the Home Office.
I have a number of specific responses to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but given the hour, with his tolerance it would be better if I did not go into the details now but came back in the way that I have indicated. I shall make one exception because the
1176
matter is to hand. On the face of it, the fact that NASS support looks like less than 71 per cent of income support is surprising to people, but in practice the NASS package of support includes fully-furnished accommodation with all utility bills and council tax paid and includes towels, crockery and everything else.
Therefore, claimants have to make no contribution towards those other revenue payments or towards the capital costs of providing their own furniture and other goods. In the Government's judgment, NASS support is roughly equivalent to the value of income support. Similarly, the level of support paid for children is identical to that provided for children in families on income support.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford raised a number of questions and challenges, saying that detainees do not know their rights of appeal and their rights to apply for hail. Every detainee should receive a written notice to give reasons for detention. The notice sets out the bail rights and how to contact, for example, the Immigration Advisory Service. The form will be explained by an immigration officer and interpreted if necessary.
If a bail application is heard by the adjudicator, the sureties, if any, will be set at an appropriate level. We need to consider financial disincentives to breaches of bail conditions. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford also raised the issue of non-suspensive appeals, about which I am sure we shall have vigorous debates in Committee. He asked on what legal basis an asylum seeker staying in a third country could pursue an appeal. The person will stay in a third country to pursue an appeal because there will be an agreement or arrangement with that country to enable him to do so. Quite clearly, one cannot export people to third countries unless they accept their reception.
We shall also need, therefore, to consider with that country what arrangements will be made for support, including access to legal advice. We shall no doubt pursue that issue in Committee.
With regard to repeal of routine bail provisions in Part III of the 1999 Act that have not been implemented, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford recognised that current rights to apply for bail in the 1971 Act will remain in place. There are legal remedies for challenging the lawfulness of detention, both judicial review or habeas corpus. Article 5.4 of the European convention does not require a right to apply for bail, it requires that a detainee should be able to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention can be decided speedily by a court. That is satisfied we believe by the availability of judicial review and of habeas corpus.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford asked about the number of likely bail hearings. The Government's estimate on Report was of some 36,000, made up of about 1,000 per month under the existing arrangements and an estimate of a further 2,000 expected if Part 3 were implemented. That is a partial, if not a full, answer to his question. No doubt we can go further with more time.

1177
The noble Lord, Lord Best, as some noble Lords commented, asked some extremely interesting questions as to whether the process of integration of successful asylum seekers was appropriate. I stated in opening that effective integration had to be part of an effective policy. We should not be mealy-mouthed about that. However, on the face of it, I shall not immediately agree to his suggestions. In April of this year, for example, we doubled the period to 28 days. That was thought likely to be sufficient in the majority of cases to allow successful asylum seekers to find fresh accommodation. However, we recognise the need and will keep the matter under review. I shall deal with other points with the noble Lord subsequently.
My noble friend Lord Judd spoke about the success on removals. If people are failed asylum seekers but are found to be economic migrants, and if it is not possible to move them back to their country and they disappear into the black economy, that reinforces the traffickers and the smugglers in the belief that by actually getting into this country one can evade all processes and therefore sustain an unlawful presence in this country. I do not say that in a punitive spirit but one of facing the reality of what is happening.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked me to say what will happen tomorrow at the meeting between M. Sarkozy and the Home Secretary with regard to the agreement with France. As noble Lords would expect, I shall decline to do so. Obviously, we hope that over a series of meetings planned with him over the next few weeks we will build on the good relationship that he and David Blunkett formed at Luxembourg a couple of weeks of so ago.
On borders and returns, the two issues that I have marked as particularly important in terms of the Seville agreement are joint action to strengthen borders and joint action to try to promote returns. I take the point made by noble Baroness with regard to the status of Queen Elizabeth or her nomenclature in Scotland. I remember enough of my Jacobean history to recognise the point. We will take the matter away and look at it.
My noble friend Lady Uddin asked what evidence there is of bogus marriages. In the first year of operation of provisions in the 1999 Act for registrars to report suspicious marriages, there were 700 such reports. I am not saying that all of those were bogus, I just give what evidence registrars thought required investigation.
The position broadly on forced marriages—quite clearly part of being a British citizen would be to oppose them—is that the Government do not tolerate forced marriages while they recognise that arranged marriages, where there is no coercion, play a part in British society, as they have done in the past. There is a distinction between arranged and forced marriages, as one knows.
On the deprivation of citizenships, normal hearings will be in public because they are referred to an adjudicator, then a tribunal and then a court of appeal, all in the public domain. We have no figures to suggest
1178
that the deprivation procedures will target any particular group. They will only allow us to deprive people with dual nationality, for reasons we referred to previously, because by depriving a person with sole nationality—in other words only British—they would become stateless. That would not be possible.
I was asked—I think by my noble friend Lady Uddin—whether two-thirds of judicial review cases are successful. In 2001–02, 3,199 judicial review admission cases were dealt with—I think, although my brief does not state this, under the relevant provisions that we are discussing. Of those applications, 441 were granted: a success rate, on those figures, of 14 per cent.
My noble friend Lady Kennedy gave a typically forthright speech about the importance of not being seduced by Right-wing demagoguery. Who could not agree with that? She spoke of detention camps. I am not aware of any detention camps; I am aware of removal centres and of accommodation centres. The only places in which people will be detained will be removal centres; they will not be detained in accommodation centres. I think that she also raised the question of how adjudicators can judge the credibility of evidence when they cannot see an applicant. Virtually all asylum applicants do and will put their case in person to an adjudicator.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that half of the initial decisions are shown to be wrong. I should like to have a little time to check that, but I believe that it may not be exactly accurate. With his permission, I shall write to him about that, as well as taking note of the many other points that he raised in his thoughtful speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, as ever, did an excellent job for the rail freight industry. To address his immediate concern, but not all of the others, because there was quite a pile of them, the definition of "responsible person" in relation to rail freight will be amended. The only responsible person for a clandestine entrant who arrives in the United Kingdom concealed in a freight wagon on a freight train will be the train operator that, at the train's last scheduled stop before arrival in the United Kingdom, was responsible for certifying it as fit to travel to the United Kingdom. English, Welsh and Scottish Railways does not currently fall within such a definition.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke about the rise of the populist Right and the importance of giving leadership. Although I am not sure that he meant this, I believe that David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, is giving leadership in that respect. He could not have been clearer at Luxembourg and elsewhere about the values and principles on which asylum policy and practice should be based, in terms of anti-racism and rebutting racism or a racist link to those issues. On the other hand, he is right, as are the Government, to recognise that there are genuine concerns, not just about refugees but about the impact of illegal migrants on our society and the pressures that that can place on some of our communities.

1179
No one wants to be hysterical for a second, but neither does it do us justice to deny that anyone who has concerns—especially, perhaps, those people, not always people like me, who are living in more mixed communities—may sometimes feel under pressure. I do not necessarily say that that is right, but there are real human pressures out there that we must respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to learning English, but learning English is necessary or desirable only for citizenship. People can come to this country as refugees and not know a word of English and be accepted as refugees, and so they should. If, five years on, they want to become citizens, as we hope that they would, it is right and proper that they should be encouraged and assisted to learn English.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of the power to award costs, but costs could apply to both the Home Office and the appellant. The immigration adjudicator will have power to penalise in appropriate cases and we want to discourage discreditable cases. Clearly, we are not claiming that most cases are disreputable, but some appear to be brought without much shadow of evidence to support them.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, the Minister is referring to someone else, not me.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, my apologies. At this time of night, I shall not try to detect to whom I should be referring, but I shall do some homework with Hansard later.
My noble friend Lord Ahmed raised the right to equal quality of education. The national curriculum will apply, Ofsted standards will apply, and we believe that we will fully meet our obligations and duties in that regard. Good quality accommodation will be provided. My noble friend also raised the question of amending the British Nationality Act 1981. Parliament endorsed that Act, which introduced changes to the right of abode, confining it to those with the closest connection to the UK. We have no plans to change that.
My noble friend also asked what provision was made for uneducated relatives to become British citizens. There is provision in the Bill to waive the requirements for a knowledge of the language for those for whom it would make the acquisition of citizenship impossible. The discretion to waive the requirement is likely to be used in cases such as that of someone whose mental or physical disability or age might make it difficult. I hope that that will be seen to be fair and proper.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans sought to emphasise the importance of meeting the spiritual and emotional needs of people in accommodation centres. I am happy to agree with him. There will be facilities for religious observance, and it is intended that there will be a manager of religious affairs in each centre, as there is in existing removal centres. Officials are consulting a religious affairs advisory group on how best to take such issues forward.
1180
We note the point about Yarl's Wood. The Prison Service's head of security is conducting an overarching inquiry, and the Government will take into account any lessons to be learnt from that. The child welfare provisions of the Children Act 1989 will apply to children in accommodation centres, as they do to children elsewhere.
In a robust speech in which he addressed some of the realities, my noble friend Lord Borrie raised the question of statutory review and the curtailment of judicial review. The aim of statutory review is to reduce the delay in the system while providing the opportunity for High Court judicial scrutiny. I shall not go into more detail now but shall do so subsequently.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, asked why the Government had not allowed more time for consideration of the Bill in another place. I gave one answer to that to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. We believed that it was right to change the Bill and that the issues could not be left for a year or two. We also recognise that the House of Commons was unable to consider the whole Bill, but it did consider much of the Bill. Programming is a legitimate part of Bill management in the Commons to ensure that the Government can keep their legislative programme on track. I am certain that the noble and learned Lord will not be overwhelmed by that response, and I look forward to the challenge—and cost—of the additional scrutiny that will be carried out by this House. That is life.
Why does not the Bill say that legal advice will be provided in accommodation centres? Essentially, we do not need that power. We already have it, so there is no need to put it in the Bill. I have already spoken about co-located appeals machinery.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke of the importance of doing more work with other countries. I accept that point. I share his view—if he implied it—that the border controls should be more concerned with raising standards than with designing uniforms and that the EU needs a proper policy on resettlement. We touched on some of those matters. I thank him again for the tone of his contribution tonight, which matched the tone of the thoughtful debate that we had last week. The noble Earl also said that there was pressure to speed up the system. That has been insufficiently said. It is in everyone's interest that we get the system working better, quicker.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked whether the sum of £2,000 per immigrant was fair and appropriate. I should like to give the noble Earl a fuller reply, but, given the lateness of the hour, I shall not. I shall come back to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, criticised us robustly. He said that 333 representations were not even considered. That is not so. They were considered in the department and I spent a fair proportion of my weekend reading a number of them. They have been considered by officials and they will be considered further by Ministers. They have not gone to waste.

1181
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, spoke about the contribution that Ugandan Asians had made to this society, which I believe most of us recognise. One can also recognise that it was not an easy decision to make at the time. There were dissenting voices asking why we should take in more people from outside. It was not easy to accept that we should do so. We did and it was right to do so.
This debate in part is about sustaining the support of the British people for taking decisions like that and not being swept away by a tide of public opinion which believes that governments have lost control of the asylum process.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made a point about an EU-wide approach. That is absolutely right. He also mentioned the pressures imposed on a liberal society like ours. We have heard much in this debate from the liberal end of the pitch and that is right and proper. I refer to the liberals with a small "1" because that is where the challenge should come from. But we need to balance that with the need to get a grip on the situation and give confidence that the issue is being dealt with fairly and that quick decisions are taking place.
I agree with much of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about the reform of the Dublin Convention, the need for an EU asylum system and a policy on legal migration. I shall not go into it in more detail. I also agree that the activities of the UNHCR are additional rather than an alternative. I shall study with interest the thoughtful points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, about citizenship. I welcome his support as well as the criticisms which he raised.
I apologise to the House for speaking at some length. It was a full debate and I have not done justice to half of the speakers, which I regret. I shall seek to follow through relatively rapidly with further contacts, both oral and in writing, where appropriate. I look forward with some vigour, anticipation and trepidation to six days of Committee coming rapidly forward. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Town and Country Planning (Major Infrastructure Project Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2002
10.37 p.m.
Baroness Hamweerose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules, laid before the House on 13th May, be annulled (S.I. 2002/1223).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this Motion I declare a couple of interests. I am currently president of the Town and Country Planning Association and I am a member of the London Assembly, which gives me a very remote interest as the Mayor has certain planning powers and the Assembly has the duty of scrutinising the Mayor's decision.
1182
It was startling to see the title of these rules in view of the recent Green Paper and its associated proposals. I appreciate that the rules before us are not an attempt to introduce fundamental new proposals by the back door. But they are clearly linked. Being unclear as to how the rules and the proposals were connected and what was their relationship, I thought it right to bring the matter before your Lordships' House.
The proposals we heard about towards the end of last year on major infrastructure projects and those connected with the Green Paper were, and are, to give Parliament a role. I hope that the Minister can take this opportunity to update noble Lords—such as those who remain in the Chamber and no doubt many others from the profession and interest groups who will be interested—on what is happening to the proposals. I understand that there is some gossip in the planning world that the Government may not go ahead with them. I believe that that would have a very great deal of support among the many people whose response to the proposals was either concern or cynicism, compounded unhappily at one point by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, confirming that whipping would apply during consideration of the proposals in another place. I remain of the view that until Parliament improves the holding of the executive to account, such an arrangement would not work. I accept that other critiques have been more technical.
The Library of the House of Commons produced a note on the statutory instrument which states that it is clearly aimed at preventing a situation in which an inquiry rambles on with inconsequential cross-examination and endless hearings causing great delay. Over the past few months, and longer, we have heard much criticism in particular of the inquiry into the Heathrow Terminal Five. I do not believe that that inquiry rambled, although it took a very long time. Nor do I believe that one can argue from the particular—that was very particular—to the general. Indeed, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution said recently that since 1984 there were fewer than a dozen national scale projects for which a public inquiry lasted more than three months.
How many projects or applications are likely to be subject to these rules? The schedule to the order sets out the projects which would be governed by it. It is similar to the schedule attached to the proposals paper published in, I think, December. Will the schedule to the statutory instrument pre-empt the primary legislation? I wonder why there ace some omissions compared with that paper, notably power stations, nuclear reactors, large-scale renewable energy plants and what was described as major development by the Crown judged to be of national significance. I suppose for "the Crown" one reads the Secretary of State and perhaps that absence is welcome.
Why are some new projects included? Some, such as flood relief work extending over more than one hectare, seem out of proportion with the other projects listed. Some, such as major road schemes, are absent. On re-reading the list, I wonder, too, at the inclusion

1183
of others such as the industrial scale production of pharmaceuticals and plant health products. Can the Minister give the criteria used to compile the list?
Reading the document, I understand that many of the projects are likely to be controversial. However, the controversy may centre more on safety and underlying policy and environmental impact. I think that many of the schemes are more suitable as a subject of environmental impact assessment than this designation.
Perhaps the Minister will say more about how the Government propose to set the policy content. If the inquiry procedures are reformed and national policy statements introduced, is there a need for the parliamentary process? It might be argued that a parliamentary process would slow down the project.
I am sure the Minister will agree that public involvement in planning is vital. I am well aware that we have not yet succeeded in concentrating that at the plan-making stage.
I hope that the Minister will agree that in seeking to balance the rights of applicants and objectors we should not over-react to the delay which may be caused by objectors. I note that the planning reforms were first trailed last summer by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech to the business community. Can the Minister comment on what appear to be restrictions on objections? There is an apparent restriction on the right of objectors to appear. There is the right for the inspector to curtail cross-examination if that affects a timetable which has to be approved by the Secretary of State. I should have thought that inspectors already have sufficient discretion not to need such a sledgehammer.
The rules also provide for mediation. Does that mean that some views will not be represented? I do not argue against mediation but it does not amount to the advocacy role which small groups need at inquiries with regard to planning aid. Better support for objectors at inquiries might lead to the resolution of objections. After all, we still have an adversarial process, however much many of us wish to see a more inquisitorial system.
Of course, mediation will not resolve objections to the principles of an application. I note under the rules that government representatives will not be required to answer questions on the merits of policy. I am not sure how that is to operate in the absence of major changes being proposed. One might ask why anyone should contribute to an inquiry if the decision has already been taken.
I come back to the underlying concern; namely, that the rights of objectors and the very important contributions made by them should not be stifled.
Finally, I turn to the underlying question: why now? Is there a major project in the pipeline? I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to refute any suggestion that the rules are being changed at this point in order to prepare the ground for a particular inquiry. My own background based in west London leads me to seek confirmation with regard to a matter that was previously topical with the then department
1184
combined with the office of the Deputy Prime Minister; in other words, runway capacity. We expect to have a Statement on that quite soon. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that that is not in the Government's sights when setting these rules.
When this House debated the Green Paper, many comments were made to the effect that the process of planning could be much improved without fundamental change. If the Government introduce these rules to smooth the course of inquiries, will it then be necessary to introduce the greater and more controversial changes? If they are going ahead with those larger changes with regard to major infrastructure projects, surely it would be proper to introduce all the changes at the same time so that the implications and the implementation could be addressed as a package. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the rules, laid before the House on 13th May, be annulled (S.I. 20002.1223).—(Baroness Hamwee.)
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for bringing this statutory instrument to the attention of the House. I too find it strange that these measures are being brought forward at this time. The planning Green Paper is barely three months old. It presages a further consultation document on major infrastructure projects, in particular on the new role envisaged for Parliament as a planning authority. Why is it therefore that changes are being made to the procedure under this legislation?
Certainly, the statutory instrument does not bring forward the highly contentious issues raised in the Green Paper about the centralisation proposed for the introduction of a parliamentary planning procedure for major infrastructure inquiries but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out, it does bring forward the timetabling of inquiries, mediation and pre-inquiry meetings, at which the Secretary of State will have considerable powers of intervention. He will be able to lay down the matters which are to be discussed, the timescale of the totality of the inquiry and to appoint both mediators and technical advisers, if required.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister how it is envisaged that the Secretary of State will know, at the pre-inquiry stage, what matters he will be asked to consider. How will he be able to know what evidence will be adduced during the proceedings, even if a statement of case is to be produced at the outset by each party? Or is it the intention that the only matters which the inspector will be allowed to consider are those to be laid down by the Secretary of State? Is it proposed that the pre-inquiry meetings will be held in public?
The timetable for the inquiry is to be laid down by the Secretary of State; that is, the beginning and an end. How flexible will the timetable be? How can a strictly defined timetable allow for a fair hearing of all the evidence and representations, in particular that additional evidence, often from objectors, which will

1185
be elicited during the proceedings? Rule 8 states that the inspector cannot vary the timetable without the approval of the Secretary of State. What discretion does that allow him in managing the proceedings? The Secretary of State is to be able to appoint both the mediators and technical advisers. How will he protect himself from an accusation of bias in those whom he appoints under such circumstances?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the inspector will have the right to stop cross-examination or to refuse to permit it to be undertaken. What circumstances are envisaged that will justify this action? Does not the Minister think that this could threaten the ability of the inquiry to explore all the important issues?
When the Green Paper was briefly discussed in this House, the then Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, indicated that the next stages would not be by way of a White Paper but by a statement on the Government's intentions—as I understand it, an unusual process. But here we have not even that, only bits and pieces of the Green Paper proposals which raise fundamental questions about the whole approach to these major, and nearly always contentious, inquiries.
If it had not been for the keen eye of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, all of this would have gone unnoticed and there would have been no opportunity to air these matters. Obviously some of the concerns that I have raised duplicate those raised by her, but they are worth repeating in view of the fact that they may get only a limited amount of attention.
No one would deny that there have been some long drawn-out public inquiries—Terminal 5 being the most recent and longest, but that was not helped by the Minister taking one-and-a-half years to make a final decision following the inspector's recommendation—nor that a streamlining of the process might be sensible, but what is the urgency to introduce these measures now? The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked what inquiries are likely to come forward within the next few months that make it so urgent that these procedures have to be implemented without consultation and before the Government have had time to publish their responses to the Green Paper or to issue their consultation paper on the major infrastructure projects put forward in the previous Green Paper.
In our view this is a very poor deal indeed. Even at this late stage, the statutory instrument should be withdrawn until full consideration can be given to the entirety of what is needed to speed up such inquiries, but within a full and agreed framework. The public have a fairly poor view of the outcome of these inquiries on matters which often affect them very severely. Surely, therefore, any changes should be made in an open way and not hidden under the blankets, which is exactly what was happening here.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses. Let me deal with one issue straightaway: to the best of my knowledge there is no ulterior motive. In the past four weeks I have seen and know of no papers in regard to any potential inquiries attached to this narrow set of changes in the rules, which is promoted by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
While there is always a natural suspicion—which I hope to answer satisfactorily—there has been nothing carried out behind closed doors. The rules have been drafted, laid before Parliament, and I hope that they will come into force. Noble Lords have used their right to secure a debate in order that the Minister can answer some questions. I understand that that procedure will be followed in the other place as well.
I shall do my best. I shall confine myself to the rules because they are what the debate is about, otherwise I shall be tempted to stray into other areas. I hope that in due course I shall be able to answer all the questions that have been posed by the noble Baronesses.
The rules are part of a package which was announced to Parliament in July last year, so there should be no surprise about them at all. The former Secretary of State, Stephen Byers, announced the package of measures aimed by and large at speeding up decisions while increasing the opportunities for public involvement in the decision-making process for major projects such as airports, dams and other such matters.
The present system can take too long—although I fully accept that there are not dozens of decisions that have taken years, and I fully accept the statistics that have been given. The package announced last July included up-to-date statements of government policy to help reduce inquiry time spent in debating policy. That is an important element. It also included possible new procedures to give Parliament the opportunity to approve a project in principle before an inquiry looked at the details. We have consulted separately on these procedures and are considering the responses. The appropriate Select Committees are still examining the matter and are due to report.
The third element of the package—which was clearly stated at the time in the press release and the parliamentary Answer—involved improved arrangements for the handling of inquiries. This debate is exclusively about the last of the three measures, so there is no surprise. It was announced that we would do this.
I shall deal with why we have introduced the new rules, and set out the changes and the benefits. Some consolidation has gone on, as anyone who reads the Explanatory Note will see. It delineates the separate changes.
The new rules build on the improvements already made to inquiry rules in August 2000. These are specific to the handling of major infrastructure projects. They are done on the basis of experience and on the basis of measures that have been successfully employed informally at major inquiries. We want to improve significantly the time-scale for the handling of major inquiries—by which I mean to cut it down

1187
rather than extend it—streamline the process and reduce unnecessary delay while continuing to make sure that every opportunity is given to people to have their say and to test the evidence that is put forward to the inquiry.
Improvements to the rules can be brought in now and are not dependent on any of the other parts of the package. They are not dependent on any parliamentary procedures, which would require primary legislation. Whatever is decided, there will be further delays because primary legislation is required in other areas. I suspect that it might require amendments to standing orders if a possible parliamentary procedure was proceeded with.
I want to set out the key elements of the order and the key improvements. It is true that the timetabling is stricter. The timetable will be discussed with the parties at the pre-inquiry meeting and will be approved by the Secretary of State. Thereafter, it can be changed only with the approval of the Secretary of State. That does not mean to say that it would never be changed, but it would be no good people spending days and days at an inquiry belly-aching to the chair of that inquiry, because it would be a matter for the Secretary of State. The statutory nature of the approved timetable, following discussions—I emphasise that—with the parties will provide greater discipline for all the parties involved and will obviously help to speed the process.
I can see nothing wrong with the introduction of round table discussions. It will allow parties to discuss areas of concern with each other. It is no bad thing if the parties to a dispute can talk to each other round a table before the inquiry. It ought to lead to a better understanding of the various positions. Experience at other inquiries shows that such discussions can be an effective means of agreeing the facts, so that days are not spent arguing over them—thereby narrowing the areas of disagreement before the inquiry starts.
11 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, will those pre-inquiry meetings take place in public or in private?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot say, but as they will be pre-inquiry, I suspect that it will be up to the parties concerned. They will not be dragooned there. Some people may say that they will do it only if it is in public. That will be up to the chairman and the people round the table. I do not think that we are being prescriptive about that. If we are, no doubt I shall be advised pretty quickly.
There is no reason why these things should be done in secret. In principle, openness and transparency are bound to get a better result than something done behind closed doors that looks as though it is cooked up by the parties concerned. That is important in terms of the media reporting of the issues. It is also important that no one can claim that an inquiry has been fixed before it starts. That would be counter-productive for the exercise of getting public acceptability for major infrastructure projects.
1188
To underpin the stricter timetabling arrangements, the inspector can limit the cross-examination to avoid the timetable being put at risk. This new power will ensure that the timetable is adhered to and that people whom the inspector knows are appearing later in the proceedings get their fair share of time. Some parties might try to snuff out views that other people want to put if they know that there is a time limit on the procedures. That is important. If the inspector did not act even-handedly, they would be answerable to my learned friends elsewhere.
A technical adviser, expert in a particular topic, can be tasked with assessing the technical evidence of all the parties and producing an independent report on the technical issues. That report will be copied to everyone entitled to appear at the inquiry. The adviser will give evidence and be subject to cross-examination on the contents of that technical assessment. The inspector will not be bound by the findings of the technical adviser's report, but we hope that it will help to clarify the technical issues and identify the areas of disagreement and advise on them.
Mediation is an important element. I am digressing slightly and I do not want to cause further problems of delay—or problems for myself—but I asked in the department the other day how many female chairs of inquiries there were. It is well known in the public annals that mediation is much more successfully conducted by females than by males. That is not to say that we will always use only females, but they can be an element in successful mediation.
Mediators can be appointed at the request of the inspector at any time before or during the inquiry. They will be tasked with facilitating an agreement between the parties on any of the issues, technical or otherwise. Introducing mediation to inquiry proceedings is not intended to curtail people's right to put their case. It is simply a process of bringing an agreed result to an inquiry in a faster and fairer fashion. We want to narrow the issues and get agreement where there is common ground. That is bound to be helpful in facilitating the overall conduct of the inquiry.
Another important element is the fact that the date for the delivery of the inspector's report will be announced at the end of the inquiry. That will give some certainty to the parties about the length of time before the inspector reports to the Secretary of State. The obvious question then is whether there would be a similar procedure relating to the time that the Secretary of State takes to make a decision. I cannot answer that, but the question begs itself when a timetable is put on the inspector. If other parties are using an expedited procedure to secure fairer and faster decisions, it is incumbent on the Secretary of State, in the spirit of openness and making progress, to proceed accordingly and join in the party. That is not a criticism of any decisions made by Secretaries of State. The words jump out from the page. It is obvious that the Secretary of State is part of the overall process. It is in everyone's interests that there is no undue delay.

1189
No reasons, other than those that I have stated, lie behind the rules. I have seen no documents in the department and heard nothing verbally to suggest that this effort is part of a pre-emptive strike in relation to a forthcoming inquiry; I know of no such details. The rules will come into force, subject to the prayer against them being unsuccessful. They stand on their own as provisions that were set out by the Lord Chancellor, irrespective of what happens as a result of the planning Green Paper, which may or may not require primary legislation in any future Parliament, when time is available. Those are well-worn words; no commitments have currently been given. The rules also stand alone in relation to any possible agreed parliamentary process towards major infrastructure inquiries.
I turn to the specific issues. I freely admit that there are differences in relation to Schedule 1 and the consultation paper. Moreover, I freely admit that I do not know why some provisions are in and some are out. However, town and country planning inquiries are effectively involved. Some decisions on what are clearly infrastructure projects by some definitions are carried out under other legislation. It is, as I recall, explicit in last summer's consultation paper that similar procedures would be made for inquiries in relation to other legislation.
Roads, including motorways, for example, come under the Highways Act 1980. New roads in excess of 30 kilometres are covered by the proposed parliamentary procedures, if they are agreed to. If Parliament approved a new road in principle, a detailed inquiry would still have to consider orders under the Highways Act.
The way in which power stations, for example, are affected depends on the size—the generating capacity—of the power station. Some are handled under the Electricity Act 1989 and others are covered by the process that is set out in the consultation paper for parliamentary procedures, if those provisions are adopted. I make no point either way; I understand that people outside—particularly planning lawyers—are very interested in what will happen. I am in no position to say what will happen because I can honestly say—I genuinely mean this—that no decisions have yet been made by Ministers. I know that for a certain fact. We
1190
have not received the Select Committee reports from the other place. I refer to the Procedure Committee and the committee associated with the former department, which has separated under the machinery of government changes following the announcement of a separate Department of Transport.
The rules stand on their own. It was forecast in July 2001 that such a package would be brought forward. After just a few weeks in the department, I point out that they were brought forward at the first available opportunity. In other words, they have taken rather a long time—a year—to put together. I do not know the detailed reasons why that was the case; the important point is that they are before us. They will facilitate fairer and faster procedures. It is important to say that they are not designed to prevent anybody from putting their view to an inquiry; they are designed to facilitate the process in relation to the dragging out of inquiries on matters that could be dealt with by pre-inquiry meetings, mediation and other well-tested means. Such means have been tried in other inquiries in an informal fashion and have been known to work. The arrangement is as simple and open as that. I hope that the House will approve the rules and not proceed with the prayer.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for her thoughtful questions. I seem to have graduated to being her noble friend. I am happy to accept that promotion, although perhaps not politically.
Of course, I accept what the Minister says about there being no ulterior motive. I welcome his obvious commitment to openness in this matter. When I read the details of the rules, I realised that they were far more benign than my concerns about the previous proposals in the consultation paper might have led me to believe. I remain a little puzzled about certain aspects of them, but I accept that, if anything, the rules are late rather than premature. If I were to ask the House to express a view, I suspect that we would not be able to do so. But that has never been my intention. I wanted to understand the context. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
  Adoption and Children 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 the same as in a normal Committee of Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all 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 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, it should be withdrawn.
    I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. This Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells ring and then resume after 10 minutes.
    Clause 1 [Considerations applying to the exercise of powers]:
    Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 1:
    Page 1, line 8, after "agency" insert "or local authority"
    The noble Earl said: I am sure I am not alone among Members of the Committee in looking forward to the Committee proceedings on this Bill with a sense of eager anticipation. Although I am aware that there are important issues that we shall be debating over the coming few weeks, these are for the most part matters that lend themselves to amicable discussion rather than adversarial argument. I entertain the hope, particularly in the knowledge of the Minister's well known receptiveness to rational persuasion, that we may be able to change the Government's mind on at least some of them.
    I begin by moving Amendment No. 1, which is closely associated with Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. These amendments take us straight into the heart of this all-important opening clause, Clause 1, which represents an overarching provision that will apply to all decision making in relation to the adoption of a child. Its various elements closely reflect the provisions of the Children Act 1989 but have been tailored to suit the particular circumstances of adoption. The feature of the clause with which I hope we can all identify without reservation is subsection (2), which provides
    CWH 2
    that the paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare throughout his life. That explicit emphasis banishes, at a stroke, any misplaced idea that adoption is a device that exists to gratify the wishes of adults or to address the supposed right of adults to become adoptive parents. No adult has any such right. We are dealing here with the duty society has to do its best for those children who, through no fault of their own, have been profoundly disadvantaged and for whom separation from their birth family is seen, for whatever reason, as a necessity. That separation is not something society should sanction lightly; but when it does occur the child has a right to look to the state as the guardian of his future well-being. All public agencies, therefore, who are involved in looking after the child have a part to play in fulfilling this duty of trust.
    Clause 1 sets out the duties to be placed upon the courts and upon adoption agencies, both of whom can be seen as the key decision makers in the adoption process. The amendments that I have tabled propose that local authorities should be explicitly included under the same umbrella in relation to subsections (2), (3) and (4). I am well aware from the Explanatory Notes that the term "adoption agency" is designed to embrace both a local authority and a registered adoption society. These clearly are the bodies that are immediately involved in the decision-making process. On the face of things, my amendments might appear to be unnecessary. The question that I pose is whether that interpretation is correct and whether it would not be better to acknowledge the wider responsibilities of local authorities by naming them explicitly.
    While a part of a local authority cart function as an adoption agency, that is not the totality of functions it exercises in relation to children who may be eligible for adoption. Local authorities are, for example, responsible for assessments and support services. They are responsible for social services and education. They are key players in facilitating the adoption process for looked-after children. It seems to me that unless local authorities as such are bound by the duties in this clause, we are not, so to speak, covering the waterfront.
    It is absolutely essential that a person running a local authority children's home is seized of the necessity not to delay the adoption process. It is important that the social worker, who may be the means of liaison between a birth family and a foster family, bears in mind the considerations set out in subsection (4) in the context of a possible future adoption. The headmaster of a school needs to be aware that a child who may be heading for adoption may have special needs and that these ought to be taken account of when an assessment for support services is being carried out.
    Those are only some examples. I realise that local authorities have analogous duties in relation to looked-after children. However, as far as I can see those duties do not relate specifically to the adoption process. I hope the Minister will be able to shed some light on these matters. I beg to move.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: I rise to support the amendment. It is relevant not only for the reasons given by my noble friend but also, in particular, to monitoring services after adoption by the social services, as proposed in a letter of 20th June that I received from the Minister—which I hope was available in the Library of the House. I made that email request on Sunday, but perhaps time has not sorted it out. It is also relevant to the matters referred to after "adoption" in subsection (6) of Amendment No. 7, to which I shall not speak at the moment. However, it has a relevance. It is not unnecessary. It is important not only for the reasons given by my noble friend, but if I may respectfully say so, for the two reasons that I have given myself.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, The Department of Health): First, I very much welcome the constructive approach of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to the Bill. I very much share his general sentiments about the way in which we shall debate the important clauses in the Bill. I was not sure whether I should welcome his description of my rational flexibility, but I shall attempt to be as constructive as possible.
    The noble Earl is absolutely right to stress the importance of Clause 1 of this Bill as it does set the parameters in which all our discussions will be based. Of course, in setting out in Clause 1(2),
    "The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare, throughout his life",
    we are setting out the cardinal principle under which adoption must be considered in the future. I certainly agree with him when he says that no adult has the right to adopt. That is absolutely right.
    Clause 2(1) states that,
    "a local authority or a registered adoption society may be referred to as an adoption agency".
    The noble Earl, Lord Howe, accepted that, in terms of the Bill, that definition makes it quite clear that the responsibilities placed on adoption agencies apply as much to local authorities as they do to registered adoption societies. However, I accept that he also seeks a wider reassurance that, in their functions other than adoption, local authorities—and, I suspect, other statutory agencies—are as committed as the local authority adoption service to ensuring the maximum possible effectiveness of the processes and procedures and the support given to those who wish to adopt, those who are adopted and those who do adopt.
    Clause 3 places on local authorities the care duty to maintain an adoption service, and Clause 4 establishes the responsibility of local authorities to provide assessments for those who request one according to criteria laid down in the Bill. Clause 4(5) deals with the requirement that local authorities prepare plans for adoption services. We should bear in mind that the local authority—whether it be a local education authority, or in its more general duties in relation to personal social services—will continue to have statutory responsibilities to provide services for children whether they be adopted or not.
    CWH 4
    We must not confuse the various provisions. We must be clear that, whereas a specific responsibility is placed on local authorities in relation to adoption services, many local authority services will be available to people who are adopting or have been adopted. We should expect those services to be provided according to the current legislation. I accept that, in providing adoption services and adoption support, local authorities have a role to play in helping to ensure that, when other services need to be provided, other providers should have not only an opportunity to obtain information on those requiring support services, but confidence that the relevant information will be passed to them. As we shall debate later, Clause 4(9) explicitly states:
    "If at any time during the assessment of the needs of any person under this section, it appears to a local authority that—
    (a) there may be a need for provision of services to that person",
    by the NHS or the local education authority, the local authority must notify that health or education authority. That example is explicitly stated in the Bill, and it is a very important consideration.
    The implication of the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is to focus our attention on the overall performance of local authorities in the whole area of adoption services. The lesson from the PIU report and from the analysis that has been made of local authority performance would point to what can best be described as a "patchy" performance. There is no doubt that if we are to succeed in raising the game of all those involved in adoption we must ensure that local authorities are prepared to meet the additional responsibilities that they are being given.
    That is why we have set out for the first time clear national adoption standards, which all councils will have to deliver by 1st April 2003. That is why we have established the Adoption and Permanence Taskforce, chaired by the Chief Inspector of Social Services, to work with councils to help them improve their performance and spread best practice across the country. That is why we have provided an additional £66 million to support our agenda to improve the adoption service.
    Council performance is regularly assessed by the Social Services Inspectorate and this year, for the first time, all councils were given clear star ratings covering performance of their social services functions. From April 2003, council adoption services will be inspected by the National Care Standards Commission and this performance management system, taken as a whole, will ensure a robust process for assessing the performance of local authorities in the round, including their ability to liaise with other statutory providers of services. It will give confidence to all of those who wish to see a very much enhanced performance.
    In conclusion, I believe that the legislation as set out quite clearly indicates the responsibilities that local authorities will have in relation to adoption services. It would be right to adopt that approach, rather than confusing matters by referring to other legislation where local authority responsibilities are already

    CWH 5
    clearly laid out. At heart, however, this depends on local authorities improving their performance. With the additional resources and the very strong performance management regime we are putting in place, I am confident that we can ensure that that happens.
    3.45 p.m.
    Earl Howe: I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply and I agree with much of what he said—particularly his comments about performance management which seem to be very pertinent.
    The essence of the point I was trying to make—and I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell for backing me up—was that the duties of a local authority in its capacity as an adoption agency, and the duties by which it is bound in other capacities, are not identical under the law. There are separate spheres of activity which will, in part at least, be governed by different legislation. I question whether that is adequate for the purposes of the adoption process. Many of the local authority's functions impact upon that process and we need to be sure that all local authority employees are quite clear that they should be bound by the kinds of injunctions and requirements that Clause l sets out.
    However, I take the point made by the Minister and I shall read his remarks carefully in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
    Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 4:
    Page 1, line 14, at end insert "which shall have been ascertained by means of direct consultation with the child"
    The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 4, which is similar to Amendment No. 5 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Thomas.
    The Opposition have consistently welcomed the Government's placing of the welfare of the child as the cornerstone of adoption policy. I was pleased when the Minister confirmed that in his opening remarks.
    Building on the work that we undertook in office, the Bill moves us more effectively in the direction of ensuring that the child's interests are always paramount, both when legislating and when making those critical individual decisions. The amendment seeks to ensure that a child will be consulted as part of the formal process of adoption proceedings. Clearly a child will be aware of the circumstances of his adoption, and the specific emotions and problems that he is likely to face.
    Our concern is that Clause 1 of the Bill is too loose and open to interpretation as to ensure that a consultation takes place. In fact, there is no intrinsic obligation upon the court or the adoption agency, which includes local authority social services departments, to consult with the child. We believe that however well-intentioned this is a potential weakness in the Bill that fails to meet the criterion on the paramountcy of the child's interests.
    CWH 6
    The amendment will place a full legal obligation to undertake a direct consultation with the child. This will enable the agencies more effectively to balance the needs of a child with their circumstances and to act as a catch-all where an individual system might be deficient.
    The Minister's response in the Special Standing Committee in the other place was disappointing. She accepted that the Government need to set out the framework and expectations more clearly in the regulations and guidance. However, we cannot take on face value an assurance that some improvement might be made later. We have no indication of when regulations and guidance might be available and, no idea of the input. Lawyers could have a field day if it turned out that a child had not been seen in person. We feel that direct consultation with the child should be written into the Bill. I beg to move.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise to speak to the amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend and myself, and which goes rather further than that tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We require the representation of the child's wishes and feelings as well as listening to the child's wishes and feelings.
    Before I go any further, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will speak now, but one must acknowledge that there is also a reference to this matter in his Amendment No. 7, probably more skilfully expressed than we have managed in our amendment.
    We put the amendment forward for three reasons. First, that the Law Society has expressed concern that the Act does not seem to comply with Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which, as the Minister knows, provides for the views of the child to be expressed, given due weight and heard in a court of law,
    "either directly or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law".
    It seems curious that that requirement to allow for the putting forward of a child's view via an advocate—which I understand is in the Children Act 1989—is not on the face of this Bill.
    We have also put forward the amendment to test how the Government see their commitment in Clause 1 of the Bill to putting the child's long-term interests first and how that commitment is put into effect. I anticipate that the Minister will respond by saying that CAFCASS will fill the role of representing the child's wishes and feelings to the court if required. I also understand that in very complicated cases, especially where consent has been with held, CAFCASS can recommend that a solicitor should be appointed.
    The procedures may be thought to cover the Article 12 requirement for direct representation of a child,
    "in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law".
    I hope that I am not putting words into the Minister's mouth. However, the problem with this approach is that, particularly in London, CAFCASS is so under

    CWH 7
    strength that delays in court proceedings can derive from that understaffing and, of course, the Bill is also designed to do away with delay as much as possible.
    I understand that practitioners can find themselves appointed to represent the child only to find that they are ready to go to court before CAFCASS can provide an officer to do the same thing. This suggests that, in the interest of cutting delays, as well as in response to the UN convention, the courts should be under an obligation to appoint a solicitor to represent the child at least in some circumstances.
    Our third reason for tabling the amendment is that there are some very difficult procedural parts of the Bill where the representation by a lawyer would be of great benefit to the child. In reading through the Bill I was struck, for example, by Clauses 25 and 26 relating to contact. Here, the court may make an order granting contact under special provisions quite separate from those in the Children Act, after a child is placed for adoption. The child is one of those who may apply for such an order. Presumably he might also wish to oppose it.
    Is the Minister satisfied that the wishes and feelings of a child will be satisfactorily heard under both scenarios? Is this not the kind of potentially complicated and emotionally difficult situation in which the role of a legal practitioner might be essential to protect the child's interests against the conflicting interests of two sets of parents, for example?
    Will the Minister consider in particular making specific reference to the needs of such representation in the Bill? The way that we have chosen to do so may not be entirely satisfactory, but the issue is of importance, given the objective of the Bill to put the child's welfare at the heart of the adoption process.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support in principle the spirit of both amendments but, for reasons given by the Minister today and on Report, and by myself on Report, I would prefer not to break the mould of Clause I. I would also prefer, naturally, the question of representation raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, under subsection (2) of my Amendment No. 7 and the question of the child under subsection (3) of my Amendment No. 7, because these amendments as they stand require qualification.
    My amendment is inevitably imperfect and in due course it is with the help of this Committee that we shall achieve a composite amendment to be re-tabled that makes total sense. In that spirit, I hope, as I hope to have a meeting with my noble friend Lord Howe and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, to try to achieve an acceptable draft in the light of your Lordships' contributions. I hope that this amendment will not be pressed.
    4 p.m.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Those of us who debate health and social care Bills will know that the voice of the children has been to the fore of our thinking and
    CWH 8
    that is absolutely right. The question is whether the structure of the Bill, as it presently stands, is sufficient to ensure, as Clause 1(4) reads:
    "the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings".
    There can be no question about that on the part of the Government. We strongly believe that the child's wishes and feelings should be actively sought and fully taken into account at all stages of the Adoption and Children Bill. This is a key value which underpins our National Adoption Standards, published last year, which make abundantly clear that the voice of the child has a critical role to play in the deliberations and decisions in relation to adoption.
    I would draw the attention of Members of the Committee to the children's standards in the National Adoption Standards for England, which make clear that every child will have his or her wishes and feelings listened to, recorded and taken into account. Where they are not acted upon, the reasons for not doing so will be explained to the child and properly recorded. They make clear that all children will have a named social worker who will be responsible for them throughout the adoption process. They make clear that children will be given clear explanation and information about adoption, covering what happens at each stage, including at court, and how long each stage is likely to take in their own individual case.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: Could the Minister identify the document?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is the National Adoption Standards for England; I will make this available to Members of the Committee to consider. They also make clear that children placed for adoption and adopted children will be informed of their right to make representations and complaints and will be helped to do so if this is required. I will, of course, make sure that these documents are available to Members of the Committee because they very much underpin much of our discussion about how we are going to make sure this system works effectively.
    These adoption standards will inform the National Care Standards Commission, which in itself will be producing national minimum standards. From 1st April 2003, these standards will become Section 7 guidance to local authorities which means, in effect, that local authorities must comply with these standards unless there are exceptional reasons for not so doing.
    As regards the Bill, I believe that this very much underpins what we all seek to do. Under Clause 1(4)(a), courts and adoption agencies will be under a positive legal obligation to ascertain the child's wishes and feelings about all decisions relating to adoption and to take them into account when considering the child's age and understanding. There is no question that they must do this; it is a legal obligation. They will need to do it through direct consultation with the child, where the child is old enough. I have strong sympathy, however, for the principle that has prompted the amendments. The assumption must be that even relatively young

    CWH 9
    children will have a view that must be taken into account and agencies will be expected to ascertain this directly.
    The precise procedure will be set out for adoption agencies in regulations and guidance, and for courts in court rules and guidance. In respect of adoption agencies, the new adoption agencies' regulations and guidance we will make to accompany the implementation of this Bill will place explicit obligations on agencies to consult the children, to record their views, to ensure that their views are considered in the decision-making process—for example, by adoption panels—and, where they are not acted upon, record the reasons why not.
    I assure Members of the Committee that the details of these regulations will be subject to consultation but we would expect that, before any match between a child and a set of prospective adopters is considered by an adoption agency adoption panel and before any decision is made, the views of the child on a suggested match will be sought and taken into account—in the light of the child's age and understanding, of course, and bearing in mind the number of babies that are involved in the adoption process. As far as the courts are concerned, court rules will provide in certain circumstances that the children's guardian must be appointed to represent the child. Their duties will include ascertaining the child's views through direct contact and reporting them to the court. But even where there is no guardian, the child's views will need to be conveyed to the court through the report to the court that every adoption agency must produce under Clause 42 of the Bill, and also potentially through any general CAFCASS officer report the court may commission under the powers in Clause 99.
    I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, as to when regulations will be available. We have made it clear that we intend the Bill to be implemented in 2004. Regulations and guidance will accompany that implementation and our aim is to consult on the draft regulations and guidance over 2003 and 2004, but we wish that consultation to be as inclusive as possible.
    As regards the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, she very clearly anticipated my response. My understanding is that Article 12 provides that a child should be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting him or her and should do so either directly or through a representative or an appropriate body in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law. Our system, both under the existing 1976 Act and under the new Bill when implemented, provides for both scenarios. CAFCASS officers will report to court on matters relating to the welfare of the child. This is in Clause 99(3)(b). In addition, we will allow in rules for a child to be made a party to proceedings where it is appropriate to do so, acting either through a CAFCASS officer or, as the noble Baroness suggested, if the child is of sufficient maturity, instructing a solicitor directly.
    CWH 10
    The noble Baroness raised concerns about CAFCASS and its ability to meet the responsibilities being placed upon it. We will be consulting on court rules associated with the Bill. Some of the key issues we will consult on will be the role of CAFCASS prior to and in proceedings, on reports to court in the best interests of the child, on party status and notification of proceedings for those involved in adoption and placement cases, whether any classes of proceedings should be made specified proceedings within the meaning conferred by the Children Act 1989, questions about public legal funding and the appropriate financial test for funding and aligning the issues with children proceedings where appropriate. This is not an exhaustive list and there may well be other issues which arise, and we will listen very carefully to the points raised in Committee.
    As regards the general point, I am confident that the Bill as presently constructed sets out the broad principle of needing to ascertain the views of children. I give the commitment that we will consult very clearly indeed on the draft regulations and draft court rules so that we can have the widest input into future deliberations in that particular area.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may ask a brief question. Is the Minister giving an assurance that guidance under Section 7 shall have legal efficacy?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I must be very careful when I talk about Section 7 guidance. Essentially, Section 7 guidance that is given to local authorities has to be followed unless the local authority has very good reasons not to follow it. The local authority is., of course, challengeable under those circumstances.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: May I respectfully ask the Minister to take advice on that reply because it either has legal efficacy or it has not; there is no halfway.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I will be happy to write to the noble Lord, but I believe that I paraphrased the wording I have used on many occasions in your Lordships' House when asked what we mean by Section 7 guidance. I will of course follow the matter up with the noble Lord.
    Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am rather distressed to hear the Minister say that it is not anticipated that the Bill, when enacted, will come into force until 2004. Is such a long delay necessary? Would it not be possible to bring it into force a little sooner?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I can well understand the noble Lady's impatience for the Bill to be implemented as soon as possible. On the other hand, we have to get this right. There is very good reason for ensuring that there is sufficient time after the Bill is enacted to prepare all those involved in new responsibilities, ranging from local authorities to the courts, to the registered adoption agencies. In addition, it is clear from the construction of the Bill that there are a series

    CWH 11
    of regulations and court rules which need to be consulted upon. For that reason, it is important that we prepare the ground sufficiently.
    It is also worth making the point that there is some evidence that even under the current legislation local authorities have begun to improve their performance. Obviously, we hope that that will continue in the period prior to implementation.
    Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may slightly rephrase the question posed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. Am I right in thinking that the Minister said that local authorities will have a legal obligation to have regard to the guidance? If that is the case, it should appear on the face of the Bill. It can therefore be challenged if it is thought that in coming to a decision they did not have proper regard to the guidance.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not accept that it needs to be on the face of the Bill because Section 7 guidance is a well-known process in relation to local authority personal social services, which has been used on a number of occasions. Section 7(1) of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 states:
    "Local authorities shall, in the exercise of their social services functions, including the exercise of any discretion conferred by relevant enactment, act upon the general guidance of the Secretary of State".
    That is the first element.
    The National Adoption Standards for England will, from 1st April 2003, be the subject of Section 7 guidance. I will look very carefully at the wording and write to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. In essence, as I have said, local authorities are under an obligation to comply with those standards unless there are exceptional reasons. If there were exceptional reasons, the local authority would in any case be open to challenge for not carrying out that guidance.
    Baroness Barker: In making my first intervention, I want echo the sentiments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the general acceptance of the Bill. The Bill contains many principles on which I am sure we will all agree. However, we have not gone past Clause 1 and we have come up against the reality that as regards the detail there might be great differences among all sides of the Committee.
    I return to the point which I raised on Second Reading. Although there is general consensus that Clause 1(2) is a good basis upon which to frame the whole of the Bill, it none the less is a fairly subjective and open basis upon which to frame all the reference to the legislation. That is the reason for the amendment proposed by my noble friend. I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say, as I always do when he speaks on the subject of advocacy. We talk about advocacy a lot in relation to other client groups; it is a subject close to my heart.
    I heard the word "information" and the word "consult" and I believe that once I heard the word "representation" but there is something about
    CWH 12
    advocacy that was not covered by what he said; that is, enabling somebody to initiate actions that they want to happen, that they would not otherwise be able to do. Particularly when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, raised his point about Section 7, the thought occurred to me: how does a child take on a local authority which has not fulfilled its duty? What the Minister seems to be saying here is almost there but not quite there in terms of a child being enabled to say what he or she wants. Let us bear in mind some of the children who are going to be in this position. They will be children who sometimes have great difficulty expressing themselves and presumably any child would have difficulty doing so in a court of law.
    There seems to be something slightly deficient about there not being on the face of the Bill an explicit duty to provide advocacy for a child. There is a strong case, notwithstanding Clause 1(2), to have that facility available to children. It is a different matter from having even a CAFCASS officer who cannot be immune to all the other considerations going on in adoption. We know that in adoption there will be at least two other considerations going on: those of the adoption agency and those of at least one set of parents, be they birth parents or adoptive parents.
    4.15 p.m.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Is that not why Clause 1(2) is so important and why everything that we debate and talk about in connection with the involvement of the child and the need to listen to the child rests on ensuring that the paramount consideration is the child's welfare, no matter what different views are coming through? That is what this whole Bill rests upon.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may deal with the question of guidance? It is as used in many other statutes; it has no legal efficacy at all. The Minister twice used the term "assurance". An assurance imports a legal efficacy and there is absolutely no reason why in this statute, as in some others concerning the interests of children, there should not be guidance which has a legal efficacy. That is, with respect, what I am trying to ask for.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No doubt we shall return to this question and I am very happy to go away and look at the issues being debated here. I very much accept that the child's right to be heard is important. Section 7 guidance means a great deal to local authorities. In fact, they know that they are required to implement it. Any local authority asked about the importance of Section 7 would quite understand what it was required to do. We have had debates about Section 7 guidance in the past because noble Lords, who often ask me to issue Section 7 guidance in relation to a number of areas of performance by local authorities' social services, know that it bites in a way which other guidance does not.
    I return to the point that the construction of the Bill is to set the broad principle. The broad principle seems to be clearly set out. Regulations, court rules and

    CWH 13
    performance management then follow to ensure that we can indeed make sure that the principle is seen in practice when it comes to listening to children.
    Lord Astor of Hever: Before I conclude my remarks, I have one question for the Minister, who ended his response by saying that he would be happy to take the matter away and think about the proposal. Would the Government consider bringing forward their own differently-worded amendment at the Report stage to take us all out of our agony?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord is very tempting, but I am not persuaded that that is required. However, I accept that noble Lords are at one in wishing to ensure that the child's voice is heard as effectively as possible. I shall be happy to see whether I can bring further assurances to noble Lords as to how this will work out in practice when we return to the matter on Report.
    Baroness Barker: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. When my colleagues and I were preparing for the Bill, we approached it in a perhaps slightly unusual way. One of us read it from the standpoint of being an adopted child, while the other read it from the point of view of a local authority, or an adoption agency. It is a very revealing exercise; indeed, I commend it to noble Lords. That is why we arrived at this amendment. It is not clear how a child would be enabled in an adoption, independently of every other player, to initiate some action. The Minister is far more familiar with the legislative history than I am; I accept that fact. However, between now and the Report stage, I should like the Minister to come back and explain, perhaps with a worked-through example, how a child will be able to initiate or stop action in one way or another, irrespective of what anyone else is doing in the process of adoption. That is why I remain convinced on the point about the necessity of having an advocate.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am happy to take the matter away and see what we can do. I should stress that much of this has to be the subject of extensive consultation following the enactment of the Bill. However, I shall certainly see what I can do.
    Lord Astor of Hever: Will the Minister confirm that other noble Lords taking part in this debate will get a copy of the letter to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, and of any correspondence with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes.
    Lord Astor of Hever: This has been a most useful and helpful debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, the devil is in the detail. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that the child's welfare must be at the heart of the adoption process, and that consultation should be on the face of the Bill. I agree with what my noble friend Lady Blatch said about avoiding a lawyers' field day.
    CWH 14
    We shall read Hansard carefully. My noble friends and I will consult with the two noble Baronesses, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, to see whether we can come up with a better phrased amendment at the next stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
    Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 6:
    Page 2, line 16, at end insert "subject to the proviso that such consideration shall be secondary to the matters to be considered in subsections (2) and (3)"
    The noble Earl said: Clause 1 of the Bill begins, as has already been said, by setting out the over-arching provisions that must govern any decision relating to the adoption of a child. Subject to what I am about to say, it is to my mind a well-drafted clause. However, one of the concerns debated at some length in another place was whether the clause ought to be clearer about what one might call the "hierarchy of factors" to be taken into account when a decision on a child's adoption is in prospect.
    Subsection (2) is quite specific:
    "The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare, throughout his life".
    That is the over-riding factor that must govern decision making. No one takes issue with that. However, after subsection (2), there are a number of further subsections: the presumption against delay in subsection (3); the welfare checklist in subsection (4); and then, in subsection (5), the duty on the part of an adoption agency to give due consideration to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.
    There are several points to be emphasised about subsection (5). First, what it says is very important. I think back particularly to the Second Reading speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, Who spoke with considerable authority on the issue. However, if we look at what is wrong with the adoption system at the moment, there is one failing that stands out above all others; and that is delay. The delays in the adoption process happen for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is that social workers often feel compelled to keep looking for the "perfect fit" when searching for adoptive parents. There might, for example, be a child who is three-quarters black and a quarter white. It is not uncommon for a social worker to reject potential adopters who do not fit that racial profile exactly. That is obviously a nonsense. The clear intention of the Government is for agencies to move away from that kind of blinkered approach.
    Although we have a clear warning in subsection (3) about the harm that can be done by delay, if a delay occurs it is always possible for an adoption agency to claim that there is a perfectly serious and valid reason for it, and that it is in the interests of the child. The welfare of the child demands that very careful thought must be given to all factors set out in subsections (4), (5) and (6) before a final decision is reached, but, in my opinion, careful thought should never be an excuse for

    CWH 15
    delay. If we consider the way in which Clause 1 is constructed, there is nothing there that gives any indication of the ranking that an agency or a court should give to any of the individual subsections—other than subsection (2), which relates to the paramountcy of the child's own welfare.
    I have no doubt that the Government are seeking to strike a very careful balance in the clause to ensure that all relevant factors are carefully weighed. However, without some additional pointers in the clause, it seems to me that there could be an excuse for someone to tilt that balance to suit his own preconceived ends. My amendment seeks to make the considerations in subsection (5) subsidiary to those set out in subsections (2) and (3); in other words, it in no way tries to belittle the need to have regard to race, religion, culture and language, but says that the latter are not to be equated with the child's long-term welfare, and are explicitly less important than the need to avoid delay.
    The Government have said that this sort of issue can be encapsulated in guidance and does not have to be on the face of the Bill. I have some grave doubts, particularly in the light of the last debate, about the adequacy of guidance, however binding it may purport to be, in comparison with primary legislation about which there can be no argument. My fear is that left as it is, the clause runs the risk of creating another lawyer's field day. In relation to subsection (5), one witness stated in written evidence to the Special Standing Committee held in November 2001 in another place (col. 280):
    "It repeats the mistake of the Children Act in giving sanction to the ideological agenda of those child care professionals who are obsessed with ethnicity".
    That witness was Dr Peter Hayes, of the University of Sunderland. The main fear that he expressed was that the subsection will have several adverse effects, albeit unintentional: to begin with, it will delay the placement of all children by needlessly subdividing and restricting the parent pool.
    For similar reasons, Dr Hayes believed it would be used to justify the unnecessary rejection of potential adoptive parents. It could be used as well to bolster the informal policies followed in some local authorities of deterring parents who wish to undertake an inter-country adoption—something that I will be talking about in a later group of amendments. He also forecast that the subsection would be used to justify ignoring the wishes of some children. For these reasons, and others besides, Dr Hayes counselled a huge measure of caution in accepting this part of Clause 1 without any qualification attached to it. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about this issue because I do not believe the debate in another place resolved it adequately. I beg to move.
    4.30 p.m.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose this amendment. With respect, it is wholly unnecessary as a matter of construction. The order of the hierarchy is totally plain. Subsection (2) relates to the paramountcy of child's welfare throughout its life;
    CWH 16
    subsection (3) relates to delay; and so forth. This so-called addition will do nothing other than produce what my noble friend quite rightly abhors; a lawyer's paradise. There is a perfectly sound structure and I am against breaking a sound structure as a matter of convenience if it is not absolutely crucial to do so, and it is not. The governing clause of the Bill is Clause 1 and it should stand unamended unless there is an overriding case—and here there is no overriding case—to change it.
    Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I have some sympathy with the comments of the noble Earl. Lord Howe. The reason is not because I think it is not important to think about race, religion and culture. The noble Baroness made a very good speech and outlined that very clearly at Second Reading. It is because paramountcy and these issues become very confused and are subject to interpretation in the particular ethos of a local authority.
    Furthermore, there is a great deal of discussion about professionals. Professionals pick up only the issues that are put on the cultural atmosphere in a local authority by their councillors. I say that as someone who has worked in Brent and Lambeth at the height of political correctness, and during those times struggled to give the best kind of placements to children at times of extraordinary difficulty.
    Some way must be found to ensure that in regulation guidance, or in a provision on the face of the Bill, it is quite clear what we mean by paramountcy and speed. As I said previously, speed must be balanced by the quality of intervention. Some situations are extraordinarily complex, but race, religion and culture, are open to all kinds of debate and in those respects there could be serious difficulty in implementation if the guidance and the standards are not clear.
    Baroness Barker: I, too, was mindful of the very thoughtful speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, at Second Reading. It seemed to raise the key question; that is, the importance of these factors in any individual determining his or her individual identity. She talked very movingly about people being adopted and discovering in later life that some of those issues were of tremendous importance to them in establishing who they are.
    I want to ask the Minister why the clause has come to be in the Bill in this way. I want to know whether it has been informed by practice or not. My suspicion is that it has. I think back to an adoption I know of that took place over 30 years ago where the issue of cultural and racial matching was of importance. The adoption agency did indeed come up with some children who were half Scottish and half Italian, as were their parents. They had decided a long time ago that they wanted to have that reflected because they felt they had parenting skills in dealing with that particular combination.
    I want to ask the Minister another question, to which I hope he will respond. The clause provides that due consideration must be given to the child's religious

    CWH 17
    persuasion and racial origin. I want to be absolutely clear that that does mean the child and not the parents, because that would give the Bill a very different complexion. It says "the child" and that is an important part of the interpretation when the Bill is put into practice. I return to my question: why is the provision here now? Is it based on good practice, or is it based on ideology?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The provision is in the Bill because it has been informed both by experience and also by the kind of concerns that Members of the Committee have raised today. When we think about some of the great debates of the 1980s and some of the concerns— and I suspect that it was the outcome of the PIU report which paved the way for much of the Bill—we may say that some of these allegations were urban myths, but undoubtedly there were indeed pressures and tensions around what have been described in shorthand as "politically correct adoption processes".
    I well recall our debate at Second Reading when I was asked about matters to do not so much with ethnic issues but with issues around blanket bans on smokers, on people who were obese, or even on age. I made it clear then that such blanket bans are not to be supported under any consideration, and that a judgment has to be made in each individual case.
    However, in the light of the debate that we have had over 20 years on these issues, I believe that the Bill is the right place to try and set out what is, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said at the beginning, the right balance, bearing in mind at all times the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.
    I thought the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, clearly expressed the point that the Bill is currently constructed to provide just that right kind of balance. It sets out the general principles that apply across the adoption provisions of the Bill, including making it clear that the child's welfare must be the paramount consideration for courts and adoption agencies in coming to any decision relating to the adoption of a child.
    Subsection (3) of Clause 1 places a duty on courts and adoption agencies to bear in mind at all times that any delay in coming to a decision is in general likely to prejudice the welfare of the child. Subsection (5) of Clause 1 places an obligation on the adoption agency when placing a child for adoption to,
    "give due consideration to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background".
    Clearly the interaction of those two subsections take us to the heart of the matter. The starting point in considering that is that subsections (3) and (5) need to be read together.
    The obligation in subsection (3) on adoption agencies to have regard to the potentially harmful effects of delay is an over-arching provision that applies across all decisions relating to the adoption of a child, including the placement decision.
    Subsection (5) cannot override that obligation. It does not allow adoption agencies to wait for ages to find a perfect match. I very much agree with the
    CWH 18
    concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the issue of delay. Subsection (5) imposes a duty on the agency when making the placement decision to consider the factors listed—as I said, the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background. This is equivalent to the duty placed on local authorities by Section 22 of the Children Act, which applies to children in care.
    During debate on this issue on Second Reading my noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids argued persuasively from her professional and personal experience of the importance of giving due weight during the adoption process to the factors set out in subsection (5), which could have a potentially significant impact on lifelong issues of identity—for example, the child's racial and cultural background.
    That is what Clause (1) does. The factors must be considered, but not at the expense of harmful delay to the child. That is why subsection (5) refers to "due consideration". The important point is to strike the right balance in the interests of the child.
    It is useful here also to look back to subsection (2) of Clause 1, which states:
    "The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare, throughout his life".
    That is the pre-eminent subsection of the clause. It overrides all others, so that the child's welfare is paramount and other considerations should be outweighed, if the welfare of the child is at stake.
    I hope that Members of the Committee will recognise that the Bill, as presently constructed, gets the balance right. I, of course, accept the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, about the challenges facing social workers and others involved in the field. That is one reason why we shall implement this legislation in 2004. We have to accept that there is a great deal of groundwork, training and support that need to be given. However, so far as the principle is concerned, I believe that the clause gets it right.
    Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I ask the noble Earl, Lord Howe, a question related to the use of the word "secondary" in his amendment. The use of the word "secondary" could almost diminish the duty under subsection (5). I wonder whether the noble Earl has thought of the amendment in those terms. If I had to reach a decision and it was a question of not causing any delay that might prejudice a child's welfare or having regard to the provisions in subsection (5), and I was told that that subsection was a secondary consideration, it might well go out of my thinking. That is what concerns me about the amendment.
    Earl Howe: This has been a very helpful debate. I am most grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken. I am particularly grateful for the Minister's reply. I was very reassured to receive some support from the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, with her immense experience of these matters. I fear that, simple as these provisions appear on the face of the Bill, they will give rise to some very difficult situations when interpreted on the ground. The guidance is crucial here.

    CWH 19
    I note very carefully what the Minister said about the strict legal position and what my noble friend Lord Campbell said in his very trenchant way. I always sit up when I find that he disagrees with an amendment tabled by a Member of his party's Front Bench because his wisdom is so apparent. I rely very much on what he is able to tell us with his immense professional experience. I am clear from what has been said that I shall have to rethink this.
    To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, I can quite see that the word "secondary" has a pejorative ring to it which could be unfortunate. It is certainly not intentional on my part to belittle the importance of the matters contained in subsection (5). My concern, to recap slightly, is that subsection (3) does not amount to a prohibition on delay but is merely a warning about delay. It allows for the possibility of what one might call "purposeful delay". Purposeful delay could be taken to be in the child's interests in certain circumstances by those with a particular agenda.
    The Minister mentioned the words "due consideration" in subsection (5). I looked at those words and they seemed to me very measured, but I then thought that they could be interpreted in a manner which is not intended by those with a private agenda to pursue a racial match to the nth degree. They could be taken as giving a green light to what such individuals might wish to do. They could even be taken to justify the argument that considerations of race and culture are of paramount importance. That would be very unfortunate. While the legal position is one thing—and here I defer once again to my noble friend Lord Campbell—what happens on the ground is another. It may be too late before anybody challenges what is going on.
    4.45 p.m.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Does he accept that if, following the advice of his noble friend, the Bill is acceptable as it is written, the key is the guidance that is given to local authorities and, indeed, to registered adoption agencies—I refer to training, development and performance management—which is then incorporated in the system to make sure that the circumstances that he describes do not arise? I have today attempted to indicate that we clearly understand that the success of the Bill will lie in its successful implementation. We shall be very careful to make sure that guidance is available to social workers and others which indicates as clearly as possible the points that they have to bear in mind.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: Could I ask my noble friend a question? I am much obliged to him. I refer to the question of delay. I had another look at the measure. The Bill refers to "any delay"; that is, delay whether purposive, whether by inadvertence or howsoever caused. The words "any delay" constitute the widest drafting concept of delay.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I hope that I may add to that. I refer to the circumstances that have been
    CWH 20
    mentioned to me where it is possible that some delay might be in the best interests of the child. For example, in the case of a group of siblings it might be beneficial to wait a little longer in order to find adopters who are willing to take them all rather than place them with different adopters. However, delay might be beneficial only in rather exceptional circumstances such as those.
    Earl Howe: Again, I am most grateful to my noble friend and to the Minister. I readily accept that he has shed a lot of light on this clause and it has been a useful exchange. I shall read carefully what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Lord Campbell of Allowaymoved Amendment No. 7:
    After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
    "IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXERCISE OF POWERS
    (1) In implementation of the exercise of powers under section I, the following considerations apply.
    (2) At all stages of the process of adoption, the child shall have such qualified independent representation as may be arranged or approved by the Official Solicitor.
    (3) If the child is of sufficient understanding—

    (a) the adoption agency shall arrange a meeting with the prospective adopters having informed the child of the prospect of adoption, and

    (b) the views of the child shall be heard before any further decision is made by the adoption agency or by the court of first instance in connection with the adoption of the child.

    (4) No adoption order may be made unless and until a legal commitment by the prospective adopter or adopters, enforceable by the court, has been approved by the court, taking into account an entitlement to support services to be established on adoption.
    (5) A new scheme of rigorous assessment shall be instituted to assess the ability of prospective adopters to care for the child safely and effectively which does not discriminate against homosexual couples as such.
    (6) The basic services to be provided by adoption services to parents and relatives of the child who seek assurances as to the welfare of the child may be designated by regulations with a view to establishing some uniformity."
    The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, to which a marker was put down at Second Reading at columns 54 to 56 of the Official Report of 10th June. I only mention that because nobody will have read them and they are readable there if anybody wishes to do so.
    This amendment—as appears from subsection (1), which is wholly declaratory—is concerned with implementation of the exercise of powers of the court and adoption agencies under Clause 1. The Committee may wish to take note in this context of matters relevant to the implementation of Clause 1, which are for subsequent debate and in due course for resolution.
    Amendments Nos. 71 to 79 are designed to break the structure of the Bill so as to exclude as prospective adopters unmarried heterosexual couples or singles and homosexuals whether joint or single. Amendments Nos. 76 to 78 assert the dominance of the blood tie. They dispense with parental consent,

    CWH 21
    contrary to the unanimous decision of your Lordships' Appellate Committee as referred to on Second Reading.
    When this amendment was tabled on 12th June I sent it to the Minister with a letter which drew his attention only to the proposed subsection (5) of my amendment and suggested that the Government by amendment should table a new scheme of rigorous assessment as a schedule to the Bill. In the light of the reply received on 22nd June by e-mail, subsection (5) of the amendment may now be treated as otiose and Amendment No. 10 to Clause 3 will not be moved. Incidentally, the e-mail stated that I would receive two letters, one at the House of Lords and one at my home address. The one at the House of Lords must have gone to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the one sent to my home address was not brought by the postman, so all I received was the e-mail, but I am grateful for that. I ask whether noble Lords have copies of these letters because they are of crucial import. They indicate that subsection (5) of the amendment to which I speak is otiose and that there is no object in moving the amendment to Clause 3.
    The e-mail was a long document and I shall shorten it into about 10 lines. It is proposed to establish by regulation under Clause 44—with statutory guidance which is assumed to have legal efficacy—a new regime which is wholly satisfactory. I refer to a regime under which prospective adopters, whether married or not, whether single or joint, will have to demonstrate the ability to provide loving care for the child in a family relationship and to provide a stable upbringing. Couples must demonstrate that they have a lasting relationship. Unless you have seen and read that document—and I congratulate the Government and those in the department who worked on it as they have done a first rate job—it is very difficult to appreciate in true perspective exactly where we are on this matter.
    On 20th June I received another letter from the Minister which gave detailed proposals for monitoring by social services—that is, the local authority—after the adoption order had been made. In this context the proposal set out in subsection (4) of my amendment as regards a legal commitment, which could be recommended on assessment and be implemented in such form as advised by the court on making an adoption order, is a matter on which the Committee's opinions are sought today. Again, it is difficult to put the matter into perspective without the Minister's letter. I am not given to saying that ministerial documents are any good, but the ones I am discussing are first rate. You have to give credit where it is due.
    If I may say so, here is an example where delay—I refer to delay in reply—was justified by the result. The Minister's letter set out the evidence in support of the assertion that adoption by a homosexual has no adverse effect on the well-being of the child, as was promised on Second Reading. That document is well worth reading. I have asked that copies should be placed in the Library.
    As I said, subsection (1) of my Amendment No. 7 is declaratory. As regards the representation point, the matters I would respectfully ask the Committee to
    CWH 22
    consider are the competence of the person who represents the child and the expertise that is required. We should remember that a child is involved, perhaps a very young child.
    I refer to legal aid and the selected panel, at whatever level, of those who are going to represent the child. I am not suggesting that lawyers are necessarily the best people to represent a child. That is a matter that I would like the Committee to consider. I suggest that someone like the Official Solicitor or the Lord Chancellor, or somebody in an objective position, would be in a position to establish a panel of competent lawyers. Not all lawyers are competent. Everybody knows that. It is very important not to pick one who knows nothing about children. If a lawyer spends his life in the criminal courts dealing with robbery cases, for example, he will not know anything about the matter we are discussing. That is an important point. I do not have the necessary expertise to draft subsection (2) of the amendment and I seek the Committee's assistance on that.
    As to subsection (3) of the amendment, we have the problem of the meeting of the child with the adopters. I am told that what happens so often now is that the wretched child is told by a social worker, "You are going to have new parents tomorrow", or something like that. There is no way in which the shock or the trauma is cushioned. That is what I am told. I am not saying that it is the usual practice, but I am told that it happens. Subsection (3) of my amendment is designed to ensure that at least the child should meet the adopters and that the child's views should he canvassed. At the moment there is no such process. It may be in the document referred to by the Minister, which I have not seen and have now forgotten what it was called—the National Adoption Standards. It may be there, and I may be raising an unnecessary point. This is a probing amendment, and on that I also ask for the Committee's assistance.
    The other aspect of subsection (3) is that one has to ensure, I would suggest, that the child should be heard in the court of first instance if the child is sufficient of understanding. This is a mandatory provision there, but it is not mandatory in the appellate courts. If the appellate court wishes, it has a discretion to see the child, but that would not be mandatory. These aspects which I have asked your Lordships to consider in subsections (2) and (3) support my suggestion that my noble friend Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and I, as well as anyone else who would wish to come, would be welcome to try and devise a better, composite form for raising these issues of representation and the voice of the child.
    As to subsection (5), for the reasons I have given, it is now otiose. As for subsection (6), I am told that these basic services are—I heard the Minister use the word and I wrote it down—"patchy". That is exactly what I had been told in the context of subsection (6). I have therefore suggested that there should be some regulation to establish uniformity. Of course in some cases the service is good, in others it is bad, and in others, according to my information, it is virtually non-existent.

    CWH 23
    To conclude, the amendment is concerned with safeguards for the interests of children in desperate need of loving care in a stable family relationship who have to remain in care because they cannot return home or have no home. A family relationship is afforded by adoption. Is not the risk of adoption as proposed by this Bill, perhaps with this amendment in some form, far less of a risk than the risk of care where there is no prospect of a loving family relationship and, at times, the unwelcome exposure to unacceptable treatment such as was identified in the Waterhouse report? So, my Lords, if we may muse on understanding, I beg to move.
    5 p.m.
    Lord Clement-Jones: The noble Lord alluded to subsection (4) early in his speech, but he did not specifically mention it when taking us through the subsections. There is quite a debate, if he chooses to have one, about the application of subsection (4).
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am much obliged. In fact I forgot. However, I did mention it as it related to an amendment that was being moved. I shall be very brief.
    Your Lordships may take the view that there should be some legal commitment by adopters. The form that it should take should not be too stereotyped, but it should be open to the assessment to say, "The legal commitment is in this form or that form", be it financial or not, which inevitably takes account of adoption, social entitlement and so forth, and to make a recommendation having regard to the means of the proposed adopters. That recommendation does not bind the judge or the court. The court can accept it or not accept it. However, it does stand as an earnest, and it stands for the protection of the children. I am not sure in what form it should be drafted. I have done the best that I can with it. With respect, however, I should like your Lordships to deal with the matter.
    Baroness David: I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, a question which relates to subsection (4). I wonder whether the provision would cover a situation which I outlined in my speech on Second Reading. I should also like to know what the Minister has to say about this. On Second Reading, I said:
    "I turn to another aspect—information and transparency. The situation is much better than it used to be, but surely a child's history should be available at the time of matching and should not be left until he moves in with the adoptive family when a placement order is made".—[Official Report, 10/06/02; col. 62.]
    I should like to know about this matching, whether this is made clear at that time, and whether this is done. I asked the question on Second Reading but did not receive an answer from the Minister, which was not altogether surprising. Nevertheless, I should like to know. There are many admirable aspects to the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I do not know, but I suspect that the Minister may ultimately say that the new clause is unnecessary.
    CWH 24
    However, I should like an answer on whether this matter has any relevance to subsection (4) of the new clause.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: Quite clearly it has. However, it must have had a subliminal effect. I remember the noble Baroness's speech; I was there. To be totally frank, however, now that the noble Baroness points it out, it very much marries, in a way, with the concept which she has raised. It is part of it. I take no pride of authorship. The only pride I have is to put a proposition to your Lordships for your Lordships' consideration.
    The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I find myself in something of a quandary on which I shall no doubt need to take the Committee's advice. I was intending to make some comments on the last nine words of subsection (5) of the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. In his speech just now, however, he has suggested not only that the subsection will be withdrawn, but that it will be withdrawn on the strength of a government paper that none of us has seen. It seems to me that that paper requires just the same type of questioning as that required by the proposal itself.
    I am therefore quite puzzled as to how to proceed. I do now know whether I should offer that questioning, or whether I should simply make a note that, should anything of this sort continue in the Bill—in Amendments Nos. 71, 72, 73 and 122—I, with others, shall wish to make the types of points that I want to make now. As the proposal will be withdrawn, and the government document in its place is not before us, I am not very clear about the procedure. Perhaps I should sit down and ask for advice before going on.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: As far as subsection (5) is concerned, I have said that it is otiose. I did not say that I will withdraw it. It is otiose, as any of your Lordships would think if you had read the letter.
    The Lord Bishop of Winchester: As we have not read the letter, and therefore do not know whether the subsection is otiose, and as the letter as reported by the noble Lord seems to raise just the same issues as those raised by the last nine words, we are surely in something of a quandary as to how to proceed.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My advice to the right reverend Prelate is to plough on. This is a relevant and interesting debate which will inform our later discussion on future amendments. It is also right that noble Lords should speak to the current amendment, Amendment No. 7.
    As for practice, whenever we receive a letter during the passage of a Bill from a noble Lord who is taking part in our deliberations, our normal practice is to respond to that noble Lord and to send copies to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The problem here is probably that I agreed the letter at the end of Friday. Inevitably, with the best will in the world, it takes time to get through to noble Lords. The noble Lord has kindly said that we

    CWH 25
    can now copy that letter into the Library of the House, and I will circulate it to all Members who have been present at Second Reading and in Committee.
    The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I should then take the Minister's advice and, as he puts it, plough on. I crave the indulgence of the Committee in so doing.
    First, it is important to note the words in Clause 1(2), which in my experience of reading both the Commons discussion and the discussion on 10th June, at which I was not able to be present, have not been quoted anything like as often as those that immediately proceed them. Clause 1(2), correctly quoted as it has always been, speaks of the paramount consideration being the child's welfare. Already today the words "throughout his life" have been quoted, but very often they are not. It seems to me that that puts a strong premium on the greatest possible assurance of the permanence of adoptive parental relationships.
    Those of us who have had the privilege to grow up through a substantial part of our lives with our parents alive, and those of us who have had the privilege to be parents whether natural or adoptive, will know that parenting goes on and on. We also know that the family relationships, of which parenting and being a child is a part, are trans-generational, and they include a range of relationships of all kinds; more distant blood relationships and friend relationships.
    If taken seriously, the words, "throughout his life" seem to underline the importance of the root question, which was well put by various speakers in your Lordships' debate on 10th June. It was: how can those who have not made a permanent commitment to each other in marriage—the word later used in the Bill is "enduring" commitment—publicly and in the face of relatives, friends and so on, take on the particular character of parenting which in all respects is like that of natural parenting but is that of adoptive parenting? That is in part a question about "enduring".
    I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, a question which I would put in terms of what seemed to me to be among the most distinguished speeches on 10th June; that of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. I want to ask whether the language of subsection (5), and any language which may replace it which does not discriminate against homosexual couples as such, allows an authority, whatever that authority may be—and we had that debate on Amendments Nos. 1 to 3—to admit into the weighing and decision making the kinds of questions that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, raised in the middle of his speech.
    There is an argument to be had—the Minister may believe that it is concluded and many others, doubtless equally qualified, may believe that it is not concluded—about the effectiveness and the effects of same-sex parenting. There are questions of religious conviction and not only from Christians. Does the kind of language in those last nine words preclude the possibility of such arguments being heard by those responsible? If that is the intention, is that not a remarkably draconian intention?
    CWH 26
    As part of the same point, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, spoke of listening to the views of parents. Clause 1(4)(f)(iii) speaks more widely of relatives, but let us suppose that it was among the views of parents and relatives that such an adoption was, for whatever reason whether on the grounds of evidence or religious conviction or both, inadmissible. Do those nine words, and anything that replaces them, foreclose such evidence and such conviction?
    What of the language in the second part of subsection (6), as regards the judgment of the court and any other,
    "that making the order would be better for the child than not doing so"?
    Are such considerations admissible or not within the wording of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell?
    There are some further points which it seems important to make, although perhaps they are of a more procedural kind. First, I would like to know more about the character of the legal commitment in subsection (4) of the noble Lord's proposed clause in relation to the making of legal commitments by a couple who, in many legal senses, are not a couple—at least until the discussion around the Civil Partnerships Bill has been fully had. Does the noble Lord's language here, and the language of the Bill in general on the other points I have mentioned—Amendments Nos. 71 to 73 and 122—pre-judge that set of discussions which are still to be had?
    Finally, an undertaking was given in the Commons debate that the Government would bring forward what was described by the Secretary of State for Health as necessary amendments to deal with any legal or technical implications. Perhaps I have missed them, but I have not seen them on the face of the Bill. I suspect that they relate to the still contentious questions concerning the further work to be done following the debate on the Civil Partnerships Bill in your Lordships' House in early January. However, I ought to make clear that I and others would want to argue that anything like those last nine words of the noble Lord's subsection (5) should not stand part of the Bill.
    5.15 p.m.
    Baroness Barker: I rise in part to beat the noble Earl. Lord Howe, in answering the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I strongly believe that we have come too early to one of the biggest and most difficult parts of the Bill. In saying that, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, for putting forward his amendment in the way he has. In so doing, he has admirably pulled together many of the main concerns about how the Bill will operate in practice. I thank him for putting forward an amendment which specifically talks about how implementation will take place.
    I think back to a number of other Bills in which similar discussions on similar issues have taken place. An enormous amount of time has been spent by this House in discussing first matters of principle and then matters of great detail and regulation and having very

    CWH 27
    similar discussions on both. It is commendable that in moving the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has recognised that these are issues of principle for some people. However, for many more people they are issues of practice and concern. The Minister would do well to look at the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has framed his intentions, although, by his own admission, they are not perfect. They have given rise to a very interesting and helpful debate, to which I should like us to return at a later stage.
    In response to the right reverend Prelate, I should tell him, first, that this is an issue on which there will be strongly held opinions and beliefs. However, I do not believe that this Committee is the place in which to hold that discussion, or even to have such a discussion at great length. I believe that many of our colleagues will wish to debate the issue when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. It has been useful to have an airing of some of the issues, not least for our colleagues who read the reports of our proceedings and study them.
    I, too, listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, on Second Reading. One of the parts that I found the most sad was his frank admission that his mind was closed on these matters. Notwithstanding very strong opinions, I believe that this is an issue on which it is not helpful to have closed minds on either side. The one thing that our House can do, perhaps in a way that no other place in this country can, is to have an open, thorough, and thoughtful debate without rancour and recrimination. It seems to me that that is one of the most important functions that we can fulfil, whatever decision the House reaches. It is a matter of some sadness that noble Lords have effectively closed their mind to the issue.
    The second point that I wish to make to the right reverend Prelate is that one of the most important facets of the debate on Second Reading was the extent to which people on all sides made an admission that there is very little evidence in this area. That is, perhaps, a matter for both sides to consider and to reflect upon over the course of the summer. Many of us will be pondering these issues before we return to the matter at a later stage.
    Without coming to any conclusion on one side or the other, I believe that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for which I thank him, has been extremely helpful.
    The Lord Bishop of Winchester: As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is not here to respond himself to the point that the noble Baroness said, perhaps I may clarify the position. In what the noble Baroness admirably says about minds not being closed, she is presumably open to that possibility as regards those on many sides of the discussion.
    Baroness Barker: I believe I did say that. At the end of the day, we are dealing with the real lives of
    CWH 28
    vulnerable children. Above all else, I believe that ideology should not stand in the way of their wellbeing. I believe that as passionately as anything else.
    Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I should just like to pick up two points in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. The first relates to subsection (5). Where a married couple are contemplating adoption, it is most usually because they have been trying, often for a number of years, to have children of their own unsuccessfully. Therefore, they have probably been married for a number of years. That gives some sort of criterion for assessing their stability. The same may also be the case for an unmarried couple, a cohabiting couple.
    In the case of a homosexual couple, this is obviously not the case. I wonder whether it is contemplated that there should be any minimum time for which they should have had to be together before they can be considered for adoption. If so, I wonder what that minimum time should be. I have heard it suggested that two years should be the minimum time, but that seems to me to be perhaps too little.
    My other point relates to subsection (3)(a), which says that,
    "the adoption agency shall arrange a meeting with the prospective adopters having informed the child of the prospect of adoption".
    I believe I am right in saying that best practice nowadays is generally that the child should be fostered by the prospective adopters for a period of time before he is asked to make any decision as to whether or not he wishes to live with those people; and, indeed before any decision is taken as to whether they wish to adopt him.
    Baroness Howarth of Breckland: The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, helped me to sort out something in my mind. Being fairly new to these procedures, I am struggling somewhat to sort out quite where we are. I believe that we are trying to deal with two issues here. The first is how, on the face of the Bill, we can make better legislation that will help us to implement better practice. I am not sure that those two things are easily matched. Therefore, in the process of adoption, I was certainly surprised by the anecdote that a child had not been told except by a social worker that he was going to be adopted. My experience is that it is a very complex process. A baby would not know anyway and older children have usually been in care, which means that there has been a process of discussion about their future, with reviews and panels, until a conclusion is reached. There is then a very difficult process involving matching, discussion and introduction. The latter is very difficult to implement through statute. Therefore, although I admire the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, because I cannot see how I could ever get this clause together, I cannot see how it is useful in implementation.
    While I am on my feet, I should like to consider the very difficult issue of partnerships. I do not think for one moment that there will be huge numbers of same-sex couples adopting children. If one considers the child's needs as being paramount, we are looking to

    CWH 29
    place those children who either find themselves with one parent who has settled down with another partner, where the first partner has disappeared, and wish to be brought up by those two people; or children in similar situations where he or she is known to both partners.
    An adoption agency would he very concerned about a same-sex couple coming out of the blue for a baby. It would not be a matter of prejudice, but simply because most children need two parents. If you can find two parents of the opposite sex to form a proper family, then that is fine. I say that coming from a background where I have worked with families of all sorts. I recognise the changes that are taking place in our society. To say that adoption is always like natural parenting is not to understand the kind of children who are going to be placed in families and the kind of experience that those families will have in bringing up such adopted children. Anyone who has worked with those families will know about the excruciating difficulties that they have, and why they need support.
    I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will withdraw his amendment, simply because I cannot see how we can legislate for practice in this way. However, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak on these issues.
    5.30 p.m.
    Baroness Could of Potternewton: There is much that I would like to say on subsection (5) of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. However, I would like to leave most of it for another time because we will have time in Committee—we need not wait for Report—when we can debate the issues in greater detail. I would like to make two particular points.
    One is about fostering. If a child is currently being fostered by an unmarried couple who then want to adopt, only one of them can do so. Surely it is not good for the child suddenly to find that after being in a stable relationship he is in one which becomes unstable. That is one of the serious anomalies of the present situation.
    I want to make another point. I am sorry that we are quoting the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, when he is not here but I hope he will be able to be here when we discuss the Bill further. At Second Reading he stated:
    "It is not a case of considering the child's welfare at the moment of escape from a care home or an institution but for the rest of that child's life".—[Official Report, 10/0/02; col. 98.]
    Of course, that is what the whole argument is about. We are talking about a child having two parents for life, not about suddenly gaining two parents and things going wrong as life goes on. We are talking about trying to make sure that there are two parents who can take decisions about that child's education, about the child's health, about whether the child can go on a trip or whatever. So to argue that somehow or other this does not go through the child's life but is just at that moment when the child is taken out of care is the wrong approach and it is standing the whole argument on its head.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps I may make a brief comment on subsection (5) of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell
    CWH 30
    of Alloway, which he has already told us he is not going press. In writing it he made a useful point by stating:
    "A new scheme of rigorous assessment shall be instituted … which does not discriminate against homosexual couples as such".
    I am looking forward very much to receiving the copy of the Minister's letter which I am sure will address that point. It seems to me that the whole core of the matter is that any couple—or for that matter, individual—who wish to adopt will be assessed on exactly the same criteria as any other couple. If the assessor feels that there are inherent instabilities in that couple, after discussing things with them and learning as much as he or she can learn about them, whether the couple are married or not, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual, they should not adopt a child.
    There is therefore no question that the social workers involved will be determining matters according to the wishes of the couple; it is the good of the child to which they will return. I am hoping that when we get the Minister's letter, we shall see a good deal more about this assessment process. I hope that it will be a reassurance to people outside this room as well as those in it when they understand that that is the case.
    Earl Howe: I rise briefly to add my congratulations to my noble friend on this amendment, which raises a large number of important points in a very short space. Although he disclaimed any pretence to being a parliamentary draftsman, he could have fooled me!
    I would like to make one or two brief points. I entirely subscribe to the sentiments behind subsection (2). Of course, independent representation through CAFCASS is already supposed to happen. Unfortunately, the main failing with the current system, apart from the fact that CAFCASS is in very severe organisational difficulties, is lack of continuity. One quite frequently finds that although the same person is supposed to follow a child through the case from start to finish, that does not always work out and for obvious reasons the disruption can be damaging to the whole process.
    I looked at subsection (3)(b) and had a great deal of sympathy with it. I wonder whether, on reflection, my noble friend would agree, particularly in the light of our earlier debate on hearing the views of the child, the phrase he has employed that
    "the views of the child shall be heard"
    should be qualified very slightly. We should, of course, listen to what a child has to say, but we should also remember that a child is still a child and on the whole, in matters of critical importance, children need some form of guidance if they are to make the right decisions. Without guidance the degree of judgment that a child exercises in some cases is not really adequate to enable him to decide that he would like to forsake all that he knows, however ghastly that may be, in favour of going into a stranger's home and living with another family.

    CWH 31
    By all means consult the child and ensure that he or she knows exactly what is going on and why, but also be sure that someone is being a real parent in the sense of being a good guide and a wise advocate. That is the flavour that we get from Clause 1(4(a) of the Bill. There is a clear steer there on taking into account the child's ability to understand what is going on.
    With that, I readily concede that my noble friend has raised some extremely important points. I am going to skirt over his subsection (5) because that is a matter for a later debate, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. As other Members of the Committee have suggested, he has raised a number of very important considerations which we will debate in separate amendments. There are some important points that I would like to respond to as a result of the debate.
    It is a unique experience for me to say to the noble Lord that in four years it is the first time I have been congratulated on ministerial correspondence. In general we will do our very best to ensure that where it is relevant and where the noble Lord agrees, that correspondence is copied as quickly as possible to other noble Lords when it is relevant to our deliberations.
    Secondly, as far as the specifics of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, raises a very interesting question to which we will return on more than one occasion. It is what is right for the Bill in terms of setting out the broad principles and what is right in terms of ensuring that the practice at the local level is as effective as possible. Some of our debates have centred on that fact.
    Ultimately, we need to be very careful to ensure that any enacted legislation is as clear as possible to those in the field who have to implement it. Equally, there is a responsibility on my department to ensure that we work with agencies, with the Local Government Association and with the directors of social services to ensure that advice, guidance, training and support is available to those people who have to operate the Bill once enacted.
    As for subsection (2) of the amendment, on the child having access to the Official Solicitor, and on a technical point, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service was set up on 1st April 2001, bringing together the children's section of the Official Solicitor's Office, the guardian ad litem, reporting officer panels and the Family Court Welfare Services for England and Wales. Clearly, therefore, it is the responsibility of CAFCASS.
    I have listened to the comments on CAFCASS's effectiveness, and I know that those comments are being considered. The substantive point, however, is to ensure that the voice of the child is heard throughout the court process, as we discussed in relation to an earlier amendment. While noble Lords have not
    CWH 32
    necessarily agreed with my conclusions, I hope that they will recognise that we understand the importance of the matter. Consequently, regulations and court rules will be consulted upon to ensure that the child does have a voice. The same comments apply to subsection (3) of the amendment, which take us back to our earlier debate.
    As for the assessment of adopters, the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Winchester was right to echo the comments of my noble friend Lady Gould about the importance of recognising that the paramount consideration in Clause 1(2) is the child's welfare throughout his life. As noble Lords know, when it comes to the question of the assessment process, the principle by which we are governed is the need for the most rigorous assessment process which applies equally to all prospective adopters regardless of their marital status or sexual orientation.
    Clause 44 amplifies the general power in Clause 9 to make regulations in respect of the functions of adoption agencies and adoption support agencies. Subsection (1) of Clause 44 provides that regulations under Clause 9 may make provision as to the matters to be taken into account by an adoption agency in determining or making any report in respect of the suitability of any persons to adopt a child.
    Subsection (2) of Clause 44 makes it clear that the regulations may make provision to ensure that adoption agencies pay proper regard to the stability and permanence of the relationship between prospective adopters when determining their suitability to adopt. The requirements on the stability and permanence of the relationship set out in the regulations made under this clause will apply to the assessment of both married and unmarried prospective adopters.
    The regulations made under this clause, accompanied by statutory guidance —although I do not particularly want to go down the path of discussing again what is meant by statutory guidance—will ensure that, in the interest of children, only couples in stable and lasting relationships will be approved to adopt jointly. Similarly, regardless of whether the prospective adopters are single or a couple, they will not be approved to adopt unless they can demonstrate that they can provide a stable and loving home for a child.
    In the White Paper we promised and are currently performing a fundamental review of the adopter assessment process. We are taking this forward in close consultation with key stakeholders. The object of the review is to ensure that the adopter education, training and assessment system is transparent and ensures that adopters are approved who are empowered to meet the need of the range of children and young people waiting to be adopted.
    The scope of the review will include the range of criteria used for the assessment of potential adopters and the consistency of their applications across the country with a view to improving the process in future. This will be an extensive piece of work which is critical to making sure that we get it right. It clearly informs

    CWH 33
    the decision in relation to unmarried couples, whether same sex or opposite sex. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is right to raise the issue of how it can be shown that people are indeed in a stable and loving relationship. As I said, we are carrying out a fundamental review of the adopter assessment process which addresses the very issue that she raises.
    5.45 p.m.
    The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester asked me about the consequential amendments to the amendment on unmarried couples passed in another place. I shall be writing very shortly to noble Lords with the proposed government amendments which I hope will inform the debate in Committee. I stress, however, that my intention is not to table those consequential amendments in Committee as I believe that that would be best done later in the Bill's passage. However, I think that it would be helpful to noble Lords at least to know what consequential amendments the Government have in mind.
    Finally, perhaps I could respond to two other issues, the first of which—on "patchy" services in general—was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. All the work done in the past few years on the practice of adoption services leads one to conclude that services are very patchy indeed—from the wholly inadequate to the excellent. The National Adoption Standards, and the consultation report which we issued today on providing effective adoption support, very much draw on the excellent good practice that currently exists. The challenge is to spread that practice and to ensure that it is implemented across the country.
    My noble friend Lady David slightly took me to task for not responding to her point on Second Reading. After 30 minutes of speaking in that debate, I thought that noble Lords had generally thought that I had said enough. I agree with her that as much information as is appropriate about the child and his characteristics and background should be provided at the matching stage so that adopters can make an informed decision on whether they wish to be matched with that child. The powers under Clause 53 enable us to make regulations setting out the information that should be provided at key points during the whole adoption process.
    Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Before the noble Lord sits down, will we be able to have copies of the draft of the regulations under Section 9?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, those will not be available for some months, and certainly not before the passage of the legislation.
    Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister sits down, having listened to the debate, I should like to ask him a question about the voice of the child. As my noble friend Lady Howarth says, a baby would not know what was going on. What is the advice on the age of the child? Or is the matter based on its intelligence
    CWH 34
    and whether it is thought to understand? There should be some guidance for those who will be administrating this.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We had an earlier debate when we discussed those very points.
    Baroness Masham of Ilton: Yes, when I was stuck on the other one.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I was riot going to be as indelicate as to remark that the noble Baroness was not in her place at that time. There will be guidance and regulations covering that point. I feel that it would be very difficult indeed to make a hard and fast rule that, up to age 10, the child will be treated differently from a child over that age—though clearly, the older the child in general terms the more appropriate it is for him to be involved. Surely one has to make a judgment in the case of every child because every child is an individual and, as parents, we know that children of the same age can have very different maturity. The general principle is set out in the Bill in terms of obtaining the ascernible wishes of the child. We shall follow that up by consultation on appropriate regulations.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I feel that the less I say the better, because we shall have another opportunity to discuss this matter and the questions that have been raised. My case was put in two sentences—just like that—by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. It was then supported by the Minister, who explained in essence why on the information that I had, if the right reverend Prelate could understand it, I had to take the point of view that there was a satisfactory new regime, and pointed out that it had been explained to me that there was going to be no discrimination whatever, as put in the terms of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. On that basis, if that is what I know, I have to accept it; and I do.
    All the points that have been made are of the greatest possible importance, particularly on guidance. Of course, that marries with representation and with who controls the representation. As I promised, I shall get together with my noble friend Lord Howe and the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Thomas, and anyone else who would care to join us, to try to work out a sensible composite provision and decide where we should put it in the Bill, but assuredly not in Clause 1. I undertake to make that effort. It is better that I do not entertain a reply to the questions put by the right reverend Prelate, not because I am not able to do so but because it would he a slight imposition on the time and patience of the Committee. It is a matter that can be dealt with on the Floor of the House on another occasion.
    However, as to what was said by the right reverend Prelate about the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, I can confirm that I have read his analysis. He is a very fine lawyer. There is nobody who could make a better analysis, but it was wholly unsupported by any evidence. That was in the letter of 20th November,

    CWH 35
    which the right reverend Prelate has not had an opportunity to read. So I am making no criticism, and I am certainly not excusing myself. I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Before calling the next amendment and at risk of teaching my grandparents to suck eggs, perhaps I may remind the Grand Committee that the procedures for debate are exactly the same as in the Chamber? It is not, therefore, necessary to say, "Before the Minister sits down", and so on, or to use any other such formulation.
    Baroness Barkermoved Amendment No. 8:
    Clause 2 [Basic definitions]:
    Page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (4).
    The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment, though I am not sure whether it is just probing my ignorance. I wanted to ask why an adoption agency has to be incorporated, and under what powers the Secretary of State can overrule the provisions of charity law. Under charity law, my understanding is that only the trustees of a charitable body can determine its government. I am not saying that this is a provision with which I would necessarily disagree. However, as the noble Lord knows, this happens to be one of my areas of expertise, and one of my areas of interest. I also have an approach, which comes from a point of principle; namely, that I believe the Secretary of State should confine himself to powers that are right. I do not believe that over-riding charity law is one of them. However, having said that, I should like the Minister to explain just why this provision is in the Bill. I beg to move.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Amendments Nos. 50, 106, 117 and 119, which stand in my name, have been included in this grouping. However, perhaps I may, first, respond to the very reasonable questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, put to me, though I accept this is a somewhat arcane area.
    Clause 2 provides the number of basic definitions with regard to the adoption service provided by local authorities and approved voluntary adoption agencies. These definitions are used throughout the Bill. At present, voluntary adoption agencies in England and Wales are inspected and approved by the Social Services Inspectorate. From April 2003, they will be inspected and registered by the National Care Standards Commission in England, or by the National Assembly in Wales, under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000.
    Amendment No. 8 would remove subsection (4) of Clause 2, which provides that an adoption society that is an unincorporated body, may not apply for registration under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000. Under the existing legal framework, registered adoption societies must be incorporated bodies. This requirement is currently contained in subsection (2),
    CWH 36
    Regulation 2, of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983. Therefore, it has been included in regulations for some time. We have decided to provide for it expressly on the face of the Bill.
    It is essential for a registered adoption society to be an incorporated body. An incorporated body is a legal person, which is separate and distinct from the individual members of the body. An unincorporated body has no such separate legal existence and is not in law distinguishable from its members. This is very important because adoption agencies may have parental responsibility for a child. This is a significant responsibility, and there must be a clear definition in law of where that responsibility lies. That is why it is vital that all adoption societies that are registered under the Care Standards Act 2000 are incorporated bodies.
    The latter links in with amendments that we have tabled regarding the registration of voluntary adoption agencies. During the progress of the Bill, it came to our attention that there was an inconsistency between the Care Standards Act 2000 and the Bill. The provisions in Section 11(2) of the Care Standards Act require each branch of a voluntary adoption agency to register as a separate agency under Part 2 of that Act. However, Clause 2(5) of the Bill contains the requirement that a voluntary adoption agency must be an "incorporated body", as it must also be under Regulation 2(2) of the current Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983. This means that the agency must be registered as a single body and that each branch cannot be registered separately.
    This requirement is fundamental to the structure of the Bill. An incorporated body is a legal person, which is separate and distinct from the individual members of the body. An unincorporated body has no such separate legal existence, and is not in law distinguishable from its members. Adoption agencies, as I have said, may have parental responsibility for a child and, therefore, there must be a clear definition in law.
    As for the conflict between the Care Standards Act 2000 and the Bill, we propose to disapply the requirements in Section 11(2of the Care Standards Act in respect of voluntary adoption agencies. This is the effect of Amendment No. 117. This amendment also makes it clear that Section 5 of the Care Standards Act, which defines what is meant by registration authority, is made subject to new Section 36A.
    The remaining amendments ensure that, given that there will be no branch registration, each registration authority under the Care Standards Act—the National Care Standards Commission (in England) and the National Assembly for Wales—has the appropriate level of scrutiny over the activity of agencies operating in their area.
    Amendment No. 50 inserts new Section 36A into Part 2 of the Care Standards Act. The new Section 36A makes provision for the distribution of functions in relation to registered adoption societies to ensure that the National Assembly for Wales has the appropriate level of oversight of branches of voluntary adoption

    CWH 37
    agencies situated in Wales, but registered in England, and the National Care Standards Commission has the appropriate level of oversight of branches of voluntary adoption agencies situated in England, but registered in Wales.
    Subsection (1) sets out what those functions are. First, they are functions relating to voluntary adoption agencies conferred on the registration authority by or under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act, for example, functions relating to the registration of an agency. Secondly, they are those functions conferred in regulations made under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Bill, for example, the function of the registration authority to receive a fee on notification of a change of ownership.
    Subsection (2) provides that unless alternative provision is made in subsections (3) to (5), or in regulations under new Section 36A(6), the functions of the registration authority are to be exercisable according to where the principal office of an agency is situated. If it is in England, it is the National Care Standards Commission and if it is in Wales, it is the National Assembly for Wales. To make this clear, for example where a voluntary adoption agency has its principal office in England, it must register with the National Care Standards Commission (in England). Under the Care Standards Act, the registration of an agency may be subject to conditions. Conditional registration will be used to restrict the services a voluntary adoption agency is authorised to provide. For example, a voluntary adoption agency may be registered only to provide adoption services for domestic adoptions. Subsection (3) provides that where the National Care Standards Commission (in England), or the National Assembly for Wales imposes, varies or removes conditions of registration, they may do so only after consultation with the other authority. However, if an agency has a branch in Wales, then the commission must obtain the agreement of the Assembly to the imposition, variation or removal of conditions, and vice versa.
    Subsection (5) is about inspection. It provides that where the premises of an agency are in England, they are to be inspected by the commission, and where the premises are in Wales, they are to be inspected by the Assembly. This will enable the commission to inspect branches of agencies which operate in England but are registered in Wales and vice versa.
    Subsection (6) provides that regulations may be made enabling any function,
    "to which this section applies to be exercisable by the Commission instead of the Assembly, or by the Assembly instead of the Commission, or by one concurrently with the other, or by both jointly or by either with the agreement of or after consultation with the other".
    These regulations are to be made jointly by the Secretary of State and the Assembly. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that the commission and the Assembly are not inappropriately restricted in the action they can take in relation to voluntary adoption agencies.
    CWH 38
    Amendment No. 106 is consequential on the more substantial amendments I have just outlined. It amends Clause 96 of the Bill to provide for either the Assembly or the commission to bring proceedings against an adoption agency for contravening regulations under Clause 9, or for contravening Clause 58. This mirrors the provision in Section 29 of the Care Standards Act and gives greater flexibility in relation to prosecution. If it were deemed appropriate, it would allow the Assembly to bring proceedings against a voluntary adoption agency registered in England where the offence was committed at a Welsh branch of the agency.
    Amendment No. 119 is a technical amendment consequential on the new section. It amends Clause 135(4) which provides that where subordinate legislation is made by the Assembly, it is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny at Westminster. The amendment makes it clear that where subordinate legislation is made jointly by the Secretary of State and the Assembly, it will be subject either to the negative, or as the case may be, to the affirmative resolution procedure in the Westminster Parliament.
    These are somewhat complex amendments. I hope that the Committee appreciates that the intention is to ensure that the Care Standards Act and the Bill work well together; that we are enabled to deal with agencies based in England that have branches in Wales, or vice versa; to make sure that there is no slipping through the net; and that the agencies in England and Wales work closely together.
    6 p.m.
    Baroness Barker: It is not every day that my paid employment is described as arcane. The amendments may be complex, but they are riveting and fascinating to some of us who work in the field.
    I am very grateful to the Minister for the clarification. I entirely accept the point about adoption agencies having parental responsibility. I accept that as a reason for incorporation. I probably would have suggested that if I was not an adviser to an adoption agency, given the potential risk that they run of being sued and so on. I wanted to check that out.
    I had another reason for doing so that might interest the right reverend Prelate. I wanted to make sure that diocesan boards would not be caught by the measure because a number of them, as we know, are actively involved in the process of adoption. I am not sure whether under charity law they are incorporated bodies or not, but I should imagine that they are and will have to be because they have been involved in that process for some time.
    I was interested in what the Minister had to say about the issue of registration in regard to Wales. The other day when we discussed a children's rights director and a children's commissioner for Wales and the fact that some of the child protection legislation would operate under a slightly different regime I wondered what charities would do if they were registered in both England and Wales. Some charities are registered wholly within Wales if they are organised on a federal basis.

    CWH 39
    I should like to point out to the Minister that a great deal of work has been done in Wales as regards information within the health service, for example in relation to children. A report was produced by my noble friend Lord Carlile. While the principles are the same, a branch of a charity operating in two countries could find itself operating not within a wildly different legal framework but in different ways in practice in the two countries. That is what concerns me.
    I thank the Minister very much for one of the best speeches that he has ever made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No.9:
    Page 3, line 17, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
    The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 9 seeks to amend subsection (6) of Clause 2. This is a probing amendment seeking further information about the financial aspects of adoption support services, which will of course be specified in regulations.
    The amendment seeks to make it compulsory for adoption support regulations to deal with financial support. I do not believe that that is controversial because the Explanatory Notes, at paragraph 30, state that it is the Government's intention that the services set out in regulations will include financial support. I hope that the Minister will agree that regulations must contain financial support matters.
    There are a number of problems with the current system of financial support for adopted children. Perhaps the largest of these is the postcode lottery of different amounts being awarded in different parts of the country. In fact, in many cases, no adoption allowance at all is available. There are particular difficulties with the level of financial support for children with psychological or emotional problems. The Special Standing Committee in another place received evidence about the variability and level of financial support, and this can have an impact on attracting more people to adopt. While finance is by no means the most important consideration for people considering adoption, it is an important matter for many.
    Many other issues are involved, including the relativity between fostering allowances and adoption allowances and the disincentive effect that has. There is the question of whether allowances may be paid to allow the adoptive parents to purchase adoptive support services or whether they must receive the services that local authorities want to supply. And there is the interaction with means-tested benefits of income support where adoption allowances are treated as income, thus reducing available income support.
    I hope the Minister will be able to say something about the Government's approach to financial support, and I hope he will also be able to say something about where the money will come from. In particular, will there be any central budget or
    CWH 40
    provision for this, or will it be left to local authorities with all the consequent problems of local budgetary constraints?
    I am conscious that a consultation document was issued on Friday. I regret I was aware of it only when I came into the room today, so I have not had the opportunity of finding out whether that document answers the points I have put to the Minister. I hope he will grant me some tolerance in that regard and answer the questions. I beg to move.
    Lord Campbell of Alloway: I support this amendment. First, the regulation "shall include" does not mean that discretion to provide them is removed. One has to draw a distinction but it is a very real one and the amendment as it is drafted does not remove the discretion. Secondly, I support it inevitably because it is part of my subsection (4) in Amendment No. 7. That states:
    "taking into account an entitlement to support services to be established on adoption".
    The amendment marries with my own hopes.
    Baroness Masham of Ilton: If we are talking about difficult children coming out of care, it is absolutely impossible for parents to adopt them if they cannot have support. This will be the deciding factor. There is such a big difference between "may" and "shall". As the Minister has said, throughout the country such support is patchy. The word "shall" will make all the difference to those very bad patches, and therefore I support the amendment.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Committee stage of health Bills and social care Bills would be nothing if we did not have "may" or "shall" debates. First, I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I take it that the amendment does not fetter the discretion of local authorities to decide whether or not to provide financial support, it is just that financial support should always be an issue which the local authority would consider.
    I have considerable sympathy with the intent behind the amendment. We have always envisaged that the list of adoption support services that would be set out in the regulations would include financial support. We have already made a commitment to improve the availability of financial support for adoptive families, and I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, concerning the current experience. As she said, it is very patchy and there are great difficulties between individual local authorities. I also agree with her that evidence from the US, which is included in the consultative document issued on Friday, shows that the availability of adoption allowances and adoption support services is a positive influence in the US figures. It influenced 35 per cent of adoptive parents in their decision to adopt. In the same study, 29 per cent of parents who received an adoption allowance reported that adoption would not have been possible without that allowance. This is very clearly and extremely important consideration.

    CWH 41
    As regards resources, in the current spending review we have been investing £66.5 million over the three year period of the review to improve councils' adoption services. In the current spending review, financial support would look to that as part of the way local authorities would raise the resource. One cannot absolve local authorities from needing to invest from their more general allocations towards adoption support services.
    In our White Paper, we have promised to develop a new national framework for adoption support services and financial support. Following the consultation period of the Providing Effective Adoption Support paper which came out last Friday, we will finalise the framework in the light of the responses received before publishing for consultation the draft regulations on adoption support and financial support. I would also point Members of the Committee to the National Adoption Standards. They also made it clear that children and adopters are entitled to have access to a range of adoption support services, including financial support, where these services are needed.
    The Government intend to make regulations under Clause 2(6) to provide that adoption support services include financial support. However, in the light of the debate and the comments made, I am certainly prepared to look at the matter anew, to see whether we need to make the Government's position even clearer than I have stated. No doubt we will return to it on Report.
    6.15 p.m.
    The Earl of Listowel: I have just two points of clarification as regards the funding for post-adoption support. Does the Minister have any calculations as to how much money will be saved if the target for adoption is reached? If children are moving out of care and into adoption, how much money will be saved?
    Can the Minister say whether there will be any mechanism in place to ensure that the money saved will go towards support for the children who have been adopted?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not have any figures but I certainly take the point that the noble Earl has raised; that local authorities doing better is a good thing in itself because they will help many more children who can be adopted. That makes sense both in terms of the lives of those individual children and more generally because it should certainly ease some of the big problems we face as regards looked-after children. When we think of their educational attainment, or lack of it, and many of the social problems which many of them have to confront, it is clear that the more one can get the adoption process right, the more children will be adopted in the circumstances for which we wish. One hopes that that will then make less demand on some of the statutory services that are currently provided. Frankly, however, to try to quantify that would be extremely
    CWH 42
    difficult and would consume the entire economics department of the Department of Health for many months.
    The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for his response. I hope that he will forgive me because if am coming at this as an outsider. Would it be possible to look at certain costs; for instance, how much it costs to pay fosterers to provide the service of fostering, and then to calculate how much is saved by no longer having to do that? I would be very grateful if the Minister could write to me on that point.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As part of taking forward the regulations, we will want to listen to all points of view. I shall certainly make sure that those are taken on hoard. The noble Earl mentioned foster parents but clearly one of the issues that many people have raised with us is the disincentive to foster parents to adopt children. We need to reflect on that issue 'very carefully.
    Baroness Noakes: I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. I also thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for his support in this. The Minister referred to £66 million, which is not very much money and I am sure goes almost nowhere towards dealing with the postcode lottery effect, which is one of the biggest problems that needs to be dealt with.
    A very interesting question was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on—
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The point I was trying to make was that £66.5 was a substantial addition. However, one cannot absolve local authorities from spending sufficient resources on adoption services in any case because it should be a mainstream service. Thus, while it is right to lever in additional resource to help and encourage local authorities, we should not detract from their responsibility in doing the night thing.
    Baroness Noakes: We will perhaps leave to another day what local authorities can and cannot afford in particular areas, given their local circumstances in this respect, because that could get us into a very big topic. I was saying that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, raised a very interesting question about the amount of money that is saved. I have seen some numbers which I cannot find at the moment, but it is an obvious calculation. A huge amount of money can be saved by not having a child in care and, to a lesser extent, in a foster home. It is clearly a financial benefit to have a child placed permanently with an adoptive family.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Does that mean that we should not be putting any extra resource into local government?
    Baroness Noakes: That is a very interesting question to raise but whether the money thereby saved could be recycled is something that the Government may want to consider when looking at the matter. It is a shame that this debate has taken place before we have had the

    CWH 43
    chance to look at the document that the noble Lord has had with all the yellow stickers on. Can copies of that recent document be circulated to Members of this Committee? We may well want to refer to parts of it later. However, as we have not had a chance to look at it in detail, it is not appropriate to continue any individual points of debate today. I look forward to returning to the subject at a later stage and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3 [Maintenance of Adoption Service]:
    [Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
    Baroness Barkermoved Amendment No. 11:
    Page 3, line 31, at end insert ", and
    () for the co-ordination of any services identified in section 4(9)"
    The noble Baroness said: This amendment picks up on a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in one of our earlier discussions and it was about the coordination of services. We began with a discussion about the role of local authorities and of different parts of local authorities in an overall service which adopted families and children who are to be adopted may or may not have access to. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, made the telling point about co-ordination and there being one person who tracks what happens to a child or to a family.
    When one reads some of the details of why adoption fostering placements break down, one sees that a factor—by no means a unique but a recurrent factor— is that different services fail to co-ordinate. That seems to be a deficiency in the Bill as written. This amendment alludes, as the Minister himself did, to Clause 4(9), which deals with health authorities, primary care trusts and education authorities. I have an amendment at a later stage. It seems to me that we are talking of two sets of local services and structures which are undergoing dramatic change. In many cases, health and local government are undergoing tremendous change, the most dramatic of which has been in the county of Wiltshire, for example, where the social services department has been wholly changed.
    As the Bill is drafted, there is scope for people whose needs have been assessed to fall between different agencies, and that runs counter to everything that the Bill is trying to achieve. It is with that in mind that my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood and I have identified co-ordination as being a duty. I believe that having a duty to co-ordinate services will be one of the key factors in making those services which already exist work for the benefit of the people they are supposed to work with. I beg to move.
    Baroness Noakes: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 14 which relates to a slightly different point. It adds a new subsection requiring adoption services to be provided in conjunction with the social services and adoption services of other areas. There is already a provision in Clause 3(5) which requires co-ordination
    CWH 44
    within the area of a local authority. This amendment is designed to ensure that there will be co-ordination outside the area.
    With the Government's aim to increase the number of adoptions, which we fully support, and the use of a national register, it will be more likely over time that there will be more extra territorial placements through other local authorities. It will therefore be much more important that local authorities have adequate arrangements for co-operation with other authorities, and indeed adoption societies, outside their area.
    It is already the case that some local authorities already work in consortia, and I am sure that many of them already work with societies in other areas. However, it is that level of best practice that I am trying to enshrine in this particular amendment. I hope the Minister will see this as a helpful addition to underpin the Government's own aims for the Bill, and I hope that he will welcome it.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps I should add a brief intervention on Amendment No. 13. It is a very clear amendment that adds to the list of services which are to be co-ordinated. It is important because there are occasions when a couple who expect a child to be placed with them need to improve their housing. If they then go to the housing authority, they may be told there is nothing the housing authority can do for them. There is therefore a complicated series of interrelationships which need to be kept under consideration and something done about them in order to enable the placement to go ahead.
    Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I would like to comment on Amendment No. 14. I am not certain whether the point I am going to raise is covered by that amendment. An issue which gives a great deal of concern are those children who disappear because the records are not kept from local authority to local authority. I am suggesting that in order to avoid children drifting in that way, perhaps we are looking for something else as well. The register will help, but perhaps we should also be looking for a much more effective national tracking system which would stop the problem I raised. I am not sure that Amendment No. 14 would do that absolutely.
    Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I support the amendment in relation to co-ordination but should like to ask the Minister a question about it. Work with any child clearly needs to be seen through from beginning to end, with proper continuity. As I have said before in the House, one of the great difficulties about local authorities is that constant change breaks into the relationship between the worker, whoever the worker is, and the family being worked with. One of my concerns about giving priority to the adoptive situation is that we should not detract from children in a preventive work relationship in which we are hoping to keep that child with the birth family and using resources in a similar way. I should like there to be a degree of co-ordination in relation to every child and

    CWH 45
    every family with whom social services or the health services are working. With that proviso, I support the amendment.
    Baroness Masham of Ilton: I think that the word "coordination" is very important. Perhaps the Committee will think for a moment of Victoria Climbié in relation to whom the co-ordination seemed to break down completely. When I try to chase up social services over a case, it very often turns out that the person is on leave or on a course. It is sometimes very difficult to track down the social worker, let alone the child.
    6.30 p.m.
    The Earl of Listowel: Perhaps the Minister will say what function will he performed in this process by the key worker appointed to provide adoption support. Will the key worker be a social worker or will another professional do that job? How will that role differ from the current role of the family social worker or the child social worker?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, were extremely well made. It is very important that people do not fall between different agencies. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, is absolutely right that there has to be effective co-ordination between different local authorities, when appropriate, and between the local authority and the other statutory agencies. Clause 3 certainly requires local authorities to continue to provide an adoption service within their area. The Government's view is that the facilities provided by local authorities under Clause 3 will cover all types of adoptions, whether domestic, intercountry, relative or step-parent adoptions or foster-carer adoptions.
    Clause 3(5) obliges local authorities to provide their adoption services in conjunction with their other social services and with registered adoption societies in their own areas. There is therefore a clear intent here to ensure that services are provided in a co-ordinated manner and without delay.
    Amendment No. 11 would require local authorities, as part of their adoption service, also to make and participate in arrangements for the co-ordination of health and education services. The intention behind Clause 3 is to set out the requirements for the adoption service provided by local authorities. The adoption service covers all aspects of local authorities' adoption-related activity, such as arranging adoptions, assessing prospective adopters and providing adoption support services.
    The Government are committed to ensuring that joined-up planning and provision of adoption support services take place. We made this clear in the White Paper Adoption: A New Approach, and promised that adoption support services would be planned jointly with local education authorities and the NHS. Clause 4(9) helps to achieve that.
    Clause 4 gives people affected by adoption a new right to request and receive an assessment of their needs for adoption support services from their local authority. Where it appears to the local authority that,
    CWH 46
    as a result of an assessment carried out under Clause 4, there is a need for health or education services, Clause 4(9) places the local authority under a duty to notify the appropriate health authority, primary care trust or local education authority of this need.
    Following such a notification, the health authority, primary care trust or local education authority will determine whether to provide services in accordance with its statutory obligations. That means that where people affected by adoption are entitled to receive services under the statutory framework under which health authorities, primary care trusts and local education authorities operate, those services must be provided.
    Where a health authority, primary care trust or local education authority decides to provide services, following a notification under Clause 4(9), it will be good practice for it to in form the local social services authority. This would give the local social services authority a clear picture of the package of adoption support services being provided to an individual. It will help to ensure joined-up planning and provision of public services in connection with adoption as we promised in the White Paper.
    I was interested in the important point made by my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton on how people can be trapped in the care system. As corporate parents, local authorities should know the location of the children in their care. The Government are taking action to improve record-keeping and planning for children. Local authorities are inspected by the Social Services Inspectorate, and this monitoring will continue under the National Care Standards Commission. The National Adoption Standards themselves include time scales within which the decisions for most children should be reached and action taken to ensure, for instance, that children are not kept waiting for a family.
    My noble friend Lady Gould mentioned other circumstances in which record-keeping was a problem. I expect record-keeping to be pursued as part of the normal performance management of local authorities. The key point is that the local authority has a statutory responsibility in relation to adoption services. As I said, the local authority also has the ability to make references to the NHS and to local education authorities. The clear issue is to ensure that that statutory process is co-ordinated to best effect.
    I accept that that is a challenge for the Government to take on. We shall issue guidance and directions to local education authorities, health authorities and primary care trusts to the effect that there has to be a joined-up approach, without ultimately detracting from the separate statutory responsibilities of both the NHS and local education authorities to make their own judgments about the provision they have to make. That will, however, be informed by the assessment carried out by the local authority adoption service.
    Amendment No. 13 provides that the facilities of the local authority's adoption service must be provided in conjunction with the local authority's housing services as well as with their other social services and with

    CWH 47
    registered adoption societies. I recognise the importance of this issue. It is clearly important that local housing authorities recognise the needs of adoptive families and prospective adoptive families for housing services. Local housing authorities should certainly work constructively with local social services authorities in adoption cases where they are able to do so.
    I do not, however, consider primary legislation on the adoption services provided by local social services authorities as the best place to address this issue. I believe that local housing authorities will need to determine the most appropriate way of providing housing services to adoptive families within the statutory frameworks under which they operate. However, I accept that better joint working in this area would be best addressed through guidance.
    I understand that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently consulting on a revision of the code of guidance on the allocation of accommodation, which will provide revised statutory guidance to local housing authorities on issues which they think should be taken into account in the allocation of social housing. I am certainly very happy to write to my noble friend the Minister with responsibility for Housing, without any commitment on my part, in order to raise the issue and see whether it might be addressed through the code of guidance on allocation of accommodation.
    As regards Amendment No. 14, the effect would be to provide that the facilities of the local authority adoption service must be provided in conjunction with any other local authority social services and with registered adoption societies in other areas as well as in the local authority's own area. I very much accept the principle behind the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
    In many circumstances, local authorities will need to work with other local authorities and with voluntary adoption agencies which operate outside their own area. This will be particularly important where a child is placed with a family living in another local authority area in respect of the provision of adoption support services. For this reason, subsections (10) and (11) of Clause 4 place local authorities under a duty to co-operate with each other in the provision of adoption support services. This will ensure that local authorities work together to support people receiving adoption support services while they are settling into a new area.
    Subsection (7)(h) of Clause 4 enables regulations to be made setting out the arrangements for the assessment of needs and the provision of adoption support service where a child is placed with an adoptive family living within a different local authority area. At the moment, adoptive families have told us that where they adopt children from other local authority areas, they do not necessarily receive a satisfactory adoption support service. That was the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, was making. That is why we intend to use regulations to make local authority duties in such circumstances
    CWH 48
    clear. We will be consulting stakeholders while developing these regulations to ensure that we get the detail right.
    As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, again implied, we are committed to encouraging local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies to work together in consortia. Joint working between councils and voluntary adoption agencies can clearly be a way of achieving a more cost-effective organisation and service provision as well as, very importantly, sharing best practice.
    As regards the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I would draw his attention to the National Adoption Standards for England which were published some months ago and particularly to the section on children, which makes clear that all children will have a named social worker who will be responsible for them throughout the adoption process.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The Minister has given a very long and complicated—or so it seems to me—reply. I am left wondering, rather as I did when I read Clauses 3 and 4 together when I first started to learn the Bill, how the local authority acts in respect of a wide range of different services. Does it act as a gateway? Does it say to the adoptive parents, "If you need X or Y services, give me a ring and I'll tell you where to go"? Or does it hand the adoptive parents a booklet which tells them where in the social services, housing department, education department and so on, they can go in order to get special needs education or whatever? How does the provision work in practice?
    6.45 p.m.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am sorry if my long reply did not get to grips with that particularly important question. As the noble Baroness will have realised, like much in this Bill, these are the kind of issues on which we wish to consult and we will follow through with guidance. Surely, however, we want to see local authority support services being as helpful as possible to the parents and the children. I very much hope that in certain circumstances, information saying where you can go for this will be extremely helpful. In other circumstances, however, one would look for a much more proactive role. Of course, it all goes back to Clause 4(1) where the local authority, in relation to persons mention in paragraphs (a) to (c) of Clause 3(1), must at the request of those persons carry out an assessment of that persons need for adoption support services.
    It is all based around a proper assessment. Clause 4(9) states:
    "If at any time during the assessment of the needs of any person under the section, it appears to a local authority that",
    they need either health or LEA provision, they,
    "must notify the Health Authority, Primary Care Trust, or local education authority",
    accordingly.
    That seems to me to set out a very powerful set of arrangements, and it simply would not be a question of the local authority saying to the adoptive parents,

    CWH 49
    "We think you need special educational needs. Here's the phone number, get on with it". I would expect to see more support.
    What I am also trying to say is that there are responsibilities on local authorities in providing an adoption service. They are also responsible as LEAs. The health service has its own statutory responsibilities. What we are trying to ensure is that we do not become confused as to which agency has statutory responsibility, but we do want them to work together in ensuring that effective support is available, and that will be the stuff of the guidance which will be informed by the kind of debate we have had today.
    The Earl of Listowel: I want to refer to the practicalities of how this is going to be implemented. I may have mis-remembered this particular point, but I recollect that one of the several welcome introductions, together with the duty to provide a post-adoption support service and a post-adoption support plan, was the innovation of a post-adoption support worker. It seems to me that that person might well have an important role to play in terms of pulling in the right resources for the family to enable it to hold together. I wonder whether I have not correctly remembered that particular point. If I did not, I would be interested to hear at this stage more about how that worker would work, and what his or her particular professional qualification would be.
    On another matter, and I do not want to distract us too far from this area, certain cases have been reported to me in terms of adoptions which have failed. There was a wish that there had been a proper assessment before the actual adoption had taken place—a very thorough assessment and understanding.
    It goes hack to a point made earlier today about full information being given to the potential adoptive parents, but also an assessment which takes into account, as far as possible, all the psychological background of the children, and any liable psychological trauma they have experienced which may display itself perhaps several years later. Perhaps in good practice such assessments should already exist, but certainly in the cases that I have heard they do not seem to have been properly put in place. That may not be a point for the Minister to answer, but certainly on the first point perhaps he might have something more to say.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is right to suggest that those are some of the considerations which need to be thought about in ensuring that we have a rigorous process in relation to adoption. I certainly agree with him that because of the support that one may well need from the health service, it is important that the assessment identifies some of those health issues, that Clause 4(9) then ensures that that assessment is notified to the health authority, or the primary care trust—which ever is the relevant body—and that that body then carries out its own statutory responsibilities.
    There is no doubt that some of the children who are adopted, or who we hope will be adopted, may have very pressing health needs. They may have mental
    CWH 50
    disorders as well as physical health needs which will need to be considered. That would fall to the health service to provide as part of its statutory responsibilities, but this ensures that the health service is alerted through the assessment to the issues and concerns that clearly arise during that process.
    The other point raised by the noble Earl is the question of key workers. The White Paper talks about looked-after children who are adopted, and their new families, having a key worker identified by the adoption agency to help them access services. The White Paper said that the key worker would not necessarily have to be a current council social worker, but someone who can help the family access all services. We shall be consulting on this matter, and we would be interested in the views of noble Lords in that respect.
    Baroness Barker: We have had a most useful debate, not least because it served to highlight one or two issues that will feature throughout all our debates. I start with the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, about co-ordination of services for children, as opposed to co-ordination of services for adopted children. I bow to her vast experience, which is much greater than mine. Clearly, we shall return on many occasions to the issue about the necessity or the desirability of having services that are either distinctly provided for, or distinctly labelled as being for people who have been adopted.
    I turn to the Minister's comments. I listened with great care to his response. I do not think that he addressed my main point about a central duty to coordinate, not provide, services. Not all adopted children have health needs. Not all of them go to school—some are not old enough. Not all adoptive or prospective adoptive families face issues regarding social housing, but some do. I return to the point about there being a statutory duty to co-ordinate services. In the coming Sessions, I imagine that we shall have long and intense arguments about provision of post-adoption services. I suspect that we may not reach agreement in that respect, but we might do so on one matter; namely, the sheer complexity of service provision at a local level, which is boggling. It is becoming more and more complex.
    I can talk about this subject in a completely different context. I am pretty well convinced that in each PCT area there is one person, and one person alone who knows what every conceivable service is for any one client group. That person must be worth his or her weight in gold: first, to the client who is trying to access the services; and, secondly, to his or her colleagues who are trying to co-ordinate them.
    Having considered this over the past few weeks, I have become convinced that the importance of coordinating services is something that we have overlooked. I do not know how adoptive parents, birth parents, or people involved in the adoption process know on which door to knock. I take the point made earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I shall finish this point, and then give way to the Minister. It seems to me that that duty to co-ordinate has to lie with local

    CWH 51
    authorities, given that education authorities, housing authorities, and PCTs will only ever come into the adoption process for one small part of it. As a result of our discussion, I am more convinced than I was before of the need for co-ordination and an access point to which someone who is involved in the adoption process can go, if only to find out the next place where they need to go.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not disagree with anything that the noble Baroness is seeking to develop. Clearly we want an effective package of support measures to be available, which will go beyond the relevant local authority's duty directly to provide as part of its adoption support service. The specific question about which door to knock on is something that can be provided through the adoption support service, because it is one of the very important aspects of this work that we want to see developed.
    I do not disagree with the noble Baroness at all about the need for co-ordination. I hope that some of the words that I used this afternoon, and the advice that we shall give about ensuring joined-up planning and the provision of public services, will meet the very point that the noble Baroness has raised. All I am seeking to caution is this: in attempting to get the legislation right, we must be careful not to use primary legislation in relation to the adoption service which will pre-empt the statutory responsibilities of local education authorities, or NHS authorities, to make their own judgments. They have to make their own judgments about what services they should provide. I fully accept that it has to be done in a joined-up way. That is why I shall very carefully consider the comments and discussions made this afternoon. Clearly, all of us who want to see an effective adoption service recognise that we need a joined-up approach.
    Baroness Barker: I thank the Minister because his response signifies a recognition that we have a point about co-ordination. I take his argument about local education authorities. I have sat with colleagues and listened to some of their deliberations on the Education Bill. Some of the structural transformations that happened in health are beginning to happen in education. The whole thing is becoming much more diffuse than it was previously. Somewhere in the middle there has to be something that somebody can hold on to for this particularly needful group of children. I take the Minister's point, and I am very heartened by what he said about housing services—
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness again, but it is also right to say that an assessment may not be a once-and-for-all assessment. It is possible that part of the assessment may be a suggestion that a further review should take place after a certain length of time, or, within reason, further requests for assessments may be made further down the line. That is also a way in which new needs come to light and notification can appropriately be made by the local authority. It is important to
    CWH 52
    recognise that this is a very critical part of the Bill. The aim is to ensure exactly what the noble Baroness wants to see.
    Baroness Barker: I take the point. I have listened to the views of many adoption organisations, which have said, quite openly, that an assessment of the need of a child of three is wholly different to the needs of that same child at the age of eight. I am not seeking to put anybody into any straightjacket. Similarly, I am not trying to be rigid about the nature of the services.
    I return to my point about co-ordination and ease of access. As a result of our deliberations I shall withdraw the amendment but perhaps I need even more convincing than when I started about the need for coordination. I hope that at some time between now and further stages, we might reach a closer accommodation on what I think we all agree is a very necessary part of making the whole system work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    7 p.m.
    Earl Howemoved Amendment No. 12:
    Page 3, line 36, at end insert—
    "(c) must extend to the provision of services covering intercountry adoption"
    The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 12 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 28 and 101. During the Second Reading debate, a number of noble Lords—of whom I was one—drew attention to the problems and difficulties faced by those individuals who decide that they wish to adopt a child from overseas. These amendments enable us to focus on those specific issues in rather more detail.
    We are inching our way in this country towards having a more streamlined and user-friendly system for processing applications for inter-country adoptions but, unfortunately, that is not saying much. If we think that the hurdles facing domestic adopters are formidable, the hurdles to be crossed by prospective inter-country adopters are perhaps doubly so.
    As the noble Baroness, Lady David, pointed out in her Second Reading speech, Britain's reputation abroad is not very good when it comes to inter-country adoption. The number of countries willing to continue dealing with the UK is dwindling. The list of those in the "highly reluctant" category include India and Colombia, two countries which have excellent overseas adoption programmes with first-class protection for the children and families involved. Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador all refuse to deal with the UK, although they have fruitful programmes with other receiving countries. Chile, Costa Rica, the Ukraine, Russia and Vietnam, among others, are all unhappy with UK procedures. They want to see proper, dedicated agencies in the UK, with which they can then deal.
    There is also concern among many countries about the UK's approach to immigration requirements and nationality. Those countries want to see guarantees

    CWH 53
    that these requirements will be met easily and properly for the child, rather than being left to the discretion of officials at the time of entry.
    The number of applications lodged in the UK each year to adopt a child from overseas is about 350. This is in sharp contrast to the 3,500 full inter-country adoptions carried out in France. Norway, with a population of about four million, brings in around 500 children for adoption from overseas each year. This disparity between ourselves and other countries has arisen in part from the negative perceptions about inter-country adoption that some people currently hold. That perception is wholly misplaced. There is nothing ethically dubious about the concept of adopting a child from abroad—quite the contrary.
    Of course, all the proper safeguards have to be observed but, if a family in Britain can give a loving home and a loving upbringing to a child who would otherwise be brought up in a residential home, perhaps in quite primitive and impersonal conditions, in a foreign country, that is something that we should embrace and not shy away from.
    To be fair on the Government, they have made a number of public announcements to emphasise those points. What they have not yet done, however, is to focus properly on the practicalities, for it is the practical obstacles standing in the way of inter-country adopters that largely account for the low figures that I quoted. Until these are addressed, no amount of warm words from Ministers will put matters right.
    There are several key issues. The first is the length of time that couples typically have to wait for a home study. Local authorities regard inter-country applicants as low priority. Perhaps understandably, they tend to give preference to domestic cases. To obtain a home study, there is virtually no alternative but to go through the local authority route—and I shall be raising this issue again when we come to debate a later group of amendments. There are only four registered voluntary agencies able to conduct home studies independently for overseas applications and two of those have recently said that they are ceasing this service.
    It is not as though the cost of a home study comes out of the public purse. I am not arguing that it should. But the second main difficulty for adopters is the level of fees that are charged for this service. Some local authorities charge as much as £6,000; others charge a quarter of that; others again charge nothing. There is a huge divergence in the level of charges depending on where you happen to be living. That cannot be right. We surely all recognise that an agency has to cover its costs. Equally, we all fight shy of telling a local authority what it may or may not charge for a service. The charge has to reflect local conditions. However, there ought to be a mechanism to ensure that local authorities do not get away with over-egging the charges.
    The third main problem for couples is that they are often left entirely on their own to navigate through the complexities of the adoption process, not only in the K but in the country of their choice as well. Abroad,
    CWH 54
    there are language problems; there often has to be a go-between acting for the couple; they have to find lawyers; there are legal fees; and they have to commission the right key professionals who can identify the child and then steer the process through the courts. In none of that is there any protection for the couple; they can be exploited or misled. We have to ask why we do not offer specialist help and advice to such couples to enable them to avoid reinventing the wheel every time.
    The Bill is helpful in stating that local authorities have a duty to provide home studies and support services. My fear, however, is that as now, these will be rationed because there are simply not enough people and not enough resources to ensure that inter-country adopters get a fair crack of the whip. When it comes to support services, that is the reverse of what should be happening because often, the needs of children adopted from overseas are even greater than those adopted here.
    That is why I have tabled these amendments They are designed to ensure that inter-country adopters do not suffer discrimination and that they would receive the same support as all other adopters. They would also oblige the Government to set a cap on the level of fees to ensure that these do not create too great a disincentive to home assessments.
    Finally, Amendment No. 101 would ensure that when an overseas adoption takes place in one local authority and the parents adopting are in another, there should be proper communication between the two and no excuse for the necessary support services to be withheld. I beg to move.
    Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister answers, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl, Lord Howe, a question. As he said, 350 is a very small number. Does that include family adoptions; that is, an aunt and an uncle who adopt a child whose parents have been killed in a country such as India or Sri Lanka?
    Earl Howe: My understanding is that the figure of 350 that I quoted—which is the number of applications lodged in the UK; I do not have a figure for the number of intercountry adoptions finalised each year—includes all applications to adopt children from overseas for whatever reason.
    Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: I should like, if I may, to add my support for the amendments. The United Kingdom needs a properly recognised agency, as other countries have, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has explained. We currently do not have a good reputation in relation to this matter. Now is the time for the Government, through the Bill, to improve our reputation in this sphere.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I know that, both on Second Reading and today, a number of noble Lords have pointed to the suggestion that we have a poor reputation with other countries. We have had no official notice from the two countries mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and we continue to deal

    CWH 55
    successfully with them. Obviously, if noble Lords have specific information that they would like to draw to my attention, I would be very happy to look into it.
    Earl Howe: May I ask the Minister to clarify which two countries he was referring to? Was it India and Colombia?
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Indeed so. As I said, I would be happy to receive information to investigate any such allegations.
    The noble Earl, Lord Howe, also compared the number of intercountry adoptions in the UK with the number for other countries. He mentioned France and Norway. One point to be raised here is that people in those countries adopt a much lower proportion of children in care than we do. That may well be one of the reasons why the figures are so different.
    The general point that the noble Earl raised is the Government's attitude to intercountry adoption. He essentially said that we were all right on the warm words, but nothing more than that. I do not accept that that is the case. After all, we introduced the provisions of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 which placed a clear duty on local authorities to establish an intercountry adoption service. My department also has an adoption unit. In addition to providing advice and information to prospective adopters, both on the telephone and through the intercountry adoption section of the adoption website, the unit helps adopters to arrange translation, legislation and notarisation of their papers. It also forwards their papers to the relevant overseas central authority.
    As I have said, if noble Lords wish to raise specific comments and issues about how the service operates, I shall be happy to look into them. Clearly, we want the service to operate effectively.
    Amendment No. 12 provides that local authority arrangements for the provision of adoption support services must extend to the provision of services covering intercountry adoption. In fact, however, subsection (7) of Clause 2 makes it clear that references in Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Bill to adoption are to,
    "the adoption of persons, wherever they may be habitually resident, effected under the law of any country or territory, whether within or outside the British Islands".
    This means that the requirement in Clause 3 for local authorities to maintain an adoption service, to meet the adoption-related needs of people living in their area, extends to the needs of people affected by intercountry adoption.
    Clause 4 makes it clear in the Bill that people affected by adoption may approach their local authority for an assessment of their needs for adoption support services. This will also cover people who have been affected by any type of adoption. Regulations made under Clauses 3 and 4 will apply to the provision of assessment and adoption support services to intercountry adopters and to children adopted from outside the British Islands.
    CWH 56
    Our White Paper, Adoption: A New Approach, included a commitment to develop a new framework for adoption support services. We are currently developing this framework in consultation with a stakeholder group, and a consultation document entitled Providing Effective Adoption Support was published on 21st June. The consultation covers all adoption support services for all people affected by adoption—although I am well aware by now that noble Lords have not had a chance to study that in great detail.
    Baroness Noakes: Or at all.
    7.15 p.m.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Indeed.
    I turn to Amendments Nos. 28 and 101, which are linked. These amendments make provision in respect of people affected by intercountry adoption. Clause 4 provides that people affected by adoption may request an assessment of their needs for adoption support services from their local authority. The right to an assessment applies to children who may be adopted, their parents and guardians, prospective adopters and adoptive parents, birth parents and former guardians. As I have already explained in connection with Amendment No. 12, it applies to people affected by all types of adoption.
    Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 28 requires a local authority to carry out an assessment of needs for adoption support services of the persons listed in relation to a child brought into the United Kingdom for adoption from overseas where Clause 82 applies. I do not believe the provision is needed as the Bill already provides for this. Subsection (7) of Clause 2 makes it clear that references in Chapter 2 of Part I of the Bill to adoption are,
    "to the adoption of persons, wherever they may be habitually resident, effected under the law of any country or territory, whether within or outside the British Islands".
    Subsection (2) of the amendment would require a local authority, where it decides during an assessment carried out under Section 1 that a person has needs for adoption support services, to provide those services. I have no doubt that we shall discuss these provisions in more detail in connection with the large group of amendments that we shall probably debate on Thursday. However, the Government believe that local authorities are best placed to decide whether to provide adoption support services to individuals, and if so which services, based on need and on resources available locally. Of course, local authorities must also act reasonably in deciding whether to provide adoption support services following an assessment.
    Ultimately local authorities provide the adoption services, so they must decide who needs what level of support. The problem—we shall come to this—with requiring local authorities to provide adoption support services to individuals is that, given the way local authority social services legislation has traditionally been enacted, we would effectively be saying that that should have priority over almost every other service provided by a local authority social

    CWH 57
    services department. However, I recognise that I am probably trespassing on the more substantive debate to which we are all looking forward enormously.
    Clause 11 enables the appropriate Minister to make regulations prescribing the fees which may be charged by local authorities to adopters. I understand the point that the noble Earl is making about consistency. The evidence which I have undoubtedly suggests that, whereas the average cost is about £3,500 for the assessment, that can vary from as little as £300, as the noble Earl said, to about £4,500.
    On the principle of the fee itself, our first priority is to deliver a service that meets the needs of children awaiting adoption in the UK. We therefore think that resources should be directed at finding families for those children. However, I accept that there is a need for greater transparency and consistency about the fee charged in relation to intercountry adoption. We believe that Claus 11 as it stands is sufficiently flexible to enable regulations to be made prescribing specific or maximum fees that local authorities may charge. So it would be possible for a maximum fee to be set. However, the Government do not intend to go down that route. We do not think it appropriate to set or recommend a particular fee level. Each agency will have different costs and we think that they should be able to reflect those and recoup them in the fee charged. The risk of a national set or recommended fee is that some agencies would receive more than they need, while others would not be able to cover their costs.
    The problem with subsection (3)(a) of the amendment is that we would have to set out an upper limit for the fees that may be charged. In order to ensure that all local authorities could cover their costs, it would then he necessary to set the upper limit at the highest level incurred by any local authority. We all know that the risk would be that the upper limit might become the norm. It is better that we accept that the regulation-making power is sufficient as it is and focus on ensuring good practice by enabling local authorities to make comparisons. There are some real disadvantages in setting a maximum limit.
    Baroness Barker: My name is attached to Amendment No. 12. When those people who are concerned to see the highest standards in relation to intercountry adoption tell us, as they do, that the services are non-existent and that they are concerned about children being brought into this country, does the Minister accept that the Members of this Committee face a dilemma? I do not doubt the sincerity of what the Minister said with regard to adoption services including intercountry adoption, but they do not. That is the motivation behind the measure.
    The Minister will know that a number of bodies lobby for regulation in this particular field. They do so as much as anything from a concern that if these services do not exist, people will find a way round them. People who go to the enormous lengths and financial outlay that those who wish to adopt children from abroad undergo must be remarkably inventive.
    CWH 58
    People say that, first of all, they have the hurdle of paying for a home study. They find the money for that. However, these people then tell us that local authorities already have a duty to make an inspection when a child from another country is adopted here, but they do not do so.
    I understand what the Minister says about the priority of the department as regards children awaiting adoption in this country, but I am looking for some hope for those of us who want to forestall another personal disaster. That is the motivation for many of us.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: If it would help, I am happy to reflect on the debate and discuss this matter further with noble Lords in the luxury of the two months we shall probably have between Committee and Report.
    There is a question of priorities here and I am clear what they are. Equally, I fully accept that local authorities must conduct themselves in a proper way. I also accept that, if there are specific examples of problems, for instance with the way my own department's unit is operating, we need to know about them and review them. I am indeed sympathetic to ensuring that, as much as possible, we can make this work without impacting on the general priority to be given to adoptions taking place in this country. A also believe that in relation to the general duty—for instance, in terms of assessment for adoption support services—it is clear that children affected by intercountry adoption are able to take advantage of the general improvements that we will want to see in adoption services over the next few years in this country.
    Earl Howe: This has been a very useful debate and I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in it. The Minister was slightly inclined to dismiss the shortcomings in the service that I highlighted in my remarks—and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that they are serious. In my experience, the service offered around the country ranges from less than adequate to lamentable. The Minister appeared to concede that the resources simply are not there to cope with intercountry adoptions.
    Until the shortcomings are addressed, we can only look forward to a situation where intercountry adopters will always go to the bottom of the pile. Something has to be done about that. We will have the chance to debate this again and I look forward to that. I am grateful to the Minister for what he said.
    At the beginning of his remarks, the Minister sought to explain away the disparity between the UK and other countries in the statistics. I have to say that he sounded a little complacent in doing that because there is no doubt that couples in the UK are deterred from adopting from overseas whereas, clearly, couples in other countries are not so deterred. We have to ask why that is.

    CWH 59
    It would be fair to say that the Minister categorised my amendments as being either unnecessary or undesirable, or a combination of the two. I take note of his strictures. However, the amendments were a very useful way of highlighting certain very key issues on this topic. I shall reflect on what has been said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
    CWH 60
    Clause 3 agreed to.
    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We have done very well. This might be a convenient time for the Committee to adjourn until Thursday at 4 p.m.
    The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree): The Committee stands adjourned until Thursday at 4 p.m.
    The Committee adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past seven o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Education
  Northern Ireland: Education
  House of Lords: Steps of the Throne
  House of Lords: Steps of the Throne
  Indonesia: Human Rights
  Indonesia: Human Rights
  China: Human Rights
  China: Human Rights
  Algeria: Human Riglhts
  Algeria: Human Riglhts
  Middle East
  Middle East
  China: One-Child Policy
  China: One-Child Policy
  Iraq: UK Exports
  Iraq: UK Exports
  Gold
  Gold
  Armed Forces: Suicides
  Armed Forces: Suicides
  Food in Schools Programme
  Food in Schools Programme
  Smallpox Vaccine
  Smallpox Vaccine
  NHS: Patient-centred Programmes
  NHS: Patient-centred Programmes
  Anti-discrimination Legislation
  Anti-discrimination Legislation
  British Accounting Standards Board
  British Accounting Standards Board
  UN World Conference on Ageing
  UN World Conference on Ageing
  EU Employment and Social Policy Council, Luxembourg, 3 June 2002
  EU Employment and Social Policy Council, Luxembourg, 3 June 2002
  Genetically Modified Trees
  Genetically Modified Trees
  Refrigerators: Disposal
  Refrigerators: Disposal