Sitting of 25 June 2002

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

    East Timor
    Mr. Neil Turner: What continuing support to improve civil administration he will offer to East Timor. [62104]
    Mr. Michael Connarty: What continuing support the Government will offer to East Timor. [62111]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Before answering the questions, I apologise for the non-attendance of the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain), who is in Brussels for a meeting on the Convention on the Future of Europe.
    The United Kingdom has pledged £12 million over the next three years to provide budgetary support for the implementation of East Timor's national development plan. That will help to increase East Timor's capacity to deliver better public services.
    Mr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Few people have suffered more than the East Timorese did during their struggle for independence and self-determination, but their country's future looks bright because of the possibility of oil and gas revenues. However, that income will take time to come on stream, so will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the UK will continue to fund East Timor until then?
    Mr. O'Brien: It is certainly true that East Timor's future is potentially very bright, given its oil and gas reserves. At the donor conference in May 2002, the UK—which pledged £30 million—and other donors pledged a total of $440 million to East Timor for the next three years. We believe that that is sufficient to meet East Timor's funding gap before it can expect oil and gas revenues from the Timor gap to come on stream in 2005–06.
    Mr. Speaker: Michael Connarty is not here. I call the next question.

    World Trade
    Phil Hope: If he will make a statement on post-Doha world trade liberalisation. [62105]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): World Trade Organisation Trade Ministers agreed an ambitious negotiating agenda at Doha last November. Talks on that are now getting under way, but much work still needs to be done to complete the Doha round.
    Phil Hope: Last week, like many hon. Members, I met constituents who are concerned that if free trade is to work, it must work for the world's poor, and not only for the benefit of the world's richest countries. Linked to that issue is my concern about the steel industry—there is a steelworks in my constituency, and I know that steel is represented in my hon. Friend's constituency. The impact of the United States' tariffs on imported steel is punishing our constituents and steel producers throughout the world. Can he assure me that the Government are doing all that they can to make the Doha development agenda a reality for the world's poor, and that we are taking firm action to ensure that the United States lifts those steel tariffs, which are illegal and unacceptable?
    Mr. MacShane: I agree with my hon. Friend. Last Wednesday's trade justice lobby was a wonderful carnival that showed the best of Britain wanting a fairer world. The Government can be proud of the fact that of the major G8 countries, this country is taking the lead in arguing against agriculture and steel protection, and in increasing overseas aid.
    My hon. Friend is right about steel, which is of profound concern to my Rotherham constituents. It was mainly steelworkers' presence in Seattle during the anti-globalisation movement's demonstration against the WTO that secured them their wish for protectionist measures, which do grave harm to working people in steel industries around the world. The Government have taken up the matter with the United States and talks are continuing. The European Union, too, has fashioned a robust response.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Do the Government accept that since Doha the momentum towards liberal world trade, which has underpinned the prosperity of the world for the past 50 years, has come under threat, especially from the unilateral decision of the United States to impose tariffs on steel, which is all too reminiscent of the Smoot-Hawley trade tariff Act of June 1930, which precipitated the world depression? Will the British Government draw that—[Interruption.]—that sad example to the attention of America's President and Congress?
    Mr. MacShane: There was some levity at the fact that the hon. Gentleman clearly remembers the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, but he is right—they were a disaster imposed by a reactionary right-wing Administration. It has always been reactionary right-wing administrations that tend to go in for protectionist measures. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is why Europe is concerned about forms of protection, including the farm subsidies Bill that has just been

    723
    introduced by the US Administration—with, alas, the support of Democratic senators. We continue to argue against all such measures, but the House should not forget that the United States remains a huge importer and a great trading nation. Finally, when I talk about reactionary right-wingers, I am speaking about Conservative Front Benchers.
    Jim Knight: US protectionism as expressed through steel sanctions and the Farm Act is clearly disappointing and regrettable. Despite that, will my hon. Friend continue to press the United States to make positive proposals consistent with its undertakings at Doha?
    Mr. MacShane: That is precisely what the Prime Minister will be doing in Canada later this week. We should acknowledge the doubling of aid to $10 billion that President Bush brought to the table at Monterrey earlier this year. The Government are committed to open trade, investment and creating jobs in the third world, where they are needed. It is by breaking down protectionist barriers, however they are put in place, that that is best achieved.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: If he will make a statement on the situation in Zimbabwe. [62106]
    Barbara Follett: What recent discussions he has had with Commonwealth colleagues on Zimbabwe. [62109]
    Mr. Andrew Miller: What recent discussions he has had with other Commonwealth Governments about Zimbabwe. [62113]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Let me begin by condemning the extraordinary and reprehensible decision of ZANU-PF to order farmers in Zimbabwe to stop farming and to drive them and their workers off the land, at a time when the people of Zimbabwe face a level of starvation unparalleled in their recent history, most of which is due not to drought, but to deliberate decisions of the Mugabe regime. Zimbabwe's only way back from disaster is through the restoration of the rule of law, an end to political violence, an end to the intimidation and arrest of journalists and the free press, a return to democratic legitimacy, and the adoption of credible economic policies.
    Our approach to Zimbabwe has been to create and sustain an effective international coalition. All along, ZANU-PF has been desperate to present itself as a colonial victim of the United Kingdom. In contrast, ZANU-PF is now set against the whole of the international community. We have worked closely with the European Union, the United States, the Commonwealth and others. The EU has imposed a travel ban and asset freeze on 20 leading members of ZANU-PF, and an arms embargo. EU applicant states, the United States, Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland have imposed similar measures. The Commonwealth has suspended Zimbabwe from its councils.
    724
    We welcome recent efforts by the Governments of South Africa and Nigeria to promote reconciliation in Zimbabwe, and we deplore the recent decision by ZANU-PF to pull out of talks with the Movement for Democratic Change.
    I and my ministerial colleagues keep in close contact with Commonwealth partners on Zimbabwe. My most recent such meeting was last week, on 20 June, with South African Foreign Minister Zuma.
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger: I thank the Secretary of State for that comprehensive set of answers. With the G8 summit coming up, what will the right hon. Gentleman be saying to the G8? Will he be able to pressurise the group into making firm commitments to sort out the situation in Zimbabwe and to make sure that President Mugabe realises just what the feeling of the international community is? It is all very well going round and round the bush, but we must stop the situation before there is a disaster.
    Mr. Straw: Because I am not a Head of Government, I shall not be attending the Heads of Government meeting of the G8 that is coming up. However, the matter was discussed at the G8 Foreign Ministers meeting two weeks ago, and there is overwhelming opposition to what has been happening in Zimbabwe, and a determination on the part of the international community, which includes the European Union, the United States, and as far as the G8 is concerned, also Russia and Japan, and many other nations, including those of the Commonwealth African group, to see effective action taken against Zimbabwe. I understand the frustration and anger felt in all quarters about what has happened in Zimbabwe—a man-made tragedy, brought on by Mugabe—but I also ask the House to appreciate that we must work collectively with our international partners, if we are to be effective in dealing with Mugabe.
    Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and for the work that he is doing on the issue. Will he share with the House his assessment of the effect that EU sanctions are having in Zimbabwe, particularly in the light of Mr. Mugabe's presence in Rome?
    Mr. Straw: There is no doubt that the travel sanctions taken against Mr. Mugabe and 19 other members of the ZANU-PF regime have been both highly disruptive and humiliating to that regime. That is evidenced by some strident criticism made recently by none other than one of Mr. Mugabe's former henchmen, Mr. Andrew Ndlovu, the secretary of the Zimbabwe National War Veterans Association, who criticised Mr. Mugabe for trying to get out of the so-called smart sanctions
    "to enable them to travel all over the world".
    I should also explain to my hon. Friend that it was always acknowledged in the EU common position, as it has been by the United States, that sanctions on the travel of regimes such as that of Mugabe are qualified by our international treaty obligations. It is for that reason that the United States had to admit Mr. Mugabe to a United Nations conference and that European nations have had

    725
    to admit representatives of the ZANU-PF regime to international conferences inside the European Union. None the less, the sanctions are proving effective.
    Mr. Miller: A week ago on Sunday, I had the privilege to be in Manchester at a business awards ceremony for the Asian community. In particular, British citizens who came here from Uganda brought to my attention the problems that they face. The event was a great celebration of the contribution that that community, among others, has made to British society.
    One business man raised with me his hope that the Foreign Secretary will use the opportunity of the Commonwealth games in a couple of weeks' time to meet as many visiting Heads of Government and leading politicians as possible, so as to reinforce the message to Zimbabwe that its actions are intolerable and that the whole Commonwealth will no longer stand for its activities.
    Mr. Straw: I shall certainly do that. Of course, it is a matter of record that it was a decision taken by Prime Minister Howard of Australia, President Obasanjo of Nigeria and President Mbeki of South Africa that led to the suspension of Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth because of the way in which it had rigged the elections in March.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: Given the fact that the BBC World Service is the leading international broadcaster in Zimbabwe, providing the Zimbabwean people with free and independent news at a time when press freedom has been so curtailed, will the Foreign Secretary lend his weight to ensuring a realistic funding settlement in the imminent spending review?
    Mr. Straw: Yes, I can assure the hon. Gentleman—I am very grateful for the question; more questions like it would be only too gratefully received as we reach conclusions on the spending review—that I shall certainly be doing exactly what he describes, as I shall in respect of the British Council and the Foreign Office's main budget.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sure that the whole House is delighted.
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the allegations that much of the land that has been seized by Mugabe's thugs has been given to his cronies and members of his family? If that is true, has he made specific representations on that point?
    Mr. Straw: Yes to both questions. That issue may offer a large explanation of why a country that is naturally rich and that once supplied agricultural produce to the whole of southern Africa can now produce only 850,000 tonnes of cereal, as opposed to a requirement of 2.7 million tonnes. The land has not even been handed over to ordinary black farmers, but to Mugabe's henchpeople. It includes 300.000 acres of prime land seized from commercial farmers and handed out to Mugabe's closest allies, including 10 Cabinet Ministers, seven Members of Parliament and Mugabe's brother in law, the aptly named Reward Marufe.
    Roger Casale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as the Commonwealth, the European
    726
    Union has a very important continuing role to play in relation to Zimbabwe, and that through its arms embargo, freeze on assets and travel restrictions, it should continue to flex its muscles in response to the political violence and human rights violations there? What discussions has he had with his EU counterparts in relation to Zimbabwe and are any further targeted sanctions planned in response to the recent deterioration in human rights? What will be the objectives of those sanctions and the EU's common foreign and security policy in relation to Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Straw: The objective of the sanctions, as of the suspension of Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth, is to secure one end: the restoration of democracy, the rule of law and economic stability to that country, and at the same time to ensure that any such sanctions do not penalise the poor people of Zimbabwe. The issue is continually discussed with my European Union colleagues, and the overall question of the sanctions that have been taken and the common position—as it is called by the European Union—will be reviewed by the General Affairs Council at its meeting in late July.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Zimbabwe under President Mugabe is a country in free-fall in which ordinary citizens suffer the most? Is he aware that inflation is running at 112 per cent., that two thirds of the population are unemployed, that foreign direct investment has fallen from $430 million in 1998 to $4 million in 2001, and that, since 1998, 500,000 people have died as a result of contracting HIV?
    Is the Foreign Secretary aware that production of maize is 77 per cent. less than it was two years ago? In a country that was the granary of southern Africa, farmers are now forbidden by law to work their land when there is a threat of massive food shortages. Is this not truly the theatre of the absurd?
    May I ask the Foreign Secretary to consider this question on behalf of Her Majesty's Government? If events in Zimbabwe conspire to create a massive refugee problem, will the United Kingdom honour not only its legal, but its moral obligations towards the people of Zimbabwe?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I would expect that the next time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks a question, it will be shorter than that.
    Mr. Straw: It would be absurd, but for the fact that it is entirely deliberate, and we need to be aware of that. This is a natural consequence of deliberate policies embarked upon by Mugabe—rationally, but amorally and wrongly.
    On refugees, the Government stand ready, as we always have done, to meet our full obligations under the 1951 convention. I just say this to the right hon. and learned Gentleman: the countries that will principally suffer from refugees from Zimbabwe in future, as they already have, are those that border Zimbabwe. The crisis has its epicentre in Zimbabwe, but it is now moving out to the whole of southern Africa. Yes, the Zimbabwe dollar is in

    727
    free-fall, but the rand, too, has suffered badly, and hundreds of refugees are streaming across the borders into South Africa, Botswana, Malawi and Zambia.
    Mr. Michael Ancram: Hon. Members know, and have heard again today, about the depth of the crisis facing Zimbabwe, not least the decision to close more than 2,000 farms within the next 15 days amid terrible food shortages. But what the House really wants to know is what the Government are going to do to change the situation. In the light not only of Mugabe's visit to Rome, but of his visit to New York in May, his wife's visit to Spain to go shopping and his police chief's visit to France in May, does the Secretary of State really believe that Mugabe's henchmen are experiencing the isolation that he talked about, or does he not rather agree with the author of the recent International Crisis Group report, John Prendergast, that the sanctions as they are currently applied are a joke?
    Mr. Straw: A year ago, President Mugabe expected to be treated, and was treated in capitals around the world, as a legitimate head of state. Today, he is condemned by the Commonwealth, the European Union and the United States. He is increasingly shunned by other African Governments and has been declared by the International Monetary Fund to be in non-co-operation and subject to sanctions and suspensions. That international consensus has come about not least as a result of the painstaking diplomatic activity of the British Government.
    Listen carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman says about the matter. As ever, his attitude is discordant not only with Members on this side of the House, but with those on his own side. I have listened to him on the radio. He constantly calls for things to be done—I agree with him about that—but when he is pressed on what should be done, he says, as he did this morning that there has to be
    "an international coalition put together."
    What does he think that we have been doing but putting together an international coalition with the European Union. the Commonwealth, the United States and many other Governments, as well as actively supporting the southern African development consortium?
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
    "I think we shouldn't try to do anything on our own".
    So he accepts the fact that there are clear limits on Britain acting by itself. We must have an international consensus, and that is what we have been actively working for over the past year. Since he makes a slightly disobliging point, I point out that it is a matter for debate whether, with his approach to the European Union, he would have accomplished anything like our achievements with the EU.
    Mr. Ancram: But does not the Foreign Secretary understand that the people of Zimbabwe want to know what will be done to change things, not a definition of the problem? They do not want to know what talks are taking place, but what will improve matters. He told us about the sanctions and claimed that they were clear, unambiguous and unanimous, but he must tell us what they have achieved in changing Mugabe's direction.
    728
    The position is constantly deteriorating, with more torture and abuses of human rights, yet nothing is done. While torture and other flagrant abuses of human rights continue, where is the international coalition about which the Foreign Secretary told us?
    The United States is apparently exploring further measures to ratchet up pressure on Mugabe's regime; what is the right hon. Gentleman doing to increase the pressure? Is not he ashamed that John Prendergast's report went on to state:
    "Britain and the EU talk tough and do nothing"?
    Is not John Prendergast right? When will the Foreign Secretary stop talking and start doing?
    Mr. Straw: I appreciate the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman experiences in opposition, but his approach does not recommend itself and I suggest that he move away from it. I have listened carefully to him in the past year, and he has made the same point in the same tone. He has never suggested action different from that taken by the Government.
    The right hon. Gentleman went on about the United States. The sanctions that I was able to ensure that the European Union imposed in February are stronger and more extensive than those applied by the United States. For example, the United States has imposed no financial assets freeze. We welcome the fact that it is now considering that. Meanwhile, as I announced to the House, the EU Foreign Affairs Council will review sanctions towards the end of July.

    Sub-continent
    Mr. Peter Luff: What his most recent assessment of the state of relations between India and Pakistan is. [R] [62107]
    Ms Dari TaylorWhat his assessment is of the present situation in Kashmir. [62108]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): As I said in my statement to the House on 10 June, the dispute between India and Pakistan is at root a bilateral matter, which can be resolved only by direct dialogue between the parties. However, it is also a dispute with potent international implications. Intense diplomatic efforts by the United Kingdom and the United States, and the steps taken in recent days by the Governments of India and Pakistan to ease tension give grounds for some optimism. None the less, with 1 million men under arms on either side of the line of control in a high state of readiness, the risks of a conflict remain significant.
    The international community remains fully engaged in seeking further de-escalation and encouraging India and Pakistan to work towards a lasting settlement of their differences.
    Mr. Luff: The Foreign Secretary rightly emphasised the contribution that the international community can make. What are the Government doing to help move Pakistan towards democracy, enable international observers to monitor the situation, and, perhaps above all,

    729
    encourage the Pakistani authorities to prevent terrorist groups based in Pakistan from launching attacks on India, its people and its Parliament?
    Mr. Straw: I welcomed the decision of the supreme court of Pakistan that the assumption of power by President Musharraf was legitimate provided that there was a clear pathway to resuming elections by October this year. I also welcome the steps that President Musharraf has taken towards that end; he has kept to the staging posts. We shall do everything that we can to assist Pakistan. We have no reason to believe that monitors will not be admitted to that country.
    I also welcome the fact that the chief election officer for the whole union of India said that foreign observers would be free to visit Jammu and Kashmir to monitor elections there. He said that they would not be officially invited to do that and that they would have to make their own arrangements, but that they would be allowed access to polling stations. He also said that both the national and international media would have free access to polling stations in Jammu and Kashmir. He stated:
    "We are doing this deliberately … as they are the best observers".
    Ms Taylor: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement to the House and I would be grateful to hear whether he has had discussions with the Indian and Pakistani authorities on the three assurances given by General Musharraf. Those assurances, which were warmly welcomed, were to stop terrorism—which my right hon. Friend has mentioned—to stop infiltration and to dismantle terrorist networks. Although it is still early days, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether those assurances are becoming a reality?
    Mr. Straw: The undertakings given by the Government of Pakistan, and the corresponding diplomatic and military moves made by the Government of India, are a matter of constant discussion between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of those two countries. I last discussed the issue with Jaswant Singh, the Indian Foreign Minister, in a phone call yesterday. The tension would not have reduced had there not been a significant reduction of infiltration across the line of control. The international community obviously looks to President Musharraf fully to meet the undertakings that he has given on further bearing down on the terrorist groups and, in due course, closing the camps. Detailed undertakings were given to Richard Armitage, the United States Deputy Secretary of State, and there will be a great expectation that they will be met.
    Mr. George Osborne: A recent US Government report stated that the greatest risk of nuclear conflict between the two powers would occur if field commanders on the ground used nuclear weapons without reference to their commanders-in-chief or their Governments. Do the British Government agree with that assessment? What, if anything, can the international community do to address that specific danger?
    Mr. Straw: I have not heard that particular anxiety expressed. We have worked on the assumption that, were nuclear weapons—appallingly—to be used by either side, it would be only at the behest and decision of the central Governments and leaders concerned. None the less, we
    730
    remain very concerned about the relatively low nuclear threshold, and about the need for the development by both sides of the kind of highly sophisticated nuclear doctrine and effective fail-safe back-channels of communication that led, over some decades, to the nuclear weapons of the Warsaw pact and NATO never being used, and, in the end, to the profound differences between eastern and western Europe being resolved in a peaceful way.
    Keith Vaz: The whole House will welcome the easing of tension between India and Pakistan, and the efforts undertaken by my right hon. Friend. When does he intend to restore the entry clearance operation in Islamabad, Karachi, Mumbai and New Delhi to its full operational strength?
    Mr. Straw: We keep the issues of travel advice and the visa operation under close review. We have to make different decisions for each of the two countries, because, although they are both parties to the same conflict over Kashmir, I am afraid that the security situation in Pakistan is significantly different from and worse than that in India, because of the terrorist actions that have already taken place against western diplomats, and other threats. We have, however, already restored something of a service. I am fully aware of the difficulties involved, because I, too, have many Indian and Pakistani constituents, and we are working hard—particularly in respect of India—to get back to as near normal a service as we can. So far as Pakistan is concerned, that will take longer.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) has hit the nail on the head, in that, when tension over Kashmir was recently at its height, the real concern was that there appeared to be no established nuclear doctrine, such as there used to be between east and west during the cold war. I know that the Secretary of State has just referred to this issue, but could he expand a little further on what steps can now be taken to ensure that such a doctrine can be established, through both diplomatic and military channels, so that whenever there is a risk of tension rising again, there will be proper safeguards to ensure that the risk can be minimised and that the situation can be reacted to in the most responsible manner?
    Mr. Straw: One small silver lining that may already have emerged from this conflict is the greater realisation by the Governments of India and Pakistan of the huge international anxiety about the potential of nuclear conflict, and of the fact that the effects of nuclear conflict in India and Pakistan would in no sense be confined to the narrow theatre of war, but would spread across the whole sub-continent and turn the leader or leaders who unleashed the nuclear weapons, and their countries, into international pariahs for generations to come.
    As to discussions, within the limitations set by our own non-proliferation and other treaty obligations, which we take very seriously, we will of course do our best to offer such advice as the Governments of India and Pakistan think appropriate—as, I believe, will other appropriate members of the international community.
    Llew Smith: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the most practical way of demonstrating to India and Pakistan that nuclear weapons

    731
    undermine their security is for Britain to take a lead by ridding ourselves of our own weapons of mass destruction? If he does not agree, can he explain why nuclear weapons are suitable for our security, but not for that of India and Pakistan?
    Mr. Straw: The difference is that we are signatories to a range of international treaties on the control of nuclear weapons, but neither India nor Pakistan is. I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I do not personally believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament by the United Kingdom—[HON. MEMBERS: "You used to."] Yes I did, and I do not. I went on the Aldermaston march when I was 12, and I think that I am entitled to change my view between the ages of 12 and 55. Indeed, I was nearer to 12 than to 55 when I changed it.
    Although I do not subscribe to my hon. Friend's view, I do believe that a first staging post in making the world safer would be for Pakistan and India both to sign up to the non-proliferation treaties.

    Jonathan Lincoln Brown
    Mr. David Cameron: What representations his Department has made to the Omani Government about Jonathan Lincoln Brown; and if he will make a statement. [62112]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Our embassy in Muscat has made at least 12 representations to the Omani Government concerning Mr. Lincoln Brown since November 2000. The embassy was instrumental in restoring Mr. Lincoln Brown's right of appeal in December 2001. Although this case is essentially a private legal matter and we cannot interfere in another country's judicial process, we will continue to provide Mr. Lincoln Brown with all the assistance that we properly can.
    Mr. Cameron: I am very grateful for that answer. Is the Minister aware that Mr. Lincoln Brown has been stuck in Oman for some 19 months? Could the Minister press the Omani authorities to ensure that Mr. Lincoln Brown is allowed to appeal in the normal way, and that his complaint to the director of public prosecutions in Oman about the manner of his treatment can be dealt with in the normal way? Will the Minister also give me an assurance that the friendly relations that we rightly have with that country will not get in the way of making robust representations on my constituent's behalf?
    Mr. O'Brien: We have already made robust representations, and I have given the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will continue to do so. We have always taken Mr. Lincoln Brown's case very seriously, and we will continue to do so and to help him. Work on his case has amounted to more than 50 per cent. of the total time dedicated to individual British nationals in Oman. I shall certainly consider both the points that the hon. Gentleman raises, and if he is happy for me to do so I shall write to him about when and how we can make the representations that he considers necessary.

  Zimbabwe
  Tony Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the political situation in Zimbabwe. [62114]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): As the Foreign Secretary and many hon. Members have made clear, the political situation in Zimbabwe is lamentable. Elections are stolen, journalists are arrested and there is widespread corruption among the governing elite. This issue will of course be debated today on a motion for the Adjournment—[HON. MEMBERS: "It's an Opposition day"]—but I have confidence that the democratic spirit of the people of Zimbabwe will one day rise up, so that they can return their beautiful land to the commonwealth of free nations. I wonder whether, instead of personalising the issue in terms of Mr. Mugabe, we should work harder to show our support for, and solidarity with, those who want true democracy in that great country.
  Tony Cunningham: Does the Minister agree that the pronouncements by the Zimbabwean Government attacking my constituent Brian Donnelly, who is the British high commissioner in Harare, are completely outrageous and totally unacceptable? Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the high commissioner and the staff in Harare, who are doing a superb job?
  Mr. MacShane: I very much agree and I hope that those points will be made in the debate on the Opposition's motion later today. Our high commissioner has acted in accordance with the highest standards of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office service, and he has the complete support of the Government and, I am sure, the whole House.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: As the Foreign Secretary said earlier, the Government of Mr. Mugabe is destroying Zimbabwe and causing untold misery, starvation and poverty for its people. Many feel that the problems of Kashmir and the middle east are pushing the problems of Zimbabwe on to the back burner, but I have what I think is a unique question on this matter: what thought has been given to using the good offices of the father of modern central southern Africa, Nelson Mandela, in seeking a solution to the problems of Zimbabwe?
  Mr. MacShane: We are in discussion with South Africa and neighbouring states on this issue. The House and the people of Zimbabwe would be delighted if Mr. Mandela took a direct personal interest. Whether Mugabe would listen to him is another matter.
  Angus Robertson: I wish to associate myself with the suggestion about the involvement of former President Mandela as part of the carrot. The Government have rightly been working with European Union partners in a sanctions regime against Mr. Mugabe and his henchmen in ZANU-PF. May I ask what assessment the

  733
  Government and the EU have made of the effectiveness of targeting ZANU-PF and whether any plans exist to enhance the sanctions regime?
  Mr. MacShane: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier, a year ago Mr. Mugabe was receiving red-carpet treatment around the world. Recently he had to cool his heels for eight hours in the waiting room of an airport in Paris, reading back numbers of Le Monde, because the French Government would not let him into the country. His Foreign Minister was not allowed into Germany to attend his daughter's wedding. Mugabe's bank accounts—when we can find them, because most have been moved offshore—are being seized. A further tightening, or examination, of the sanctions will be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of European Foreign Ministers.
  Mr. Richard Spring: A programme for free and fair elections—which was, of course, ignored—was drawn up by the Southern African Development Community before the presidential elections in Zimbabwe. Does the Minister agree that the programme should apply throughout sub-Saharan Africa and that the terrible political situation in Zimbabwe should be an object lesson to others not to tamper with the democratic political process?
  Mr. MacShane: Yes.

  United States Steel Tariffs
  Ms Meg Munn: What his assessment is of the effect of US steel tariffs on world trade. [62115]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): The United Kingdom believes that the United States steel measures are economically unjustified and inconsistent with World Trade Organisation rules. We fully support the European Commission's response. The US measures will increase prices for US steel consumers and decrease trade.
  Ms Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. A recent report from the Progressive Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, outlines how much the US tariff policy hurts both the poor in the US and the poor of developing countries. Does he agree with me and many who took part in the lobby of Parliament last week by the trade justice movement that the claim by the Indian Trade Minister that the rich countries want the developing countries to remain exporters of only primary products appears correct? Yet only international trade on fair and equitable terms will help the poor in both the developed and developing world to improve their lot.
  Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is right, and that is why the Government are strong advocates of progress in the Doha development round and of winding down steel but also agricultural protection on both sides of the
  734
  Atlantic. The only way in which the world can grow and develop is if the tariff barriers are dismantled and trade, investment and job creation are increased.
  Mr. David Heath: Is not the crude protectionism of the United States steel tariffs compounded by the US Farm Act? Does not that make a nonsense of all the American rhetoric over the years supporting free trade and correctly criticising the common agricultural policy? Has it been brought home to the American Government that there is a real risk of their unilateral actions derailing the whole post-Doha development round? If so, how will the world put back together what should be a process towards free and fair trade?
  Mr. MacShane: The United States has debated this and I have read commentaries and speeches by politicians and commentators who are highly critical of the measure, which, of course, was supported by Democrat Senators on the Hill. However, we should not forget that the huge trade deficit that the United States runs represents immense imports into America, each of which represents a job for someone around the world. We will keep arguing firmly and strongly for free trade. I invite the Liberal Democrats to ask their friends—particularly those in the anti-globalisation movement who are hostile to trade—to support the Government on this crucial matter.
  Rosemary McKenna: I associate myself totally with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn). Many UK companies are struggling in this area and have formally applied for product exclusions. What steps have been taken by the Government to assist those companies?
  Mr. MacShane: I have a direct constituency interest myself, as much of the steel made in Rotherham is exported to the United States. Corns and my steelworker constituents warmly welcome the extraordinary energy shown by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and my noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment in their discussions with the US Administration to seek the necessary exemptions for as many British steel products as possible.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: What recent discussions he has had with the members of the Southern African Development Community concerning Zimbabwe. [62116]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Denis MacShane): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his ministerial colleagues have frequent discussions with their SADC counterparts about Zimbabwe. The most recent was on 20 June, when the Foreign Secretary met the South African Foreign Minister, Dr. Zuma, in London.
  Mr. Bellingham: Has the Minister seen the recent report by the distinguished journalist Neil Darbyshire on the disastrous situation in Malawi? To what extent is this tragedy partly the result of the dislocation and deliberate ruination of agriculture in Zimbabwe? Does he agree that

  735
  the time has come to ratchet up the smart sanctions? At the forthcoming European Council of Ministers, will he look at this point, and at extending a ban on Air Zimbabwe, which obviously will not hit the ordinary people of Zimbabwe but will hit Robert Mugabe and his cronies?
  Mr. MacShane: I am happy to ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to take all those points on board. I am not sure if the famine problem in Malawi is related directly to the situation in Zimbabwe. We must continue to talk with our friends in SADC to ensure that as much aid as possible gets through to the people who really need it.
  Mr. Peter Pike: Is it not a fact that the economic situation and the lack of stability in Zimbabwe is causing tremendous problems for the economy of the whole of southern Africa, and that SADC must be concerned about that? Might not the economics of the situation bring Mugabe and his henchmen to heel in Zimbabwe, forcing them to move forward and return to democracy?
  Mr. MacShane: Zimbabwe is the most awful lesson for its neighbours. I hope that the whole of Africa, particularly southern Africa and SADC, understands that democracy and an open economy go hand in hand and that the Zimbabwe road is one that no other African country should contemplate taking.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Michael Weir: Whether Kashmiri terrorists are receiving funding from sources in the UK. [62118]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We are determined that this country should not be used as a base for supporting terrorism. It is a criminal offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 to belong to, or to raise funds for, a proscribed terrorist group. The police investigate all credible allegations of fundraising for such groups and will take action where there is sufficient evidence to do so.
  Mr. Weir: The Minister will be aware of press reports that two prominent Kashmiri politicians were arrested by the Indian authorities and accused of receiving substantial sums of money through al-Qaeda representatives in the United Kingdom to fund terrorism in Kashmir. Has the Minister made an assessment of whether al-Qaeda is involved in the Kashmiri situation, and has he received any requests from the Indian Government to investigate money coming from the UK to fund such activities?
  Mr. O'Brien: We are examining with great care various representations that we have received from the Indian Government and will take action where there is sufficient evidence. It is important that we do not simply act on an allegation that funds are coming from this country unless there is sufficient evidence to back it. It is difficult for the police to act on a mere allegation. We are talking to the Indian Government about some of the statements that have been made and hope that where there
  736
  is sufficient evidence we will be able to take the necessary steps. The police and the prosecuting authorities will also have to make their decisions based on the evidence.
  Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Does my hon. Friend agree that the dispute over Kashmir is a source of rising tensions between India and Pakistan? India and Pakistan have had three wars because of this dispute. Will my hon. Friend put pressure on the Governments of India and Pakistan to negotiate and to bring about a peaceful settlement to this dispute?
  Mr. O'Brien: We have been working with the Indian and Pakistani Governments to set up a process of dialogue between them and to de-escalate the current tensions. The tension between Indian and Pakistan is a bilateral matter that must be resolved by direct dialogue between the parties. We certainly do not believe that war is inevitable, now or in the long term. The problems between India and Pakistan will never be satisfactorily resolved by military means. We want support for cross-border terrorism to stop and a verifiable end to infiltration as the first step towards reducing the current tensions. We want both Governments to talk through the issues that divide them and to talk to the people of Kashmir about how they want to go forward.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Is the Minister aware of the extent of public disquiet in the United Kingdom that we may unwittingly be the base for the prosecution and funding of terrorism in other parts of the world, including Kashmir? Is he conscious of the fact that the United Kingdom does not have a good record in this respect, inasmuch as FARC and the ELN in Colombia and Sendero Luminoso in Peru are not proscribed organisations in this country or the European Union? Can Her Majesty's Government be much more vigilant, because the public have become rightly concerned since the emergence of al-Qaeda and the increased terrorist activity in Kashmir?
  Mr. O'Brien: My recollection of some of what the hon. Gentleman refers to is not quite the same as his. I will double-check my recollection on one of the groups that he mentioned.
  We have proscribed three Kashmiri terrorist groups, and the list of proscribed groups is kept under constant review. It is a matter predominantly for the Home Secretary, in consultation with Foreign Office Ministers and other ministerial colleagues, to take into account the nature and scale of groups' activities and the extent of their presence in the UK. It is a factor in our considerations whether there is an issue in the UK; it is not simply a matter of proscribing an organisation that may be a threat in another country but may not have substantial, or even any, activities in the UK. However, I have taken the hon. Gentleman's point on board, and will write to him about the groups that he mentioned, because I think that he is wrong on one of them.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in India and Pakistan concerning security along the line of control in Kashmir. [62120]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien): During his visit to Pakistan, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary underlined to President Musharraf the need for Pakistan to take visible, decisive and verifiable steps to seal the line of control, to stop supplies to militant groups, to help restrain the violent actions of those groups and to close the militant training camps on Pakistan's side of the line of control. In his meetings in Delhi with Prime Minister Vajpayee and Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, my right hon. Friend stressed that as Pakistan was taking the necessary steps to clamp down on terrorism, India should respond positively.
  Verification that infiltration by terrorists across the line of control has stopped will be a vital element in de-escalating the crisis over Kashmir. Any arrangement on verification would have to be acceptable to both India and Pakistan.
  Mr. Prentice: Our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told me two months ago that
  "there may well be a role for observers"—
  along the line of control—
  "better to enforce a proper peace".—[Official Report, 16 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 440.]
  Well, why are we so laid back about this? I want to see the line of control absolutely flooded with UN observers, but the line we constantly hear from the Front Bench is that we cannot make progress unless there is bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan. What exactly is the problem for India in allowing UN observers on the Indian side of the line of control to police the border, if the Indians are concerned, as they must be, about insurgents moving from Pakistan—Azad Kashmir—into Jammu Kashmir?
  Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps I might gently explain to my hon. Friend, who asks a serious and important question, that if we do not have the consent of both parties to the presence of observers from the UN or elsewhere, it is possible that such observers might be shot at or that their security might be otherwise compromised. It is thus important that, as part of the process of dialogue, we engage with both the Indians and the Pakistanis to see whether there are circumstances in which, given their particular concerns about international observers, those concerns can be remedied. It may well be that Pakistan has always accepted that there should be some international role, but that India has not felt the same way. The circumstances may have altered but they will alter only to a limited extent. We want to ensure that India's response is carried out reasonably and sensibly by dialogue and agreement.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Following his helpful reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar), has the Minister considered suggesting to both sides that, as a further step to reduce tension, there should be a demilitarised corridor of, say, 50 or 100 miles along the line of control?
  Mr. O'Brien: That, too, must he part of the process of discussion and dialogue between the two countries. We cannot just impose that sort of thing—it has to be done by discussion and agreement.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on the talks between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar. [62122]
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe said in Westminster Hall on 18 June, discussions between the UK and Spain about Gibraltar are continuing, but real difficulties remain to be resolved. I shall be meeting the Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Pique in London for informal discussions tomorrow, 26 June. We intend to hold a further ministerial meeting of the Brussels process before the summer break, if at all possible. Our aim remains an agreement that we can commend to the people of Gibraltar.
  Mr. Hoyle: I welcome that statement from my right hon. Friend. Is it true that there will be a meeting this week between my right hon. Friend and Spanish officials, and will those matters be discussed? Can we ensure that when the talks end, that is really the end and that the people of Gibraltar can get on with their lives and the sword of uncertainty hanging over Gibraltar will be taken away once and for all?
  Mr. Straw: If only it were possible to enable the people of Gibraltar—in my hon. Friend's words—to "get on with their lives" simply by bringing those talks to an end; would that it were that straightforward. The reason that the previous Conservative Government decided in 1984 to enter the negotiations—the Brussels process—which included in their terms of reference discussions about sovereignty, was to try to secure a better future between Gibraltar and its neighbour, Spain. Yes, I have made it clear that we stand by the people of Gibraltar; but am I able to secure significant improvements in the daily lives of the people of Gibraltar without securing an agreement? That remains very difficult.
  Mr. Speaker: We now go back to Question 14. Before I call the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), I remind the House that it is a question, not a statement.

  Middle East
  Mr. Ernie Ross: If he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [62117]
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): The search for peace in the middle east has suffered many setbacks in recent months. The speech yesterday by President Bush is therefore very welcome. In summary, he called for a final settlement within three years, including
  "two states, living side by side in peace and security".
  He said that there must be an end to terror, and that
  "Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop".
  He went on to say:
  "Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues…This means that the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on UN

  739
  Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognised borders. We must also resolve questions concerning Jerusalem, the plight and future of Palestinian refugees".
  I recognise that there are some uncomfortable messages in that speech for the Palestinian Authority, but I am glad to note that President Arafat has welcomed the speech.
  On President Arafat's position, we strongly support the call for reforms to the Palestinian Authority and for new elections, as they will be an opportunity for the Palestinian people to decide who will lead them towards a final and peaceful settlement.
  The United Kingdom has long advocated the vision of two states—Israel and Palestine—living side by side in peace and security. We will do all that we can to assist the process now restarted by President Bush. In this new political environment, we look to the Palestinian leadership to act decisively to end the suicide bombings. We look to Israel to end the closure of the occupied territories and its incursions into area A. Both parties have a duty to take up President Bush's initiative—there is no other way forward.
  Mr. Ross: I thank my right hon. Friend. I welcome the fact that President Arafat saw the speech last night as a serious effort by the American President to push forward the peace process. If that is to happen, does my right hon. Friend agree that President Arafat's speech in May, in which he called for early elections, should be supported? In that speech, he also said that he wanted the Palestinian judiciary and security system to be reformed, so in that sense he is ahead of the President of the United States of America in calling for that.
  If there are to be free and fair elections, what role will the European Union and the United Kingdom play in them? In particular, will they help to create a climate in which those free and fair elections can take place? If there is to be such a climate, does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be one where the Israeli occupation forces are withdrawn from the Palestinian centres to allow those free and fair elections to take place?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling the question and for his subsequent remarks. Yes, we welcomed the speech made by President Arafat in May, and we and the international community now look for its full implementation, so that there can be free and fair elections and a much more legitimate Palestinian Authority.
  As for the action that Israel must take, President Bush was right to call for an end to occupation, but the precondition has to be an end to the terrible suicide bombings that have continued to disrupt and scar the whole of Israel and, in turn, politics in the occupied territories.
  As for the advice and help that we can give, we in the United Kingdom stand ready, with our European partners, to give every assistance that we can to the Palestinian Authority, including with the organisation and monitoring of the elections.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: May I join the Foreign Secretary in welcoming President Bush's speech not only as a helpful framework in which to take forward the peace process, but as confirmation of the much-needed American engagement in this troubled issue and troubled area?
  740
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in endorsing President Bush's vision of two states living side by side in peace and security. I also strongly support the twin underlying principles: it is untenable for Israeli citizens to live in terror, and it is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and under occupation. The counterbalancing elements of comprehensive reform within the Palestinian Authority and the obligations on Israel to withdraw fully to the pre-28 September 2000 positions, and, later, to the 1967 boundaries, as well as to halt settlement activity within the occupied territories, are also welcome in view of the prominence that they are given.
  How does the Foreign Secretary now see this framework being advanced—in what order, and within what time scale—and how can balance and fairness be maintained in the process? Does he agree that the basic elements for the resolution of the middle east problem are the removal of fear and the creation of hope and trust? Does not President Bush's statement set out the framework within which, with good will and commitment on both sides, those elements can be found and built on?
  Mr. Straw: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, not least in his last remarks about the removal of fear and the creation of hope and trust. What we must do, in a position in which hope and trust has broken down on both sides and fear is the all-pervasive emotion, is ensure that, through a staged process, we can reach a situation in which both sides—6 million people in Israel, including 1 million Israeli Arabs, and 3.5 million in the occupied territories—can live in peace and security. That is the only way in which they can enjoy a life. There is no other alternative.
  On the length of the process, President Bush set out a time scale of three years. He talked about the possible creation of a transitional state of Palestine, which is an attractive proposition in, as President Bush recognises, appropriate circumstances. In terms of the order in which matters must be dealt with, the first and overwhelming priority is to recognise that the continuation of repeated suicide bombings in Israel, with all the death, destruction and paralysis to normal politics that that secured, must come to an end. The very welcome words of President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority in condemning this suicide bombing must be followed by action.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agree that suicide bombers are the enemies of peace? Has he made representations to the United Nations in relation to permitting the Jenin refugee camp to be transformed in part into a terrorist base where young and older people were trained to kill the maximum number of Israeli citizens possible? Does he agree that it is necessary to stop glamorising terrorism and to face organised suicide bombings head-on if peace is to be given a chance?
  Mr. Straw: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend; there is no glamour to terrorism whatever. It leads not only immediately to death but to a complete undermining of any kind of political process. We must return to the political process, which is why, notwithstanding the despair and fear felt both in Israel and the occupied territories, I greatly welcome the move by President Bush.

  741
  On my hon. Friend's specific question, I have not raised the matter with the United Nations, but I am happy to consider doing so.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I apologise and seek to make amends for my earlier excesses? Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the United Nations Secretary-General that the issue of who should lead the Palestinian people is one that they, and only they, can decide? Is he disappointed by the absence of any reference in President Bush's speech to a middle east peace conference, which is one of the most cherished proposals of the moderate Arab states whose co-operation in a peace settlement will be essential for success?
  Mr. Straw: As I said, as far as elections are concerned, they will be an opportunity for the Palestinian people to decide who will lead them towards a final and peaceful settlement. I am very grateful to President Arafat, however, for the constructive approach that he has shown in welcoming the speech. I am afraid that I do not share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's disappointment about the speech, which I believe is very welcome and very positive. It provides the best basis for a middle east peace process that we have seen since the intifada began in September 2000.
  As for an international conference, the United Kingdom Government are in favour of such a conference provided that there is a guarantee in advance of it being successful. There would be nothing but setback for the peace process if we went into an international conference without a clear agenda and without a clear and satisfactory exit from that conference.
  Mr. Bob Laxton: I share the disappointment with the long-awaited statement from President Bush. However. may I ask what might be a hypothetical question? What will be the view of our Government and of the United States Administration if, in the elections in Palestine, President Arafat is likely to be re-elected? That is a real possibility.
  Mr. Straw: Our view has never been in doubt. We deal as we find them with the leaders who are elected and, in the cases of dictatorial regimes, with those who are not elected. If President Arafat were re-elected in the Palestinian Authority, we would deal with him.
  We welcome the speech by President Bush and the fact that it has clearly set time lines and, in particular, contains a clear commitment to a settlement based on United Nations resolutions 242 and 338, which is something that the whole House has called for for many years.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: I wholly endorse my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary's measured response to the statement and agree with the Foreign Secretary that this long overdue speech provides the best way—indeed, the only way—forward to a peace process. Does the Foreign Secretary agree, however, that the situation in Jordan and Egypt remains difficult to say the least, and that there is very much an increasing
  742
  imperative for the European Union collectively and for individual nations on their own account to press forward to ensure that the peace process moves ahead?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is right to say that there is anxiety in Jordan and Egypt about the continuing instability in the occupied territories and in Israel. However, as President Bush said, the very fact that, after years of antagonism, it was possible to conclude peace treaties between Jordan, Egypt and Israel shows what can be done even out of the despair and darkness of the kind that Israelis and Palestinians are now within. There is hope.
  We continue to give every support that we can to President Mubarak and to King Abdullah of Jordan. I am glad that it is all-party support, and I commend the visit that the shadow Foreign Secretary and Front-Bench spokesperson made to the middle east recently. That included a visit to President Mubarak. We shall work with the parties concerned.
  As to the intervention of the European Union, President Bush made clear references on more than one occasion to the United States Government working with the European Union, Arab states and with what has been called the "quartet"—the European Union, the United States, the United Nations and the Russian Federation—to act together to help to secure an international consensus. That is essential if there is to be an effective peace process.
  David Winnick: Is not the most effective way to undermine the terror groups responsible for suicide bombings to do precisely what they least want? We should start the peace process and bring about what should have been brought about years ago—a viable and independent Palestinian state that would have as much right to exist as the state of Israel. Will my right hon. Friend give the pledge today that he will do whatever he can on behalf of the British Government to see that such a state is brought about? The United States will obviously play the leading role in any such peace process.
  Mr. Straw: I agree, and that is a lesson that we have learned from our experience. Effective and necessarily tough action against the immediate expression of terrorism and terrorist violence has to be taken alongside a political process. That is what we faced in Northern Ireland. I defer to no one in my hatred of terrorism nor in my full support for effective military and security action. However, such action needs to take place alongside a political process so that consent for terrorism among the people from whom it arises is correspondingly reduced. I therefore welcome a number of the messages in the text of President Bush's speech, including those to the Government and people of Israel to do what they must to help to create a "viable, credible Palestinian state."
  Mr. John Maples: Does the Foreign Secretary agree with President Bush when he says that President Arafat is an impediment to peace and that peace will be successfully negotiated only under new Palestinian leadership?
  Mr. Straw: As I said, I greatly welcome the speech. Many people are disappointed with President Arafat's record, and those disappointments are shared by this Government, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear. We also made it clear, however, that we deal with the elected leadership of the Palestinian Authority. I have put my view on the record. I welcome the elections and have expressed the hope that they will be free and fair; otherwise they will not be legitimate. However, we shall deal with whoever is elected, as we have in the past.
  Mr. Tony Clarke: What right has President Bush got to call for any elected leader to be deposed? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that is not the view of the British Government? Can he also correct what he said a few moments ago? Having looked carefully at President Bush's speech, I could not find a reference to the word "viable". He used the word "credible", but credible by whose means? Unless Arafat is allowed to rule and the Palestinian Authority can prove itself, what right have we to say that Arafat is not doing that correctly?
  Mr. Straw: The word "viable" appears in the penultimate paragraph on page 2 of the speech. I shall let my hon. Friend have a copy.
  President Bush did not call for President Arafat to be deposed. He made criticisms and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, and Opposition Members, to read the text and not headlines because the text repays rereading.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's measured approach to free and fair elections in Palestine, but I agree with other hon. Members about the nature of what President Bush said. How can America expect to be treated as a neutral mediator when it calls for a democratically elected leader to be set aside?
  Mr. Straw: The views of the American Administration on President Arafat are based on experience. There have been many disappointments with the Palestinian Authority. I have explained the position of Her Majesty's Government. I recently noted that President Arafat and the Palestinian Authority said that they would have accepted the terms on offer at Camp David and Taba. Had they done so, the history of the past two and half years would have been very different. It was a misjudgment, to put it delicately, for them not to have done so and not to have seized the moment to go for peace then.
  We need a democratic, effective and well run Palestinian Authority. We have made it clear in the EU and the United Kingdom that we stand ready to help to rebuild the Palestinian Authority as well as to continue to provide increasing amounts of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is doing.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: While it is for the Palestinians to elect their own leadership, we should bear it in mind that the Peres Government wanted peace and
  744
  were brought down by terrorism and that the Barak Government and his excellent peace proposals were also brought down by terrorism. Is not President Bush effectively recognising the reality of the politics of the middle east when he says that the Palestinians ought to elect a leadership not tainted by terrorism which is capable of reforming Palestinian institutions if the Israelis—never mind our Government—are to have confidence in the partner put forward by the Palestinians to negotiate a peace treaty with them?
  Mr. Straw: The whole region stands at a crossroads. I say in particular that the Palestinian community has had a terrible time. I will discuss that matter later this afternoon with Mr. Nabil Sha'ath, the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Palestinian Authority. Who is chosen as a representative is a matter for the Palestinians, not for us. We need a Palestinian Authority that does what it says it will do. It must clearly control its security apparatus, which has to be unambiguously opposed to terrorism. Its single job must be the maintenance of law and order and the bearing down on terrorism within the area of the occupied territories and, I have to say, in respect of Israel as well.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Although I agree with everything that the Foreign Secretary and others have said condemning Palestinian suicide bombers, should we not be asking the Government of Israel to desist from their policy of targeted assassinations of Palestinians? They have killed perhaps hundreds of Palestinians in circumstances—some of which I saw a month ago in the west bank—that appear on the face of it to be a violation of the fourth Geneva convention.
  Mr. Straw: Yes. We always make representations whenever we think that a member state of the United Nations is transgressing international law.
  Ms Oona King: Does the Foreign Secretary share my concern about the double standards employed in this debate? I speak as someone from a Jewish family. Is it not strange that Ariel Sharon and others have said that Yasser Arafat is not fit to be leader because he cannot control terrorist groups, whereas Ariel Sharon served under a Jewish Prime Minister who did not merely control a terrorist group, but set up the terrorist group that blew up the King David hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 people? Does not that show us that the Jews and the Arabs are the same—that if they are exposed to ethnic cleansing and have no other escape, they will resort to unacceptable violence? Please can we have a reduction in the double standards and get the peace process back on track?
  Mr. Straw: The United Kingdom Government and, I believe, the international community, have to have one view of terrorism, which is that we are against it and we want the full implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1373. I have to deal for now and for the future, rather than for the history. The simple fact is that the suicide bombings that have taken place and are

  745
  continuing are organised by the most terribly evil people in those terrorist groups, and they are designed as much to deny the Palestinians any effective say over their future as to deny the Israelis any sort of life for themselves. That is why it is imperative that firm action is taken against the suicide bombers by the Palestinian Authority as well as by the Israeli Government. Meanwhile, and alongside
  746
  that effective security action, we have a political process which, thank God, might now have started following President Bush's speech yesterday.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.

Point of Order
3.52 pm
Kali Mountford: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance for Back-Bench Members such as myself who often use the good offices, help and guidance of external organisations such as our local authorities. Yesterday, my local authority and other organisations gave me a great deal of help to prepare for a debate on social care that was due to take place today. However, late last night we found out that the subject for debate was to be changed. What is your view of due notice to the House of such changes if we are to be able to have full, free and fair debates in the Chamber?
Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Lady knows, the Speaker has no views. I sympathise with her difficulties, but notice was given and was within the rules of the House. The Opposition have acted properly.

Auctions
3.53 pm
Mr. Frank Doran: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the sale of goods by auction: and for connected purposes.
I have had an interest in auctions for most of my adult life, attending my first auction when I was still in my teens. That was in the days before the "Antiques Roadshow" persuaded everyone that their granny's old vase in the attic must be worth a fortune and antiques prices spiralled.
There is an ancient tradition of auctioning goods in this country, from which has grown an international arts and antiques market worth between £2 billion and £3 billion a year. London is the centre of the international arts market, and more than 90 per cent. of that market is controlled by two companies, Sotheby's and Christie's, which are still thought of as British, but which are both now international companies. That market is probably the least-regulated sector of business in the United Kingdom, and one in which consumer protection is at its weakest.
The main purpose of my Bill is to deal with the buyers premium. Until 1975, auction houses were fairly simple. Someone who had something to sell would take it to the auction house, and if it was an everyday item—a piece of furniture, some jewellery, or perhaps granny's old vase from the attic—they accepted the house rules and agreed to pay the set commission on the sale price. If it was something grander—an impressionist painting or a Chippendale table—the seller might be in a better bargaining position and could negotiate a more favourable commission rate. If the seller was not happy, he or she could go to another auction house. As far as the buyer was concerned, it was even simpler—a bid was made, and the item was paid for and taken home.
In 1975, when Sotheby's and Christie's were in some financial difficulty, the directors of Sotheby's introduced the buyers premium. That was a commission charged to the buyer as a straight percentage on the sale price. The commission was set at 10 per cent. Christie's introduced its buyers commission, also at 10 per cent., almost simultaneously.
The arts and antiques world was in uproar. At a stroke, the purchase price at both companies' auctions of all goods had increased by 10 per cent., plus VAT on the commission. There was a great deal of anger, which led to attempts at boycotts, threats of legal action, and referrals to the Office of Fair Trading. The OFT received complaints about the buyers premium in 1975, 1978 and 1982. On each occasion, no formal investigation was carried out and no report published. All the opposition failed and, in the process, showed the weakness of the UK regulatory regime in this regard. The main ground for complaint was the alleged collusion between the two companies.
There are a number of serious problems with the buyers premium. First, in return for the premium, no services whatever are provided for buyers. They have the privilege of attending the auction houses for sales, but they had that before the premium. There are catalogues and other services, but those have to be paid for. All the services provided by the auctioneer are charged for separately.

749
Secondly, the buyers premium produces a serious conflict of interest for the auction house. The duty of the auctioneer is to obtain the best possible price for the client. Artificially increasing the price to the buyer inevitably leads to a trade-off against the interests of the seller. Most buyers will take into account the extra to be paid in commission, and bid less.
That is not so much of a problem for the sellers of valuable and important items. They can probably negotiate a lower commission, and for the most important artworks, perhaps even a zero rate. However, for the sellers of more modest items—that includes most of us—there is a real problem. They have to pay the sellers commission, usually 10 per cent., and accept the lower price that purchasers are prepared to pay because of the imposition of the buyers premium.
An example of how that operates in practice was provided to me by Mr. Peter Walton, who is an art dealer in Buckingham. He has led most of the campaigns against the buyers premium over the past 25 years. On a hammer price of £1,000, with the buyers premium of 17.5 per cent., which is not unusual now, the charge would be £175, plus VAT. The commission on the hammer price to the seller at 15 per cent. in Mr. Walton's typical auction house would produce a figure of £150. Of the hammer price of £1,000, £812 would be returned to the vendor, but the auction house would take £393.62 in Mr. Walton's example. That is a third of the sale price, which would go directly into the pocket of the auctioneers for a premium that did not exist previously. It is a rip-off—a very up-market one, but a rip-off none the less. I shall say a little about the current rates. I mentioned that Sotheby's and Christie's had introduced the rates at 10 per cent. in 1975. Sotheby's now has a buyers premium of 20 per cent. and Christie's rate is 17.5 per cent. The common rate in the rest of the country is between 15 and 20 per cent.
The most worrying aspect is the continuing evidence of collusion between the two major auction companies, Christie's and Sotheby's. There is evidence of collusion in 1975, when the buyers premium was introduced by both companies at the same rate within weeks of each other. Most of the attempted legal actions and OFT referrals failed for lack of evidence. However, there is now real evidence of long-term collusion between the two companies. That was presented at the trial last year in the USA of Mr. Alfred Taubman, who was chairman and principal shareholder of Sotheby's.
Mr. Taubman was jailed for a year and fined the equivalent of £5.3 million. He was prosecuted following investigations by USA anti-trust authorities, but also because the chief executive of Christie's, Mr. Davidge, provided evidence that the two companies had been colluding for years over commission and on matters such as the buyers premium. Mr. Davidge gave evidence to save his own skin. The only reason that he was not prosecuted was that he was lucky enough to get in first. That is not a very edifying spectacle for what were previously two of the most up-market of British companies. In America, there are laws to deal with these issues. In this country, the same practices have been in place for a generation and no action has been taken. Consumers remain unprotected.
My Bill would do two things. First, it would establish that the relationship between a seller of goods and an
750
auctioneer is one of agency. That is what the law is assumed to be at the moment, but the important legal cases in this area were decided before Sotheby's and Christie's made the fundamental change of introducing the buyers premium. Secondly, the Bill would abolish the buyers premium. It would be lawful for auctioneers to charge for services such as publication of catalogues, valuation and so on, but the imposition of a straight commission on buyers would be unlawful because it creates a clear conflict with the duty of an agent to his client.
The effect of the Bill is not limited to the two big auction houses. It would apply to every auctioneer in the country. Following the decisions of Sotheby's and Christie's in 1975, slowly but surely, the vast majority of auctioneers in this country have introduced the buyers premium. Most had no choice if they were to remain competitive, because their competitor companies were able to cut the sellers premium and take work away from them. There is as little a case for these auction houses to charge the buyers premium as there is for the two larger companies to do so.
If leave is given for my Bill to be brought in, I hope that it will be the start of the Government's taking a proper and considered look at the way in which auctions are regulated. I am very pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), is present. Yes, the two big auction companies make an important contribution to the economy and standing of this country, but as the court case in America shows, there have been serious deficiencies in the way in which the market has been run. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Doran, Rosemary McKenna, Hugh Bayley, Linda Gilroy, Mr. Chris Bryant, Joan Ruddock, Miss Anne Begg and Ms Dari Taylor.

AUCTIONS
Mr. Frank Doran accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the sale of goods by auction; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 July, and to be printed [Bill 153].
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there has been some unflattering sedentary comment—it was very ill-informed, may I say—from those on the Opposition Front Bench, could some of us register that on this vitally important matter, expertly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), there should be some sort of response under privilege? That is what we are given privilege for. Some of us would like to hear a proper response to the very important matters that he raised, but I would guess that it had better be under privilege.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
State Pension Credit Act 2002
NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002
Land at Palace Avenue, Kensington (Acquisition of Freehold) Act 2002.

Opposition Day
[15TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Mental Health
  Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform the House that I have selected both amendments in the name of the Prime Minister for the Supply day.
  4.4 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move,
  That this House expresses its deep concern at the plight of those who suffer mental ill-health and notes that almost every family will have experience of some form of mental illness; is concerned at the inadequate treatment so many receive, the shortages of staff and beds, the gaps in community provision and the lack of choice; condemns the lack of support and respite for carers, the lack of early intervention with the young and the unmet needs of the elderly; further notes that many vulnerable people with mental health problems are in prison and receiving inadequate medical care: expresses concern at the rise in the suicide rate of those suffering from mental illness; regrets the diversion of mental health funding into other clinical areas; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to act to raise awareness of the scale of mental health problems and to ensure that patients are treated in an appropriate and dignified way.
  There will be much in this debate on which both sides of the House will agree, and some that we will want to debate, but we can begin by recognising that the way in which a society treats those who are least able to play a full role is a measure of how civilised that society is. Sadly, we accept a level of care for people with mental illness that we simply would not accept for many more readily identifiable physical illnesses. If we walked from the House up to the Strand or into the centre of London and saw people, many of whom may have a mental illness, sleeping rough in front of our biggest institutions, most of us would regard that as a policy failure that a humane society should not be willing to tolerate.
  It will come as a surprise to many outside the House, and perhaps to many hon. Members, too, that one in four of us will at some point in our lives suffer from a mental health problem. I doubt whether there is one person in the Chamber who has not experienced the impact of mental ill health on someone in their life, be it a relative, a friend or a colleague.
  Stephen Hesford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: I have barely started; I shall give way shortly.
  Mental illness is society's unspoken epidemic, and as one of our last social taboos it is too rarely discussed. All too often, people regard it as a weakness and stigmatise those who suffer from it. If we are to diffuse the stigma surrounding mental ill health, we must dispel the ignorance surrounding the whole subject.
  The spectrum of mental ill health is incredibly broad, as hon. Members will know from their constituency work. It encompasses many different groups—the mum with post-natal depression, the dad struck by depression because of a period out of work, and the son or daughter with a behavioural disorder who underperforms academically or is disruptive in the classroom. It is also about college friends who commit suicide, seemingly for

  753
  no reason, a soldier returning from overseas unable to adjust to the realities of normal life, and, perhaps most commonly, elderly patients slowly being ravaged by the dehumanising erosion of Alzheimer's disease.
  Although the safety of the public must always be at the top of our priorities, we need to move the debate away from an obsession with the mercifully few incidents when someone with a mental illness harms someone else, and remind ourselves that it is in the interests of public safety to ensure that there is adequate and appropriate treatment for all those who need it.
  Stephen Hesford: Does the hon. Gentleman consider it appropriate to dump an important debate that was on the Order Paper until last night, and substitute it at the last minute—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for debate.
  Dr. Fox: I wonder what people outside this House who think that this is a very important issue will make of such an imbecilic intervention.
  Sadly, too many politicians pay more attention to the potential dangers posed by psychiatric patients, and to their compulsory treatment, than to the far more important issue of appropriate treatment for all patients. I hope that the Government have avoided that mistake in the Bill that they are publishing this afternoon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware that on the ground the situation is often bleak, with widespread staff shortages, acute and day bed shortages, wide gaps in community provision and a lack of effective step-down care for those returning to the community. Things are made worse by the knowledge that although funds are earmarked in the health budget, they all too often fail to reach those in need. Cutting the mental health allocation is an easy way of balancing the budget. The mentally ill are the least likely to complain, make a fuss or write to newspapers.
  The evidence that mental health is not considered to be a priority is stark. Buckinghamshire mental health NHS trust has had £1 million that was originally earmarked for mental health diverted into other areas. Half of all GP practices in Cumbria offer counselling to patients in need, but there are plans to axe that £78,000 service. The Avon and Wiltshire mental health partnership trust faces service reductions amounting to £0.5 million. On a smaller scale, but equally important to patients, the acupuncture clinic at the department of psychiatry at North Manchester general hospital is threatened with closure. It costs £60,000 a year to run. As for big organisations, Saneline requires £1 million a year. It deals with more than 1,000 calls a year from distressed people, but is still under threat.
  It is clear that far from being a priority, mental health care is too often an afterthought in today's NHS. The burden falls across our whole society. Our inner cities bear more than their fair share of that burden. People who are homeless or have alcohol or drug addictions frequently have mental health problems. They end up in inner cities, where amid the hustle and bustle of city life they become invisible to those who otherwise might help them. Of course this is not simply an inner-city issue. The crisis in our countryside has led to an increase in mental health problems, such as the well documented tragedy of farming suicides, which touched my constituency in north Somerset when a father and son, whom I knew well, committed suicide.
  754
  The Conservative party has always been at the forefront of mental health reforms. Lord Shaftesbury began to change the perception of mental health problems from a private misfortune to a matter of public concern. He highlighted the atrocious conditions in many London asylums, and changes began, albeit slowly, to occur.
  The increase in asylums and other custodial institutions was such that by 1954 the population of psychiatric hospitals peaked at 152,000. That is more than twice the current prison population. Enoch Powell took the first, decisive step from that model of care. He said that the Mental Health Act 1959 "lit a funeral pyre" beneath the decaying network of asylums. He was at his most eloquent on the subject in 1961, in what has become known as his "water tower speech". He spoke of asylums that stood
  "isolated, majestic, imperious, brooded over by the gigantic water-tower and chimney combined, rising unmistakable and daunting out of the countryside."
  His broad goal was to move treatment of the mentally ill away from remote asylums and into local hospitals closer to the community.
  The development of new drugs meant that the possibility of treating patients in the community slowly became a reality. It began with the findings of the committee that considered mental health. The now Lord Parkinson chaired it at the request of the now Lord Fowler when the Conservatives were in opposition in the 1970s. Policy development culminated in the Mental Health Act 1983 and the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) introduced.
  Most people accept that it was right in principle to close the old asylums and have patients treated close to or in the community. The concept of care in the community was supported across the political spectrum, although experienced hon. Members might suggest that widespread political consensus sometimes leads to the worst legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Virginia Bottomley) wrote in a letter to The Times in 1998:
  "In an institution, an individual can be monitored 24 hours a day. In the community, reporting and fail-safe mechanisms are necessary if tragedies are to be avoided."
  The suicide rate is increasing again, the family unit is increasingly breaking up, there is homelessness, abuse and the absence of a sense of community in many inner-city areas. Those factors all contribute to the increased prevalence of mental health problems among people of all ages, including, perhaps most worryingly, the young.
  Care in the community has provided many thousands with an opportunity for a quality of life that is far better than the life that they would have experienced inside restrictive institutions. Criticism cannot be laid at the door of the medical, nursing and voluntary staff—the latter are forgotten too often—who have made a Herculean effort in the face of great difficulties. I reject the criticism from some that care in the community was nothing more than the unfortunate or catastrophic meeting of a desire for financial savings with a naive passion for the rights of the individual.
  However, the pendulum swung too far, too fast. Many believe that care in the community was implemented too quickly, and too often with inappropriate patient selection. In too many places there was too little investment in training, finance and related matters. At times there has

  755
  been too little care, scant support and a form of community that exposed the vulnerable—the public and the patients—to danger. Individuals were sometimes placed in complex urban environments with which they simply could not cope. They lacked understanding of their condition, and their institutionalised background made them unable to deal with the complexities of modern living. When they needed help, their cries went unanswered.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: The hon. Gentleman is making a speech the like of which I have never previously heard from him. Is he prepared to acknowledge that the Conservative Government left the Labour Government with an enormous problem, which they have had to tackle?
  Dr. Fox: We should not get into arguing about who introduced what, and who have been in office for the past five years. The principle of care in the community was correct, but mistakes were made in implementing the policy, both under the Conservative Government and under the current Government.
  Claire Ward: Will you say sorry?
  Dr. Fox: Yes, I would say sorry to patients who have suffered unnecessarily because of the poor implementation of policy—but I must say that I find the hon. Lady's approach of sitting in a debate on a very serious subject making stupid sedentary points rather pathetic.
  We require a balance to be struck that will ensure the most appropriate treatment and environment for patients—a balance in which those who need treatment in a hospital setting can receive it, and in which only those able to cope in the community are placed there. We must accept that achieving that balance is made more difficult under this policy—which is discredited in the minds of the public—because of a series of crimes committed by mentally ill people who had fallen between the gaps or come off their medication.
  I do not need to go through that litany today. As Michael Howlett of the Zito Trust said:
  "People don't just attack people in the street out of the blue. There's always a build-up over weeks or months. These incidents are usually as a result of services breaking down and the danger signs not being spotted."
  The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health published a briefing on acute in-patient care a few weeks ago, which stated:
  "We have yet to develop realistic plans to deliver acute inpatient care which is therapeutic and supports recovery. Unless we develop and implement such plans, nationally and locally, we will see an increasing cycle of decline in acute mental health care, with increasing user dissatisfaction, incidents and inquiries and the loss of high-quality staff—all despite the best efforts of so many committed staff. The situation is little short of a crisis, and has to be addressed now. In some instances the quality of care is so poor as to amount to a basic denial of human rights."
  Incidentally, that briefing describes not the situation five years ago, but the situation now.
  Hugh Bayley: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman's party on bringing this issue before the
  756
  House, and I congratulate him on his speech. My question is about the funding and control of mental health services. The hon. Gentleman has gone on record talking about fees, charges and private insurance for health care. Does he agree, however, that for mental health care that is a dead end? Whatever the failings of our mental health care system, privatised health care systems such as that of the United States are much worse. Does he agree that we must have a state-funded system with a proper framework, such as the national service framework?
  Dr. Fox: I have stated on the record that we are not looking towards the American system for mental health care or any other type of health care. I am sure that the whole House would agree that it is essential that those who require treatment for mental illness get it free at the point of use, irrespective of their ability to pay. Whether a range of providers could provide that care, funded by the NHS, is an entirely different matter—to which I shall return, giving examples, later.
  When discussing the issue of danger in connection with patients with mental illness, the question we have to ask is: a danger to whom? Events involving just a few stigmatise the many, and can lead others to overlook the danger that some mentally ill people pose to themselves. The case of Ben Silcock is a good example. Hon. Members will remember that he was severely mauled after climbing into the lion enclosure at London zoo while mentally disturbed. It is also worth remembering that the incidence of suicide, particularly in prison, is far higher than the number of cases in which mentally ill patients harm someone else. Sadly, about 1,000 schizophrenic patients in this country commit suicide every year. That is a figure that we should focus much more on.
  It will always be the duty of the Government to protect the public from harm, if necessary by detention or compulsory treatment, but politicians must take care to adopt a balanced approach that does not stigmatise, and thereby worsen the plight of, those who pose no risk to anyone—except, possibly, themselves. I look forward to the Secretary of State outlining some of the measures that the Government are introducing in their draft Bill today. I hope that they will be dramatically different from some of the proposals in the White Paper.
  In a joint statement, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Law Society have warned that they would find proposals too closely based on the White Paper unacceptable:
  "We call upon the Government to halt any further attempt at legislation based on the White Paper 'Reforming the Mental Health Act' and to begin meaningful consultation on a statutory scheme that takes account of mental incapacity on the successful Scottish model."
  The Secretary of State needs to address those reservations.
  The statement goes on to say that the question of resources needs to be considered and that an Act based on the framework of the White Paper
  "would collapse under the weight of its own regulatory framework … The proposals would be…costly to implement … The new Mental Health Review Tribunals alone would require the time of 600 (extra) psychiatrists. It would be impossible to recruit such numbers. Those in post would be diverted from … patient care."

  757
  It is well known that reservations were expressed about proposals relating to those with dangerous and severe personality disorders. The statement said:
  "In order to accommodate such a risk, the criteria for compulsion have been so widened that large numbers of patients would find themselves inappropriately placed under … the Mental Health Act … increased numbers would overwhelm already over-stretched acute ward and community teams. Patient care would suffer and the level of risk would be increased rather than reduced."
  I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would deal with three issues, the first of which relates to compulsory treatment in the community. In what circumstances will a patient receive enforced treatment, particularly medication, in the community? Secondly, if the Government intend to remove the criterion of treatability under the draft legislation, how will patients with personality disorders who are detained be affected? Who will decide which patients can be detained and for how long, and how do we get round the fact that there is no suitable definition of severe personality disorder? Experiments to determine whether patient behaviour can be predicted through case studies have produced extremely poor results, yet predictability of behaviour will be central to the Government's proposals. Thirdly, when is the proposal likely to become law?
  The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) referred to private sector provision. I have been extremely impressed by the way in which other countries that I have visited deal with mental illness. I was especially impressed by a psychiatric hospital in Denmark, which stood in stark contrast to those in the UK that I have visited. I noted the sense of calm, and the profound sense that patients were treated as individuals, and with great dignity.
  Hon. Members may be aware of examples such as the Hotel Magnus Stenbock, in Helsingborg, which is well known in mental health circles. It is a good example of what might be termed a halfway house for those moving between an institutionalised setting and the community. It has 21 single rooms and offers a balance between private and social space. It offers not just structure and crisis accommodation but a place of safety, and develops a sense of community and acceptance. It is run by the RSMH, a multi-million pound organisation of mental health care users that sustains and nurtures self-help care models throughout Sweden.
  Perhaps the most striking comment on that hotel was made by a shopkeeper who runs a nearby store. One might have expected the local population to object to the proximity of such an hotel, but on the contrary. The shopkeeper said:
  "The proximity of the hotel has not had any adverse effects on business, sometimes the general public are a little wary of users, but they see the staff in the shop are not afraid and are treating the hotel residents the same as all the other customers. It makes them more comfortable. We believe everyone has the right to be treated as a human being and at some point in everyone's life we all encounter problems, some more severe than others."
  That is symptomatic of the way in which Scandinavian countries deal with mental illness. They regard it as an illness that is no more to be afraid of than cardiac or respiratory illness; they do not attach to it the stigma that the United Kingdom does. As it involves a private sector organisation, that example shows that such services do not have to be provided by the state.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing the first
  758
  couple of minutes of his speech. The facility that he has just described sounds remarkably similar to the Countess of Chester site, launched by the Secretary of State a couple of months ago, in which £14 million has been invested. Does he recognise that such provision can be made within the framework of the NHS, and is it not a pity that we have had to wait for so long for the end of buildings that were condemned in the 1980s?
  Dr. Fox: Sadly, we have not seen the end of enough such buildings. The updating of facilities is to be commended, but that is not just a question of changing the bricks and mortar. A cultural problem exists in this country and we need to overcome it, but the stigma attached to mental illness makes it difficult to achieve progress.
  I shall now turn to another hidden scandal in the UK—the situation that pertains in our prisons. Enoch Powell may have lit a funeral pyre beneath mental asylums when his Mental Health Act 1959 began the process of shutting them, but today some 70 per cent. of the prison population have a mental health or substance abuse problem, or both. We once hid our mentally ill in asylums, but we now unwittingly locate far too many of them in our prisons.
  The incidence of mental disorders among the prison population far exceeds that in the population as a whole. It is a troubling thought that, at the beginning of the 21st century, anyone who is mentally ill and has a brush with the law could be subject to inadequate treatment in Dickensian settings in our prisons. Facilities for patients often amount to little more than sick bays with limited primary care cover. The assessment of a prisoner arriving at a prison typically takes five to seven minutes, and is often conducted by a retired GP or a locum with no specialist knowledge of mental health.
  The level of training of staff often does not match the complexity of the conditions with which prisoners present. Prisoners are therefore less likely to have their mental health needs recognised or to receive psychiatric help or treatment, and are at an increased risk of suicide. The number of suicides in 1999 was twice the figure in 1990.
  A report by John Reed, the medical inspector for the inspectorate of prisons, has stated:
  "A period in prison should present an opportunity to detect, diagnose and treat mental illness in a population hard to engage with NHS services. This could bring benefits not only to patients but to the wider community by ensuring continuity of care and reducing the risk of reoffending on release."
  John Reed has also said of prisoners:
  "Many are quietly mad behind their cell door and are not getting any treatment. Care for mentally disordered offenders in prison is a disgrace."
  As a matter of urgency, therefore, the Prison Service needs to consider how to address the mental health needs of the people in its charge. In particular, research is required to determine how much the prison environment impacts on mental health. That may include issues such as overcrowding, confinement in cells and the range of activities available in prison.
  A second problem is that prisoners with mental health problems remain in the Prison Service and are not diverted to the NHS as the Reed report, among others,

  759
  recommended. It is inappropriate for prisoners with severe mental health illness to be in prison. Sir David Ramsbotham has said:
  "In my view mentally ill prisoners requiring 24-hour nursing care should be in the NHS, not prison."
  Mr. Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that part of the solution lies at the beginning of the process? The police should be trained—they have a good record on the issue in Kent—to pick up early, before a case even goes to court, the fact that a prisoner might be suitable for mental health assessment and sectioning, instead of putting him into the criminal justice system.
  Dr. Fox: That is greatly preferable, but it is also essential that people who go to prison with an undiagnosed mental illness are not under-treated and then return to the community with a much greater chance of reoffending. That is part of caring for the vulnerable, but it also involves enlightened self-interest for the wider society. Whether patients are in the criminal justice system or not, it is in everybody's interest to ensure that they are properly treated in the right setting, so that they are not released from custody with a treatable condition.
  I have read the draft Bill, and we will examine closely the Government's proposals for a shift from prison to NHS treatment. If my cursory reading is any guide, those proposals will certainly command the support of the Opposition.
  Mr. John Battle: I remind hon. Members that Armley prison is in my constituency. I do not want to rehash history, but I remember that in 1996 some hon. Members pleaded with the then Government to halt the bed closure programme because it would mean a shift from care in the community to care in custody. That is what has happened. Without going over the past, will the hon. Gentleman be generous enough to acknowledge that for some months we have had 10 pilot mental health in-reach programmes in prisons to address that problem? Is he aware of that fact?
  Dr. Fox: I am aware of it and I welcome it, but we should treat the matter as one of even greater urgency. I hope that the Secretary of State will outline the proposals in the Bill to do just that; it is something that we have been urging the Government to do. If that is what the Secretary of State confirms this afternoon, he will have OUT support.
  The Wanless report looked at the costs of mental illness and the potential savings that a better system might bring. Derek Wanless pointed out that MIND had estimated the total cost of mental illness at £37 billion a year, of which £11.8 billion was accounted for by lost employment. In 1995, more than 91 million working days were lost as a result of mental illness. The Home Office estimates that the overall cost of crime is £58 billion a year, and a significant proportion of crime is carried out by those with a mental illness.
  760
  When asked about the cost benefits of better mental health care, Wanless said:
  "It is difficult to estimate the exact value of potential savings, but it does not seem unreasonable to assume that there might he a 5 per cent. reduction in the costs of mental illness and a 2 per cent. reduction in the costs of crime…giving a net saving across government as a whole of some £3.1 billion a year."
  The House would do well to take a wider view of costs and benefits.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech, much of which I agree with. In respect of prisoners, he referred to the Reed report, which recommended strongly—as have a number of individual inquiries—the break-up of the special hospital system and the development of more regional secure units. Would it be his policy to follow those lines and develop further regional secure provision, with a view to moving prisoners who are wrongly in prison into more appropriate places?
  Dr. Fox: I could not honestly say that I have come to a fixed view on the best way to provide more appropriate care. There is a need for further research as to how best to manage the transition from the prison setting to a more appropriate setting for the treatment of mental illness. Perhaps the pilots referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) might give us some valuable information.
  We accept that health policies cannot hope to eradicate the problems of an entire society—that vision was shattered after 1948—but what health policies can do is to seek to support those who suffer in what can at times be an atomised and alienating society. That is why the Conservative party has decided to make mental health a central part of our health policy agenda. The issue must become a matter of public concern, not just private misfortune. An enlightened society is one that realises—as they have in many Scandinavian countries—that it is to the benefit of everyone for mental illness to be treated adequately, and, if possible, prevented.
  I give the House this final thought: perhaps we need to bring back one other concept that we seem largely to have forgotten—the concept of sanctuary. We started out with Bedlam, then we had madhouses; Lord Shaftesbury gave us asylums, then we looked to the community. Now we must speak of what all the differing environments ought to provide—a sense of sanctuary.
  Recently I visited a mental health counselling service in Aylesbury, where those involved described their office—particularly movingly, I thought—as a place where patients came to feel safe. That is a good guiding principle.
  Last week I visited the Hillside clubhouse in Holloway. I am ashamed to say that I did not know about the clubhouse network, but I was struck from the moment I went through the door by the fact that those with mental health problems looked on the clubhouse as somewhere they could go to feel safe. It offered them companionship, constructive activity and the chance to go and get a paid job in the community. It supported them without compelling them. Everyone found their own level and progressed at their own pace. It was not somewhere they were forced to go but, equally, it was somewhere that would keep in touch if they stopped coming along. In short, it offered genuine care in a real community, and it was a sanctuary within an ever more complex society.

  761
  Concern about the social welfare of those in society who have no one to speak up for them and often cannot speak for themselves is an essential part of any programme for a truly national party. There can be few groups more vulnerable than those with mental illness. We have decided to make mental health central to our policy not because it is fashionable, and not because we have identified some interest group or section of the population whom we can make politically beholden to us as a consequence. We are not doing it because we see some short-term gain to be had by pretending to interest ourselves in so-called soft social issues for a few months. We are doing it because we believe that it is the right thing to do, and that is what politics ought to be about.
  4.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out from "illness" to end and insert:
  "notes the decades of under-investment which led to crumbling buildings, demoralised staff and inadequate treatment under the Conservative Government which left many of the most vulnerable in society without the care they need; supports this Government's investment in NHS mental health services to ensure better and faster care for people with mental health problems, including new community teams, more staff, improved acute care and new services for children; supports the full implementation of the Mental Health National Service Framework to ensure national standards are in place for the care and treatment of mental illness; recognises the massive contribution of carers and the Government's action to support them, and commends the Government's 'mind out for mental health' campaign to tackle stigma; and believes that improving mental health services should remain a key Government priority."
  When I became Secretary of State, I said that our top clinical priorities in the national health service should be threefold—to secure improvements in cancer and cardiac services and also in mental health services. These are the clinical priorities set out in the NHS plan. Why? Because all three had suffered from decades of neglect and, in all three cases, large numbers of patients were affected.
  For years, mental health services were the Cinderella of the NHS, despite the fact that, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, millions of people—perhaps as many as one in four of the population—face a problem at some point in their lives. Each year, 600,000 adults with serious mental health problems are cared for by specialist mental health services. Thousands more young people and tens of thousands of elderly people also receive care. For every individual with a serious mental illness, many others such as families, carers, friends and, indeed, members of the wider public are affected, sometimes—sadly—with tragic consequences.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to stress that mental illness takes many forms. It is worth saying at the outset that despite public perceptions to the contrary, the overwhelming majority of people with mental illness are a threat to no one. Indeed, many mentally ill patients are among the most vulnerable in our community. Reducing the stigma of mental illness should, in my view, be a priority for any caring, civilised society. That is why I was pleased last year that my Department launched the mind out for mental health campaign. It is the first time that the Government have backed a public information campaign specifically designed to tackle such discrimination.
  762
  At the other end of the spectrum, however, there will always be some people with a serious mental disorder. Sometimes they do not recognise how ill they are; sometimes they are so disabled by their mental illness that they are not able to seek help, and sometimes they choose not to seek help. In a small minority of cases, people with a serious mental disorder will pose a significant risk to others but, more particularly, to themselves. In those circumstances, the Government's priority must be to protect patients, their families and the wider public both under the law and through the provision of appropriate services.
  This much, then, is common ground between the Opposition and the Government and probably all parties. The difference lies in what various parties have been prepared to do about these problems and are now prepared to do about them. My right hon. and hon. Friends are more than happy to debate these issues with the Conservative party, because they know the difference between the warm words of the Conservatives in opposition and the grim reality of the Conservatives in power.
  Mr. Michael Fallon rose—
  Mr. Milburn: For a serious debate, the hon. Member for Woodspring skated pretty lightly over 18 years in office. I think that he was a Minister for at least part of that time. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to forget what happened then, but what happened then informs what goes on now, and the standards of care and services that people with mental health problems receive.
  Dr. Fox: Is the Secretary of State really suggesting that the whole concept of care in the community as it was initially rolled out was not part of a consensus? If he believes that, he is quite wrong.
  Mr. Milburn: I will be coming to care in the community in a moment. I think that it was a spectacular failure, for reasons that I will give, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is gradually coming to that view too.
  It is worth reminding the House about the state of mental health services that we found when we came to power in 1997. The view not only among carer and patient groups but in the wider health service is that mental health services had been allowed to become the poor relation in the NHS. There were no national standards of care—not a single one.
  Mental health law had been allowed to be overtaken by both developments in services and in the wider society. Care in the community had been a failure, not least because the policy was both indiscriminate and underfunded. Years of under-investment had left dedicated, hard-working staff in our mental health services with more than their fair share of run-down buildings, continual cuts in the number of beds and, of course, shortages of staff. Indeed. in 1997, two-thirds of health authorities did not even provide round-the-clock access to community mental health services. The simple truth is that mental health was not a priority then—but it is now.
  Mr. David Heath: I do not for a moment doubt the right hon. Gentleman's commitment

  763
  to this policy area, but the reality in my constituency is that we have seen the contraction of psycho-geriatric wards and acute mental wards into a centralised general hospital rather than the provision of such support across the community. That affects links between patients and their general practitioners and between patients and their own community and family. Is that part of the right hon. Gentleman's policy or is something still wrong with the funding arrangements for mental health trusts?
  Mr. Milburn: On the provision of mental health services for older people—the point that the hon. Gentleman raised—as for provision elsewhere in the mental health service, the answer is not that one particular model of care is required. We need a spectrum of services to cope with the spectrum of needs; an elderly lady with severe dementia will have a different set of needs from those of a young child with depression. Our problem is that there are gaping loopholes and gaps in provision across the piece—whether in the acute sector, the community sector, crisis intervention or intermediate care. We need to plug all those gaps.
  I do not advocate a single model of care as the answer to the problems in our mental health services—a range of provision is needed. The truth is that—as we set out in the national service framework that we published about three years ago—it will take some time to get there, so it is better to be straight and honest with people about that. We have started a 10-year programme and we are making progress, and I shall come to some of the details in a moment.
  Mr. Fallon: The right hon. Gentleman talked about warm words and he says that he is making progress, but surely he must admit that it has taken two years since the end of the consultation process to produce a Bill and even that is only a draft. What is the framework for putting his warm words into action?
  Mr. Milburn: I shall come to that in a moment. Not even the most devout proponents of the Mental Health Act 1983 would claim that it was a radical overhaul of the 1950s provision. Fundamentally, mental health legislation in the 21st century is based on a model that dates back to the 1950s, so it would be just as well, as we have this once in a generation opportunity to get it right, that we do precisely that—through consultation, Green Papers, White Papers and a draft Bill. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, because it provides a wider opportunity both in the House and outside to ensure that the provisions in the new Act are right and that we learn from some of the deficiencies in current mental health law.
  Mrs. Joan Humble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rapid closure of large mental institutions in the 1980s and the ejection of tens of thousands of people on to an unsuspecting community which was ill prepared to accept them has made his and the Government's job in building up new mental health services much more difficult? Does that not
  764
  justify careful thought in order to ensure that the community is properly prepared for a genuine programme of care in the community?
  Mr. Milburn: It is as true for mentally ill patients as for most patients that nobody actually likes being in hospital; nobody wants to be in hospital and people try to avoid it wherever possible. Sadly, for some people it will always be necessary, so we must get the range of provision right. Despite all the efforts in the 1980s and 1990s to make community care work, that one telling statistic, which I gave earlier, that in 1997 two-thirds of health authorities did not provide 24-hour access to community services, is a real indictment of the failure to implement what were undoubtedly good intentions. They were good intentions, but I am afraid that the world is paved with good intentions; deeds, rather than words, count in the end.
  To get the range of services and provision right, three changes are necessary: first, changes in the law; secondly, reform to services, particularly with new national standards; and, thirdly, the right level of investment in mental health services. I should like to deal with each of those changes in turn.
  First, on the changes to the law, I am publishing today a new draft mental health Bill and consultation paper, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), our proposals have already been subject to fairly detailed consultation during the past couple of years, but I hope that the publication of a draft Bill will allow further detailed scrutiny to take place. I would certainly urge all right hon. and hon. Members who have an interest in mental health issues to engage in that process and, more particularly, those outside the House, too.
  The current mental health provisions date back to the 1950s. They are, quite simply, out of date. They have failed properly to protect the public, patients or, indeed, the staff who work in our mental health services. For example, under existing mental health law, the powers to treat patients compulsorily are available only if patients are in hospital. However, the majority of patients today are treated in the community. Public confidence in care in the community was undermined therefore by failures not just in the services, but in the law, too. The policy lost public confidence because, in too many cases, neither the services nor the law properly protected either patients or the public.
  Services have too often worked in isolation from one another. Too often, severely ill patients have been allowed to drift out of contact with mental health services altogether. Many patients have failed to comply with treatment. That is, I am afraid, a recurring theme in all the inquiries into the tragic toll of homicides and suicides that have taken place in recent years. Doctors have often been in the absurd position of having to wait until patients in the community become ill enough to require admission to hospital. That prevents earlier intervention to reduce the risks to the patients and, of course, the wider public.
  In particular, existing legislation has failed to provide adequate public protection from those whose propensity to be a risk to others stems from a severe personality disorder. As a result, patients and the public alike have been put at risk; they have been denied the protection that they need. Every year, there are more than 1,000 suicides

  765
  and 50 homicides involving patients who have been in touch with mental health services in the previous 12 months. That graphically illustrates the failure of the old legal framework, which is in desperate need of reform. Our proposals, which are the most far-reaching for decades, are designed to enhance the safety of patients and the public.
  It may be of benefit to the House if I briefly outline the proposals in the draft Bill and the accompanying consultation paper. At the heart of the draft Bill is the need to ensure that there is a new focus on the individual patient. Under the current law, patients are defined and treated not on the basis of their individual needs, but depending on which category of mental disorder they have. That has led to a loophole in the Mental Health Act 1983, so that a small minority of dangerous mentally disordered people have been able to argue that they will not personally benefit from treatment. In some cases, they argue that their illness makes them refuse to take part in appropriate therapy sessions or to co-operate with treatment that could be provided for them.
  Under the 1983 Act, patients in those circumstances would be discharged from treatment and even detention, although people in official positions—whether prison officers or police officers—know full well that they could pose a risk to others as well as themselves.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: Let me continue this point. I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene in a moment or two.
  The current system does nothing to protect those patients and it certainly fails to protect the public if a small minority of dangerous people with mental disorders in those circumstances go on to harm or even kill others or themselves. In the draft Bill, we shall introduce one broad definition of mental disorder and one set of tight conditions to govern the use of compulsory powers. If those conditions are met and treatment is available, compulsory powers may be used. That will close the loophole and ensure better treatment for dangerous mentally disordered patients and provide better protection for the public.
  Similarly, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have powers to direct those who are already serving prison sentences to be assessed and treated. Subject to the new mental health tribunal process, which I will describe shortly, it will be possible to detain dangerous people with severe personality disorders for as long as they continue to present a high risk to others. New services are currently being developed for that small but high-risk group of patients, and my Department and the Home Office are committed to providing more than £120 million to make them available to all who need them.
  Dr. Harris: There is clearly a great debate to be had about the Secretary of State's definitions of mental disorder and mental illness, but I want to ask about his view of treatment. He seemed to imply that there was treatment for severe personality disorders. Does he accept that there is at least controversy about whether effective treatment exists, and that, notwithstanding good intentions, defining treatment as including the general
  766
  term "habilitation"—which means, to an extent, teaching people how to behave—does not solve the problem, which is that he wants to detain people who cannot be treated?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is right: there is controversy. There is certainly not a set view in clinical circles.
  Some interesting experimental therapeutic interventions have been made in the United States and Holland, for example, involving precisely the small cohort of patients whom we are discussing. We are trying to learn from the impact of those interventions. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already provided funds for pilot programmes at Broadmoor prison, and we plan other tests at Rampton and Broadmoor to try to ensure that the right range of treatments is available.
  The hon. Gentleman could put his question in a different way, and ask what else we should do. Should we throw up our hands and say that there is nothing we can do? People in the system know fine well that although this is a very small minority of potential patients, they pose a substantial risk to themselves, their families and the wider public. Given those circumstances, what are those of us in decision-making positions to do? Are we to say there is nothing we can do, or try to close a patent loophole in the law?
  I think it right for us to publish our Bill in draft: White Papers are one thing, but seeing legal, statutory proposals in black and white is quite another. I know that there is concern, and that there will be controversy, but I say in all candour that unless we do something we shall see more of the problems in our constituencies of which we are only too painfully aware.
  Dr. Fox: What the Secretary of State is saying is important. He has rightly drawn a distinction between the draft Bill and the current legislation, pointing out that there is now a single definition of mental disorder and that the treatability criterion is being abolished. He says that he is doing this because a proportion of patients with severe personality disorders would otherwise pose a risk to the public. According to the Government's own research, what proportion of those patients might expect to be detained under new legalisation?
  Mr. Milburn: That depends on the process, which I will describe in a moment.
  As the hon. Gentleman probably recalls from earlier debates—I think my last statement to the House on the subject was made at the time of the White Paper's publication—we currently estimate that between 2,100 and 2,400 people make up the small cohort of potential patients whom we are discussing. Most are in contact with the criminal justice system, and the overwhelming majority are already in prison. We are revising the estimate, however, and it is likely to be revised upwards rather than downwards. Although the number is small, unless appropriate treatment and management are available there is a grave danger of precisely the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech.
  Other changes in mental health law are needed. In the past, too many people with mental health problems were rightly removed from crumbling acute hospitals, but wrongly placed in the community with little support and poor treatment.

  767
  Some lost touch with services, with tragic results for them and their families. Some started on a cycle of detention in hospital and discharge to the community, only to be forced back into hospital when a crisis hit. That revolving door is bad for patients and their families, and we intend to tackle it in the Bill.
  We will do so by allowing compulsory treatment to be provided in the community, as well as in a hospital. That will allow earlier intervention to prevent a patient's condition deteriorating and so help to reduce the risks that patients may pose to themselves or to others. New orders will mean that patients subject to compulsory treatment, whether in the hospital or in the community, will have to comply with the terms of their treatment programme.
  In his speech, the hon. Member for Woodspring asked about medication. I know that concerns have been expressed about that matter. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will never be appropriate, under the terms of the draft Bill, to provide compulsory medication in a person's home. Instead, orders will set out the form of treatment that should apply. For example, if a patient in a clinic refused to comply with the order, he or she could be readmitted compulsorily to hospital.
  Mental health legislation, by necessity, must tread a delicate path between protecting those who are most vulnerable and ensuring public safety. In the draft Bill, the new powers that I have just described are balanced with additional safeguards for patients. Each patient will have an individualised care plan, on which any compulsory treatment will be based. Unlike now, those making decisions about compulsion will also have to consider the patient's wishes and feelings about his or her treatment and the views of his or her carers.
  There will be proper safeguards, and patients will be helped to make use of them. Most significantly, all orders for compulsory assessment and treatment for more than 28 days will have to be authorised by an independent judicial body—the new mental health tribunal—and its decisions will be regularly reviewed. For offenders, of course, the initial decision to apply compulsory assessment and treatment will be a matter not for the tribunal, but for the courts.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and for his approach to these matters. In 1986, some of us managed to steer an Act through the House dealing with some of the issues touched on today. I remind my right hon. Friend of two things. First, that legislation provided that patients leaving long-term care would receive a proper assessment and a response to their needs. Secondly, and more importantly, it provided that advocacy would be crucial to a patient's rights. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that those factors have not been forgotten?
  Mr. Milburn: They certainly have not been forgotten. I commend the work that my right hon. Friend did in 1986, and still does today, on many of the issues to do with the very difficult problems associated with long-term care for some of the most vulnerable in society, and with the role of carers. He is right about what must be included in the barrage of safeguards that we must put in place.
  768
  Removing a person's liberty is an extremely serious step to take. That might be the right thing to do in some circumstances, both for the individual and society, but the power must be balanced with new safeguards for the person involved. As is the case now, those safeguards will include the provision of free legal advice for those who need it. For the first time, people will also get the right to new independent advocacy services, which are intended to help them through what can be the rather byzantine maze of mental health legislation. Those free and independent advocacy services will be available to every patient who goes through the compulsory treatment process.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's detailed analysis of the draft Bill in respect of the role of tribunals. He made it clear that tribunal decisions will be subject to review. A constituent of mine received a mental health tribunal decision more than a year ago, but it has not been implemented yet. How would the circumstances of a person like that man be affected by the new arrangements proposed in the draft Bill?
  Mr. Milburn: I am not familiar with that case, although if my hon. Friend writes to me about it, I shall be happy to consider it. Let me say two things. First, under the draft Bill, the decisions of the mental health tribunal are binding on the national health service, and we would expect the national health service to act quickly to implement them. Secondly, there are safeguards, too. Compulsory treatment will be allowable for the first 28 days without recourse to the mental health tribunal, although the right of appeal to the mental health tribunal exists even during that period. Thereafter, the tribunal can make compulsory treatment orders, for up to six months in the first instance, for a further six months in the second instance, and, finally, for periods of 12 months and so on. Rights of periodic review will exist within that if the person concerned wants to challenge it or their carer has a view about it. I want to assure my hon. Friend that, all along, we have tried to balance safeguards with proper protection for the public.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I am not sure that I fully clarified my point. The patient to whom I referred was subject to a tribunal decision that he should be transferred from a particular hospital a year ago. He has still not been transferred. When the draft Bill becomes legislation, how will those circumstances differ? Who would ensure that that decision was implemented?
  Mr. Milburn: First, that will be a decision for the tribunal. Secondly, however—this is an important further safeguard, too—as my hon. Friend is aware, we currently have the Mental Health Act Commission. The draft Bill proposes that we build on the work of the commission but give a new power to the new, independent health inspectorate that we envisage—the Commission for Health Care Audit and Inspection—which will have precisely the function of ensuring that the decisions of the mental health tribunal are carried out fairly, according to legislation. In law, the national health service will have to act following a tribunal decision. An additional failsafe exists, however, through the powers that will be accorded to the Commission for Health Care Audit and Inspection.

  769
  These are major changes to mental health laws. As I said, we are committed to consulting widely on them. We intend, however, to provide new safeguards for patients alongside better protection for the wider community. I believe that the changes are long overdue.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: The Secretary of State stresses the breadth of the consultation procedure, which I am sure that we all welcome. A procedure exists, however, whereby the Committee dealing with a Bill can go into a Select Committee phase to take evidence before moving to a Standing Committee phase. Have the Government considered whether it might be appropriate to use that procedure for this Bill? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before the Secretary of State answers, may I say to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that I am not entirely happy about the device that he is using now, unless he can satisfy me that it is purely and simply for diary purposes?
  Mr. Milburn: I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is not taping me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) is tempting me to take on powers that I do not really have. In the end, those are matters for the business managers. The Government would certainly look favourably on the idea of referring the draft Bill to a Special Standing Committee. That would be helpful not only in terms of being able to examine it in detail, as we did with the Adoption and Children Bill, for example, but of taking evidence from many parties, some of whom will be happy with the provisions, and some not. If that is the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, I have no problem with it. I have no doubt that it can be discussed through the usual channels.
  Mental health legislation, however, is only for the small minority of patients with a mental health problem that poses the gravest risk to themselves or to others. It is really important to keep that in mind and in perspective when debating these issues. I have no doubt that tomorrow, almost inevitably, the newspapers will be full of stories about the compulsory powers in the mental health Bill that we are proposing. However, we are debating a range of issues here today, and mental health law inevitably only ever affects a small minority of those patients with a mental health problem. It is important to keep that in mind when we debate these issues.
  In the end, good quality care and treatment are key to making sure that most people with mental health problems never need to fall within the scope of mental health legislation. That is why, for the first time, the Government have laid down national standards for mental health services. Not surprisingly, the national service framework that we published three years ago has been widely welcomed, not just by clinicians and managers, but even more importantly, by carers and users of the services.
  Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that Government policy will have failed if the use of compulsion does not decrease in future?
  Mr. Milburn: That is what we want. We must try, and are trying, to undertake two parallel processes. The first
  770
  is to deal with the loopholes in the law that, admittedly, only ever affect a small minority of people and a small minority of patients, although with huge and sometimes tragic consequences. However, our effort overall must be to develop services that are capable, in an appropriate way, of dealing with people's problems without compulsion. That is why we are trying to build up services in hospitals as well as crisis intervention teams in the community, assertive outreach teams and some of the new services that are being made available for young people with the first onset of psychosis.
  Normally such young people, who are among the most vulnerable in the community, are simply not dealt with at all. They often have to wait years to be seen. However, we now know that the model that is being rolled out in 18 local communities across the country works. It can provide quick interventional services and makes a real difference to those people. It prevents them from ever requiring hospitalisation.
  As I tried to make clear earlier, the trick is to get the range of services right. Although the national service framework and the NHS plan are, by necessity, 10-year programmes—we must build up capacity and change the culture of the service—progress is under way. Last year was the first year in perhaps decades in which the overall number of mental health beds in the national health service rose rather than fell. There are more than 500 extra secure beds and 320 extra 24-hour staffed beds. Such services were never available in the past, but more of them are to come.
  Clearly, everything cannot be done at once, because of staffing and capacity constraints. None the less, a range of services that gets early intervention into place and ensures that appropriate services for those who need them are available in primary and hospital care is in place across the country as a whole.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: The Secretary of State mentioned what he thought would be in the headlines tomorrow, but I am sure that he is aware that in the headlines today is the case of a 60-year-old mental patient who was raped on a mixed-sex ward. He will recall our exchanges in the past about mixed-sex wards, and that in 1997, the date for ending them was envisaged to be 1999. That went back to 2002, and then to the end of 2002. When will we see the elimination of mixed-sex wards in mental hospitals?
  Mr. Milburn: If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would be cautious about drawing too much from an individual case in the national health service. I might be wrong, but my understanding is that the incident concerned happened to a patient who occupied a single room, not in a mixed-sex ward. I may be wrong about that, but if the hon. Gentleman is getting his information from the Daily Mail, he should be cautious.
  Wherever the incident took place, it was appalling and almost indescribable. It raises profound questions for the NHS. It is worth remembering that there are some evil people out there and we must ensure that the right form of protection is available for patients without—this is something we want to avoid—turning all our hospitals into prisons. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to avoid that too.
  Dr. Lewis: The Secretary of State is partly correct. According to BBC news online, the incident occurred in

  771
  a patient's room, but it is believed that a male went through a mixed-sex ward before reaching that room. If it had not been a mixed-sex ward, that person would have been spotted. In any case, the Government have stated for years that they would abolish mixed-sex wards, but they have not done so. When will they do that?
  Mr. Milburn: In all candour, the hon. Gentleman is trying to draw too many wrong conclusions from one isolated terrible case. Let us examine carefully whether the incident involved a mixed-sex ward or not. It is my understanding that a member of the public came into the hospital and entered the lady's individual, single room.
  We are making progress on mixed-sex wards. I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that we have targets to meet by the end of the year. I have no doubt that he will be the first to raise it if we do not meet them. However, I can assure him that we are well on target. If he wants to have a word with me after 31 December, we will contrast the progress that this Government have made in eliminating mixed-sex accommodation with the absolute failure to do anything about it when his Government were in power.
  Providing the right range of services—whether in community services or acute services—requires investment. Until the Government came to office, no special funding was available for mental health services. When I hear the hon. Member for Woodspring railing against diverting mental health funding into other clinical areas, I am afraid that I also hear the sound of opportunism resonating with hypocrisy. He usually never misses an opportunity to argue the case against what he calls political priorities for funding certain services in the NHS—priorities set by Ministers. Mental health is such a service. I say that unashamedly. Under this Government, it is receiving special funding—I say that unashamedly, too—because it has a special need. Far from not producing results, the resources that it is getting are indeed producing results.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Where is the money going?
  Mr. Milburn: I did a bit of research before the debate. In the hon. Gentleman's area of North-East Hertfordshire, an assertive outreach team has recently been established to cover that region and a new rehabilitation project is providing high-level support to 12 people and lesser support to eight others. In addition, a new community mental health centre was established last year which offers day care and outreach facilities. A new assertive outreach team and a crisis resolution team are operating in area represented by the hon. Member for Woodspring.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is well aware of the opening of the Christopher unit in Chelmsford; it is a seven-bedded psychiatric intensive care unit. Older people's services in his area include a liaison nurse and a third consultant post. There is 24-hour access to those services for the first time. We have also provided drug and alcohol services and more appropriate premises.
  The Conservatives ask where the money is going: it is going into front-line mental health services, which is precisely where we want it to go. Staff numbers are
  772
  growing, too. There are 450 more psychiatrists, 1,700 more psychologists and more than 2,000 extra nurses working in mental health services. Services for patients with the most severe mental illness have been the first priority for investment, and rightly so.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring rightly raised concerns about the standard of prison care, but as he heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), progress is also under way in that sector. We can make further progress in the years to come, provided that—this is the crucial consideration—we are prepared as a society, as a Government and in this House to commit the necessary resources to correct the historical underfunding that has been all too prevalent in our mental health services.
  It is certainly true that there is a long way to go to secure the world-class mental health services that our country should aspire to provide, but progress is under way, and as the NHS plan set out, there is more to come. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Woodspring quoted approvingly from the Wanless review, which refers to mental health. I am pleased that the Conservatives now acknowledge the importance of Derek Wanless's work, especially as the hon. Gentleman dismissed the report when it was published by saying that it had "completely missed the point."
  The hon. Gentleman may find the odd paragraph here and there in the Wanless review with which he can agree, but he cannot—perhaps he will not—make the single commitment for which it calls: a commitment to a growing NHS with rising levels of investment not just for one or two years, but over a period of years.
  It was that commitment to a growing and improving NHS that we made at the time of the last Budget, and it was precisely that which the Conservatives voted against. We chose to make the necessary investment in the NHS; they chose otherwise. This week they will the ends, with today's demand for an improvement in mental health services; next week, no doubt, it will be something else; and almost daily, Conservative Back Benchers demand more health spending in their own constituencies. It is worth reminding the hon. Member for Woodspring—and the House—that only a few weeks ago he led those same Conservative Members into the No Lobby to vote against the Budget that provides the means to achieve the ends that they claim to want.
  Unless and until the Conservatives have the courage to support the investment that the national health service needs, their claims of conversion to a new form of compassionate, caring conservatism will count for nothing. I say in all candour to the hon. Gentleman that until then they will be judged not on their rhetoric, but on their record—their record of underinvestment when in office, and of opposing investment when in opposition. They can talk about caring until they are blue in the face, but talk is cheap; making the necessary investment in public services is not.
  It is the Labour Government who have begun the process of transforming our mental health services. Taken together with the reforms and investment that we are making in mental health services throughout the country, the proposals that I have outlined today for new mental health laws will enhance the safety of both patients and the wider public. I commend those proposals to the House and urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to back the amendment in the Lobby tonight.
  5.16 pm
  Dr. Evan Harris: There is clearly much with which to agree in both the Front-Bench speeches that we have heard so far and in the Conservatives' motion. Indeed, it is tempting to support everything in the motion. The only point of disagreement might be what is lacking from the motion—an even more candid analysis of the record of many previous Governments. None the less, I think that the motion on the Order Paper is one that my party can support.
  The Government have made things difficult by proposing to remove some of the words in the motion and replace them with other equally important statements. That puts those of us who did not table an amendment for fear that it might not be selected, in the difficult position of wanting to support some of the thoughts expressed both in the motion and in the Government amendment.
  The debate has ranged wider than the words of the motion. The change to the title of the debate is interesting. The hon. Member for Come Valley (Kali Mountford) claimed that it was illegitimate for the Conservatives to change the subject of their debate, but I think that it is legitimate for them to have done so. They clearly thought that mental health was an important issue this week, perhaps because they knew that the Government were about to publish a draft mental health Bill.
  The change on the Order Paper makes it appear that the Government advanced the publication of the Bill to today to allow us to have a debate on the Bill as well as on the Conservatives' motion. There are good and bad aspects to that proposition. It seems to me that the House has witnessed a reverse statement: questions were asked by Conservative Front Benchers before the statement was made, and parts of the Secretary of State's speech resembled the sort of prepared statement that he would give on the publication of a draft Bill.
  I hope that we will be able to return in good time to the draft Bill and its provisions. I welcome the fact that the Bill is in draft form, but not that the whole process has been somewhat delayed. None the less, the Government ought to be commended on the fact that the process has been deliberative—deliberation is a separate issue from delay. I am pleased that the Bill is in draft form because we have significant concerns about its current provisions, to some of which we take exception.
  In his speech and in an article in The Independent today, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) analysed care in the community, describing it as correct in principle. I agree with him. I would go further and say that care in the community was a good policy. For many people—not only those who were in institutions and were released as a result of that policy change, but those who would have become new patients facing life, or at least long-term, incarceration in institutions—the policy of care in the community introduced by the Conservatives was a boon.
  Is it correct to say that because there have been problems with care in the community, it has failed? I would argue that that is an unfair statement, because care in the community was never properly tried and it never had the required funding and resources. Clearly, in mental health more than any other area, the therapeutic environment is staff-rich. Many other conditions can be treated at arm's length from professional staff, with drugs alone or with surgery and little follow-up, but mental
  774
  health needs a high ratio of professional staff to patients, not only to monitor drug therapy, but to offer the talking treatments and counselling that are becoming popular with patients and whose effectiveness is increasingly becoming evident.
  That is why care in the community, which loses the economies of scale achieved by gathering people in institutions, should not be seen simply as a cash-releasing exercise allowing old hospitals to be closed and sold off and the overheads saved, and why it required not just existing funding, but additional investment, which was never made available. Despite progress in their thinking, the Conservatives have not accepted that analysis of care in the community.
  In his article in The Independent and in his speech, the hon. Member for Woodspring said that he thought care in the community
  "was implemented too quickly, often with inappropriate patient selection, and in too many places there was too little investment".
  If he had ended with those words, we could have said, "And so say all of us," but he qualified them by referring to
  "too little investment in training, finance and related areas."
  I assume that "related areas" refers to the staff, psychiatrists, community psychiatric nurses, community care managers, and the organisation and services to support patients in the community.
  I would not say that care in the community failed because of poor implementation. That appears to blame the staff or civil servants for what was a political decision to underfund the sector. I say that it was in large part due to a failure of funding and—these arguments have been well rehearsed before—the difficulty of communication between social services and health departments, particularly when both are short of money. I have made the point before that to describe the barrier between them as a Berlin wall is wrong—it would be more accurate to say a Berlin trench, with both digging for the resources. That applies not only to the Conservative Government, but to the previous Parliament.
  I pay tribute to the work of the Zito Trust in drawing attention to the needs of patients in the community and the dangers that they pose to themselves and the public. Mike Howlett of the Zito Trust was quoted as complaining that part of the problem with the way in which some patients in the community have been managed is that dangers were not spotted. That is no excuse for detention of those with personality disorder, or for compulsory treatment, but it is an argument for better follow-up, more support for those patients and ensuring that they remain in touch.
  I had a homicide in my constituency which occurred nine years after the patient was last in touch with mental health services of either kind, so it was not a problem of poor follow-up of a treated patient who was in the system. The patient was not in the system at all. There is not enough evidence to suggest that we need to go further than improving support. We should not be considering indefinite detention and other such policies.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring also spoke—and I believe that others will speak—about the stigma attaching to people with mental health problems. We must recognise that, and regret stigma where we see it—in films and on television—in the portrayal of people with

  775
  mental illness in stereotypical or caricatured forms. We must regret irresponsible newspaper coverage of events in the community and seek to persuade newspapers to look at the problem from both points of view, and not just to represent, as they see it, the views of the outraged public.
  We in the House have a responsibility for the language that we use. I have often been embarrassed by language used in the House—including, no doubt, some of the language used by my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Woodspring was provoked into describing, without justification, an intervention from a Labour Member as "imbecilic". The use of such words is part of the problem. The Secretary of State's predecessor sometimes became carried away and used heightened language about which I have expressed concerns to him. He did so, for example, in describing Opposition politicians as loony. That may have been worth a laugh at the time, and such language might sometimes have been merited—I am not speaking about those on my Benches—in terms of what he was trying to say. None the less, the use of such terms is part of the problem of increasing stigma. I hope that the Government guide themselves in line with their campaign to ensure that we are responsible in our use of language.
  Mental health services have been described in this debate as Cinderella services. We need to analyse in a little more detail the reasons why they can be so described. It has always been difficult to argue for more funding for mental health at local and indeed national level, because it is not glamorous and the latest technologies are not found in this specialty. The status of professionals working in mental health has not traditionally equalled that of those working in acute medicine, emergency medicine and elective surgery, and in what is seen as life-saving surgery in general. That makes it is almost more important for Governments and more incumbent upon them to redress the balance and ensure that adequate funds are made available. We start from a position of gross underfunding of the mental health specialty. It was most prevalent in the Conservative years, but also existed in the first two—if not four or five—years of the current Administration.
  We have a further problem in that there are no easy outcome measures. When the Government link funding or prioritisation to the measurement of outcomes, as they do in elective surgery and accident and emergency medicine in terms of trolley waits or general waiting times, the danger is that specialties such as mental health and care of the elderly, which are not easily outcome-measured, suffer because of a lack of political prioritisation, despite the words of the Secretary of State and despite the national service framework. If targets are based on those outcomes and health service managers know that their jobs are dependent on their meeting Government targets that have been raised to a level of political risk, such as those for waiting times and, even worse, waiting lists, there is a danger of diversion of resources from mental health to those other fields.
  That is why I have argued—and I have done so consistently, in contrast with the Conservatives—against such central priority setting. I believe that funding should generally not be earmarked; that priorities should be set locally; and that when politicians, even under pressure from the Opposition or the newspapers, seek to set targets
  776
  in certain areas, they must recognise that there will be a tyranny over the outcome measured in terms of time and resource allocation and prioritisation.
  That is a problem. The Secretary of State will recognise that some of the resources that he meant to go into his priority of mental health were diverted into dealing with the here and now of deficits and waiting list targets, and that that funding was, and still is, being poached from mental health. It would be better to ensure that local priorities are set with input on public health and guidance from the Government, but not strict targets. There is a need to allow the bottom-up approach to ensure that resources are provided.
  Within this particular Cinderella specialty—there are two such specialties: elderly care and mental illness—the elderly mentally ill are the Cinderella of Cinderellas.
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman talks about money that the Government have earmarked not going into mental health services, which is a particular concern. However, is it not the case that he does not even believe in the earmarking in the first place, so the idea that the money would go into mental health is not correct?
  Dr. Harris: The difficulty with earmarking is that there will always be something that is not earmarked, unless one centrally earmarks funding for every service. That is why I do not believe that the earmarking of funding is the right way forward. I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question. I believe that I have been consistent in holding the position that earmarking for the pleasure of allowing the Secretary of State to make announcements about his priorities does a disservice to neglected areas. However, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's interest in mental health, which has been even longer held than that of his hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring, if I may put it that way.
  The elderly mentally ill are affected by shortages not only in acute beds, but in residential care and community care services, owing to the impact of the huge funding gap in social care. It is well recognised that social services departments now spend £1 billion more on social care than the standard spending assessment. The Government's failure to meet that gap means that other services are having to be cut. Until the Government put some of the new resources—more than they plan to—into social services, the false economy of beds being blocked will remain. As the Secretary of State knows, bed blocking is a phenomenon not only for acute hospitals, but for acute mental hospitals.
  Mr. Milburn: On the £1 billion gap, is it Liberal Democrat policy to eradicate it?
  Dr. Harris: Yes, it is. We were clear about that in our alternative Budget. If the Secretary of State looks at the detail, he will see that putting £1 billion of new money into the gap would prevent the inexorable rise in regressive council tax and facilitate the local development of services for growth areas instead of propping up the service. I do not want to be distracted too much into social care, but I assure the Secretary of State that my comments are not inconsistent with what we have said before.
  A survey that we carried out in the past year showed that 72 per cent. of social services departments were unable to meet the demand for nursing elderly mental

  777
  illness beds and that 68 per cent. were unable to meet the demand for residential elderly mental illness beds. Fifty-eight per cent. reported shortfalls in the provision of specialised dementia care and 62 per cent. reported shortfalls in provision for older people with challenging behaviour. In dealing with mental illness, we must recognise that we are also dealing with illness that presents as dementia, especially among the elderly. They are affected by underfunding in every budget on which they rely; they are the Cinderella of Cinderellas.
  We have had a brief opportunity to look at the draft Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that we need to spend more time on the detail and that we can do so in Government time, perhaps in Westminster Hall. The Bill has two main flaws. It provides for too much detention without proper treatment, and for inappropriate treatment in the community without enabling people to get back into hospital when they need to.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Before the hon. Gentleman develops his argument, which he is doing very well, I ask him to focus on those people who, whether they like it or not, remain in the community, and who were the subject of the Donaldson report on chronic fatigue syndrome and ME. Does he agree that in so far as there is a psychiatric input—which is debatable—no time should be lost in referring GPs to the findings of that report, and that it would be a great mistake if the National Institute for Clinical Excellence was asked to spend too much time on it?
  Dr. Harris: Not enough information on those difficult conditions is available to or absorbed by those in primary care, on whom the burden most falls. There have been reports in recent days about the amount of unnecessary paperwork that GPs have to get through, and I hesitate to say that they should do even more reading without some being taken away from them. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks are on the record. All hon. Members have constituents with chronic fatigue syndrome or ME, and we know what an ordeal they have to go through to get recognition of their condition, let alone the treatment and care that they and their families need.
  Returning to the draft Bill, it is going too far to detain people who should not be detained for intervention that cannot in all cases be described as treatment. Again, we need more time to develop that, but the Secretary of State knows the arguments against the provisions.
  It is important to hold a debate on compulsory treatment orders. There are arguments in favour of compulsory treatment and the Select Committee on Health made important points about it in its report in July 2000. We look forward to hearing the Chairman's views on the matter. The Health Committee was ambivalent and raised anxieties about it, but did not automatically rule out such a provision. The Government must show even greater recognition of the anxieties than the Secretary of State did.
  It is feared that expanding the definition of mental disorder to include those with personality disorder, and expanding the definition of treatment to include habilitation—teaching people how to live independently—will mean that the definitions are too broad to reassure those of us who are worried that too many civil liberties will be lost in the name of public protection. It is worrying that the
  778
  Secretary of State uses language such as, "If people refuse treatment, they will be compulsorily detained." If those people are deemed capable of refusing treatment, it means that although they may be mentally disordered, they may also be competent to decline treatment. If they do that, the Secretary of State will add an extra group of people to those who can currently be compulsorily detained.
  The principles of non-discrimination and autonomy for people who are capable of giving and, importantly, refusing consent for treatment must be respected. Otherwise we enter new territory that is dangerous for Governments without greater support from key organisations such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
  Mrs. Humble: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the anger and bewilderment of people in the community who are assaulted by neighbours must be weighed in the balance? The police will not act because doctors advise them that the person is not fit to plead, and the health service will not act because it claims that the person has an untreatable mental illness. The problem persists, and there is anger in the community.
  Dr. Harris: I understand the hon. Lady's point. The Secretary of State dealt with the matter when he asked, with an expansive shrug of shoulders, what Governments can do when faced with the problem that she outlined, and talked about the difficulties in the current law of ensuring that such people are treated. I acknowledge that the difficulty needs wider debate. However, I believe that steps must be taken before we go down the path that the Secretary of State suggests.
  First, we must provide greater community support and early intervention, which is not currently available. Many tragedies could be prevented not simply by detention, but by early detection and intervention, and greater support.
  Secondly, we must understand the principle of reciprocity. I do not believe that people who are subject to greater powers under the draft Bill will recognise that they are being fairly treated until the Government provide enhanced treatment facilities. I hope that they will do that with the extra funding for the NHS so that there is no delay in getting a hospital bed, or, as the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, in getting out of a hospital bed into other treatment. There should not be a delay before allocation to a community health team. There should not be such a shortage of professionals that oversight is inadequate.
  We have an additional duty to ensure that patients who are capable but threatened with compulsory treatment are not rationed out of health care. I am conscious of the time, and the debate could continue, but I wanted to draw attention, before Second Reading of the Bill that is now in draft form—I hope that it will be amended—to the fact we could hold significant debates on this issue.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) made an important point about mental health in prisons. There are significant difficulties in prison, where all the problems in the community are writ large because there is a concentration of people many of whom have mental health problems. Despite the best efforts of those who work under siege in prisons, the health service facilities there are not adequate. The Government must pay greater attention to those concerns.
  The problem of dual diagnosis has not yet been raised, although I am sure that all hon. Members will know that it is a major issue, involving mental illness coexisting

  779
  with drug dependency. It is prevalent particularly among the prison population, but also in the population of drug users outside. Whatever resources are needed for each of those groups, the problem requires a combination of behaviour that is mediated not primarily through the judicial system but through enhanced treatment.
  The Secretary of State felt that many of the people who had caused problems in the community through horrific and tragic incidents had not been in touch with mental health services at the time, even if they had previously been. I would suggest that that is an argument in favour of increasing the responsiveness of existing mental health services, and that that has to be done before the Government pursue other options. Otherwise, in the words of a civil servant to a conference in 2000, we shall be dealing not with a
  "health act for vulnerable people in need",
  but with a public safety Act.
  I shall not repeat the points that I made in an earlier intervention about treatability, but I am concerned that the number of people subject to detention on the basis of personality disorder will be dictated not by medical evidence—particularly if the pilot schemes and trials do not give the results that the Government want—but by the treatment of those people by the tabloids.
  In their joint statement, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Law Society have raised a number of concerns about the draft mental health Bill founded on the White Paper, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Woodspring but others of which were not. Until now, I have not read a briefing by a royal college so critical of Government policy and couched in such strong terms, and I hope that the Secretary of State will have an opportunity to read it. The statement says:
  "The proposals"
  based on the White Paper—
  "would be costly and complex to implement. Government funds would be better spent in the provision of more effective clinical services for patients.
  The new Mental Health Review Tribunals alone would require the time of 600 (extra) psychiatrists. It would be impossible to recruit such numbers. Those in post would be diverted from direct patient care."
  Many feel that they are now; the shortage of mental health professionals is severe. [Interruption.] I think that the Secretary of State just said, from a sedentary position, that he considered those views to be "drivel". That is an argument that needs to take place, with the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Law Society on one side, and the Secretary of State's wishful thinking on the other.
  The statement goes on:
  "It is right that new legislation should reflect the move from hospital to community care. But the proposals as they stand would introduce powers that are ethically dubious and practically unworkable. They take no account of alternatives such as the use of leave and discharge with treatment conditions."
  That is an alternative that was proposed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
  It is damaging and disappointing that the Government stand poised to implement the much needed updating of the Mental Health Act 1983 with what could be considered repressive legislation, and to lock up people
  780
  with untreatable personality disorders indefinitely. The public must be protected from the risk of attack, but the best way to achieve that is to ensure that there are adequate resources in terms of psychiatrists, community psychiatric nurses, community care managers, drug therapies and talking treatments. The public, and, to a much greater extent, the mentally ill themselves, are at much greater risk from under-resourcing than from the absence of detention powers or compulsory treatment orders.
  The Conservatives have claimed that community care has failed, but it was never properly tried, because it has never been given the funding that it requires. I hope that all hon. Members will recognise the desperate need for resources and for improving the morale of people working in the mental health service, and for those things to be done before powers that are too draconian are taken in legislation.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I welcome this debate, and I would like to say that there has been much in all the three previous speeches with which I genuinely agree. I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced their draft Bill, and I look forward to the debates on it. It will form the basis for important, long overdue changes in mental health legislation.
  The background to today's debate is interesting. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the previous Secretary of State for Health, made the interesting comment, while he was still Secretary of State, that community care had failed, and today we have heard a possible confession from the Conservatives that their policies in the 1980s and 1990s on community care had failed.
  In debates such as this, I find myself thinking about what went before. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) referred briefly to lunatic asylums—the system of long-stay institutions that was in place not long ago. Community care is not a recent development; I had the interesting experience of working in community care in the 1970s, when it was getting under way. Reference has been made to Enoch Powell, and moves towards community care were being made as long ago as the early part of the 20th century.
  I have a vivid memory of what I saw in those long-stay institutions. The implication of debates such as this—that there was a golden age of lunacy, in which all such people were happily looked after in nice places—is absolute nonsense. Frankly, those places, some of which I knew well, were not nice. I was familiar with some of the highly questionable treatments that were used, and I witnessed the gross denigration of human rights. I remember training as a social worker in the early 1970s with former psychiatric nurses. They told me about a particular Yorkshire institution in which competitions were held to see who could throw patients furthest down a ward. My plea is that we do not forget that the previous situation was not positive but appalling for vast numbers of people.
  I have personal experience of discharging from hospital people who were deemed moral defectives—women who had spent their lives locked up in institutional care for doing nothing other than, say, having a child out of wedlock. That was a disgraceful and scandalous situation, which we should never forget. I met many others who

  781
  were totally sane, even though they had spent their lives in institutional care. Indeed, other than the consequences of being institutionalised, they were no more mad than anybody in this place. Having said that, I have probably met more mad people in the Palace of Westminster than in all the years that I worked in various lunatic asylums and long-stay institutions.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon mentioned the Health Committee's mental health inquiry of 2002. It was a cross-party report, in which we stated that it was "misleading and unhelpful" to argue that care in the community had failed, but that
  "it has failed for some individuals".
  I readily concede that it has indeed failed for some. Like most hon. Members, I meet such people and I am very conscious of the need to address their difficulties. My personal view is that the vast majority of mental health patients get a better deal than that offered 25 years ago, and we should not forget that improvements have been made.
  I commend the previous Conservative Government on the work that they did. Although I opposed many of their measures and had some practical concerns, the principle behind their policy was correct. They were going in the right direction and secured many achievements in community care. I congratulate the current Government, too, on many of their mental health policies, particularly the national service framework—a commendable initiative that is delivering genuine and long overdue improvements. However, I concede that several important problems remain, and in the brief time available I want to spell them out.
  The resources question has been touched on. Money has been made available nationally, but it has not fed through to actual improvements in local mental health services. All of us—including, I suspect, Ministers—are concerned about that. I reiterate the point about funding discrepancies between health and social services. Commendably, through the Budget the Government have done something about that problem, which the Wanless report recognised. We now realise that such discrepancies have held back the development of alternatives for patients leaving hospital and returning to the community.
  I also want to repeat my concern—I have expressed it on many previous occasions—about fragmentation of services and the lack of co-ordination between health and social care. I shall not reiterate the solutions that I have described many times before, but I hope that they come to fruition at some point during my time in this place. It is taking a long time to implement them, but I remain hopeful. The Government are gradually moving towards an integrated health and social care system. Such a system is necessary because problems such as mental illness do not slot neatly into a medical model or a social care model, but overlap both.
  The lack of planning and co-ordination of services is obvious in my constituency, which contains male and female prisons. There is also a regional secure unit near my constituency. I visit each establishment and some of the special hospitals, and I see people who should be somewhere else, but nobody seems to ensure that such people move to where they should be. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken in linking special hospitals to local trusts. That is an important move forward, but I would welcome the Government being
  782
  more radical and acting on the many reports that have suggested that we need to leave behind the models of special hospitals that we have used for many years and have more localised regional secure units. That is a politically difficult step, because no one wants one in their backyard. I have one in my backyard and I understand the difficulties, but that is the way we must go. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken in that direction, but we must go even further.
  When the Health Committee considered mental health, the rights of patients concerned me greatly. We visited Broadmoor hospital, where we were told that 60 per cent. of the women detained did not need to be there and could be cared for in an appropriate environment within the community. That was very worrying, and we must ensure that our new mental health laws do something about that. At Ashworth hospital, we were told that a quarter of the male patients could be cared for more appropriately in the community. I commend The Independent on Sunday, which is running a series of articles that look in detail at the circumstances of some of those patients, because we need to he reminded that they are human beings. We should be concerned to ensure that our legislation will address their circumstances.
  I am concerned that insufficient rigour is used when deciding where in the system patients would be most appropriately placed. That is why I intervened in the Secretary of State's speech to ask who will ensure that the decisions of mental health tribunals are properly policed. At the moment—and I mean no disrespect to the Mental Health Act Commission—I see far too many examples of people being left in completely unsuitable placements. I welcome the proposals for the inspectorate to examine that issue, and I hope that it will be able to join up provision in a way that does not happen now.
  When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will address how we can square the principles of the national service framework—such as non-discrimination and combating stigma—with legislation that will primarily be focused on compulsion. That will present certain difficulties. On the matter of DSPD—dangerous and severe personality disorder—I would also welcome some clarification on what is a health issue and what is a criminal justice matter. Like the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, I have some concerns about that difficult area, and we need to get it right. I am aware that the Government's position differs somewhat from that of the expert group that advised the Government on proposals for change in mental health law. I would also welcome comments on the consistency of the diagnosis of DSPD—we are talking about 2,400 patients—because I know many psychiatrists and they do not all agree on the diagnosis. We need to be careful when labelling people, or possibly locking them up for good, that we know what we are talking about.
  Coincidentally, today I had a meeting with Young Minds, which was arranged many weeks ago. The young people I met made the point that we need to consider how we can prevent increasing numbers of children and young people from developing mental disorders. Their concern was that we do not make sufficient links between our health services and our education system. They see, as I do, children under immense pressure from league tables, examinations—I have a son who completed his GCSEs today, so I know full well the pressures on youngsters and schools—depression and parental break-up. Many factors

  783
  are forcing young people into mental illness and the current system does not sufficiently address the need for prevention.
  One of the issues that the Health Committee considered was the need to encourage far more user involvement in mental health services. We were impressed by some of the user initiatives that we saw in various places, which offered community-based alternatives to in-patient care. We felt that those initiatives should receive more support.
  We have seen many positive developments in the past 25 years, for which successive Governments may claim credit. Although I accept that many challenges lie ahead, in my time in social work and working on policy development in this place, I have seen profound changes and it saddens me that we tend to forget how bad things were before the introduction of community care.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Hugo SwireJust a fortnight ago tragedy came to east Devon with the triple suicide of Anne Harris, Shaun Sheppard and Jamie Hague, about which there has been much press speculation—not least in the papers today. Professor Rachel Jenkins, the director of the World Health Organisation collaboration centre at London's Institute of Psychiatry, commented that she had never heard of a triple suicide before.
  I wish to set the record straight in the limited time available. None of the three was detained at the time under the Mental Health Act. They were informal patients at the Cedars unit of Wonford hospital in Exeter. That unit is an acute in-patient mental health facility for patients between the ages of 16 and 65, primarily from mid and east Devon, on short to medium-term admissions. People are generally admitted for a few days or weeks and on discharge, they are followed up by a care co-ordinator who is a member of the community mental health team. People are admitted with a range of mental health problems, including acute mental illnesses and longer term disorders.
  The challenge for the staff is to provide quality care in a less restricted atmosphere. The situation can change from minute to minute, and the staff have to attempt a difficult balancing act. The staff are a multi-disciplinary team, including medical staff, mental health nurses, occupational therapists and psychologists. Patients all have an individual care plan that covers medication, individual therapy, activities and leave away from the unit.
  I have spoken regularly to Valerie Howell, the chief executive of the Devon Partnership NHS Trust, and I am most grateful to her for keeping me informed. I was told today that the internal review will report by the end of July to the trust board and will be followed by an independent review, consisting of three independent people—probably a nurse, a doctor and a barrister. All the findings of both reviews will be made public and the families of the deceased, with whom, of course, our concerns lie, will be fully involved in them. The reviews will be open and, no doubt, provide lessons to be learned. I suspect that the main question will be whether the care and treatment package was correct and sufficient support available.
  The two patients who were thought to have killed themselves a few days earlier were not in-patients of the Cedars unit, although they were out-patients from the
  784
  same health authority. The police have to deal with the aftermath of these distressing cases, and in this instance, no blame should be apportioned to them. It turns out that the policeman who found the three at the top of the cliff had no training in negotiation, although it is doubtful whether he could have done anything at that stage had he had such training.
  Professor Jenkins has pointed out that people with mental illness are at a greatly increased risk of suicide. One in six people with manic depression take their own lives. That is why I am pleased that the motion refers to
  "the lack of early intervention with the young".
  It also expresses
  "concern at the rise in the suicide rate of those suffering from mental illness".
  We have a responsibility to the most vulnerable in our society—those who sometimes, through no fault of their own, get left behind. I therefore welcome any measure that addresses that issue. It is with some enthusiasm, therefore, that I support the motion tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  6 pm
  Mr. John Battle: I welcome the subject of the debate, because we should all work harder to ensure that the issue of mental health is brought out of the shadows and on to the Floor of the House more regularly. In past years, we heard statements on mental health in December 2000 and. December 1998, and I welcome today's draft Bill.
  I cannot help but recall that, in February 1996, when the Conservative Government made a statement, we were in opposition, pressing the then Secretary of State to halt further psychiatric bed closures until community services were in place. We were pressing for the implementation of a full care programme. We asked that Government to address staff shortages and to change the mental health funding allocation formula to ensure that cash ended up where it was needed. That went unheard at the time, which is why—despite the tone of the remarks from the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—I have to say that the new so-called "compassionate conservatism" is a rather shallow plant that lacks historic roots.
  Dr. Andrew MurrisonDoes the hon. Gentleman share my concern at the closure of Elderly mentally infirm mental illness beds across the country, and particularly in my constituency, under this Government without a commensurate increase in hospital at-home provision?
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman should go to the Library to study how we had care in the community by default because of the closure of beds under the previous Government.
  Let us consider the future. There is still a deep fear of addressing the taboo of mental health and there is still a stigma attached to it. There is still a sense that although the brain is a wonderful organ, it is still not sufficiently understood, despite all our brilliant neuroscientists. We know little about its complex workings and connections as it integrates, at its best, the mind and the body.
  We neglect mental health, and yet how often do we, as Members of Parliament, see people in our advice surgeries who are suffering from mental illness? People come to see

  785
  us who literally may not have spoken to another person in the two weeks since they were last at our surgeries. People come to see us who are confused, worried about their medication or concerned about their treatment and records. With respect to the doctors in the House, none of us can deal with such problems, but we see that there is a real need in terms of mental health care, and it is increasing. In policy terms, we must not steer clear of the issue but, instead, move closer to it.
  For centuries, people with mental health were locked away in Bedlam, in asylums and in institutions, and were forgotten. Now, according to Sane, the mental health charity, one in four of us will suffer some form of mental illness in our lifetimes. We should reflect on that.
  We should welcome the more open interest in mental health issues in our society. There is an acceptance of the reality of mental handicap and mental illness that perhaps was not there 10 or 20 years ago. There is an increasing refusal to accept the traditional mind-body split, which implies that each could be treated separately. There is a greater contemporary emphasis on holistic approaches to mental and physical health.
  The mental institutions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) referred were closed in an attempt to provide care in the community. I worked in one such institution, in Meanwood Park, and I concur with my hon. Friend; they were not the right places for most of the people who were there. The problem was that when care in the community was introduced, there was neither care, in terms of back-up support services, nor community, in the sense of welcoming someone or offering local neighbourhood support. That left sufferers more isolated, neglected and unsupported than anyone else in society. The funding did not follow the mental health patient, as we were told it would at the time.
  I welcome what has happened since then—for example, the Government's plan to increase the priority and significance of mental health, and the increase in investment. I welcome the work to tackle the problem of homelessness. We have a public information campaign and we have heard the announcement of a draft Bill, which deserves full consideration and wider public debate.
  In my constituency, the health authority informs me that the rate of schizophrenia in our inner-city area is significantly higher than in other communities in Leeds. That will include post-natal depression, elderly people with dementia and Alzheimer's, people with phobias and people with eating disorders. However, people suffering from mental illness tend to end up at the bottom end, in privately rented terraced housing, small single bedrooms, low quality council housing and miscellaneous properties. They get the worst deal of all and they are up against it in trying to survive from day to day.
  I spent a day with the Leeds community mental health trust, visiting day centres and talking to mental health workers and specialists working with those suffering as a result of alcohol and drug abuse. I also talked to patients. I would recommend such a visit to other colleagues, as it was worth while. I recall a young mother at one of the centres who told me that the centre was the only place that she could go where nobody judged her. That was important. We have heard the word "sanctuary" used
  786
  earlier. Sanctuary is not only a place, but an attitude of mind towards others who feel that they are often accused, blamed, marginalised, dismissed and then written off.
  One of the great innovations of the Government has been the reform of the NHS through the introduction of primary care trusts. We have to make sure that the variety of preventive health and social services, designed as a dynamic, supportive local network, work in practice and that each primary care trust gets an adequate budget to follow plans through at a local level. We can get agreement on priorities and objectives, and we can assess the needs. But if we assess that the local surgeries need eight mental health staff, it is not enough to provide funding for two, as has happened in Leeds, West. There are recruitment problems, but that is not all. We need to ensure that resources get to the front line locally. I hope that Ministers and the Department will continue to monitor in detail the reform processes that they have set in train to ensure that that happens.
  I want to refer to three policy matters that we must take much more seriously. Colleagues have referred to prisons, and Armley prison is in my constituency. Some 80 per cent. of people in that prison suffer from mental illness and/or drug dependency and alcohol problems. Ten prisoners there today out of 1,247 have been sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Care in the community has come to mean, for many, care in custody.
  I welcome the fact that Armley prison is one of the 10 prisons piloting the Government's new mental health in-reach approach. However, the scheme has been going for three months and has a team of seven; it should be nine. We need to follow this through so that the work of the Home Office and the Department of Health are linked. I also wish to refer to outreach, because we must ensure that when a prisoner leaves prison with mental health needs, he is followed through and receives support within the community.
  I was involved in the establishment of the all-party group on epilepsy, which is well supported across the House. Some 500,000 people in Britain suffer from epilepsy. There was a report recently on people who have suffered sudden and unexpected death as a result of epilepsy, and it revealed that they were usually young adults. I thank the Minister for the reply that I received to my parliamentary questions of 20 June, in which she welcomed the national central audit of epilepsy-related deaths. The Department has promised to consider the recommendations and to develop a strategy and plan by September of this year. It is important that we treat epilepsy in the same way as diabetes, for example, and not leave it as a Cinderella illness. In the past, people with epilepsy were locked away in mental institutions.
  May I make a plea for more attention to be paid to a real crisis area—that of suicides among young men? I have recently come across three such cases—in two cases suicide was attempted, in the third, tragically, the suicide was carried through. Will the Department of Health use its research resources to look at that policy and take it forward? The mental health needs of young men in an increasingly pressured and high-speed world are paramount.
  Finally, proper support, assistance and treatment needs to be followed through to help people help themselves. That implies that the wider community assists as well, which means that the care plans referred to in the draft

  787
  Bill will be vital. With proper back-up and the involvement of patients, they could be the focus and centre of the Bill. As a result, we might not fear mental illness as we have in the past but, as a society and through our institutions, we could properly care for sufferers and at last treat them as equal citizens in our society, as we treat anyone else with health needs.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Time is very limited, but I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate.
  There is a wide range of mental health problems, including anxiety disorders, attention deficit disorder, dementia, depression, eating disorders, mood disorders, obsessive compulsive disorders, personality disorders, psychotic disorders—including schizophrenia—self-harm, sleep disorders, stress disorders and substance abuse. I am sure that all of us, at various times, have come across those problems in our constituencies. Mental handicap, of course, has its own special problems. One is aware of the love and affection that people with special needs engender in their carers and next of kin.
  We must remember that mental illness does not affect a different category of person. As has already been pointed out, one in four of the population suffers from some form of mental illness—and that definition does not even take into account questions of mental fitness. All of us are less than mentally fit at various times. Like physical illness, mental illness should be regarded as a normal part of life. However, that does not mean that it is not stressful for all involved. We recognise that mental illness and lack of mental health impose immense stress and pressure on carers. I am sure that we all wish to pay tribute to those who help people suffering from a mental health problem.
  In some cases, mental health problems can be extreme. It is extraordinary that one third of all young men between the ages of 16 and 18 who are sentenced in court are diagnosed with a primary mental disorder. It is even more extraordinary that 70 per cent. of prisoners have mental illness or suffer from drug abuse. That leads to two conclusions: first, there should be a major new initiative, involving the national health service, to care for the mental health of prisoners. The second conclusion, which is not directly related to this debate, is that we must reconsider the treatment of heroin abusers. Locking them up in prison cannot be the answer if they have access to heroin in prison, and leave prison with greater problems than they had when they entered it.
  In 1999 the Government promised to introduce a mental health Bill. It took until December 2000 to produce a White Paper, and now we have a draft Bill, which I welcome. I also welcome the Secretary of State's response to my submission that when the Bill has had a Second Reading—I am sure that we all wish it well on that occasion—it should be sent to a Special Standing Committee, so that all the issues can be considered on a non-partisan basis. The Bill would effectively go before a Select Committee, during which members of the Committee could cross-examine experts and form a view before considering it in a Standing Committee. That would be entirely appropriate.
  788
  The problems in the national health service include a shortage of psychiatrists, an acute shortage of psychiatric beds, a shortage of social workers in psychiatry and a shortage of people who can treat the large number of people who suffer from dementia. About 5 per cent. of those over 65 suffer from dementia, as do 20 per cent. of those over 80. Those elderly people are unlikely to see a psychiatrist at all.
  My greatest sympathy is reserved for the young. In some cases of acute mental illness, young people have to wait a long time to see a psychiatrist. The waiting time in my constituency is 18 months. This is a matter of resources; we need more resources for psychiatrists, and the latest modern drugs.
  The time constraints are severe tonight, but I welcome the chance to have made this brief contribution. The debate will have served its purpose if it pushes the Government to give a higher priority to mental health services, and helps all of us to regard mental health care as an important part of the national health service that is worthy of debate and support.
  6.16 pm
  Lynne JonesToday's debate has been interesting and enlightening. I agree with many of the comments made by previous speakers, and congratulate the Conservative party on making mental health the subject of this Opposition day debate.
  There is much consensus between Government and Opposition on this issue. It was, after all, a Conservative Secretary of State for Health who coined the term "spectrum of services", acknowledging that there had been a failure to put adequate services in place in the community. It is sad that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) did not acknowledge the failures of the Conservative Government. I agree with much of the Opposition's molion, but I am sad about its failure to acknowledge the positive progress that the Government have made. They have made the vision of the spectrum of services a reality by increasing the number of assertive outreach teams, improving talking treatments and psychology services and investing in the physical infrastructure in our acute wards.
  There will be considerable investment in new mental health services in Birmingham. An acute hospital that is not very old is to go. It was provided in the late 1980s, and when I went there, I was appalled at the lack of therapeutic atmosphere in the building. It was a very constrained building that had obviously been subject to a great deal of cost cutting. At last we will get new services; many will be for in-patients, provided locally rather than at the main hospital base. The Government are making that investment. The Conservatives are right to say that we have a long way to go, but it is churlish not to acknowledge that great progress is being made.
  I have not yet had an opportunity to look at the draft Bill, but I welcome its publication. I agree with the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) that it should be subject to Special Standing Committee procedure. It is now nearly 20 years since the last major piece of mental health legislation. The draft Bill represents the opportunity of a lifetime, and we must ensure that we get it right. We must ensure that we balance the emphasis on public protection—which I think is over-emphasised—with people's right to receive appropriate care. That right

  789
  is not in place at present. Every time we use compulsion it is an indication less of failing in the individual than of failing in the services provided for people in need.
  The Government are initiating a 10-year programme to build up capacity. Goodness knows, more money is needed, and we must be vigilant in ensuring that money allocated for mental health services is not diverted to deal with other pressures. However, no matter how much money we put into services, it is also essential that we have enough staff with the necessary skills.
  We do not have enough staff at the moment. The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health has pointed out that in the existing establishment, one in eight positions is vacant. If the ambitions of the Government, expressed in the national service framework and other plans, are to be realised, we shall need an additional 8,000 staff—a 12 per cent. increase.
  Psychiatry is a Cinderella service in more ways than one. It is not attractive to newly qualified graduates, and we need to ensure that it becomes more attractive. One reason why people shy away from mental health services is the culture of blame in our society, which creates problems in many services, including social work. Because of the stresses and strains on a service, things go wrong—and it is too easy to blame individual clinicians or social workers for their mistakes. That is not to deny that bad mistakes are sometimes made, or that there is some culpability. In many cases, however, people are working against the odds and we should acknowledge that.
  We must deal with the blame culture, and we should move away from too much emphasis on public protection. The only time there is any great publicity or press interest is when a tragic event, especially homicide, occurs. In that context, it is commendable that the Opposition have initiated a debate on mental health when that type of public interest is not current. It is also commendable that they have adopted mental health as one of their priorities; it is already a priority for the Government, so there is much consensus, on the basis of which we can move forward.
  At the last meeting of the all-party mental health group, we discussed mental health appeal tribunals. We heard about patients who had to wait more than 20 weeks for their case to be reviewed by a tribunal. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has pointed out that the process is extremely staff-intensive. A mental health appeal tribunal chair told the all-party group about the constraints on the tribunal service, including the shortage of psychiatrists to serve on the panels and the fact that the psychiatrists who have to provide reports for the tribunal are over-stretched.
  The White Paper proposed automatic referral to a mental health tribunal after 28 days of compulsory treatment; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested that the Bill would include such a provision. There is concern, however, that even more psychiatric time will be taken up in dealing with the process, so there is a danger that there will be even more delays in the system. The Government need to consider that point.
  Although there is consensus among us, omitted from many contributions to the debate was the need to make the experiences of users of the service central to its provision. We should have respect for them and involve them in decisions about their care. A survey carried out by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship showed that a
  790
  quarter of mental health service users did not even have the opportunity to discuss their medication, while 62 per cent. said that there was no discussion of any possible alternative.
  I am pleased to acknowledge the report produced recently by NICE, which made it clear that the choice of anti-psychotic drugs should he made jointly by the patient and the clinician. The report also noted that the use of atypicals should be a primary consideration, and there should be an end to postcode prescribing of such drugs. Compliance with medication is an important issue, and the use of the more modern drugs must be more widespread. Those drugs are not new; they came out 10 years ago, and it is one of the great failures of our service that they were not taken up.
  Advance directives should have higher status; they should be given statutory recognition. If treatment is to be compulsory, the people who make such decisions should take into account the wishes of patients, who should have had the opportunity to express those wishes when they had the capacity to do so. Consideration of such wishes should be a statutory obligation, and patients should be encouraged to carry crisis cards.
  The social security system is important to the well-being of mental health service users. I urge Ministers in the Department of Health to ensure that they have input to the development of services by the Department for Work and Pensions. Compulsion causes great stress to people who are already suffering from mental ill health. I draw the attention of the House to early-day motion 1345, which notes the poor availability of benefits to long-term patients, who receive only about £15 a week. The chief executive of the mental health trust in my area has pointed out that she has to use valuable trust resources to subsidise patients who cannot afford such basic needs as haircuts and shoes.
  Carers are important. Too often, confidentiality is given as an excuse for excluding them. Obviously, if a service user expressly wishes to exclude relatives, that wish should be respected—although questioned. However, family members are too often excluded by default, because clinicians and service providers do not discuss the needs of the whole family with the service user. We must give greater priority to the involvement of carers. People who suffer from mental ill health, as well as those who suffer from personality disorders—the distinction is sometimes blurred—have often experienced trauma in their lives, and family members can help to provide support and enlightenment.
  We need joined-up services. We need good services that take into account the fact that many mentally ill people also suffer from alcohol or drug abuse. Too often, services are either not provided at all or are provided separately, without appropriate links.
  More and more health and social services are being provided through partnership arrangements. However, that means that when people want to complain about a service, there is no single point of reference. The local government ombudsman deals with complaints about social services, while the health service ombudsman deals with complaints about the health service. Will the Government consider appointing an ombudsman specifically for mental health service users and their carers?

  791
  Much has been said about stigma. We will not be able to give priority to mental health services until we deal with the stigma. The hon. Member for Woodspring began by saying that in mental health we accepted services that would not be acceptable in any other aspect of health services, and he is right. Too often, people are afraid to speak out about their experiences; they hide their feelings under the carpet.
  One day, the shame attached to visiting a psychiatrist will be no greater than the feelings that people have when they visit any other medical practitioner. People will seek help when they need it. They will be able to talk about their experiences. Indeed, they will be proud of their ability to do overcome all the problems associated with mental ill health in our society. Their family members will not suffer the stigma of having someone with a mental illness in their families. The Government are putting in place the policies to achieve that, and we all have a role to play in ensuring that the day when people can talk about their experiences comes sooner rather than later.
  6.31 pm
  Hywel Williams: I, too, welcome this debate. I have a long-standing interest in this issue; I am a former social worker, approved under the Mental Health Act 1983. May I say immediately that I was disappointed to find that clause 9(4)(b) of the draft mental health Bill notes that the applicants will not be approved social workers, but approved mental health professionals? When I looked at the explanatory notes, I saw that those approved mental health professionals are
  "to undergo training and have a set level of understanding of mental health legislation and in assessing the non-medical aspects of treatment."
  However, I see no reference to civil liberties or to non-discriminatory or non-oppressive practices, and that is a disappointment.
  I worked under the previous legislation—the Mental Health Act, which has already been mentioned—and I know very well the weaknesses of the mental welfare officer system applied under that Act. I also know very well the weakness in relation to the independence of mental welfare officers. We now have a once in a generation opportunity to reform mental health legislation. I welcome the draft mental health Bill and look forward to contributing to debates on it.
  Care in the community has not been the failure that some people claim. Care in the community has been underfunded. It has not been afforded sufficient priority, and the particular difficulties and opportunities of providing services in rural areas, of which I have great experience, have certainly not been properly addressed. However, it would be ludicrous not to accept that there have been failures, and we need to learn lessons from those mistakes. It is right to pay tribute to people, such as Mrs. Zito, who have suffered and to those who have done so much to draw attention to those failings and to remedy them.
  One can understand the Government's wish to consider the safety of the patient and others as a key factor. That is a key factor, but it is not the only one. Care in the community is, and will remain, the first choice most of
  792
  the time for most of the people with mental health problems. That is a matter of practicality, as well as one of principle.
  I hope that some of my concerns will be addressed in the legislation and the developments that flow from it. I am concerned about the quality and the quantity of services in rural areas. After all, we are seeking equality of service throughout the United Kingdom. There are particular costs and difficulties in rural areas—for example, in gaining access to day facilities and to proper assessments if and when compulsory measures are considered. Any new legislation must take account of those issues; it must not be framed only with the urban context in mind. Securing equity of service to rural dwellers requires substantial additional investment in rural services, and we will look for assurances about that specific extra investment from the Government.
  Lastly—I should say that I have heavily edited my speech, but hon. Members will have the benefit of hearing my opinions at another time—I am particularly concerned about language issues. I share that concern with hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom where there is a measure of societal bilingualism, such as parts of Scotland, and with black and ethnic communities, where many people who could be subject to compulsory mental health treatment may not speak English as their first language, if they speak it at all.
  Proper communication is essential to a proper assessment. In fact, the 1983 Act requires that social workers interview patients in a suitable manner. However, the code of practice under that Act clearly takes an ability to speak English as the given context. Other languages are seen as just that—they are other—despite the Welsh Language Act 1993, under which Welsh and English are treated equally. The code of practice apparently suggests that the answer to language problems is to find an interpreter.
  Most Welsh or Scots Gaelic speakers can also speak English, but when dealing with highly personal problems, such as mental health issues, they would prefer to use their own chosen language. I am sure that that is the case for speakers of so-called ethnic languages. If I were suffering from a mental health problem, I would need an interpreter, although I think that I am perfectly capable of conducting myself in English. I would prefer to be interviewed in Welsh, and I am sure that that would be infinitely more productive.
  Any new legislation and any new code of practice must respond to that issue and ensure that own-language provision becomes easily accessible, which involves rights to advocacy and assessment. Welsh should be used on the same basis as English in the mental health services without remark or hinderance, and I hope that the Minister will give an assurance on that in summing up.
  6.36 pm
  Valerie Davey: I will be brief and just make one main point. The basic premise on which I approach health matters is that prevention is better than cure. I want to refer to the work that the Government have started—I hope that it will continue—with young people. Taking up the theme that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) touched on, I contend that prevention work would be best applied to that issue. No one wants to label such children. I am thankful that

  793
  relatively few children need acute treatment, but we must not ignore those who do, and the Channel 4 television programme, "Young Minds", has recently added to our awareness of the issue.
  Last week, a small group of hon. Members from the Select Committee on Education and Skills visited a remarkable school in Moscow, where, among other things, we met a permanent member of staff—a psychiatrist. The work that she does with not only individual children but the parents, families and the community at large, as well as 200 other teachers, spoke to us of a very important role. She is working with other such people in Denmark and Belgium, but not in Britain. We could learn lessons from that preventive work.
  Those with serious mental illness often say that their childhood experiences have led to their developing mental illness later in adulthood. So, in working with children, we should be more aware of the climate in schools, families and communities that leads to mental health, and I ask the Minister, given her previous work, to link up with the work on health that is being done in the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that, to echo the words of the Government amendment, there will indeed be "new services for children".
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Oliver HealdWe have had an excellent debate on what everyone has agreed is an important and topical subject. Let me first refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey). It is true that concentration on children's services and early intervention are vital, which is one reason for the reference to early intervention in the motion.
  The great frustration for the party in opposition is that all its members can do is talk about issues. Part of the privilege of standing at the other Dispatch Box is the ability to do something. I agree with the Secretary of State that deeds, not words, count. Nevertheless, choosing the subjects to be debated can enable us to make a difference. Nearly everyone who has spoken today has agreed that simply by raising the subject of mental illness the Opposition have done something worth while.
  As the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) has said, as the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—Chairman of the Select Committee—has said, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) has said, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has said, and as so many others have said, the stigma attached to the issue of mental health is one of the biggest obstacles to changing the way in which mental health services are delivered.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Wakefield that the old system of asylums was awful, and had to be changed. He defended care in the community, as did the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams). I do not believe, however, that anyone could accept that that policy was implemented adequately. I have talked to carers and others who experienced its implementation. It is impossible to justify the inappropriate placing and the turning away of so many people, and the fact that the facilities they needed were not available. I still defend the liberation of tens of thousands of people who did not need to be in long-stay mental institutions, but we must recognise the realities of what happened.
  As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, we must recognise progress where the Government have achieved it. Today, after five years, we have a draft Bill
  794
  on mental health. I am pleased that we have it, but five years is quite some time for us to wait for a change in the law that was promised so long ago. I am also pleased that it has now been decided that atypical medicines will be available to schizophrenics, but that too has been a long time coming. It has taken two years for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence alone to act.
  There has been progress. It is, however, the job of Oppositions to hold Governments to their word—which we are trying to do—and also to talk to those involved with mental health. It is our job to go and see what is best practice, what works and what does not, so that when the time comes for us to present our policies they are well informed and based on practice.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): When will that be?
  Mr. Heald: Unfortunately for us, we must wait three years, or possibly four, before we can sit on the other side of the House and present our policies; but I look forward to that day. I am determined that when it comes, our policy on mental health will be one of which we can be proud. The Secretary of State should not be complacent.
  We have important questions about the Bill, and we want answers. We want to know whether the compulsory treatment in the community to which the Bill refers means that medication will be given only in a hospital setting. The Bill mentions a clinical setting. What exactly does that mean?
  What is the effect of the changes made since the White Paper to treatability and the definition of mental disorder? Do they mean, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), that those with personality disorders will be detained indefinitely, or can the Minister promise us that reassuring new safeguards have been introduced? Will she also answer a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)? What will the Bill do to improve arrangements for the transfer of those with mental illness from prison to more suitable settings? That is one of the major issues of the day.
  Then there is the issue of sanctuary. Let us not forget the experiences described by my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). He told us of a tragedy in his constituency involving a triple suicide. Such incidents make us realise what a priority mental health is when vulnerable people are at risk. I welcome the Government's target of a 20 per cent. reduction in the number of suicides over 10 years, but the fact is that the number has risen by 1 per cent.
  The Secretary of State is right to be pleased about movement on crisis resolution teams, but halfway through the period he identified—2000 to 2004—there are 52 of them. He promised that by 2004 there would be 335. He is nowhere near halfway there, at the halfway stage. He promised that there would be 77 more this year. Will there be? He promised that there would be 50 early intervention teams by 2004. So far there are 16. He is not halfway there, but he is halfway through the time. Only 4 per cent. of local teams have established complete services of the sort that was promised. The Audit Commission has complained that less than half the number of specialist teams for the elderly are present in the areas where they are needed.

  795
  We were promised 700 extra workers to give carers respite. As far as we know, none have been appointed. We were promised 1,000 new primary care workers; there is not even a system enabling those who are there to be counted. The Secretary of State laughs. The fact is that he promised that by 2004 every prisoner would be seen and given a care plan on leaving prison. Here we are in 2002, and what has the Secretary of State done? He has changed the target: he now says that that will happen by 2006. We were told that there would be such services in every prison. In fact the Government aim to provide them in only 70 prisons—70 out of l36—by 2004. That cannot mean "every prisoner".
  There are gaps in provision. Where is the money going? Day by day. we hear that money is not reaching the front line—money that was promised. We know that last year £10 million promised for child mental health was simply reallocated for general expenditure. We heard in the Chamber recently from my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that Wiltshire faces cuts. Some of us attended a recent event organised by the Zito Trust, where its latest report on prescribing was to be unveiled. A consultant from Shropshire said that he faced cuts there as well. We have been lobbied about cuts in Manchester, and we have heard evidence of cuts in Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and North Cumbria.
  It is all very well for the Secretary of State to twit me and say that we have had some extra services in North Hertfordshire. I am grateful for that and so are my constituents, but we are still two consultants short. Whatever area the Secretary of State mentions, he does not give the complete picture. He says that the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring has been given extra services, but the hospital is being closed. Right across the country the money is not getting through. It is no good having targets if they are not met.
  It is the Opposition's job to do what I am doing now-to push the Government, and make them keep their promises on mental health. We have a duty to do that, because we are talking about trying to help the most vulnerable members of society. I want the new Bill to recognise that carers and other users of the system want conditions allowing them, as far as possible, to consent to treatment. We will read the Bill carefully, but the Secretary of State should be in no doubt about this: we want a Bill that will improve conditions for those who experience the tragedy of mental ill health, and that is not what the White Paper promised originally. If the Secretary of State has moved in our direction, we shall be pleased.
  Above all, the issue is about human rights as well as money. When it comes to preferences for treatment, we want the Bill to ensure that patients and carers are at the centre of what is proposed and planned. We want the mental health sector to have the dignity that for so long it has not had. That means that when people suffering from mental health problems present themselves at hospital, they will not be turned away-as happens in one out of three cases at the moment.
  6.50 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): Like other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, I am grateful for the opportunity that it has
  796
  afforded to focus the House's attention on this very important topic. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health pointed out, it has been high on the Government's agenda since we first published the "Modernising Mental Health Services" White Paper in 1998.
  I hope that it has been apparent in the debate that the Government share the concern expressed by Opposition Members and many other hon. Members about those in society who suffer from mental health problems. The concern is shared by hon. Members of all parties, but although I do not want to cast aspersions on the conversion of Opposition Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) described compassionate Conservatism as apparently having no roots. Given the numbers of Opposition Members present, it does not have many branches either.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was right to express concern about homeless people who also have mental health problems. I remind him that it was not a Labour Minister who described the difficulty of stepping over the homeless to get into the opera. The Opposition's conversion to concern about the vulnerable and people with mental health problems is relatively recent.
  We share the concerns of those who have expressed their anxiety about mental health problems. However, we do not share the analysis of the causes.
  Sir Michael Spicer: Will the Minister accept that a Labour Minister started the process of closing mental hospitals on a large scale in the 1970s? That happened to the detriment of my constituency, where two mental hospitals were closed in the 1970s.
  Jacqui Smith: In fact, the hon. Member for Woodspring—in a rare mood of contrition—claimed that a Conservative Government were responsible for that, and apologised for it.
  We share Opposition Members' concerns about mental health services, but we point the finger at the decades of underinvestment by the previous Administration. That led to crumbling buildings, demoralised staff and inadequate treatment. We inherited that legacy of neglect when we came to power, and we have been addressing it with vigour ever since.
  We set out our agenda in 1998. Our aim was to modernise mental health care and social care, to provide new investment for reform and to ensure a modern legal framework to support effective treatment outside as well as inside hospital. We are delivering on that agenda.
  All over the country, services are being reconfigured to meet the standards set out in the national service framework for mental health, to ensure better and faster care for people with mental health problems. New community teams have been established, and there are more staff and improved acute in-patient care. Of course, the scene will not be transformed overnight, and we would all like services to progress further and faster. However, across the nation, local implementation teams and front-line staff are working hard to improve mental health care. We do them a grave disservice if we fail to recognise how far they have come already, given the low base from which they had to start.
  We are investing in mental health services, with £329 million set aside to support our NHS plan commitments. That money for the future was described

  797
  by Opposition Members as "reckless" when we first allocated it, and they voted against it. With the draft mental health Bill that we published today, we have started the process that will lead to the 21st century legal framework that we need to underpin 21st century services.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) raised concern—
  Mr. Heald: Will the Minister give way?
  Jacqui Smith: No. [Interruption.] There is a limited amount of time left, and I want to make progress.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon rightly emphasised that mental health legislation needs to strike a careful balance between the protection necessary for patients and the public, and the safeguards that are in place. I can reassure him that we will continue to develop services in the community to ensure that the provision exists and is covered by modernised legislation.
  I do not understand where the claims by the Royal College of Psychiatrists about the extra consultants needed for tribunals come from, but I am willing to work with the royal college to ensure that the tribunal plans work effectively.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) rightly emphasised the need for closer integration of the NHS and social services departments. I am sure that, like me, he welcomes the fact that three out of four of the first care trusts in the country are focusing on mental health services.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield also emphasised the need to move out patients who no longer need to be in high-security hospitals. We are making progress on our target to move 400 patients out of special high-security hospitals and into more appropriate care.
  My hon. Friend also raised the important point about the tension between non-stigmatisation and the Bill's efforts to deal with the most severely ill. When hon. Members look at the Bill in more detail, they will see that it balances its broad definition of mental disorder with tight conditions, and that it massively increases the safeguards for patients. I believe that the Bill strikes the correct balance between the protection of patients and the need to safeguard their rights.
  Several hon. Members spoke about the need for greater user involvement. I agree with them, and massive advances are taking place around the country in user involvement in the development of services.
  The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) spoke about the principles underlying the Bill. The code of practice will set out the principles and their application.
  Mr. Heald: Will the Minister give way?
  Jacqui Smith: No.
  Those principles will be that patients will be involved in decisions about their care, that the decision maker will have to demonstrate the minimum level of intrusion, and that decisions need to be taken in a fair and open way. I can assure the hon. Member for Caernarfon also that the role of the approved mental health professional will be covered in the necessary training.
  798
  The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and others raised the issue of suicide. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West highlighted the high incidence of suicide among young men. The Government are undertaking consultation on a national suicide strategy, with active proposals to tackle the problem. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West about the emphasis on primary care.
  The hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) rightly emphasised the wide spectrum of mental disorders, and spoke about child and adolescent mental health services, which were also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey). I agree that we need to ensure that the extra £105 million invested in child and adolescent mental health services develops those very specialist services. I can also assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West that the work that the Department is carrying out already with the Department for Education and Skills continues. We aim to ensure that the links between professionals to support young people are forged at school level and at local level. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) rightly recognised the progress made, and also emphasised the need for more staff. Users have a particularly important role to play, especially as support, time and recovery workers.
  Mental health is at the heart of the Government's investment and reform in the health service. All of us will have been touched by mental health problems in ourselves, in our families and in our friends. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak pointed out, many will successfully recover and help to challenge the stigma and discrimination that have too often blighted patients' experience and service development.
  Today, the Opposition have pledged plenty of sympathy and even some contrition, but no policy and no money. That is why they can never deliver better mental health services, and why they can never be trusted to support the ill and the excluded in our communities: only this Government can, and only this Government will. I commend our amendment to the House.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 317.

  Division No. 282]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brazier, Julian

  Allan, Richard

  Breed, Colin

  Amess, David

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Burstow, Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burt, Alistair

  Bacon, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Baker, Norman

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Baldry, Tony

  Cameron, David

  Barker, Gregory

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Baron, John

  Barrett, John

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Beggs, Roy

  Cash, William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Chope, Christopher

  Bercow, John

  Clappison, James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Blunt, Crispin

  Conway, Derek

  Boswell, Tim

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Brady, Graham

  Cotter, Brian

  Brake, Tom

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  799

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Moore, Michael

  Doughty, Sue

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Oaten, Mark

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Evans, Nigel

  Öpik, Lembit

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Paice, James

  Flight, Howard

  Paterson, Owen

  Flook, Adrian

  Pickles, Eric

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Price, Adam

  Francois, Mark

  Prisk, Mark

  Gale, Roger

  Pugh, Dr John

  Garnier, Edward

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Gibb, Nick

  Rendel, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Robathan, Andrew

  Goodman, Paul

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Grayling, Chris

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Greenway, John

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ruffley, David

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Harvey, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hayes, John

  Selous, Andrew

  Heald, Oliver

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Heath, David

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hendry, Charles

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hoban, Mark

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

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Soames, Nicholas

  Holmes, Paul

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Horam, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Spink, Bob

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spring, Richard

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Steen, Anthony

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Swayne, Desmond

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Swire, Hugo

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Syms, Robert

  Keetch, Paul

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Key, Robert

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lamb, Norman

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Thurso, John

  Laws, David

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Leigh, Edward

  Tredinnick, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Trend, Michael

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Viggers, Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Luff, Peter

  Watkinson, Angela

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Webb, Steve

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Weir, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wiggin, Bill

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wilkinson, John

  Maples, John

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Mates, Michael

  Willis, Phil

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Mercer, Patrick

  800

  Wishart, Pete

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Yeo, Tim

  Dr. Julian Lewis and

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mr. David Wilshire.

  NOES

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ainger, Nick

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Alexander, Douglas

  David, Wayne

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Davidson, Ian

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dawson, Hilton

  Austin, John

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Baird, Vera

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

  Dismore, Andrew

  Battle, John

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Beard, Nigel

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Doran, Frank

  Benn, Hilary

  Dowd, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew

  Drew, David

  Benton, Joe

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Berry, Roger

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Best, Harold

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Betts, Clive

  Edwards, Huw

  Blackman, Liz

  Efford, Clive

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Borrow, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Brennan, Kevin

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Follett, Barbara

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Bryant, Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Burden, Richard

  Gapes, Mike

  Burnham, Andy

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Cairns, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caplin, Ivor

  Goggins, Paul

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caton, Martin

  Grogan, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Challen, Colin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Chaytor, David

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Havard, Dai

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clelland, David

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coleman, Iain

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Colman, Tony

  Heyes, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hodge, Margaret

  Corston, Jean

  Hoey, Kate

  Cousins, Jim

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Crausby, David

  Hope, Phil

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  801

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Marris, Rob

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hume, John

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hurst, Alan

  Martlew, Eric

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Merron, Gillian

  Irranca—Davies, Huw

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Jamieson, David

  Miliband, David

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Miller, Andrew

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Mole, Chris

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Moran, Margaret

  Jones, Lynne (Sell Oak)

  Morgan, Julie

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Mountford, Kali

  Joyce, Eric

  Mudie, George

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Mullin, Chris

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Khabra, Piara S

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  O'Neill, Martin

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Organ, Diana

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Owen, Albert

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pearson, Ian

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Perham, Linda

  Lammy, David

  Picking, Anne

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Pickthall, Colin

  Laxton, Bob

  Pike, Peter

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Plaskitt, James

  Lepper, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Leslie, Christopher

  Pond, Chris

  Levitt, Tom

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Love, Andrew

  Purchase, Ken

  Lucas, Ian

  Purnell, James

  Luke, Iain

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Lyons, John

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rammell, Bill

  MacDonald, Calum

  Rapson, Syd

  McDonnell, John

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  MacDougall, John

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  McFall, John

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  McIsaac, Shona

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McKechin, Ann

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McNulty, Tony

  Rooney, Terry

  MacShane, Denis

  Ross, Ernie

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Roy, Frank

  McWalter, Tony

  Ruane, Chris

  McWilliam, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Ryan, Joan

  Mann, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  802

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Touhig, Don

  Sawford, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Truswell, Paul

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Singh, Marsha

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Ward, Claire

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Watson, Tom

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watts, David

  Soley, Clive

  White, Brian

  Southworth, Helen

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Squire, Rachel

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wills, Michael

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wood, Mike

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stringer, Graham

  Worthington, Tony

  Tami, Mark

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tipping, Paddy

  Jim Fitzpatrick and

  Todd, Mark

  Mr. Jim Murphy.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House expresses its deep concern at the plight of those who suffer mental ill-health and notes that almost every family will have experience of some form of mental illness; notes the decades of under-investment which led to crumbling buildings, demoralised staff and inadequate treatment under the Conservative Government which left many of the most vulnerable in society without the care they need; supports this Government's investment in NHS mental health services to ensure better and faster care for people with mental health problems, including new community teams, more staff, improved acute care and new services for children; supports the full implementation of the Mental Health National Service Framework to ensure national standards are in place for the care and treatment of mental illness; recognises the massive contribution of carers and the Government's action to support them, and commends the Government's 'mind out for mental health' campaign to tackle stigma; and believes that improving mental health services should remain a key Government priority.

  Zimbabwe
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the deteriorating political, economic and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe; condemns the continuing violations of basic human rights committed by the Mugabe regime; reaffirms the view that following the rigged presidential election in March the current Zimbabwean government lacks legitimacy; regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government and the EU to implement sanctions and exert effective pressure on the Mugabe regime to hold new free and independently monitored presidential elections; recognises the growing politically-induced humanitarian suffering in Zimbabwe, and its effects on her neighbours; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to take effective action to build an international coalition to apply whatever pressure is necessary, in line with the Harare Declaration, to restore democracy in Zimbabwe through fresh Presidential elections.
  This debate should have taken place a long time ago, and it should also have taken place in Government time. Zimbabwe is not a far-off land about which we know little; it is a land that we know all too well. Zimbabwe is in crisis. Her people are suffering—suffering from starvation, suffering from a breakdown in the rule of law, suffering from the loss of basic democratic freedoms, suffering from a systematic violation of human rights and suffering from a vote-rigging despot who uses intimidation and lawlessness to impose his will upon his people.
  If we were talking about Kosovo or Bosnia, the Prime Minister would rightly insist on our moral duty to intervene to save the people from tyranny, dispersal and torture. If we were talking about the Indian sub-continent, the Foreign Secretary would be jetting in to exercise persuasion and economic muscle to restore normality. If we were talking about the middle east, prime ministerial envoys would be whistle-stopping around the region seeking support for political action to deal with the crisis. But we are talking about Zimbabwe, yet from the Government there has been silence and inaction.
  Until Question Time this afternoon, there had been no recent statements in the House on Zimbabwe and there has been no evidence of the creation of the international coalition to bring pressure to bear on the Mugabe regime that was promised by the Foreign Secretary when he told the House that an international coalition was
  "exactly what we have been seeking to put together and have, indeed, put together."—[Official Report, 21 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 449.]
  He could have fooled me. He certainly fooled the people of Zimbabwe.
  It is starkly indicative that it has taken the Opposition to bring this matter to the Floor of the House. I have accused the Government of dithering over Zimbabwe, but I confess that I am wrong. Since March, there has not been enough action to merit the description "dithering." There has only been silence, broken astonishingly last week on 20 June when the Foreign Secretary claimed, as he did earlier today, that sanctions were working and that Zimbabwe's Government were experiencing—I think these are the words he used—isolation from the rest of the world. Who does he think he is kidding? Certainly not the people of Gib—[Interruption]—Zimbabwe, or of Gibraltar; certainly not the people of Zimbabwe.
  Let me say to the Foreign Secretary that the people of Zimbabwe feel a sense of betrayal that Britain has turned its back on them and that it is afraid to take on the Mugabe
  804
  regime. They see the Government ensconced in their well-practised mode of supine inaction. Many Zimbabweans to whom I have spoken recently believe that we no longer care about what happens in Zimbabwe. I can only tell them that Conservative Members care passionately.
  Hugh Bayley rose—
  Mr. Ancram: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman cares passionately, so I shall be delighted to give way to him.
  Hugh Bayley: I have taken an interest in Zimbabwe for a long time. When the right hon. Gentleman's party were in power, Mugabe wiped out the opposition party, ZAPU, and 10,000 Zimbabweans were butchered in Matabeleland. What protests did the right hon. Gentleman's Government lodge; what sanctions did they apply; and why did they later invite Mugabe to Britain on a state visit?
  Mr. Ancram: I do not understand whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that is any reason to ignore what is happening in Zimbabwe today. I count 10 Labour Members in the Chamber for this debate, and that is a sign of how much the Labour party cares about what is happening in Zimbabwe.
  We know that the crisis in Zimbabwe is getting worse. It is important that not only the House but the country should know about what is horrifyingly growing unchecked in Zimbabwe. We cannot turn a blind eye to it and we cannot afford to be squeamish. Our motion refers to the
  "deteriorating political, economic and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe"
  and to
  "the continuing violations of basic human rights".
  The truth is stark. According to the report of the independent Physicians for Human Rights, between January and April this year, there were 961 documented cases of torture. There have been many more since then.
  Some of the cases are horrifying. A Movement for Democratic Change supporter was attacked three times. Eight months pregnant, she was kicked so badly in the groin and lower abdomen that she suffered internal bleeding for which she was prevented from getting treatment. Subsequently, her eight-day-old baby was physically abused by Mugabe's thugs while she was gagged to silence her screams. She was told by them that her baby should die because it was "MDC property".
  Documented cases of torture include severe beatings, mutilation by fire, whippings, permanent disfigurement and crippling, much of it taking place in the custody of the police or the military. One victim in May was abducted in front of the central police station in Bulawayo and taken to a militia camp. He was accused of being an MDC supporter. A flaming log was taken from a fire and forced against his feet. His mutilated feet were then beaten. A former policeman accused of being MDC was beaten about his head with a metal bar and then more generally with sjamboks by ZANU youth militia. When he complained to the police he was told:
  "anyone suspected of being MDC will be beaten up".

  805
  The fact is that the police turn a blind eye to such torture and abuse, probably because more than 90 per cent. of such cases emanate from the actions of persons linked to the Government—the army, the police, the militia, the veterans groups. There is little fear of repercussions because the Government have let it be known that grants of clemency and amnesty will be forthcoming.
  An apologist for Mugabe told me the other day that I should not be too censorious about what was happening in Zimbabwe because "This was Africa". Such comments are a slur on that great continent. The abuse is not African; it is the abuse of a fascist dictatorship. The international community can no longer stand by and let it happen.
  After elections in March that were internationally judged to be rigged and stolen, the Foreign Secretary told the House:
  "we do not recognise the result or its legitimacy."—[Official Report, 14 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 1035.]
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will confirm that that remains his position.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): Yes.
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful for that. Mugabe and his henchmen have ridden roughshod over democracy in Zimbabwe. It is worth recalling that the principles of the 1991 Harare declaration—this is ironic—state:
  "We believe…in the individual's inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic processes in the society in which he or she lives".
  Yet two days after the elections, Mugabe laid formal charges of treason against the leaders of the MDC. Between January and August this year, the Parliament will have been closed for all but two days in May, when legislation was pushed through without consultation or debate.
  In terms of the law, Mugabe has ignored any rulings that did not suit him. On 9 April, a senior Government official, George Charama, said that it was the intention of the Government to ignore rulings by the court which were not in the Government's favour. The contemptuous Government reaction to the Supreme Court ruling that the Public Order and Security Act did not apply to certain internal meetings of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions only helps to corroborate that.
  Press freedom and freedom of expression are also under attack. The draconian Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act has already allowed the arrest of more than a dozen journalists on various charges. Poets, too, have been jailed under that legislation for poetry critical of Mugabe.
  Zimbabwe's economic outlook is even bleaker. The violent land-grabs continue. Yesterday, 60 per cent. of Zimbabwe's remaining white farmers were told to close down. Many of them will not even be allowed to complete the essential grading of the tobacco that used to provide 30 per cent. of Zimbabwe's foreign currency. Agricultural output has fallen 67 per cent. from last year. Farmers are being dispossessed and their labourers are losing their jobs and watching helplessly as their families face hunger and homelessness.
  Unemployment has soared to 70 per cent. Business closures are rife. Everyone is suffering except for those who are in Mugabe's pocket. Inflation has now reached
  806
  122 per cent. Skilled people are leaving Zimbabwe. Wildlife, so essential to the tourism industry, has been devastated, including the rare black rhino. The dire economic crisis is beginning seriously to damage neighbouring economies as well.
  Then there is the Mugabe-created and fuelled humanitarian crisis. Some 6 million people face malnutrition in Zimbabwe. The United Nations estimates that Zimbabwe needs 1.5 million tonnes of food aid, including 1.3 million tonnes of corn. Mugabe cynically and dishonestly blames the white imperialists, but the blame lies firmly on his shoulders. He is even blocking grain imports from the port of Beira.
  Home production has been devastated by the land-grabs. Andrew Meikle, chairman of Commercial Grain Producers, projects a harvest of only 498,000 tonnes this year compared with 1.47 million last year and 2.1 million in 2000. Wheat is expected to run out by the end of the month. The crisis is massive and it is politically induced. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) will have more to say on that in her winding-up speech.
  The horrifying truth is that Mugabe is using starvation as a political tool. He is primarily responsible for his people's hunger. The PHR report vividly describes how the feeding plan in Midlands school has been altered to keep MDC children from obtaining food. A ZANU-PF councillor is chillingly reported as having said:
  "even if stone was to melt, MDC children will not get the food because it is ZANU food".
  While our Government may say little, others have spoken out. USAID head, Andrew Natsios, describes Mugabe as tyrannical and predatory. Mary Robinson, the UN Human Rights Commissioner, has accused Mugabe of being primarily responsible for the hunger and deprivation afflicting Zimbabwe. Mugabe may blame drought, but the truth is that his people go hungry alongside full dams with the waters unexploited.
  We must make no mistake about it: the crisis and the evil are real, and real international action is urgently needed. It simply does not wash for the Foreign Secretary to say, as he did at Question Time today, that action is being taken. The right hon. Gentleman has to answer some central questions. What has exclusion from the councils of the Commonwealth achieved? How many meetings has Zimbabwe been excluded from? Will it still attend the Commonwealth games at the end of next month? Will any Zimbabwean Ministers attend those games? What message will that give to Mr. Mugabe?
  Then there are the EU targeted sanctions which the Foreign Secretary apparently believes are isolating the Zimbabwean Government. I thought that Mugabe and senior members of his regime were supposed to be banned from travelling. In the words of the Foreign Secretary in January, that policy was "clear, unanimous and unambiguous"—so clear, apparently, that Mugabe was able to attend the United Nations in New York; so unanimous that Grace Mugabe was recently able to go shopping in Spain; and so unambiguous that police chief Augustine Chihuri was able to attend a meeting of Interpol in Lille in May, and Mugabe, with offensive irony, was able to attend a UN conference on world hunger in Rome a few days ago. Dr. Olivia Muchena, Minister of State in the Vice-Presidents' office, a former Deputy Minister of Agriculture, is allowed to travel

  807
  at will. Kumberai Kengai, ex-Minister of Agriculture, is receiving medical treatment in the United Kingdom. Why is the travel ban list not comprehensive? The asset freeze includes Mugabe, individual members of the Government of Zimbabwe and any natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them. But only 20 individuals are named in the travel ban.
  It is time that the Government faced the facts. EU targeted sanctions are not working. The author of the recent International Crisis Group report described the sanctions as a joke. He went on to say:
  "Britain and the EU talk tough and do nothing. They threatened Mugabe that if he stole the election they would come down hard on him. Mugabe must be laughing at them."
  What an indictment!
  The sanctions regime needs to be strengthened both in scope and extent; it needs to encompass more targets; and it needs to be given more bite. I would like the sanctions regime to include the immediate families of those who are on the banned list. Why has the EU perversely postponed further consideration of such an urgently needed review of the sanctions until 22 July? Ministers met—what was it, a week and a half ago? Did they not consider at that time whether the sanctions were working? Last week's General Affairs Council conclusions contained one page about Zimbabwe and not a single action point.
  The Government have lost the plot on Zimbabwe. The overriding objective must now be to secure new, fresh, independently monitored presidential elections. Any fudged and artificial compromise between ZANU-PF and the MDC that falls short of that would be a victory for Mugabe's dishonesty and his despotic behaviour, and the MDC are right to reject it.
  Tony Baldry: My right hon. Friend has said a lot about the EU, but is this matter not also a test for Africa? Today, the G8 is discussing in earnest the New Partnership for Africa's Development. If NEPAD is to have any substance or meaning, surely the heads of Government of other African states should bring pressure to bear on Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is a test of whether NEPAD will work for Africa.
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which I intended to make a little later in my remarks. I fully agree with him. The coalition I mentioned could bring pressure to bear on NEPAD's African members to exert pressure through NEPAD. I think that that would have a substantial effect, so it is one of the things that we would like to see being done in the coming days.
  We should no longer expect Mugabe to listen to reason. He mocks the British Government's rhetoric and the Prime Minister's high moral pronouncements. He now believes that he can literally get away with murder and that we will not react, but I tell the House that the time has come when we have to act. Of course we should not try to act alone: we have to build a powerful international coalition to meet the challenges of what is now an incipient rogue state. With ourselves, such a coalition should include the European Union, the United States, the Commonwealth and, most important of all, South Africa and its neighbours, along with Nigeria.
  808
  The coalition's objectives should be the re-running of the presidential elections, democratically conducted and independently monitored and refereed, if necessary involving further talks between ZANU-PF and the MDC to negotiate the means of setting such elections in process. The coalition must be strong and cohesive enough to exert on Mugabe the political, economic and, if necessary, military pressure needed to achieve its objectives. It must be bound together by an understanding that failure to deal with the crisis in Zimbabwe threatens the whole region and will make international economic support for the region less practicable.
  Mr. Straw: Just now the right hon. Gentleman mentioned military pressure, and in his preliminary remarks he made a reference to Kosovo. Is he suggesting that we should either unilaterally or multilaterally take military action against the Mugabe regime?
  Mr. Ancram: No, I am not. At this stage I do not wish to rule anything in or anything out in judging what is necessary to bring sufficient pressure to bear on Mugabe to hold fresh elections. However, if the coalition is to be effective, it must have the means—whatever means are necessary—to achieve its objectives. For that reason, I mentioned the three areas of economic, political and military pressure very deliberately in that context.
  The coalition must have strong and clear aims. In African terms, it should aim to isolate Zimbabwe diplomatically if the violence and intimidation do not cease, and it should persuade countries such as Libya to cease the material help that they currently give to Zimbabwe, which only serves to encourage Mugabe. In Commonwealth terms, the coalition should seek to secure the implementation of the Abuja agreement of last September in respect of the rule of law in Zimbabwe and the proper transfer of land. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State for International Development says, "We have tried," but I do not believe that we have tried hard enough. I want a coalition that can bring real pressure to bear. In EU and US terms, the coalition should extend targeted sanctions to directors and top officials in ZANU-PF affiliated businesses and strengthen the freezing of assets against them. The sanctions must be made effective in ways that they currently are not.
  At the same time, the coalition should make the public in southern African aware of current levels of corruption in Zimbabwe. It should implement the recommendation of the UN panel on the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the Congo to make Mugabe face up to the realities of Zimbabwe's crisis. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), at the G8 summit, progress on the NEPAD initiative should be linked to stronger and more credible efforts by African Governments to resolve Zimbabwe's crisis.
  The time for appeasement and empty rhetoric is over. Supine inaction must now be replaced by action—[Interruption.] The Foreign Secretary returns to his usual theme: in the past when I have called on the Government to stop talking and start doing, he has always responded by accusing me of offering no plan for action. If he had been listening for the past few minutes, he would have realised that I have laid out a clear pattern of action that a coalition can and should take.
  Time is running short. If disaster is to be averted, the Government can no longer afford to look the other way—the problem will not resolve itself. Hiding behind the alibi

  809
  of our colonial past to excuse our inaction will no longer wash. Yet again, I call on the Government to cease the hand-wringing and the empty rhetoric, and to stand up against dictatorship for democracy and the rule of law.
  I remind the House of what the Prime Minister said at his party conference last October, when he told the country that he would heal the scars of Africa:
  "if Rwanda happened again today…we would have a moral duty to act there".
  and added that he would
  "not tolerate…the behaviour of Mugabe's henchmen".
  The Government must now demonstrate that the Prime Minister's words are more than mere rhetoric. Let us see action—and let us see it now, before it is too late.
  7.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "expresses its grave concern at the abuse of human rights and suppression of freedom of expression in Zimbabwe, the increase in poverty arising from the policies of the ruling party, and the impending humanitarian crisis in the country; reaffirms the view that the outcome of the recent Presidential election does not reflect the will of the Zimbabwean people; recognises the need for Land Reform but also recognises that this needs to be done responsibly; welcomes the actions taken on Zimbabwe by Her Majesty's Government in co-operation with the EU, the Commonwealth, the US and others; further welcomes the efforts of the Governments of South Africa and Nigeria to facilitate dialogue between ZANU (PF) and MDC, and deplores ZANU (PF)'s withdrawal from these talks; further welcomes the Government's commitment of £32 million to humanitarian relief in Zimbabwe outside official channels; and calls on the Government to encourage other donors to stand by the people of Zimbabwe at this difficult time."
  I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and the Opposition for organising this debate in Opposition time. The fact that it is the first Opposition debate devoted to a foreign affairs subject for two years illustrates the difficulty that the right hon. Gentleman had in persuading his right hon. and hon. Friends in the shadow Cabinet to agree to it. That is emphasised by the fact that the Leader of the Opposition takes almost no interest in Zimbabwe or, indeed, in Africa.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, of course I will not.
  The Leader of the Opposition has made only one foreign policy speech in the whole time that he has occupied that post—getting on for a year. In that speech, on foreign policy and the world, there is not a single reference to Zimbabwe, still less to the rest of Africa.
  The speech that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Devizes is long on indignation and almost wholly devoid of action. He says that his agenda for action beyond what we are already doing is to rule nothing in and to rule nothing out. I thought that he gave away his real interests when, in a slip of which Freud would have been proud, he said that not even the people of Gibraltar would be fooled by what we are doing.
  810
  That illustrates only too well that he could as well have applied his speech to Gibraltar as to Zimbabwe, despite the entirely different circumstances.
  Mr. Turner: How many people have been murdered in Gibraltar?
  Mr. Straw: None as far as I know—or if they have, the Gibraltar police have investigated. I merely point out the fact that the right hon. Member for Devizes made an extraordinary but highly revealing Freudian slip.
  What we heard today, and what we hear from the right hon. Member for Devizes each time the issue is raised, is the usual incantation in which he calls for the establishment of an international coalition, including members of the Commonwealth, the European Union, the United States and countries in southern Africa, to take effective action against the regime. When we have achieved exactly that—in the Commonwealth, with Zimbabwe's suspension, and in the EU, with targeted sanctions against the ruling party and the military—the right hon. Gentleman has scarcely been able to hide his disappointment.
  This morning, as he has so often done, the right hon. Gentleman made similar remarks on the radio to those that he made this evening, describing what is unquestionably a profoundly dire situation, and implying that all that rests between peace and harmony in Zimbabwe and the current circumstances is what he describes as inaction by the British Government. Would that that were the situation. When put on the spot, as the right hon. Gentleman was this morning, and asked what Britain could realistically do, given its history with Zimbabwe, he said:
  "I think we shouldn't try to do anything on our own…this is a situation which has wider implications than just within Zimbabwe."
  He went on to say:
  "I would like to see now an international coalition put together which would put pressure on Mr. Mugabe's regime and make sure that a number of things are done."
  What the right hon. Gentleman does, which is a deception of the good people of Zimbabwe, is to make the wish the deed. The wish is straightforward: that we move quickly to new elections, which are properly monitored at every stage and which Mugabe and his henchmen do not steal. The wish is that that regime have an agricultural policy which allows the farmers to do what they are dedicated to and skilled in—that is, planting and growing crops—rather than the current circumstance. The wish is that that regime sign up, in deed as well as in words, to the Harare principles and allow the judiciary to operate properly, observe human rights and ends the arbitrary arrest and detention of Opposition spokespersons and journalists.
  We share those wishes. The question is how they can be achieved. That can he only by an international coalition and international co-operation. I wish we could have gone further in some respects. The constraint is not the desire or the wish of the United Kingdom, but the need to ensure that we get together an international coalition.
  Let me remind the House of the steps that we are taking, both bilaterally and with our partners in the Commonwealth, the EU, the US and countries in the region to encourage reform and avert further disaster in Zimbabwe. Bilaterally, we have introduced a range of sanctions, including an arms embargo and a reduction in

  811
  development assistance to the Government of Zimbabwe, to ensure that the regime cannot divert UK funds for its own ends.
  However, in recognition of the scale of the economic disaster engulfing the country, we have increased our own humanitarian relief to Zimbabwe, but our aid moneys go direct to impartial groups such as non-governmental organisations and Churches, ensuring that those most in need, rather than ZANU-PF insiders, benefit. In the past 12 months we have committed £10 million in humanitarian assistance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who will wind up the debate for the Government, announced last week £45 million of further assistance for the region, of which we expect almost half to go to Zimbabwe.
  Over the past 12 months, we have promoted international action against Mr. Mugabe's regime. I noticed that when my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) asked the right hon. Member for Devizes about the cosy relationship that existed under the Thatcher Government and, I may say, the Major Government, the right hon. Gentleman's answer was devoid of content. The record of the previous Government, once the noble Lord Carrington had ceased to be Foreign Secretary, was not altogether a creditable one, to put it mildly.
  That continued through the astonishing blindness that the previous Government showed in the mid-1980s when, as my hon. Friend said, 10,000 people in Matabeleland were slaughtered, and the reward that President Mugabe received for that was a state visit, which gave him the most astonishing endorsement of his actions. Much more recently, when the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), was Foreign Secretary, throughout the period that: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has held her post, and since I have held my present post, President Mugabe's principal complaint about the current Government was that we have not been easy to deal with—unlike the previous Government, we have been told repeatedly, who turned out to be remarkably easy to deal with. That is a charge to which I and my right hon. Friends are only too happy to plead guilty.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: The Foreign Secretary and I were both in the House in the mid-1980s. There is some merit in his criticism of the Government whom I served at that time, but I have a clear memory that there was next to no mention from those on the Opposition Benches of what was happening in Matabeleland. There was certainly no Supply day debate, and the only person who comes out of it with any credit is my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). We do not need any lessons from the Government on the dreadful tragedy of Matabeleland.
  Mr. Straw: As I have said before, the record of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) is one which stands starkly in the House. He has taken a consistent approach to the matter, and I give credit to him, as I have done before. I admire the frankness of the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) about the record of the previous Government, which stands in stark
  812
  contrast to the attitude of the right hon. Member for Devizes, who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench on Foreign Affairs.
  As to our position, I am happy to go through the record, but I expect that it will transpire that we raised the issue at the time. It was the party of the right hon. Member for Bracknell who were in government, and they did nothing about it. Yes, we are in government now, and I shall run through the efforts that we have made in response to the flagrant breach by Mugabe and his people of the Harare principles, and the even worse humanitarian disaster into which the country is being plunged by that regime.
  We have strongly supported regional efforts led by South Africa and Nigeria to establish a dialogue between ZANU-PF and the opposition MDC. One of the critical things that we had to do was to end the myth that Mugabe had so cleverly perpetrated, that he was involved in a bilateral dispute between him, President Robert Mugabe, the leader of the freedom fighters in the whole of Africa, and the former unpleasant colonial power, the United Kingdom. It has taken considerable effort, persuasion and diplomacy by the British Government—particularly by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and by my predecessor—which I have been happy to follow, to build up the confidence of the other African nations about our good faith in respect of Africa as a whole, and to assure the Governments, particularly the leading Governments such as South Africa and Nigeria, that we are doing that not as some post-colonial exercise, but out of our commitment to the peoples of Africa, whatever their race, colour or creed.
  In addition, the European Union has adopted a package of targeted sanctions against the leadership of ZANU-PF. The measures imposed in February this year include a travel ban, an assets freeze and a ban on arms sales. The EU applicant states, the United States, Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand have since adopted similar measures, but in the case of the US, ones that do not go quite as far.
  Mr. Ancram: The Foreign Secretary accused me earlier of not having put forward any suggestions. I made a suggestion specifically about extending the list of those against whom sanctions would be applied. Can he confirm that that is his intention when he meets his EU colleagues again at the end of July?
  Mr. Straw: We will indeed review the operation of sanctions when we meet on 22 July. There is a strong case for an extension of the measures, but I will not give specific notice of what I have in mind, for the simple reason—[Interruption.] I am very happy to brief the right hon. Gentleman on the usual terms. The more specific notice that is given of what we have in mind, the easier it will be for the regime to take pre-emptive action. I would have thought that that was astonishingly obvious to everybody—apparently except him.
  Of course we want the sanctions to operate in the most effective way. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the fact that Mugabe and some of his people had attended a number of international meetings. That was made clear in the terms of the common position that the EU adopted earlier this year. When such common positions are overridden by treaty obligations such as those arising from the United Nations charter, the treaty obligations

  813
  will take precedent. That is no different from what has happened with regard to the fact that the United States has imposed the most powerful sanctions against Cuba ever since Fidel Castro took power, and banned Fidel Castro and his Government from travelling to the United States. I wonder whether any Opposition Members know how many times Fidel Castro has travelled to New York in apparent breach of that ban in order to attend the General Assembly of the UN. If anyone would like to tell me the number, I shall happily give way.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Forty.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman mentions that number from a sedentary position. [HON. MEMBERS: "You sent him a note."] I will not tell hon. Members what the note said—[Interruption.] I am extremely happy, however, for the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) to see the note; indeed, it is being passed to him.
  Mr. Michael Jack rose—
  Mr. Straw: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman wants to give me the answer.
  Mr. Jack: I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary has reduced this debate to an auction of information. I speak as somebody who does not know a great deal about this matter, but I am desperately worried about what constituents of mine who work in Zimbabwe are telling me about the situation there. They convey to me a sense of impotence and a feeling that whatever is contained in the list of sanctions appears currently to have no effect on Mugabe. We are currently facing the final takeover of white-owned farms. What comes next? More importantly, what advice has he received, especially from African leaders who might understand Mugabe better than we do, about what will make this man come to terms?
  Mr. Straw: That is the issue. Of course I understand the right hon. Gentleman's frustration; everybody shares a deep frustration. If only it were possible simply by wishing for an international coalition to end the damage that Mugabe is doing, it would be done. If it were possible to do "what happened in Kosovo", which the right hon. Member for Devizes airily cited as something that we should be doing in Zimbabwe, it would be done. However, it is irresponsible to cite that example as a criticism of the Government and the international community and neither to rule it out nor rule it in. Everybody knows that the suggestion that we embark on a bombing campaign, as we had to do in Kosovo for 78 days, comes from fantasy land, and it would be deceiving the people of Zimbabwe to pretend otherwise.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) asked what would happen next; I will tell him. The situation is likely to go from a terrible situation to a worse one. That is the point that we are making powerfully to our partners, especially those elsewhere in Africa, so that they can increase the pressure that they are already exerting on the Mugabe regime and recognise that this is a disaster in which they have moral responsibility, just as we do, for the poor people of Zimbabwe and of the rest of southern Africa who are being so severely damaged by the regime.
  On the other point made by the right hon. Member for Fylde, it is worth while to embed in the minds of Opposition Members the issue about Fidel Castro. Tough
  814
  sanctions have been taken by the United States in respect of Cuba, and Cuba is the first to say that they are tough. There is a travel ban on its leaders, but on 41 occasions, Fidel Castro, in apparent breach of those sanctions, has gone to New York to speak to the General Assembly of the UN.
  Mr. George Howarth: At length.
  Mr. Straw: I am sorry to tell the House that I will speak at slightly less length than Fidel Castro can usually be expected to do in a short speech.
  The position on the sanctions imposed by the United States on Mugabe and the rest of the 20 is the same. They have been put to very considerable inconvenience and also humiliated, as they are not treated as visiting dignitaries or heads of state. As I mentioned in Question Time earlier today, we know from the criticism of them inside ZANU-PF that they are desperate for the sanctions to be lifted because we have gone to the heart of part of their corruption. I am offended by seeing Mrs. Mugabe going to Madrid, no doubt to spend thousands of pounds shopping while the people of Zimbabwe are starving. [Interruption.] I hope that the people of Zimbabwe find out about exactly what she is doing. Yes, I understand the point about the extension of the sanctions, but if we are to be effective, we must also ensure, as the right hon. Member for Devizes said, that we get other members of the European Union on board.
  Mr. John Redwood: Surely the moral of the tale about the United States and Castro is that the sanctions did not work, as the United States did not get what it wanted by imposing them. Will the Foreign Secretary give the House some indication of what pressures he would like to place on this evil regime to get rid of the starvation, murders and bestiality if he could get all the partners that he needed in the coalition to agree with us? Will he set out to the House what he would like them to do that would bring this man to account?
  Mr. Straw: What I would like to happen is clear. I would like President Mugabe to recognise the error of his ways and the disaster into which he has plunged Zimbabwe. I would like him to leave office, allow elections to take place immediately, stop interfering with humanitarian relief, get the farmers, whether they are white, Indian or black, back on to the land, respect the rule of law and allow this wonderfully prosperous country—[Interruption.] I am asked how that would happen, but that is the point. I say to Opposition Members that the issue for the international community is how we do this. That is the truth of it. I have not sought at any stage to pretend that there is some magic wand waiting to be used.
  Mr. David Borrow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we in this House need to have some recognition of what influence we can have in this situation and accept that Britain's role, however active and vigorous, will not solve the problems on its own? The key players in making changes in southern Africa are the neighbours of Zimbabwe, and the Republic of South Africa in particular. Without the Republic of South Africa moving, there is very little that he and his colleagues can do.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend's observation is accurate. To suggest that we could take action without an alliance

  815
  and coalition from Africa, and South Africa in particular. would be a pretence, as such action would bilateralise the dispute, make us ineffective and make any international coalition almost impossible to achieve.
  One of the many things that we have done is to secure a situation whereby the decision on the suspension of Zimbabwe from the councils of the Commonwealth was taken not by us, not by the Commonwealth ministerial action group, of which the United Kingdom is a member, but by a troika of the current chair of the Commonwealth, Prime Minister Howard of Australia, and two key members—President Obasanjo of Nigeria and President Mbeki of South Africa. It is hugely to their credit that they made the decision that they did once the Commonwealth observers found that the elections had been neither free nor fair.
  Mr. Richard Spring: As the Foreign Secretary knows, the G8 and NEPAD have a close relationship and there is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to raise this matter. What will he say to the G8 about bringing direct influence to bear on NEPAD to build the coalition to take the process forward?
  Mr. Straw: The Prime Minister will discuss Zimbabwe with his colleagues in the G8 and with African leaders. Last week, I had a long meeting with Foreign Minister Zuma of South Africa. All the African leaders understand the disaster into which Mugabe is plunging the continent, especially the sub-continent. If the leaders of South Africa, Nigeria and all the other countries in southern African thought that there was a magic wand for saving not only Zimbabwe, but southern Africa, they would have followed that through. One of the tragedies of the situation is not only what Mugabe has done to the Zimbabwean economy—gross domestic product declined by 10 per cent. last year, unemployment is running at 70 per cent., inflation stands at 122 per cent. and the industrial sector is collapsing—but the damage that is being done to the rest of southern Africa, including, in particular, South Africa. The decline of the rand—although it has recently improved, it went down by 31 per cent. in the past year—is almost wholly attributable to the damage done by the Mugabe regime.
  Sir Nicholas Winterton: The situation facing the wonderful people of that once prosperous country in central southern Africa is catastrophic. I receive daily e-mails and faxes about their suffering. Is it not time to consider different ways of tackling the problem? Earlier today, during Question Time, I floated an idea that was responded to, but not positively enough. Would not someone like the modern father of central southern Africa, Nelson Mandela, be a figure around whom a group of countries could bring pressure to bear on Zimbabwe, and perhaps also on Libya, which continues to fund and to support Mugabe? If that were done, the international community, including Libya, could unite to bring about a change of Government in order to do something for the people of Zimbabwe, about whom I practically cry because of their suffering.
  Mr. Straw: I am happy to discuss the hon. Gentleman's proposal regarding the involvement of
  816
  President Mandela. My own sense, which is shared by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, is that if President Mandela felt that he had been able to act as a positive intermediary in the situation, he would have done so. It is a lamentable commentary on Mugabe and his isolation that none of the offers of intermediation has positively been taken up. President Mbeki and President Obasanjo said that they would help to broker a constructive dialogue between ZANU-PF and the MDC, but that offer has so far been refused. However, I am happy to pursue the idea and to have it drawn to President Mandela's attention.
  Libya's route back into the international community partly depends on its showing a responsible attitude towards Zimbabwe and in respect of Sierra Leone. We are aware of that, and it is a point that has repeatedly been made to Libya in the dialogue that is taking place.
  I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, and I shall therefore shortly draw my remarks to a close. One of the excuses that Mugabe has used in respect of Zimbabwe is to blame the current famine entirely on drought. It is true that drought has played a significant part in the failure of the maize harvest, but there is no doubt that policy failures—not least the mismanagement of the exchange rate and the chaotic land reform programme—have greatly exacerbated the situation. That is illustrated by the following figures. The United Nations estimates that Zambia and Malawi, which have suffered similar droughts, have lost one quarter of their food production capacity, but that figure rises to three quarters in respect of Zimbabwe. The UN declares that
  "current government policies in Zimbabwe pose formidable constraints"
  to a resolution of the crisis. The UN World Food Programme estimates that as a result almost half the population—up to 6 million people—will be unable to meet their minimum food requirements in the next 12 months.
  The tragedy is that a year ago Zimbabwe still had a chance to return to the path of sustainable development. When I became Foreign Secretary a year ago, some of my first contacts were with my South African and Nigerian counterparts. At that time, we agreed there was still a prospect that Zimbabwe could rehabilitate itself. So last September at Abuja, Commonwealth Ministers, including myself, set out, with Mr. Mugabe's agreement, a clear road map for Zimbabwe—via the Harare principles—back to prosperity and international respect. Tragically, ZANU-PF did not grasp that opportunity. In the run-up to the presidential election, the regime pressed ahead with its land reform programme, intimidated and even killed members of the Opposition, and implemented further measures to curb freedom of speech. That culminated in a stolen presidential election, which compounded the country's isolation. Since then, the regime's actions—ranging from further restrictions on the media and harassment of the legal profession to further violence against the Opposition and intimidation of those who work in the farming sector—suggest that it has no plans to change course.
  That is why we have to continue, with international agreement where appropriate, to strengthen the measures taken against Zimbabwe. I say to the right hon. Member for Devizes, who asks me to advertise a long list, in advance of international agreement, of the measures that

  817
  could perhaps be taken, that the only people who would be comforted by such a pre-emptive list would be members of the Mugabe regime—especially if it transpired, for various reasons, that it was not possible to ensure that each of the measures was implemented in full. I promise the House that we are aware of the continuing need to ensure that the existing measures that have been taken are made as effective as possible and that they are strengthened where appropriate.
  This debate takes place as world leaders in the G8 are gathering to agree, we hope and believe, a new partnership for African development—an area in which my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Prime Minister have been in the lead for some time.
  As far as the rest of Africa is concerned, it is worth noting that on the whole the story has been one of much better news than in Zimbabwe. Africa has huge problems—poverty, lack of educational and employment opportunities, hunger and low life expectancy are still the fate of many in African countries—but there are signs that democracy is taking root. In 1975, Africa had only three elected leaders—today there are more than 30—and there are no military governments in sub-Saharan Africa. Ten years ago few people—least of all those in the Conservative party—believed that South Africa would emerge from the shadow of apartheid with a tolerant, multi-racial government. Thanks to British intervention, last month the people of Sierra Leone were able to vote in an election free from the threat of violence and intimidation. Had we turned a blind eye, as some suggested, to the plight of that country, its people would now be suffering a fate worse than that of Zimbabwe.
  There has been a breakthrough in the world's largest conflict in the Great Lakes. The Democratic Republic of Congo ceasefire has held for nearly 18 months. There is further to go. and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will visit the region between the end of July and the beginning of August. Prompt action by the Government prevented an outbreak of hostilities between Uganda and Rwanda last November. There are promising signs of economic growth throughout Africa. More than 20 African countries achieved a growth rate of 4 per cent. last year. Zimbabwe's decline stands in stark contrast to that better news.
  Within the limits of our influence, we shall do all that we can to promote efforts by the international community, especially leaders of other Governments in the region, to return stability to Zimbabwe. That has been our goal since the beginning of the country's slide into chaos three years ago. Thanks to our diplomacy in the past 12 months, the involvement of the Commonwealth, the European Union and the United States, we have been able to show that the issue is of international concern.
  Human rights abuses and violations of the rule of law have made Zimbabwe an outcast in the region and the wider world, thus belying Mr. Mugabe's claim that his country is a colonial victim. I am confident that the international community will continue to unite in condemning what has happened and working together to ensure that the true voice of the Zimbabwean people is heard and that there is a pathway back to peace and prosperity for that benighted land.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The collapse of Zimbabwe's economy has been well documented in the debate. However, it is worth reminding ourselves briefly of its scale. As we have heard, inflation is 122 per cent., almost two thirds of the population are unemployed, foreign direct investment has decreased from $430 million in 1998 to $4 million in 2001, and gross domestic product in 2003 is predicted to be half that of 2001. The impact on the people of Zimbabwe is almost incalculable. The economic impact of Mr. Mugabe's policies extends beyond the borders of his country to affect the whole region. It has deeply damaged investment and the tourism on which so many of the surrounding countries' economies depend.
  The ordinary people of Zimbabwe are the victims. A country that was once the granary of southern Africa is reduced to receiving food aid from Britain, the European Union and the United Nations. Today we see the absurdity of farmers being forbidden by law to work their land, while the spectre of famine hangs over the country. We also understand that the food aid that is admitted is used for political purposes. Baroness Amos told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that World Food Programme aid is subject to Government and party distribution networks.
  That underlines many of the points that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made, perhaps more dramatically, when he spoke about the extent to which mere membership, or even suspicion of membership, of the Movement for Democratic Change is sufficient to provoke the most terrible atrocities.
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The World Food Programme would not allow food aid to be used for political purposes. Attempts are being made to do that, and we are all struggling to thwart them in the coming crisis. The World Food Programme is not colluding in those efforts. We are all doing what we can to resist the political manipulation of food aid.
  Mr. Campbell: I am grateful for that assurance from the Secretary of State, who pays considerable and close attention to such matters.
  The political environment in Zimbabwe is no better. Press freedom has been extinguished, intimidation is commonplace and the Government's opponents are vilified and persecuted. Journalists stand trial under repressive and self-serving legislation, and judges are intimidated and subsequently "persuaded" to leave office. The talks brokered by Nigeria and South Africa between the governing party, ZANU-PF, and the MDC have broken down because ZANU-PF insists that the MDC should abandon its legal challenge to the March election result. It sometimes appears that ZANU-PF is the only institution in the world that believes that that election could legitimately be described as free and fair.
  The internal crisis has the capacity to spill over into the region if citizens of Zimbabwe, displaced by famine or fear, seek refuge in neighbouring countries where they will add to the existing economic and social burdens induced by what we might call the "Mugabe effect".
  In the cloistered calm of the Chamber, we should not forget the countless instances of terror to which many citizens of Zimbabwe have been subject. For example,

  819
  let us consider the episodes of personal pain as families are forced to shoot their dogs and then their cattle, made to pack their belongings into a couple of suitcases, run the gauntlet of Mr. Mugabe's thugs and so make their escape from land that has been in their family perhaps for generations. Not only the whites suffer the consequences of such actions. Black families who have worked on farms, sometimes for generations, are uprooted and sent on their way so that Mr. Mugabe's political objectives can be achieved.
  I suspect that in 20 years' time, someone reading the two opening speeches would note a difference in flavour but not in substance. The analysis is relatively easy; providing solutions is infinitely more difficult. We have a duty to ourselves, and especially to the citizens of Zimbabwe, to be realistic. The range of action available to us is affected, even circumscribed, by numerous factors.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes mentioned military intervention, although I am not sure about the extent to which he was prepared to pin his colours to that idea. My party has not been slow when we have believed it necessary to urge such intervention, sometimes against the prevailing views of the Labour party and the Conservative party.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Like Thorpe.
  Mr. Campbell: Indeed. If Mr. Jeremy Thorpe's suggestions had been executed as swiftly as they might have been, some of the current problems, and especially some of the difficulties that the Labour Government experienced with Mr. Ian Smith, might have been avoided. In Kosovo and Bosnia, Lord Ashdown, as he now is, never displayed any slackness in urging military intervention.
  Before we raise the possibility of military intervention in this case, however, we should ask ourselves several searching questions. The distance between here and Zimbabwe is considerable, and the size of the country is also considerable. We could not look for host nation support from surrounding countries, and I doubt whether we could expect regional political support in the current climate. Could we achieve UN endorsement? Which counties would offer to be allies in any attempt to intervene militarily? Those questions are fundamental, and we should at least ask them and ascertain whether we can provide adequate answers before we discuss military intervention.
  Let us consider whether to broaden economic sanctions. Wholesale sanctions would undoubtedly damage the lives of ordinary people. Some will say that there were sanctions in the days of apartheid—the days of South Africa at its very worst—but there is an important distinction to be drawn there. Throughout that period, the African National Congress was saying to the outside world, "Please impose sanctions." So far, I have heard no suggestion from Mr. Tsvangirai's party, the MDC, that it would wish for a wholesale regime of sanctions to be imposed, because its members understand—current events make this issue all the more acute—that the need for the continuation of humanitarian assistance is fundamental.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes referred to the Commonwealth games, in which I have a passing historical interest. It is worth remembering that when the
  820
  Gleneagles agreement was implemented and sporting sanctions were applied, it was because those who were representing South Africa were being chosen along racial lines. I have a clear memory of going to compete at the White City stadium, and there were two teams from South Africa: a team of white faces wore green and gold; the team of black faces wore black and gold blazers as an alternative.
  There is no evidence that teams in Zimbabwe are chosen on the basis of colour, and it would not be right to keep the Zimbabwean athletes who have been selected for the Commonwealth games in Manchester away from that opportunity. The opportunity to take part in a Commonwealth games in which the colours are as varied as the countries represented there will perhaps be a more illuminating experience for them than if their country were banned. I agree with the right hon. Member for Devizes, however, that there should be no question of any Minister in the Mugabe Government coming to Manchester and seeking to take advantage of the hospitality that the protocols of the Commonwealth games will undoubtedly permit.
  The road to be taken has to be political. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) made an interesting point about the need to engage such dominant figures as Nelson Mandela, but there is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that Mr. Mandela and Mr. Mugabe have never seen eye to eye. There are also those who argue that it was not until Mr. Mandela had been replaced by Mr. Mbeki that Mr. Mugabe felt bold enough to embark on some of the conduct that we have seen recently, simply because he feared—and, if I may say so, was intimidated by—Mr. Mandela's robust embrace of a multilateral approach to the problems of South Africa that is a long way from what is currently on offer in Zimbabwe. Archbishop Tutu—another dominating figure—has been unrestrained in his criticism of Mr. Mugabe. The hon. Member for Macclesfield has made an interesting proposition, but we would have to be satisfied in advance that there was at least some hope that influence might be able to be exercised.
  No, it has to be the political road, and that is not glamorous or dynamic; it is painstaking. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) was absolutely right to say that we must use every opportunity, and the New Partnership for Africa's Development offers an opportunity to say to the African states that surround Zimbabwe, "You have a duty in this. You have a responsibility not to us, but to your own citizens, who are directly suffering the consequences of Mr. Mugabe's behaviour."
  It is right that we should target more members of ZANU-PF and its associates. There should be selected sanctions, perhaps at lower levels of that part of society over which Mr. Mugabe holds sway. We should be making efforts to seek a settlement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, through the United Nations, and to get the Zimbabwean troops out. What is Zimbabwe using the conflict in the DRC for, if not as a much needed opportunity to obtain illegal foreign exchange? We should be encouraging Nigeria and South Africa to reconvene the talks between ZANU-PF and the MDC, and to get them back on track. We should also do everything that we can through the United Nations to ensure that aid and assistance are depoliticised; I acknowledge the

  821
  undertakings made by the Secretary of State for International Development in her intervention a moment ago.
  We should also underline—not only for the people of Zimbabwe but for those round about—the fact that land redistribution is a legitimate objective, but it must be carried out in a properly recognised legal framework, with proper compensation, in accordance with the terms of the Abuja agreement. We should also make it clear that the return to full participation in the Commonwealth will not be a formality. It will depend on credible and sustained evidence of a return to—and an intention to maintain, without equivocation-the principles of the Harare declaration.
  We should also use Zimbabwe as an example to promote reform of the procedures of the Commonwealth, so that it will be possible to take much earlier action in future. There is an argument that if the Commonwealth had been able to take earlier action, it might perhaps have been able to stop Mr. Mugabe embarking on this course of action.
  None of those proposals will grab the headlines, but I believe that, taken together and pursued with diligence, they will make a difference, and it is that course of action that Her Majesty's Government ought to be following.
  8.26 pm
  Tony Cunningham: The 2002 presidential election was a symbol of everything that democracy is not. The campaigns leading up to it were marred by political violence. At least 30 members of the Opposition were killed in the first quarter of 2002, and there were many reported cases of members of the Opposition having been attacked and tortured. Fear and intimidation were very much the order of the day. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) that it is easy to stand here in the Chamber and describe what is happening in Zimbabwe, but that the reality is absolutely horrific and abhorrent to us.
  The election was deemed neither free nor fair by a broad swath of international opinion, including the Southern African Development Community parliamentary forum and the Commonwealth. It is true that African countries reacted in various ways. Some, including Senegal and Ghana, were critical. Others, such as Tanzania and Namibia, judged the election to be free and fair. I have said before from these Benches that we need all the countries of Africa to join together to isolate this particularly abhorrent regime.
  The poll was characterised by systematic torture, rape and violence, overwhelmingly against the Opposition by the ruling ZANU-PF party. There was manipulation of both the electoral administration and the count, and draconian restrictions on freedom of speech, movement, association and assembly. The Zimbabwe regime attacked the judiciary and harassed the independent media. The pursuit of such actions justified the imposition of sanctions by the European Union and the United States before the election. I think that we all welcomed the decisions made by New Zealand, Switzerland and Norway to follow suit after the election, and the Commonwealth's suspension of Zimbabwe from its councils on 19 March.
  The Foreign Secretary told Parliament that
  "we do not recognise the result or its legitimacy".—[Official Report, 14 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 1035.]
  822
  I believe that he was absolutely and unequivocally right to say that, as I am sure that many hon. Members and colleagues would agree. Indeed, recent developments reveal how the internal situation continues to deteriorate. ZANU-PF has withdrawn from the inter-party dialogue, which is now in limbo. Violence continues against the MDC, particularly in rural areas. Because of the manipulation of the media and the way in which the media is controlled, we can only imagine what is happening in some of those far-flung areas.
  The Zimbabwe Government's Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is being used to squeeze the independent press, and an American correspondent working for The Guardian is currently on trial for "publishing a falsehood". Is it not a huge irony that this regime, which has no legitimacy whatever, and has cheated its way to power, is in a position to arrest a journalist for publishing a falsehood?
  The formal economy is the fastest contracting in the world, and Mugabe's land policy is contributing to worsening food shortages As has been said, 6 million people already require food aid. That number could increase to almost 9 million—three quarters of the population—by this autumn, yet the dams are full. Irrigated food production is possible, but Government policy will not allow commercial farmers to plant, and price controls make commercial production uneconomic.
  The British Government are right to declare their commitment to work with the Zimbabwean civil society. Non-governmental organisations and Churches remain under great pressure, and there is evidence that Mugabe may be moving against them in the not too distant future. I therefore pay tribute to the immense courage of the many Churches, church men and women and NGOs who are trying to do what they can to protect innocent civilians in Zimbabwe. We must be alert to the likely politicisation of food aid by ZANU-PF. By avoiding Government channels, we can ensure that food goes to all those in need. We have to ensure that Zimbabwe's Government do not take responsibility for, or any credit whatsoever for, the food aid provided. We must also remind people that it is Mugabe's own policies that are damaging Zimbabwe.
  The British Government's position on the Mugabe Government is well known: we recognise states, not Governments. However, like much of the international community—including the Commonwealth observers—we have made it clear that we do not recognise the outcome of the elections as a free expression of the will of the people of Zimbabwe. Having said that, the Government continue to have diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe. On 21 March, the Foreign Secretary told the House that he had received no representations to the effect that it would be helpful to reduce, or break off, diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe.
  As I said during today's Foreign Affairs questions, the British high commissioner for Zimbabwe is a constituent of mine; indeed, he grew up in, and went to school in, Workington. Before becoming high commissioner, he was the British ambassador to the former Yugoslavia. He did a superb job there, and he and his staff are doing a fantastic job in Zimbabwe. All hon. Members will doubtless pay tribute to the work that they are doing.
  Britain is far from alone in its opposition to the Zimbabwe regime, but it is a powerful voice within that multilateral foreign policy. The EU's policy echoes that

  823
  of the UK Government. When the Barcelona European Council convened in March, EU heads of Government agreed that
  "these elections cannot be judged as either free or fair."
  Furthermore, the EU decided to dispatch a high-level troika to confer with countries of the Southern African Development Community region on European concerns about Zimbabwe. On 15 April, the EU decided to impose a moratorium on bilateral ministerial contacts with Zimbabwe until further notice, excluding the conduct of political dialogue to promote democracy, human rights, the rule of law in Zimbabwe, regional security and—of course—humanitarian needs.
  The EU has already imposed targeted sanctions on the Government of Zimbabwe, and at Barcelona it agreed to consider additional targeted measures. I hope that such sanctions are imposed on the Government of Zimbabwe, and do not hurt the Zimbabwean people, who are already suffering enough. Of course, sanctions have to be enforced multilaterally if they are to be effective. The idea that sanctions are not working is nonsense. If they were not hurting the Zimbabwean regime, why would Mugabe and his acolytes be trying so hard to give the impression that they are having no effect?
  EU policy towards Zimbabwe is kept continually under review, and the Foreign Secretary tells me that it will be discussed again in the near future. As has been said, Britain sees a case for extending the list of targeted individuals, but the matter is one for the EU as a whole to decide.
  Ministers agreed that
  "these targeted sanctions are aimed solely at those whom the EU judges to be responsible for the violence, for the violations of human rights and for preventing the holding of free and fair elections in Zimbabwe".
  We have already considered measures such as a travel ban on named members of the regime, freezing their assets, and banning the export of arms and equipment that could be used for repression. Claims that the travel ban is ineffective are unfounded; indeed, it is having a real impact. On three occasions since February, senior Zimbabweans, including Mugabe, have been refused permission to enter the EU.
  Critics point to the presence of Mugabe and his officials in Rome between 10 and 13 June as a mockery of the travel ban. Permission was twice granted for individuals to attend meetings of international bodies in Europe. I shall not rehearse the argument that the Foreign Secretary has already made about Cuba. Fidel Castro banned is banned and subject to sanctions, but he still attends UN meetings in New York. In referring to some 40 visits by Fidel Castro to the USA, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife was about right.
  Mr. Mark Prisk: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the ability of people such as Olivia Muchena, who was at the heart of agricultural policy, to fly into this country—she was here a couple of weeks ago—flouts the spirit of the ban, if not the letter of it? That is what grates with people in Zimbabwe.
  Tony Cunningham: I do not disagree, and it is clear that we must tighten up the regime. However, the policy
  824
  forms part of an international ban on the travel of Zimbabwean citizens, and I hope that the ban will be extended further.
  No one doubts that the presence of such individuals is extremely distasteful, but as I said, we must accept that EU partners—such as the US and Switzerland, in the case of the UN—are bound by their treaty obligations. We have made it clear that the terms of entry for these individuals should be as restrictive as possible.
  The British Government welcome the decision of the Commonwealth troika to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth for one year. and I pay tribute to South African President Thabo Mbeki, President Olusegun Obasanjo, of Nigeria, and the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, for taking this decision in consultation with Commonwealth Secretary-General Don McKinnon. Critics suggested that the group had insufficient powers, but they have been proved wrong. The suspension is evidence of the Commonwealth's ability and willingness to bite when its principles are at stake.
  On the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, disputes over participation in the Commonwealth games are a matter not for the British Government, but for the Commonwealth Games Federation, which will take a decision in consultation with the Commonwealth secretariat. I agree wholeheartedly that the difference between Zimbabwe and South Africa is huge. I hope that the Zimbabwean team will indeed attend the Commonwealth games, but I also hope that the Government will raise the issue of Zimbabwe with Commonwealth leaders and Ministers when they are present in this country.
  EU and Commonwealth measures against Zimbabwe have been clearly and deliberately targeted at those responsible for the policies of the Government of Zimbabwe. As I said, it is not our intention to penalise the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. In fact, the reverse is true, and in that regard I again pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. Our aim is to help the poor, who should not be hindered. Indeed, this year we expect to provide some £18 million-worth of assistance for Zimbabwe for HIV/A1DS and the rural poor.
  Of course, we keep our aid programme to Zimbabwe under review. Britain has no desire to worsen the economic hardships of the people of Zimbabwe by cutting essential support for the rural poor and victims of AIDS. We sometimes read that AIDS is devastating the poor people of Africa. Well, that disease is not affecting only the poor of Africa. A third of all doctors in Africa are dying from AIDS. It cuts across the social spectrum and is the worst disease that we have seen in my lifetime. We have to look back to plagues in the past to find a comparison.
  We remain committed to helping the poor of Zimbabwe who are suffering from the double impact of economic collapse and HIV/AIDS. Cutting all aid would hurt the very people who have suffered most through economic mismanagement, but would have little impact on the Government. I am proud to remind the House that the UK imposed a national arms embargo on Zimbabwe in May 2000, and the EU followed suit on 18 February 2002. We intend to enforce that embargo rigorously.
  I have outlined some of the policies—which are all carefully devised and responsible—that we have adopted in response to the despicable actions of the Zimbabwean

  825
  leadership. My notes contain criticisms of the previous Conservative Government for their relationship with the Zimbabwean regime stretching back to 1982–84, when 10,000 people were killed in Matabeleland, the revelations of the "Panorama" programme and details of the visits during the Major years. However, I would prefer it if we all joined together to find solutions to the problems of Zimbabwe, so I will not continue with that part of my speech.
  Mugabe is a man for whom I—and, I am sure, everyone else—feel utter contempt. Our policy is driven not only by a need to stand up to that repressive dictator but by a vision for much-needed structural social change in Zimbabwe. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife mentioned land reform. The idea that is being pushed in Zimbabwe is that we oppose land reform or achieving a fair distribution of land. I remind the House that land reform in Zimbabwe is the bedrock for development. At the time of Zimbabwe's independence in 1980 the best agricultural land was owned mainly by large commercial farms, many of more than 1,000 hectares. Poor families were crowded into less productive communal areas, on land holdings of less than one hectare.
  I support the British Government's belief that land reform is central to Zimbabwe's progress. Britain has been a strong advocate of effective and well managed land reform in Zimbabwe ever since independence. A more equitable distribution of land is essential to reduce poverty and to contribute to the country's long-term economic and social future. To be effective, such reform must be carried out within the rule of law. It must be transparent and fair, and within a well managed economic policy framework that contributes both to poverty reduction and to Zimbabwe's economic prosperity.
  The UK has a long tradition on both sides of the House of supporting land reform in Zimbabwe. I wish to put on record the fact that that support for land reform proposals goes back to the start of independence. Between 1980 and 1985, the UK provided £47 million for land reform, with £20 million as a specific land resettlement grant and £27 million in the form of budgetary support to help to meet the Zimbabwean Government's own contribution to the programme. The land resettlement grant was signed in 1981 and substantially spent by 1988. The UK land resettlement grant for Zimbabwe finally closed in 1996 with—unbelievably—£3 million still unspent.
  The UK Government sought proposals from the Zimbabwean Government on spending the remaining balance. A further technical mission by the Overseas Development Administration in 1996 resulted in new proposals for UK support for land reform. The Zimbabwean Government responded towards the end of 1996, but no agreement was reached before the UK general election on May 1997.
  In September 1998, with UK encouragement, the Zimbabwean Government hosted a land conference in Harare, involving, all major international donors and the multilateral institutions. Issues raised in the 1996 ODA report were considered at the conference. The UK participated constructively and endorsed the basic principles of land reform agreed at the conference, as did the Zimbabwean Government. Those principles included the need for transparency, respect for the rule of law, poverty reduction, affordability and consistency with Zimbabwe's wider economic interests. The 1998
  826
  conference agreed a two-year inception phase, during which Government resettlement schemes would be tried alongside ideas from the private sector and civil society.
  In May 1999, consultants began work to identify ways in which the UK Government could provide further support for land reform in Zimbabwe. Terms of reference for a follow-up visit were agreed with the Zimbabwean Government in September 1999. Work on UK support for land reform in Zimbabwe was interrupted by the illegal farm occupations and the subsequent violence in the run-up to the 2000 parliamentary elections.
  The United Kingdom remains willing to support a land reform programme that is carried out in accordance with the principles agreed by donors and the Zimbabwe Government in 1998. That is also the position of the broad donor community. It should be pointed out that we are not imposing any new conditions. In the absence of a Government-led programme that we felt able to support, the Department for International Development established in March 2000 a £5 million land resettlement challenge fund to support the private sector and civil society-led resettlement initiatives. Unfortunately, the Zimbabwe Government have not allowed such private sector initiatives to proceed. They have instead pressed ahead with their fast-track resettlement programme, which is totally unacceptable.
  When a group of the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers—including those of the UK and Zimbabwe—met in Abuja in September 2001 to discuss Zimbabwe, they agreed again that land reform must be implemented in a fair, just and sustainable manner, in the interests of all the people of Zimbabwe. They agreed that any reform programme should be on the basis of the United Nations development programme proposals of December 2000. The Government of Zimbabwe agreed to honour the principles enshrined in the Harare Commonwealth declaration: to prevent further occupation of farm lands; to restore the rule of law; to take firm action against violence and intimidation; and to honour the freedom of expression.
  At that meeting, the UK reaffirmed its commitment to a significant financial contribution to such a land reform programme and gave an undertaking to encourage other international donors to do the same. In November 2001, the Government of Zimbabwe amended the Land Acquisition Act to allow them to allocate land without giving owners the right to contest the seizures. That contravenes not only the letter, but the spirit of the agreement at Abuja. How on earth can we believe anything that the Zimbabwe Government say when they signed up to an agreement at Abuja and immediately walked away from it? [Interruption.] I am coming towards the end of my speech.
  Regrettably, the credibility of Abuja has been damaged by Zimbabwe's scant regard for its commitments. Since independence, the United Kingdom has provided more than £500 million in bilateral support for development in Zimbabwe, more than any other donor. We should be justifiably proud of that. In total. the wider donor community has provided more than $2 billion in assistance. The UK continues to provide annual support for emergency relief and to alleviate HIV-AIDS suffering. The UK has also contributed to development in Zimbabwe through the international financial institutions. It is interesting to note that the UK funds around 18 per cent. of EU spending.

  827
  In essence, the UK Government have always been open to discussion on the subject of land. They have honoured their Lancaster House commitments and remain willing to contribute to a land reform programme in Zimbabwe that would lead to a sustainable improvement in the lives of Zimbabwe's rural poor.
  It is ultimately the lives of the impoverished citizens of Zimbabwe that are threatened by the tyrannical policies of Robert Mugabe, who has no legitimacy whatever. I am sure that we would all agree that the sooner he goes, the better, not just for Zimbabwe, but for the entire region.
  8.48 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I will not attempt to emulate the length of the speech of the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), every word of it read, and bearing all the hallmarks of a Government handout. However, we can completely associate ourselves with his remarks about his constituent, Mr. Donnelly, who has served with enormous distinction. What has been said about him recently is disgraceful, and on that subject the hon. Gentleman carries the House with him.
  I feel extremely embarrassed when I stand to speak in this debate tonight in an almost empty Chamber. I think of those people who voted in the March election by a majority to rid themselves of a tyrant. What would they think if they were here tonight in this Parliament and saw the numbers of people in the Chamber debating their future? It behoves each one of us to reflect on that and to say something about it to those who are not here.
  I am always delighted to see the Secretary of State for International Development on the Front Bench. She knows that I hold her in high regard and we have campaigned together in the past on issues such as Bosnia. I shall always be pleased and proud that we did so. However, I say to her that it is a pity that the Foreign Secretary made his speech and then left the Chamber. It is important that a degree of urgency and importance, currently not apparent, be attached to this grave crisis.
  I have an apology to make on behalf of the other members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which is looking into the subject of Zimbabwe. Because of a meeting of the Commission of the House of Commons, I could not go with them on a visit to Copenhagen—but for which they would have been here. I will try, somewhat inadequately, to speak on their behalf. The Foreign Affairs Committee has maintained a degree of bipartisanship on all issues of foreign policy, which we should always seek to do. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) was right to say that although there was a difference in tone and rhetoric between the parties—and I understand why my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said what he did in his admirable speech—there is not much difference between the two parties on the Front Benches. We certainly share an abhorrence for this distasteful, tyrannical and appalling regime.
  I have an interest to declare, as editor of The House Magazine. I commend to all right hon. and hon. Members a letter that we published this week from Dr. Alan Megahey. I published it because I know him well. He is an old friend of mine—we were schoolmasters together, nearly 40 years ago. Dr. Megahey was for 10 years the
  828
  rector or headmaster of Peterhouse, which is one of the great schools of Zimbabwe—multi-racial, I hasten to add. He has an intimate knowledge of the country and since he came back—he is now a country parson as well as a scholar-he has maintained his contacts.
  Dr. Megahey wrote a letter to the magazine which I was glad to publish and from which I would like to quote. He says that four years ago he wrote a biography of the great Humphrey Gibbs, the man who stood up against Ian Smith. In that biography was a foreword by one Robert Mugabe, extolling Humphrey Gibbs and describing him as
  "a Christian, a farmer, a political leader and statesman",
  who
  "stood for compassion, humanity, fairness and justice"
  My friend Alan Megahey continues:
  "Mr. Mugabe now presides over a country where racism, inhumanity, corruption and injustice reign. Yet Parliament seems to give scant attention to the scandal of what is happening in a country which has such close links with the United Kingdom."
  I make no criticism of the Secretary of State but would simply say something, through her, to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has made much of his role as international statesman, and in many of the things that he has done and said he has had my total and unqualified support. The way in which he behaved after 11 September last year was exemplary; he behaved as a true Prime Minister of a country facing a crisis. His role in helping to bring about the international coalition will earn him a special place in the history books. However, a Prime Minister who subsequently made the speech that he made to his party conference last year—already quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes—should devote a higher priority to the people of Zimbabwe, and I hope that after tonight's debate he will. In a moment I will make some specific and, I hope, helpful suggestions. However, it behoves the Prime Minister and his Government to attach an importance to this issue that they have not hitherto.
  In his letter, Alan Megahey talks about a report by the Commercial Farmers Union. He refers to the list that it has published of those who have "acquired" farms, which I referred to earlier today at Question Time. He says:
  "These include ministers, MPs…the Commissioner of Police, Zimbabwe's permanent representative at the UN, and the President's two sisters and his brother-in-law, among others."
  I will not weary the House with it, but I have here a list of people, which runs to several pages. They are all people of eminence in Zimbabwe—not the downtrodden and deprived, who indeed deserve to be the beneficiaries of land reform—they are the fat cats of a society that is being absolutely crippled by the corruption of its leaders. It is important that we put that on record.
  I do not want to talk for too long about the tactics of the people who go on to those farms, but I offer an example sent to me by Dr. Megahey. He told me of a farm built up over a lifetime's work; the people were forced out and the farmer said that, on the first day of the invasion,
  "We took the following injured workers to hospital … Rushion who suffered chest and head wounds from being hit by an axe … Herbert who suffered back wounds from being beaten with a fan belt … James who had leg wounds from being beaten with a bicycle chain … Tawanda … bruised ribs from being hit with a fan belt … Phinias … bruises around his back and waist from a baton".

  829
  The list goes on. Those were not white people being hit by those who were fighting back against the colonial oppressors—they were black farm workers who depended for their livelihood on someone whom one might describe as paternalistic; but that farmer was a good and concerned employer and they wanted to stay with him.
  Such events have been occurring in place after place throughout that beautiful country. As has already been said, what used to be the granary of southern Africa is becoming a wasteland, despoiled by those who rule it.
  It is not only farming that has been affected; my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes referred to the tourism industry. Zimbabwe is a beautiful country where most of us would love to take our holidays, but how many tourists are queueing up to visit the Victoria falls as I speak?
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: Like many Conservative speakers, including the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the hon. Gentleman sheds great heat on the issue but very little light on any solutions they would make, if in government, which the Labour Government have not already proposed. Today, we saw a display from the right hon. Member for Devizes that showed no way forward whatever.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry that I gave way for that rather pointless intervention. I am not generating a lot of heat; I am reasonably calmly retailing some of the facts in the documents before me, because they should be on the record of the House. In a moment, I shall come to what we would do, but perhaps I could be allowed to say one or two more things.
  The tourism industry has been almost destroyed. Wildlife is in danger. On another level, as my friend Dr. Megahey points out,
  "cows, sheep and pigs are being killed (often hideously), sometimes simply for food, often as political warnings by the 'war veterans'".
  The end of my friend's letter is an answer to the hon. Gentleman:
  "But Parliament seems not to be fully informed, or if informed, not concerned. Partial suspension from the Commonwealth and selective sanctions against ministers and their families are mere pin-pricks. Meanwhile the murder and mayhem go on, and people are starving."
  Certainly, it is right that Parliament should be informed and that we should address those things. What are we going to do about them? As I said, I hope that the Government will invest the situation with a new sense of urgency. Of course I accept that there cannot be crude military intervention. That is not practical.
  The House will recall that the BBC is banned from Zimbabwe. When the notable reporter, Mr. Fergal Keane, came before the Foreign Affairs Committee recently, he made it plain that, in his view, we were not attaching a high enough priority to the situation. We should be stepping up broadcasts to people in Zimbabwe, to let them know just how appalling we think Mugabe is and what a terrible tyrant he is.
  The Foreign Secretary should go to South Africa and hold urgent consultations before 22 July, which is a month away. We should not wait until then; the right hon. Gentleman should get on a plane this weekend and go to speak to President Mbeki. He should also go and see former President Mandela.
  830
  I understood why the Secretary of State for International Development had her reservations when my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) made his suggestion, but another name has not been brought into play. It is that of a man who did have a good rapport with Robert Mugabe, a man for whom I have enormous affection and respect—the former secretary-general of the Commonwealth, Emeka Anyaoku, who is now in very active retirement. He is president of the Royal Commonwealth Society, and he is often in London. I believe that he is one person who might, just possibly, be able to talk some sense to Mugabe. It is worth trying.
  What we need is a sense of mission and purpose, and the British Government, as well going to South Africa, should convene an urgent conference on Zimbabwe. We should try to act as the catalyst to bring world opinion together in a way that we perhaps have not done at the moment. I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the Foreign Secretary's expressions of repugnance. He believes every word that he says—I mean that—but we need urgency. A few initiatives must be taken quickly. We should not wait until 22 July—two days before the House rises for the summer recess—and we should have at least one report from the Foreign Secretary on what his initiatives have achieved before then. I urge the right hon. Lady to talk to him about that.
  If the Foreign Secretary is so committed to other international travel—as the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), who is a Parliamentary Private Secretary, seemed to indicate—another senior Minister should be deputed to deal with this issue. It is a crisis of monumental significance. By the end of this year, half the population of 13 million will be in danger of starvation. The right hon. Lady is nodding; she knows that to be true. We have seen the most callous and appalling manipulation of an election in recent years. Mr. Mugabe has put himself in the same league as Milosevic and Saddam Hussein by the way in which he has acted. That is the sort of man we are dealing with.
  The Government have set great store by supporting the International Criminal Court. I happen to be one of those who has some sympathy with the reservations that the Americans have on that. Nevertheless, the Government and the House have approved it, so let the Government say that this is the sort of man who should be indicted before the court and let the people of Zimbabwe be told that. Let us give what moral support we can to those brave people who queued day after day to cast their votes; and a majority of them almost certainly voted against the tyrant.
  It is sad that more hon. Members are not present in the House tonight, but I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes for proposing this subject for debate. I think that the debate should have taken place in Government time, but I shall let that pass—we are debating it—and let us draw comfort from the fact that there is very little difference between those on the two Front Benches and that not a single hon. Member could defend Mugabe's actions with any credibility.
  So let us move forward with greater speed and a greater sense of urgency. Let us take some of these diplomatic initiatives immediately. Let us try to enlist the services of people such as Emeka Anyaoku. Let us do everything that we can to ensure that, before the House rises on 24 July,

  831
  we have heard a positive report from the Foreign Secretary, standing at the Dispatch Box and reporting on progress achieved.
  9.4 pm
  Hugh Bayley: I had not originally intended to speak in this debate, but I am prompted to do so by a number of hon. Members' contributions and, indeed, by the response to my intervention from the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I am pleased to see that he is still in his place. I congratulate the Opposition on initiating this debate, and I agree with much of what the right hon. Gentleman said about the horror of the human rights abuses. No hon. Member would disagree about condemning the catalogue of atrocities that was described by the right hon. Gentleman, by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). Nor would I disagree about the need to increase pressure, in any way we can, on President Mugabe and his ZANU-PF co-leaders.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes was correct in telling me that the Conservative Government's failure to respond to Mugabe's repression in Matabeleland in the early 1980s would be no excuse for a failure to respond now, and he was right to raise the issue in the House. While all cases of torture or political killing are equally horrific, however, it is important to recognise the scale of a problem.
  The Human Rights Forum, a Zimbabwean non-governmental organisation, estimates that between January 2001 and 14 May this year 146 people have been killed in political violence. That is a shocking, terrible figure, but it is not the 10,000 who were slaughtered in Matabeleland when Mugabe was trying to make the Zimbabwe leadership a Shona-only leadership rather than the partnership that existed, during the Patriotic Front's struggle for independence, between the Shona ZANU and the Ndebele ZAPU liberation movements.
  What all of us, on both sides of the House, must resolve to do is to work with our friends in Africa in every way we can to stop the death toll from rising into the thousands this time—to stop it from rising, heaven forbid, as high as it did in the early 1980s. The fact remains, nevertheless, that more people will die from hunger in Malawi than will die from political violence in Zimbabwe, more will die from hunger in Zambia than from political violence in Zimbabwe, and more will die from hunger in Zimbabwe itself than from political violence there. A child who dies of hunger, whether south or north of the Zambezi, dies in the same way. We as a Government must respond to a crisis that exists in many southern African countries.
  There is no doubt that Mugabe's land reform programme has made the food shortage crisis in Zimbabwe much worse, but let us not forget that other factors are involved. It would be wrong to blame solely the land reform for the problems of hunger. Poor economic policies are also to blame. The official Government exchange rate—the rate that Ministers pay to obtain foreign exchange with which to buy bottles of whisky—is 50 Zimbabwean dollars to the pound. The street value—the market rate—is 750 Zimbabwean dollars to the pound. That is what others must pay. Those
  832
  economic policies destroy local production. Who will buy Zimbabwean produce when people have to sell for 10, maybe even 15, times its real price?
  There are bad economic policies, bad agricultural policies, and drought. I returned from Zambia a few years ago with photographs of the Victoria falls. The Shona call them "mosi of tunya", which means "the mist that thunders". But when I was there, there was no mist, no thunder, and no water. One of my photographs was exhibited in the Upper Waiting Hall a couple of years ago–a photograph of the Victoria falls as a dry cliff. Drought is certainly a problem: we are not talking just about economic policies.
  Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right—there is drought—but drought does not become famine without misgovernment. That was the great finding of Professor Sen. A drought crisis that could be handled otherwise may become a famine owing to misgovernment. In that sense, if people die it is political.
  Hugh Bayley: I agree. I have said myself that the policies of Mugabe's Government make the drought much worse. It is not just a Zimbabwean drought, however; it is causing hunger in a number of countries in southern Africa.
  Hunger is also a consequence of the slow progress on land reform since Mugabe came to power. Land reform needs to happen, but it must be based on the rule of law, and not be achieved through violence. Above all, it must distribute land to poor, rural, landless people, and not to the cronies, supporters and leaders of ZANU-PF. It must be backed up by good policies on agriculture and rural development, so that smaller farms will be productive and support people in Zimbabwe.
  Recently, I attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's conference here. I was quizzed in a debate with association members largely from African states about the UK's policy on land reform. We have made a commitment to use development assistance to support land reform if the basic conditions that I set out earlier are met—that is, that land reform benefits poor, landless people rather than Government elites, and that it is provided in a transparent and legally based way.
  Hon. Members of all parties have asked what can be done to change what is happening in Zimbabwe. They want to know how we can ensure free and fair elections. respect for human rights and just land redistribution, and how we can address hunger. I share the Opposition's view that we should toughen sanctions. The right hon. Member for Devizes proposed extending targeted sanctions to the families of top Zimbabwean leaders, and said that they should not be confined to top leaders only. He also suggested that the targeted sanctions be extended to other leaders, especially business leaders who are ZANU-PF supporters.
  I do not think that Government Front-Bench Members would disagree. On 13 June, The Daily Telegraph reported that those proposals were precisely the ones that the Government intended to take to next month's EU meeting. However, we must accept that the proposed changes to the sanctions regime—important but modest as they are—will not change things overnight. We must learn the lessons of history. After Ian Smith made his unilateral declaration of independence, we the British

  833
  imposed tough sanctions. So why did Smith's illegal regime last so many years? It was able to import what it needed for survival—most importantly, oil—through Mozambique and South Africa. Those neighbouring countries did not impose sanctions.
  The lesson is clear. If the EU is alone in imposing sanctions, they will not be effective. To coin a phrase, we will be waiting years, not months, before the sanctions bite. We need to impose sanctions that are supported by the Southern African Development Community and the neighbouring southern African countries.
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) was right to say that political action was not particularly glamorous, but that it was necessary. A sanctions policy that is not supported by neighbouring African leaders will not have the effect that we seek. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) is also right, and I shall end soon so that he can tell the House more about why the New Partnership for Africa's Development is an important part of the answer.
  The Government must bring more pressure to bear on the Mugabe Government. We need to get famine aid flowing throughout the region, and to get good development assistance working in neighbouring states—in part to show people in Zimbabwe that good development assistance working constructively with other Governments can bring benefits. People in Zimbabwe would then be able to appreciate that a country under a Mugabe-type regime is unable to make the progress possible for other countries.
  In addition, we must seek the resumption of party-to-party talks with the Opposition in Zimbabwe. We must restate our commitment to land reform, according to conditions that are transparent and fair, and which help the poor. We need to investigate where the assets of ZANU-PF are held abroad, and to use our aid to support trade unions, non-governmental organisations and other opposition bodies in Zimbabwe. Those are the things that we need to do to build a coalition that forces the change that Members on both sides of the House want.
  9.15 pm
  Tony Baldry: As is often the case, I am largely in agreement with the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), my colleague on the International Development Committee, although I want to share a few points with the House to put the issue into a slightly broader context.
  Jim Morris, the executive director of the World Food Programme, came to brief the International Development Committee last Monday. I want to read to the House the note of the informal meeting:
  "James Morris gave a brief overview of the situation in Southern Africa. There were 12/13 million people at risk of loss of life in six countries (Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Lesotho, Mozambique and Swaziland). Half of those at risk were in Zimbabwe and a quarter in Malawi. The six countries would need 1.6 million tonnes of grain, which WFP would bring in through Tanzania and Mozambique."
  A rather stark sentence follows:
  "The work was set to become the WFP's largest undertaking."
  I suspect that what we are about to see in southern Africa will dwarf the humanitarian aid effort that has been required in Afghanistan. The Secretary of State for International Development shakes her head, but she can tell us whether that is so when she winds up. With
  834
  12 million to 13 million people at risk of loss of life, however, I do not think that the executive director of the World Food Programme would use those words lightly. He went on to tell us:
  "In Zimbabwe the operating environment complicated the problem. Zimbabwe had suffered the worst drought in twenty years. Land reform had seen a weakening of commercial farming and growth in small holdings … yields had dropped, mainly because less irrigation was being used. There were 850,000 displaced people within Zimbabwe."
  Interestingly, he added that
  "33,000 tonnes of grain were shipped from the US of which 18,000 was intended for Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe failed to complete the paperwork and it had to be redirected."
  In southern Africa, we are about to face a famine of horrific proportions. Whereas Zimbabwe used to export food to neighbouring countries, the whole of that area now suffers from the prospect of substantial loss of life. That is also against a background of the scourge of AIDS. Let us consider this horrific figure: a quarter of the education budget in Malawi goes to pay for the funerals of teachers who have died from AIDS.
  This is a test not just for us but for the whole of Africa. We have heard a lot about the New Partnership for Africa's Development. When President Mbeki introduced, with President Obasanjo and others, the NEPAD concept in October 2001, he said:
  "We are agreed that we must strengthen democracy on the continent; we must entrench a human rights culture; we must end existing conflicts and prevent new conflicts. We have to deal with corruption and be accountable for all our actions."
  In an article in The Washington Post the other day, President Museveni of Uganda wrote that
  "we Africans must do more to put our own houses in order. Here again, there is a growing consensus between the donor countries and the developing world. President Bush has pledged substantial amounts of new development assistance for countries that are opening their markets, improving governance, and encouraging economic and political freedoms."
  He continued:
  "African leaders agree. In the New Economic Partnership for African Development, a plan endorsed by the Organization of African Unity, African leaders have committed to many of the same principles described by President Bush and have embraced full responsibility for eradicating poverty and placing their countries on a path of sustainable growth".
  As part of NEPAD, African leaders have agreed on a peer review system whereby African countries will judge other African countries—but more than peer review is required.
  NEPAD is being discussed in Canada, and African countries are asking us and other G8 countries for substantially more investment in Africa for infrastructure and other projects. I hope that that will be forthcoming, but there is a quid pro quo. There must be a partnership, and part of that partnership means that African countries collectively will have to exert pressure on those who are failing. I suspect that there is substantially more that those countries could do to bring pressure to bear on Mugabe and on the regime in Zimbabwe. We must make it clear to our colleagues in Africa whom we wish to support that this is a test. We and those who want to support them will watch closely to see how they face up to that test.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Mark Prisk: I am aware of the pressure of time, so I will try to curtail my remarks.
  This is a timely debate and I join those who congratulated my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on calling for it. This week, the Zimbabwean Government are trying to shut down 3,000 family farms and, one week ago, further attempts were made to curtail freedom of speech in that country. The debate also comes at a time when there is growing and worrying evidence of sanctions failing.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), I was disappointed by the content and the style of the Foreign Secretary's speech. I hope and am sure that the Secretary of State for International Development will be able to be more comprehensive and thorough.
  The House will be familiar with the fact that the sanctions that are being imposed at present are supposedly smart. Although they may be smart in theory, the way in which they have been implemented has proved to be remarkably dumb. For example, the much-vaunted travel ban is already in tatters.
  Members have already heard how Mr. Mugabe, accompanied by several other Ministers, flew into Rome on 9 June under the guise of attending a United Nations conference. It is ironic that it was a conference on food production. That was not an isolated incident. In late May, Augustine Chihuri, the police commissioner, travelled to Paris for an Interpol conference. Joselyn Chiwenga, the wife of the army chief, has been reported as visiting Britain earlier this month along with three Zimbabwean Ministers. As we have heard, Grace Mugabe has applied for and been granted a tourist visa by the Spanish Government. Worst of all, Olivia Muchena flew into Gatwick recently. She is a member of the ZANU-PF cabinet and the very woman who, as a deputy Minister, was responsible for the fast-track land-grabbing policy that is at the heart of the problem.
  Each incident represents a deliberate flouting of the letter or the spirit of the ban. For those reasons, I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development will answer these questions in her winding-up speech. Why are the Government not implementing sanctions against people such as Mrs. Chiwenga? Have Ministers complained to the Spanish Government about the visa for Mrs. Mugabe—and if not, why not? Why has the United Kingdom not included people such as Mrs. Muchena on the list of responsible people, given that she had direct responsibility for the policy that is at the heart of the problem?
  At the beginning of Question Time this afternoon, the Foreign Secretary said that the travel ban policy would be humiliating. In one sense, he is right. It is humiliating for this Government, for the European Union and for the people who are still in Zimbabwe to watch the ban being flouted.
  The Government have made requests for us to come up with a policy for them. Although that is a generous offer, I can only bring some early thoughts to it. I shall briefly summarise them. First, the Government need to implement the sanctions and travel ban effectively. That means stopping existing abuses and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes rightly said, widening the net.
  836
  Secondly, we need to show not just people here but people in Zimbabwe how corrupt the Zimbabwean Government have become. There is a wonderful opportunity for the British, American and European authorities to expose the assets held by ZANU-PF officials abroad. It is vital that we show the Zimbabwean public and the people in neighbouring states how the regime is bleeding Zimbabwe dry.
  Thirdly, we need to encourage both South Africa and Nigeria to become more assertive in their demands. I hope that the Secretary of State will respond to that specific point. Finally, Colonel Gaddafi has been mentioned, and he is the principal provider of oil to Zimbabwe. The Government need to persuade Libya to use its considerable leverage to good effect. Clearly I do not expect the Secretary of State to give an open response to that; I simply ask the Government not merely to note the points raised but to act on them.
  9.26 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: This is an important debate. I was disappointed that the Foreign Secretary started his speech with one or two cheap points about why the Leader of the Opposition has not spent more time discussing this subject. There is one simple reason for that: we have an extremely competent shadow Foreign Secretary who has been at the forefront of these issues for the past year. Hardly a day has gone by when he has not mentioned something related to Zimbabwe, and it has been raised a number of times in every Foreign Office Question Time and International Development Question Time. I think I am right in saying that we have had no fewer than three Adjournment debates on the subject, all initiated by Opposition Members. We have not been sitting idly by. The Leader of the Opposition has given us a great deal of encouragement to keep Zimbabwe at the top of the agenda. The Foreign Secretary's comments were cheap indeed.
  We have heard some excellent speeches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) listed a catalogue of truly wicked incidents. One of the most moving speeches, however, was by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). I am sure he moved all of us when he went right to the heart of the tragedy in that beautiful land.
  We all know that the elections were a farce. Every independent observer condemned them as a sham. They have brought utter shame on the ruling party and are an insult to democracy. Robin and Jennifer Plunkett, a couple who own a farm in Zimbabwe near the Mozambique border, sent me an interesting video, which I passed on to my right hon. Friend, which documents numerous examples of outright intimidation, fraud and ballot rigging. Lest anyone should have any doubts about the reports of those elections in the world media—and there may have been some exaggerations—the video made it clear to me beyond peradventure that they were a total sham.
  No one can accept the result. Mugabe has no legitimacy whatsoever. He is a political pariah who has completely demeaned himself and brought misery to his people who were denied the right to vote him out of office. The man is a wicked tyrant. My right hon. Friend was right when he said that our key priority must be to have a rerun of those elections as soon as possible.

  837
  A number of hon. Members mentioned the appalling famine in southern Africa. The once great country of Zimbabwe was the bread basket of that region and it boasted proudly of its food exports to other countries. However, its food production is now a quarter of what it was 10 years ago, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) explained, and that is mostly attributable to Mugabe's confiscation of productive farms. The pretence of handing the land over to landless peasants has long since disappeared. As several hon. Members have made clear, those farms have been handed to Mugabe's cronies.
  The latest ludicrous order preventing farmers from farming stems from an amendment made last month to the Land Acquisition Act. Those who carry on farming after the 45-day period will either be fined or imprisoned for two years. I gather that an appeal is to go to Zimbabwe's High Court. We must all hope and pray that it is successful.
  In Mugabe's actions we see the politics of a madman. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, the Chairman of the International Development Committee, told the House that there is famine in southern Africa—for example, in Malawi. In an excellent article that appeared in The Daily Telegraph two days ago, the journalist Neil Darbyshire made it crystal clear that the dislocation and ruination of farming in Zimbabwe is part of the cause of the appalling famine in Malawi.
  Action is needed. Last week, the Brussels think tank International Crisis Group forecast increasing unrest and an impending clampdown by Mugabe. The report's author, John Prendergast, said:
  "Britain and the EU talk tough and do nothing: it is a joke."
  It is an extremely unfortunate joke, because the sanctions are not working. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) emphasised, the travel ban is not working. It must be extended across the board to every single ZANU-PF politician and their families.
  My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary made it clear that freezing bank accounts has yielded only a pitiful sum—£76,000 to date. We know that there are millions of pounds in bank accounts around Europe, and I hope that the Secretary of State for International Development will explain why more has not been frozen. Why is more not being done in that respect?
  There are strong arguments in favour of other types of action, and I have a suggestion. What about imposing a ban on Air Zimbabwe? The airline is obviously still flying and its aircraft are not being impounded. A ban would not hit the ordinary people of Zimbabwe, but would hit the politicians and Mugabe's cronies. Yes, it would also hit various business men who are doing their level best in difficult circumstances to run their businesses, but surely, when push came to shove, they could make alternative arrangements, probably via South Africa. The symbolism of banning Air Zimbabwe would be extremely powerful. That very suggestion was made by a couple of leading American politicians only two weeks ago.
  There is need for other action, because we are talking about a brazen bully. Mugabe is laughing at the west. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes that there is a crucial role for South Africa and Nigeria to play, especially in putting pressure on Libya and giving Thabo Mbeki more stomach for getting involved. He has to take a position and start taking risks. Politicians have to take risks.
  838
  There is no question of Britain acting alone, but we should in no way be ashamed of our former colonial involvement in Zimbabwe. We should be proud of what was done under British rule. We bequeathed a sense of fair play and justice to that country, and sooner or later its people will say, "Enough is enough." They will rise up and depose the monster. Then, Zimbabwe will again be on the path to peace, prosperity, justice, observance of human rights and, above all, freedom.
  9.34 pm
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The debate did not start off on a good footing. I must register disappointment at the tone adopted by the Foreign Secretary at the beginning. However, the debate has improved as we have gone along and it entirely vindicates the Opposition's choice of the subject for one of our precious Supply days.
  From all parts of the House, we have offered the Government a number of suggestions for measures that might be taken. The most recent suggestion, from my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), is not such a bad one.[Interruption.] When the Foreign Secretary is listening, I hope that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will convey to him the large number of suggestions that were made during the debate about what else he might do. The tone adopted by the Foreign Secretary was that of an apologia for inaction. As we heard subsequently, there is a good deal more action that could be taken.
  As many hon. Members said, the situation prevailing under President Mugabe is a tragedy, not just for the people of Zimbabwe, but for the whole region. That fact alone makes the Government's failure to engage more proactively even more lamentable. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, that 13 million people in southern Africa are on the brink of starvation. Zimbabwe, which should be able to export food to feed them, is itself dependent on food aid. If the international community had acted sooner and more decisively, they might not be facing the prospect of hunger and starvation this summer—a situation that will get worse as stocks expire.
  Let us not shy away from the fact that accounts of the unfolding horrors in Zimbabwe, more than any other country in Africa, are turning up in our postbags. Only this morning I received one from a Zimbabwean farmer, begging me to pass on this message to the Government:
  "The situation in Zimbabwe has not been solved and it should not be swept under the carpet. The Zimbabwean people must not he let down by the International Community again".
  I am sure that all hon. Members have received e-mails and letters in similar vein.
  President Mugabe is culpable. His mismanagement of the economy, his violent and illegal theft of people's land, his blatant and sometimes brutal manipulation of the recent elections, and the continued violent oppression of ordinary Zimbabweans have all led a once prosperous country to the brink of ruin. As for Robert Mugabe's stewardship of the economy, we heard various measures of the state of the economy. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit report, it has shrunk by 25 per cent. since 1998, and unemployment is approaching 75 per cent. That is an indictment of any Government's role.

  839
  Scarce food supplies are so expensive that many Zimbabweans cannot afford to buy enough to eat. The UN has estimated that 1.5 million tonnes of food aid will be needed. We welcome the fact that the Government have said that 32 million tonnes of humanitarian relief will be made available to Zimbabwe outside the official channels, but I would like to hear from the Secretary of State for International Development how the safety and security of those official channels can be guaranteed, in the light of the actions of Mugabe and his henchmen.
  The people are not so much living as enduring what their appalling Government have inflicted on them. The country's ability to square up to the drought has been severely affected by President Mugabe's governance. Crops have not been planted, and the yields of those that have been is pitiful. The maize crop is only 20 per cent. of normal, and wheat yields are down 40 or 50 per cent. There has been no maize meal in the shops for six to nine months. People have been getting by on stocks of wheat, but those are about to run out. There is a bread shortage looming, and in a muzzled country, people are afraid to protest.
  Most hon. Members will agree that land reform was needed in Zimbabwe. We had a long history lesson from the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) on how the land reforms came about—so long that our second Back-Bench speaker got in only at 9.15 this evening. The important point is that Britain had a key role in bringing forward those land reforms, and we have a responsibility to see that they are implemented as originally conceived. Yesterday, nearly 3,000 farmers were made to surrender their farms. Any farmer who continues to farm his land faces the prospect of a lengthy prison sentence, and 60 per cent. of the white farmers who were working the land two years ago will have to stop. Zimbabwe was once the bread basket of southern Africa, but it now presents us with a begging bowl.
  Mugabe's response to the crisis has disgraced him even further in the eyes of world. The approach of the Government of Zimbabwe to food assistance has ranged from absolute negligence to outright obstruction. For Mugabe, food is power and a vehicle for political control. At the moment, behind the scenes, a power battle is taking place between Harare and the UN over who controls food distribution in Zimbabwe. The Government of Zimbabwe are using food to reward their allies and punish their enemies. As usual, it is the weakest and most vulnerable who suffer. A fortnight ago, a food distribution agency run by local churches and supported by the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development was closed down by war veterans loyal to Robert Mugabe. Some 40,000 people, many of them children, were denied the food on which they had depended. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) referred to one school in Zimbabwe whose feeding plan has been altered to keep MDC children from obtaining food.
  When the Government of Zimbabwe are not being obstructive, they are being negligent. According to a written answer I received from the Secretary of State for International Development, there is "no credible national plan" to address food shortages in Zimbabwe. NGOs and agencies that wish to distribute food are hampered by the lack of any coherent plan from a Government who do not care about the plight of their own people. Robert Mugabe
  840
  is intent on fighting a war not simply against the white minority, but against the whole country, and the world watches him as he does so.
  The Prime Minister is at a meeting of the G8 in Canada in which a topic for discussion will be the New Partnership for Africa's Development. The partnership represents a new model for working in Africa. It is a vehicle to promote just and democratically accountable government in Africa, but one of its first tests is Zimbabwe. I think that I speak for many hon. Members in saying that, at the moment, it is simply not working. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury reminded us of the contribution made by President Museveni to The Washington Post, in which he said that Africa must do its part. As my hon. Friend said, Africa tries, but must do more, to exert pressure.
  Presidents Mbeki of South Africa and Obasanjo of Nigeria are the main architects of NEPAD, but they were too slow to condemn Mugabe and have been ineffective in restraining his political excesses. However, we should at least be grateful that they condemned Mugabe, as other African commentators were considerably more reluctant to do so. That has serious implications for NEPAD. South African election observers initially declared the election result valid. A South African police Minister allegedly tried to persuade observers of the elections in Zimbabwe that they were credible and legitimate. Before the close of voting, the head of the Nigerian observer team said:
  "It will be very difficult for anyone to come and tell us that it was not free and fair".
  The President of Kenya was one of the first to congratulate Robert Mugabe. The poll result was also quickly welcomed by the Presidents of Namibia, Zambia and Tanzania, and the Organisation of African Unity said that the results of the election were
  "transparent, credible, free and fair".
  That is in stark contrast with the way in which the Foreign Secretary described the conduct of the elections to this House on 12 March, when he said:
  "there has been every sign of ZANU-PF-hacked violence and intimidation, right up to the close of polling, as well as many reports of irregularities, including a shortage of polling booths in urban areas, and harassment of opposition election agents in rural areas."—[Official Report, 12 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 740.]
  Two days later, he told us:
  "we do not recognise the result or its legitimacy."—[official Report, 14 March 2002; Vol. 381, c. 1035.]
  How could the Foreign Secretary argue in his speech that Mugabe should legitimately be able to attend meetings of the UN if he does not recognise the legitimacy of that Government?
  Since the election, land-grabs have continued and reports of human rights abuses and torture persist. The freedom of the press remains curtailed and the independence of the judiciary suppressed, and the humanitarian situation continues to decline. If NEPAD is a new model of working partnership with Africa, the situation in Zimbabwe leaves me very concerned indeed. If NEPAD is to be seen to be effective, peer pressure must be made to work. At present, there is little evidence of that.
  Many hon. Members share the belief that more concerted action by the Government and the EU could have prevented the situation from getting this far. The EU's travel ban has proved to be humiliating for us,

  841
  as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) pointed out. Politics is about perception, and the perception is that that ban is not working.
  The powerful message that the Government should take from the debate is our strong sense that they have failed to act and have allowed a festering situation to go from bad to worse. On 2 October, in his speech to the Labour party conference, the Prime Minister warned that there would be
  "no tolerance of…the activities of Mr. Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe".
  How does the Government's failure to restrain the theft, corruption and intimidation by Robert Mugabe and his associates square with that pledge of zero tolerance?
  I receive countless letters and e-mails from people in Zimbabwe who feel let down and abandoned by Britain. Why, they ask, did Britain allow the situation to get this bad when it was clearly deteriorating under our noses? The Prime Minister wears his passion for Africa on his sleeve, but, when it comes to Zimbabwe, what has that passion achieved? The Government made a great song and dance about having an ethical foreign policy, but their handling of Zimbabwe has destroyed the trust in them to deliver it.
  9.46 pm
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The whole House has agreed that the situation in Zimbabwe is a terrible tragedy. The Mugabe regime is systematically wrecking its economy, brutalising its people, stealing elections and causing enormous suffering to its people. The situation is likely to get much worse in the next few months, and I fear that there will be a very serious famine.
  There is agreement across the House, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, but the difference between us and Her Majesty's official Opposition is that they seem to have forgotten about power so quickly that they think that there is a magic wand that can put the situation right. They believe that Her Majesty's Government have the power to go in anywhere in the world to stop the disgraceful wreckage of an economy such as that carried out by the Mugabe regime, which gets ever worse as time goes by. The UK does not have that power—if only—and we never did.
  The Opposition motion
  "calls on Her Majesty's Government to…build an international coalition to apply whatever pressure is necessary…to restore democracy in Zimbabwe".
  In fact, we have been doing just that since 1997. I say to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) that I have attended to the situation in Zimbabwe weekly—maybe fortnightly—ever since 1997. It has gone from bad to worse. I knew how bad it was in 1997—there was not a genuine programme of land reform—but no one could have predicted this wreckage or that anyone would do that to their country. We tried to take step after step, but it has got worse. There has not been a failure of attention or a failure to take action.
  The truth is that we cannot fix everything across the world in every tragic situation. We have to do all that we can, whenever we can. To pretend that we can fix it when we cannot is dishonest, and is no help to the people of Zimbabwe or anyone else. We have led in building the
  842
  international coalition that has left Zimbabwe increasingly isolated. The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the African Development Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development are no longer disbursing funds in Zimbabwe. Denmark and the Netherlands are withdrawing from it, and most other EU states are providing limited assistance through non-government channels. The European Commission is not disbursing the ninth European development fund programme. Zimbabwe is suspended from the Commonwealth and the elite face sanctions from the EU and the US.
  All that is equivalent to an international coalition putting pressure on the Government of Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, it has not halted the Mugabe regime's determination to wreck its economy. Even today, when the country faces famine, further action is being taken to prevent farmers from farming. It is unbelievable that any Government, whatever their motivation or lack of decency, would go on wrecking and wrecking like that. The international community is doing all that it can to stop that. We share the Opposition's frustration. We have given Zimbabwe a high priority and we shall continue to do that.
  Remember the Balkans and how long it took to deal with Milosevic. Remember the unilateral declaration of independence. A Labour Government under Harold Wilson were in power then. They were determined to prevent UDI and bring Zimbabwe to democracy, and they were not always fully supported by Conservative Members. In the end, Zimbabwe came to democracy and it will return to it. I fear that that will happen through famine; the rage that it causes in the country will ultimately tear down the regime. There will be horrendous suffering in the process, and we must do everything in our power to relieve it as much as we can.
  As many hon. Members said, the case for land reform in Zimbabwe is overwhelming. I was surprised by the assertion of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) that he was proud of everything that Britain had done in Zimbabwe. The land was stolen from people and UDI was a shame. Land reform must be principled and done according to law; it must prioritise the people who live in communal areas. We have made it clear that we would support that, as would the international community.
  President Mugabe turned against such reform. I believe that he saw power and support for him slipping away in his country. He lost a referendum, and that gave him a shock. He therefore returned to the rhetoric of his heyday, when he was at his most popular and took over the country. What were the two main principles then? Land and beating the UK. He went back to beating that drum, believing that the people of Zimbabwe would support him. There has been complete loss of contact with reality, and all the ensuing consequences.
  The UK has supported the overwhelming case for land reform since independence. We have fulfilled our commitments under the Lancaster House agreement. For most of period since independence, the Conservative party was in government. The UK has disbursed £500 million in bilateral aid and a considerable further sum through the multilateral system.
  However, when President Mugabe started on the wrecking track, he set out to persuade neighbouring African Governments that the UK was resisting justified

  843
  land reform. He went back to the rhetoric of independence and he fooled neighbouring countries for a time. I believe that that time is coming to an end, but he banged the drum of the independence fight. He was a hero in. Africa in those years, and he confused the current debate there by using some of the rhetoric of that struggle to portray the UK as the monster, and suggest that we were committed to the white farmers, not the people of Zimbabwe. The confusion may arise partly because the record shows that that was sometimes true.
  Attitudes are changing. As the Governments of Africa witness what is happening to Zimbabwe, they are no longer confused and they are increasingly moving against Mugabe. However, the approaching tragedy will cause enormous harm to many people.
  I do not have time to respond properly to all the speeches. I understand and share the rage of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who said that he would rule nothing in and nothing out. We are doing everything in our power; all suggestions are welcome. There is no magic wand.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) that we should pay tribute to the brave Zimbabweans who stood for hours, indeed days, to vote in an election when they were being brutalised. We should express our respect for their courage in the circumstances that they faced.
  I emphasise to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire that we have given Zimbabwe a high priority. Perhaps we should have debated it in the House more often, but it is difficult to express everything in debates. For example, many organisations are trying to deliver food and they face resistance, but I will not name them in answer to hon. Members' questions because if they appear in Hansard, they will experience even more difficulties in Zimbabwe. However, I shall always write to hon. Members or discuss such questions with them.
  I saw Chief Anyaoku recently. We can contact him again to find whether he believes that he can do anything. Let us be clear: we have tried and tried and tried. Persuading President Mugabe to be rational and care for his people seems impossible. We shall go on trying, but it is difficult. The powers of the International Criminal Court are not retrospective, and therefore not relevant to the subject that we are discussing.
  I stress to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) that I shook my head about Afghanistan because the extent of the crisis there is similar. Before 11 September, 5 million people in that country had to be fed daily. The number increased to 6 million, then 7 million. It is now up to 12 million as we turn the country round and get it resettled. I am not, therefore, saying that there is not a monstrous crisis emerging in southern Africa because of the situation in Zimbabwe; it is on a comparable scale.
  As for NEPAD, Zimbabwe must, of course, be discussed in the context of that partnership, but we cannot hold a whole continent—the poorest continent in the world—hostage to the misbehaviour of President Mugabe. We must engage with African Governments who are reformers in driving forward the reform agenda, and try to get them to join in the effort to improve, to put pressure on the Mugabe regime and to take Zimbabwe forward.
  844
  I agree with the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk on money freezing. and if the figures are as low as he says, let us look into it. I undertake that I, or another Minister, will write to him on that and on his other suggestion—I know that the USA was considering taking action on Air Zimbabwe. All these actions should be considered, and we will do that.
  I would say to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) that I have an office of enormously brave staff in Zimbabwe who are making sure that the food supplied by the UK is not tainted or touched by ZANU-PF thugs who might prevent it from being properly distributed. I want to pay tribute to my staff there, who are working in very difficult circumstances to that end. We are working with the World Food Programme and the UN to ensure that, in trying to face the coming crisis, there will be no political manipulation.
  Let me say, however, that we cannot feed those who will be hungry unless the Mugabe regime permits the private sector to import food. As yet, it will not, and the situation looks appalling. There will be considerable food aid, but trucks will be needed to distribute it. and the trucks are all controlled by the regime. The commercial suppliers are not allowed to import, while the Zimbabwean currency has such a high exchange rate that the costs are prohibitive. The country is facing a drought that will cause a crisis that could easily be managed, but it is potentially a disaster because of the mis-government, the mismanagement of the economy and the grossly mismanaged land reform that has handed farms to fat cats, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire stated.
  If the regime in Zimbabwe cannot be persuaded to allow us to do our work to get food to the hungry, there will be famine conditions, and the population will stream out into the neighbouring countries. I am afraid that that is how the political crisis will be resolved: in an utter tragedy. I am sure that that will bring down the regime, but it will do so in a way that will cause even further suffering to the people of Zimbabwe. This is not a matter of dispute across the House; there is no difference between the Government and the Opposition on this analysis or on our sense of the forthcoming tragedy.
  On top of all that, Zimbabwe has the highest HIV infection rate in Africa. The lives of the poor people of Zimbabwe have been wrecked by the Government who have brought untold harm to them. I give those people an undertaking that we will do all in our power to keep them fed through the coming crisis. We stand ready, when they can find a way of bringing round this regime, to support them in a democratic election and in rebuilding their economy and their country. That beautiful country, which is naturally very fertile, should be the bread basket of this region of Africa, instead of facing this crisis. It will rebuild again—
  Mrs. Spelman: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Clare Short: Very quickly. There is only one minute left.
  Mrs. Spelman: My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) asked the Foreign

  845
  Secretary whether, given the significance of the region, he would consider a visit to the region. May I extend that question to the Secretary of State?
  Clare Short: I have been to the region repeatedly, and I shall go again. For obvious reasons, I am not planning to go to Zimbabwe, or to meet representatives of its Government.
  The population of Zimbabwe is highly educated. They will rebuild; they will come to democracy again. We will be there to try to help people to survive the coming crisis, and to help them to rebuild the country. The way in which President Mugabe has wrecked this prosperous country is truly unforgivable. Zimbabwe should be an engine for development in Africa and should be supplying food to help the region through the drought that it now faces. But there are no magic wands. We cannot fix it just because we hate it. We have to work together to do everything in our power to mobilise international support for action that will bring the crisis to an end, but we have not been successful. No one has been successful as yet, and no one could have envisaged how far President Mugabe would go in wrecking his country. As he brings down his regime, he brings down the whole economy with it.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 361.

  Division No. 283]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gale, Roger

  Amess, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gibb, Nick

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Goodman, Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gray, James

  Bacon, Richard

  Grayling, Chris

  Baldry, Tony

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Barker, Gregory

  Greenway, John

  Baron, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Beggs, Roy

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Bellingham, Henry

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hayes, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Hendry, Charles

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hermon, Lady

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Hoban, Mark

  Brazier, Julian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Burns, Simon

  Horam, John

  Burt, Alistair

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cameron, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Chope, Christopher

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clappison, James

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Lansley, Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Leigh, Edward

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)

  Liddell—Grainger, Ian

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Lidington, David

  Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  Loughton, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Flook, Adrian

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Francois, Mark

  Malins, Humfrey

  846

  Maples, John

  Spink, Bob

  Mates, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Steen, Anthony

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mercer, Patrick

  Swire, Hugo

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Syms, Robert

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Paice, James

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Paterson, Owen

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Viggers, Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Prisk, Mark

  Watkinson, Angela

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Wilkinson, John

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Wilshire, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Ruffley, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Selous, Andrew

  Simmonds, Mark

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Dr. Julian Lewis and

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cairns, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Armstrong, At Hon Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Austin, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Baird, Vera

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Barrett, John

  Casale, Roger

  Barron, Rt Hon Kevin

  Caton, Martin

  Battle, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Challen, Colin

  Beard, Nigel

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Chaytor, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Benn, Hilary

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Benton, Joe

  Clarke, Rt Hon Charles (Norwich S)

  Berry, Roger

  Best, Harold

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Betts, Clive

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clelland, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Coaker, Vernon

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Borrow, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Coleman, Iain

  Brake, Tom

  Colman, Tony

  Breed, Colin

  Connarty, Michael

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Corston, Jean

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Cotter, Brian

  Cousins, Jim

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bryant, Chris

  Crausby, David

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cruddas, Jon

  Burden, Richard

  Cummings, John

  Burnett, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Burnham, Andy

  Burstow, Paul

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Dalyell, Tam

  847

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  David, Wayne

  Hume, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Hurst, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Dawson, Hilton

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Doughty, Sue

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Joyce, Eric

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Efford, Clive

  Keetch, Paul

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ennis, Jeff

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fisher, Mark

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Flint, Caroline

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Follett, Barbara

  Lamb, Norman

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lammy, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Laws, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Laxton, Bob

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gapes, Mike

  Lepper, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Leslie, Christopher

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Levitt, Tom

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Gilroy, Linda

  Linton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Goggins, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Lucas, Ian

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Luke, Iain

  Grogan, John

  Lyons, John

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Hanson, David

  McDonnell, John

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  MacDougall, John

  Harvey, Nick

  McFall, John

  Havard, Dai

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Healey, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Heath, David

  McKechin, Ann

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McNulty, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hendrick, Mark

  McWalter, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heyes, David

  Mann, John

  Hill, Keith

  Marris, Rob

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hoey, Kate

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Holmes, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Hood, Jimmy

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Merron, Gillian

  Hope, Phil

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Miller, Andrew

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mole, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Moore, Michael

  848

  Moran, Margaret

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morgan, Julie

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morley, Elliot

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

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Soley, Clive

  Mountford, Kali

  Southworth, Helen

  Mudie, George

  Speller, 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'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stunell, Andrew

  Organ, Diana

  Tami, Mark

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Ann (Dewsbury)

  Owen, Albert

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Perham, Linda

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Picking, Anne

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Pike, Peter

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Plaskitt, James

  Thurso, John

  Pollard, Kerry

  Timms, Stephen

  Pond, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Todd, Mark

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Price, Adam

  Touhig, Don

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Trickett, Jon

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Truswell, Paul

  Pugh, Dr John

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Purnell, James

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tyler, Paul

  Rammell, Bill

  Vaz, Keith

  Rapson, Syd

  Ward, Claire

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Wareing, Robert N

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Watson, Tom

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Watts, David

  Rendel, David

  Webb, Steve

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Weir, Michael

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Ross, Ernie

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Roy, Frank

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Willis, Phil

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wilson, Brian

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Winnick, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wishart, Pete

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wood, Mike

  Sawford, Phil

  Woodward, Shaun

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Worthington, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Singh, Marsha

  Younger—Ross, Richard

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Derek Twigg and

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Joan Ryan.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House expresses its grave concern at the abuse of human rights and suppression of freedom of expression in Zimbabwe, the increase in poverty arising from the policies of the ruling party, and the impending humanitarian crisis in the country; reaffirms the view that the outcome of the recent Presidential election does not reflect the will of the Zimbabwean people; recognises the need for Land Reform but also recognises that this needs to be done responsibly; welcomes the actions taken on Zimbabwe by Her Majesty's Government in co-operation with the EU, the Commonwealth, the US and others; further welcomes the efforts of the Governments of South Africa and Nigeria to facilitate dialogue between ZANU (PF) and MDC, and deplores ZANU (PF)'s withdrawal from these talks; further welcomes the Government's commitment of £32 million to humanitarian relief in Zimbabwe outside official channels; and calls on the Government to encourage other donors to stand by the people of Zimbabwe at this difficult time.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    COUNTRYSIDE
    That the draft Vehicular Access Across Common and Other Land (England) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.
    INVESTIGATORY POWERS
    That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Maintenance of Interception Capability) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.
    INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
    That the draft Specialized Agencies of the United Nations (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
    INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
    That the draft United Nations and International Court of Justice (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Social Security Amendment (Intercalating Students) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
    INSIDER DEALING
    That the draft Insider Dealing (Securities and Regulated Markets) (Amendment) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    That the draft Offshore Installations (Emergency Pollution Control) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
    Question agreed to.

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100(1) (Scottish Grand Committee (sittings),
  That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 10th July at half-past Ten o'clock to consider a substantive Motion for the adjournment of the Committee.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    NATIONAL CARE STANDARDS COMMISSION
    That the National Care Standards Commission (Children's Rights Director) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 1250) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

  Asthma
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
  10.14 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about this important subject—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is an Adjournment debate taking place. Would hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly?
  Mrs. Campbell: Everyone in the House probably knows someone who is badly affected by asthma. Yet in 1950 fewer than one in 50 of the world population had asthma, and before the 1960s, asthma was not regarded as a fatal illness. However, there has been a massive increase since then. The National Asthma Campaign estimates that about 5 million people in the United Kingdom currently receive treatment for asthma, and 8 million people have been diagnosed as having asthma at some point in their lives.
  Over the past quarter of a century, the number of first or new asthma cases has increased considerably. Compared with 25 years ago, the incidence of asthma is three to four times higher in adults and six times higher in children, and it is particularly problematic in the UK. The international study of asthma and allergies in childhood found that the highest number of children reporting asthma symptoms were in the UK, Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland. Asthma has also become more serious: in the UK, about 1,500 deaths a year have asthma registered as the cause.
  This epidemic imposes a huge cost on the national health service, employers and individuals. The estimated annual cost to our health care system of treating asthma is more than £850 million a year, and those costs account for just one third of the total cost to society. There is also an enormous cost to employers, with more than 18 million working days lost to asthma each year.
  I am pleased to see that The Independent on Sunday is running a campaign to get us to take the disease more seriously and to spend more money on research. I applaud the paper's sentiments and fully support its campaign to reduce traffic and other forms of pollution. However, I shall argue that pollution is a trigger, not a primary cause of asthma. Increasing levels of pollution and ozone affect existing asthmatics but do not create new ones. The medical community still does not know what fundamentally causes the disease.
  It is time we admitted that the current treatments appear to be making us worse, not better, and I want to take a look at the possible causes and treatment of asthma. I shall describe the work done by a Russian doctor, Konstantin Buteyko, in the 1960s; it attempted to explain why people get asthma, and offered a management regime for the disease.
  Dr. Buteyko's methods were practised widely in Russia in the 1980s, and that may still be the case. They spread to Australia when an Australian doctor suffered an asthma attack while visiting Russia. He was admitted to hospital and was taught the Buteyko method for controlling his
  852
  symptoms. He was so impressed that he took the method back to Australia, and it is now taught there and in New Zealand.
  Buteyko blames hyperventilation for a number of civilisation-induced diseases. We all hyperventilate at times of stress. Indeed, the "fight or flight". response to stress is well documented. It was useful in building energy reserves when stress was likely to be caused by a wild animal or physical attack by an enemy. However, continuous over-breathing is certainly damaging and can cause disease. The importance of correct breathing is acknowledged by the National Asthma Campaign's website, which states:
  "The body needs a balance between carbon dioxide and oxygen. Oxygen is the vital fuel for the body that we get from breathing in the air; carbon dioxide is produced in the body and breathed out. Breathing very rapidly, usually due to being very anxious, can lead to breathing out too much carbon dioxide. This can cause symptoms such as tingling in the fingers and dizziness."
  Buteyko's hypothesis is that it also causes asthma.
  It is not only emotional stress that causes hyperventilation; anyone who is sensitive to environmental factors such as pollution, tobacco smoke, pollens—which are especially noticeable at this time of year—dog and cat hair or house mites, will experience them as stress and can start to hyperventilate as a result. Certain foods also act as a trigger for asthma, notably chocolate, red wine, cheese and even strawberries—in fact, most of the things that I like best.
  Other stress factors are illness, such as chest infections, or exercise. They are all experienced as stress and cause us to breathe too quickly. The effect of that hyperventilation is to increase the amount of oxygen but also to deplete the amount of carbon dioxide, which falls below the level needed for our bodies to function efficiently.
  If carbon dioxide is too low, death will ensue, so when the level falls below a certain limit, the body takes retaliatory action. The smooth muscle surrounding the airways goes into involuntary spasm and tightens, thus preventing people from breathing out and losing more carbon dioxide. At the same time, the airway inner linings become swollen or inflamed and excessive amounts of mucus are produced. That is what many of us who are asthmatics experience as an asthma attack.
  Usually we try to compensate by breathing more, even though that compounds the problem. An asthmatic may also resort to using reliever medication, which can be a life saver—but it works by relaxing the muscles around the airways, allowing the asthmatic to hyperventilate even more and making the problem worse. Buteyko concluded that asthma is actually a defence mechanism, to guard against the fatal loss of carbon dioxide by over-breathing.
  Patients who need reliever medication frequently are usually prescribed steroid preventer medication, which helps to reduce the swelling of the inner airway tube. That works well, but unfortunately, it also depresses the immune system, thus making the patient more vulnerable to coughs, colds and chest infections.
  Buteyko's conclusion was that rather than giving people more drugs, which usually make the condition worse, it would be better to teach them how to breathe correctly. However, it is important to stress that Buteyko practitioners always instruct people to continue using their medication unless it is reduced under the supervision of a GP.

  853
  Asthmatics whose stress response is constantly stimulated by asthma triggers will over-breathe continuously, and in the long term that can be both crippling and life threatening. There is a respiratory centre in the brain that controls our breathing rate, but hidden hyperventilation depletes the body of carbon dioxide and the respiratory centre adjusts to accept those levels as normal.
  The respiratory centre has to maintain what it considers the correct levels of carbon dioxide, so it increases the breathing rate whenever the low level is exceeded. Once bad breathing habits have become established, therefore, the respiratory centre's acceptance of low levels of carbon dioxide perpetuates the problem. The good news is that respiratory centres can be retrained to accept higher levels of carbon dioxide. The aim of the Buteyko technique is gradually to reduce the asthmatic's breathing rate to normal, thus increasing the level of carbon dioxide.
  The technique is simple and can be taught in periods of one and a half hours once a day over four or five days. Some follow-up work is sometimes needed, but the results can be dramatic. There are specially designed exercises for children and their parents; the technique has as much success in children aged over four as it does in adults.
  There are some well documented cases of people who have been helped by the technique. I understand that Jonathan Aitken, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, received treatment from a Buteyko practitioner in London. His asthma was moderately severe, but over a course of consultations and home visits he made a dramatic recovery. A newspaper article quoted him as saying:
  "I have tried plenty of treatments, but this is the only one that has really worked. I think it is a remarkable one that could help many people."
  Con Barren, a member of the New Zealand All Black team, said after his treatment:
  "I sleep better, my pulse rate has dropped 10–12 beats on a regular basis and I feel well. This has been a big help to me as a professional and personally. I recommend asthmatics try it—things can only get better."
  As someone who has suffered from asthma for 40 years and whose condition would have been previously described as moderate, I have given the Buteyko technique a try myself. I started with a home education pack, as described on the website, www.buteyko.co.nz. Even self-teaching is effective, as by day five I had reduced the number of times I took my reliever medication from four or five times a day to very occasional use. Later I went on a course run by a qualified Buteyko practitioner. As I continued, I discovered to my delight that the asthma symptoms were rapidly reduced. I sleep better and have more energy than I can ever remember.
  What I really regret is that no one told me about the method before. This year I have not suffered from any hay fever, except for a very occasional sneeze, and I wish that someone had told me about the technique some time ago. Alone, I could have saved the national health service hundreds of pounds' worth of medication and myself a lot of needless discomfort. However, the Minister, whom I am happy to welcome to the Front Bench, will be less impressed by anecdote than by medical trials. Unfortunately. there is little evidence to quote so far.
  854
  In referring to the effectiveness of the Buteyko method, the National Asthma Campaign remarks on its website:
  "Lack of published research makes it difficult to reach a conclusion on its effectiveness."
  Buteyko himself conducted a trial in Russia, but the results were considered to be too good, and were not believed for many years.
  In December 1998 a paper by Bowler, Green and Mitchell was published in Alternative Medicine, in Australia. The paper was called "Buteyko breathing techniques in asthma: a blinded randomised trial." The trial compared the effect of the Buteyko breathing technique with a control group in 39 subjects with asthma. The control group was given instruction in general asthma education, relaxation techniques and abdominal breathing exercises. The experimenters looked at medication use, peak flow and quality of life, among other factors.
  After three months, the subjects assigned to the Buteyko group had reduced their reliever medication by 904 micrograms, whereas the control group had a reduction of 57 micrograms—a highly significant result at the 0.2 per cent. level of significance. There was also a reduction in inhaled steroid use by the Buteyko subjects, although the sample sizes were too small for that to he statistically significant.
  Similarly and more importantly, perhaps from my point of view, there was a trend towards greater improvement in the mean quality of life scores of the Buteyko group. I certainly think that if someone can have uninterrupted sleep, feel better and have more energy, it is worth a great deal to that individual.
  I should like to mention Jill McGowan, who was awarded the carer of the year award at the Pride of Britain awards 2002. She knows a lot about asthma because she has the condition herself, and is also a nurse who has worked for many years helping other asthmatics. Like many others who have followed the course, she stopped needing her inhaler within 24 hours.
  Jill is also a university lecturer with the skills to look into the theory behind Buteyko. When she decided that the method had merit, she was amazed to find that it was not more widely researched. She applied to universities for grants to allow her to fund a pilot study. When they turned her down, she sold her house and used the £55,000 proceeds to pay for the study herself.
  The pilot study has shown excellent results—a more than 90 per cent. reduction in reliever medication in the first few weeks. Because of those results, a two-year clinical study of 600 asthma sufferers is under way. Jill is also helping to pay for that work by donating three quarters of her salary. That is real dedication. She hopes that the clinical study will prove the benefits of the Buteyko technique, so that one day it can become available to all on the NHS.
  I very much hope that as a result of this Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend will ask the chief medical officer to examine the available evidence. In particular, I would ask him to consider the preliminary evidence from the Scottish trial, and to have further trials conducted to ascertain the method's efficacy in the UK.
  Let me stress that the technique that I have described does not constitute alternative medicine—a term normally used to describe techniques that sometimes succeed, although no one can quite work out why. The Buteyko

  855
  technique was derived from research carried out by Konstantin Buteyko, who devised a programme from his theory. The fact that it has worked for me, as well as for many others, must suggest that at the very least it is worth investigating further. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that suggestion.
  10.30 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Healths (Mr. David Lammy): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on securing a debate on such an important subject, and for managing to bring with her my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), for Eccles (Ian Stewart), for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). That, I think, conveys the seriousness and importance of the topic.
  I must declare an interest. I am a hay fever sufferer, and as a child I suffered from eczema as well. I know that my hon. Friend recognises that the two complaints are related. The subject is dear to her heart, but it is also dear to mine, and I am pleased to have an opportunity to state the Government's policy clearly.
  I know how distressing and debilitating this condition can be for people, their carers and their families. There is currently no cure for asthma, and the cause is not fully understood. Treatment is based on relieving the symptoms, and while that remains the case sufferers are bound to experience some frustration.
  Asthma is the commonest chronic disease in the United Kingdom. It affects about 3.4 million people, and it affects all age groups. It causes breathing difficulties because of inflammation and swelling in the airways, which can be reversed spontaneously or by treatment.
  People may become asthmatic at any time. There are two major types of asthma. There is the allergic version, caused by a bad reaction to allergens such as pollen or dust. It often results in wheezing, and makes life particularly difficult for sufferers at this time of year, especially young people. And there is the non-allergic form, which usually affects people in their 20s and 30s and older people.
  We would welcome a drug-free treatment that was found to improve asthma symptoms as effectively as existing medicines. I think, however, that it would be helpful if I outlined the drug regimes currently used to relieve symptoms before turning to the drug-free methods described by my hon. Friend.
  There are two kinds of asthma medicines, relievers and preventers, which work in very different ways. Relievers help to relieve asthma symptoms when they happen; preventers help to control swelling and inflammation in the airways, and reduce the chance of asthma symptoms. Relievers are safe and effective medicines that patients can take immediately to relieve their symptoms. They quickly relax the muscles surrounding the narrowed airways and allow the airways to open wider, making breathing easier. However, they do not reduce inflammation and swelling in the airways. Preventers control the inflammation and swelling, and stop the airways from being so sensitive. They need to be used daily, and it may be up to two weeks before they are fully effective.
  856
  Although asthma has become more common in recent years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge suggested, treatments have improved. It is important to stress that the number of deaths from this very debilitating disease, which can be fatal for many people, has fallen. Since 1988, in England and Wales, the number of asthma deaths has fallen by about 25 per cent., and in 2000, the latest year for which figures are available, 1,272 died from the condition. In 2000, there were 14 deaths in young people aged 19 and under.
  The management of asthma mainly takes place in the primary care arena. The chronic disease management programme, introduced in July 1993, provides arrangements for health promotion under the GP contract. Participating GPs—around 93 per cent. of the total—receive a fixed annual payment for running organised programmes of care for patients with the complaint.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge spoke about the Buteyko method, which is claimed to be the most effective drug-free approach to the management of asthma and other breathing-related health problems. I commend my hon. Friend on the way in which she illustrated the effects of the approach, and of her personal account of how she has benefited over the past year or so.
  The Buteyko method teaches people under stress to control their symptoms through calm, controlled breathing. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I spent much of this evening reading through the relevant website, and that I have the pages with me. I may well take up some of the practices to help my hay fever, as the website suggests that they may be of assistance.
  If the Buteyko method proved to be as effective as is claimed, it would indeed be a breakthrough in the treatment of asthma. I should like to see robust scientific evidence to support the proposition that treatments such as the Buteyko method are effective in the treatment of asthma and provide long-term benefits for patients. I would expect that any such treatment would have to be as effective as existing drug therapies.
  I know that a pilot study. involving a small number of children, was completed by the university of Aberdeen last year. My hon. Friend mentioned the work in Glasgow, and it is interesting that much of the work on this matter is going on north of the border. I hope that we can make links.
  The children in Aberdeen were placed in a Buteyko group and a control group, respectively, and the aim of the study was to pilot incorporation of Buteyko breathing technique into conventional asthma nurse training and delivery of care. This would be used to decide whether it was worth doing a randomised controlled trial on a larger scale. I understand that the pilot indicated a number of positive trends, and that the Buteyko group showed a halving of sleep disturbance due to wheezing, as well as a reduction in the average daily dose of inhaled steroids. The university has subsequently made an application for major funding from the Scottish Office to enable it to carry out an additional study.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned that Australia and New Zealand have support groups for the Buteyko method, and she noted the work of Jill McGowan. I am interested in Dr. Buteyko's methods and I will ask policy officials to find out more about the Glasgow study. I will make available to the chief medical officer a copy of the record of this debate, and I will suggest that he looks further at the matter.

  857
  The Government are involved in a broad spectrum of research and development work into the disease. It is important to put that in context. The principal body providing Government funding in this area is, of course, the Medical Research Council. The MRC receives its grant-in-aid from the Department of Trade and Industry and it spent almost £4 million in 1999–2000 on asthma research.
  It may be that the Buteyko method is worthy of further research. The MRC always welcomes high quality applications for research, and clinicians with a special interest in Buteyko are able to submit applications for research funding if they wish. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware, however, that it is a long-standing and important principle of successive Governments that they do not prescribe to the individual research councils the detail of how they should distribute resources between competing priorities. That is something that researchers and research users best decide. The MRC will take all these factors into account when it makes its decision on whether it wishes to fund particular research—alongside some that we know is going on and much that my hon. Friend has talked about—into the Buteyko method.
  I should add that a major joint initiative is currently being funded by the Department of Health and the Medical Research Council into air pollution and respiratory disease generally. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about pollution at least adding to the symptoms of the condition. The Department of Health's policy research programme is another source of funding in this area, and it is currently funding three projects investigating the effects of external factors on asthma.
  People with chronic illnesses such as asthma have a number of common requirements including needing to deal with acute attacks, making effective use of medicines and treatment, managing pain, fatigue and depression, and having to cope with other people's responses. Both adults and children with asthma will benefit from the emerging expert patients programme that will—via the NHS—provide training in self-management skills for people with long-term chronic conditions. The first pilot phase has recently begun in selected primary care trusts, with activity to take place on a generic and a disease-specific basis.
  858
  One of those pilots, in the Medway primary care trust in Kent, is proposing to focus self-management activity on people with asthma. The Medway PCT in Kent has a disproportionately high accident and emergency admission rate for asthma in childhood, and considers that many of those admissions might be avoided by improved self-management. The PCT's proposals will include involvement of a project manager for integrated services, health visitors, midwives and asthma management guidelines derived from those produced by the British Thoracic Society. We hope that expert patients can reduce the severity of symptoms, decrease pain and increase quality of life. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that those are important benefits.
  The Department of Health also welcomes the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance on inhalers, which it produced earlier this year for children aged between 5 and 15, and in September 2000 for children under the age of 5. We hope that that has relieved the situation for many. We strongly support the guidance that emphasises the importance of ensuring that the device suits the individual needs of the child. I also plan to ask officials to discuss with NICE the feasibility of including the Buteyko method in their technology appraisals programme once we have a little more information about the evidence base.
  In conclusion, I am interested in finding out more about the Buteyko method. I will ask policy officials and our research branch to look at the evidence that we currently have about its effectiveness and, once we know a little more, to discuss whether NICE could look at the feasibility of including it in a future technology appraisal programme. My hon. Friend may also want to consider approaching the Medical Research Council for advice about funding further research.
  I reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are serious about improving the prevention and treatment of asthma. Our support for research projects and initiatives, such as the national service frameworks and the expert patients programme, and our willingness to look critically at new treatments, such as the Buteyko method, demonstrate that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Education (Cities)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Joan Ryan.]
9.30 am
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for granting me this opportunity to debate education, which is of the highest importance to pupils, parents, teachers, governors, local communities and the country at large. The title of the debate was chosen deliberately because the country and the Government must get education right in the cities, which contain most of the population and the greatest spread of economic and social living circumstances. If they do not, what hope is there for the education of children who live in all the constituencies?
Like all my hon. Friends who carry the education brief for the Conservative party, I am a parent. Since being elected, I have made education a priority, and I served on the Select Committee on Education and Skills—formerly the Select Committee on Education and Employment—and on its Education. Sub-Committee until assuming Whip responsibilities for the Opposition Front-Bench education team.
I welcome the Minister for School Standards to his new role, and I pay tribute to his predecessor, who is now the Minister with responsibilities for e-commerce and competitiveness. Despite our common and contemporaneous university college background, we had widely diverging political opinions. Those were displayed not least during consideration in Committee of the flawed and centralising Education Bill, in which the present Minister was also involved. The former Minister was well into his stride, but, somewhat extraordinarily, the Prime Minister peremptorily shuffled him off to look after e-commerce.
When last in power, the Conservatives introduced many excellent measures to improve education provision, but we did not get everything right. However, despite the Labour Government's electoral rhetoric and spin, the situation that they inherited was considerably better for children, families and teachers than what we have now, after they have been in power for more than five years. To substantiate that, let us consider the evidence.
On GCSEs, there is now a widening gap between the best and worst-performing local education authorities in England. The Department's figures are based on the GCSE achievements of 15-year-olds who gained five or more A* to C grades in each English LEA by the end of 2000–01. All the worst-performing LEAs are city configured and, in terms of the number of children, the gap between the best and the worst increased significantly, from 25 per cent. to 26.3 per cent. between 1996–97 and 2000–01. That proves that the most
170WH
deprived areas and the most vulnerable children are being left behind because of the Government's failure to deliver.
Taking those same measures, we find that all of England's cities fall far below the Government's 2002 national learning target of 50 per cent., and that excludes special schools. The figure was only 31 per cent. for Nottingham, 32 per cent. for Manchester and 35 per cent. for Liverpool. The last two cities are, of course, in the north-west, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and I have a direct interest. The figure was 34 per cent. for inner London's Hackney and 43 per cent. for Sheffield, and even the Secretary of State's own LEA, Birmingham, achieved only 42 per cent. Disturbingly, the average in her constituency of Yardley was a mere 29.5 per cent. At the end of 2001, the average in the Minister's constituency of South Shields was 35.4 per cent.—down from a seriously under-performing 37.6 per cent. in 1999. Labour has been in control of the LEA for 30 years, and the area has had a Labour Member of Parliament for 60 years.
In 1997, the Government relied heavily on their promise to reduce class sizes. On 1 May this year, however, the evidence that I have cited compelled even Matthew Taylor of the Institute for Public Policy and Research—a think tank that is not unknown to the Minister or for its new-Labour leanings—to tell the Press Association:
"I think the Government made a mistake in 1997 and that was the class size pledge. Reducing class sizes from 32 to 30 makes no difference at all. Nonetheless, I think the money should have gone to the schools with the worst problems and should have massively reduced class sizes to those of the independent sector. We know from US research that it would have made a difference."
That is the line that should be taken. In areas of worst under-performance, the Government should aim for class sizes in line with those in the independent sector; substance, not headlines, is needed in the worst-achieving areas of our cities.
Why am I, a Member with a predominantly rural constituency, taking such an interest? Apart from my broad concerns about education, in Eddisbury, the principal town of Winsford has some wards with the characteristics of an inner city. There is significant economic and social deprivation. I want cities to do better so that my three Winsford wards can be measured on the same basis, and can qualify for the support that is given to areas with the worst education problems in the country. They do not currently get that because of the sparsity factor—the relative prosperity and educational achievement of other areas of Cheshire counts unfairly against them. Winsford needs and deserves, but does not yet get, a sure start programme similar to that up the road in Warrington. Imagine how much worse the unfairness will be if county councils are killed off by the Government as they seek to make real the Deputy Prime Minister's ghastly dream of English regional government. If the north-east is the first area to be so established, South Shields will come off even worse than it does now, as will Eddisbury if the north-west, heaven forbid, follows suit.
For further evidence of the Government's failure to deliver—despite their much-trumpeted March 1999 excellence in cities programme, another headline initiative that has failed to deliver for children in

171WH
England's cities—we need look no further than London. Inner London is undershooting the national targets for GCSE passes by 12 per cent. There is only 38 per cent. GCSE achievement, against the 2000 national target of 50 per cent., according to the Department's figures, research by the Institute of Education and other sources.
That is a scandal, and a cause for deep anxiety for all. I know, as a former employer in manufacturing, that if the current low GCSE pass rate goes unchecked, education under-performance will result in 219,000 unfilled skilled jobs by the end of the decade—and that is in new Labour's inner London. Demand for qualified labour will outstrip supply by more than 7 per cent., with profound effects on the capital's economy.
Despite Labour's rhetoric, average class sizes in London are higher than the national average in both primary and secondary schools. Since 1997, class sizes in London's secondary schools have risen from 21.7 to over 22.1 pupils and those in London's primary schools have remained static. So far as discipline is concerned, secondary school exclusions are higher in Conservative-run councils, showing that those councils take a firmer stance on discipline. On average, 4.8 per cent. of pupils were excluded by Conservative councils, compared with 3.15 per cent. by Labour and 2.13 per cent. by Liberal Democrats. [Interruption.] I have also looked at special measures. Schools in Conservative-run councils are less likely to be put into special measures—only 1.1 per cent., compared with 2.5 per cent. under Liberal Democrats and 2.8 per cent. under Labour.
We should consider the evidence. It is no good trying to make the rhetoric work when the evidence does not support it. When all that data are coupled with the finding of the National Foundation for Educational Research, backed up by Ofsted, that 20 per cent. of children in London and the other cities of England achieve the standard assessment test targets in the last year of primary school, but get lower grades a year later, in the first year of secondary school, the evidence is overwhelming that education in our cities is in dire trouble. Standards have declined under the Labour Government.
The Minister appears unconvinced. Will he demonstrate, when he speaks at the end of the debate, that he is prepared to be accountable for his Government's actions, rather than for their relentless spin? Initial literacy and numeracy targets for 11-year-olds—80 per cent. of pupils reaching the standard for English and 75 per cent. reaching it for mathematics—were announced as part of the comprehensive spending review for the public service agreements 1999 to 2002, published in December 1998. However, the Government's figures show that last year only 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds reached the literacy standard—no change from the previous year—and 70 per cent. reached the numeracy target, which is a decrease from the previous year. The then Secretary of State for Education promised to resign if those targets were not met, but surprise, surprise, he was moved on ahead of his mistakes, and his successor has so far refused to meet his commitment.
172WH
The problem of truancy is most pronounced in cities. It is also a real problem in schools in Winsford in my constituency. Between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, in key inner-city areas, the number of half days lost through unauthorised absence rose by 16 times more than the national average. Yet in 1998, the Government announced that they planned to cut unauthorised absences from school by one third by this year. A written answer, however, reveals that truancy has risen by 12 per cent. under the Labour Government. We are told that the Secretary of State still regards benefit cuts to parents of truanting children as being on her agenda, despite reported Cabinet disunity. No wonder there is disunity, because the measure will hit the poorest parents hardest. I am not surprised that the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers has said that the idea is a disaster, especially for single parents, for whom it would be an injustice.
As if the Government's record on truancy were not bad enough, the tale of ill-discipline in city schools takes one's breath away. According to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, pupil and parent assaults on teachers rose fivefold between 1998 and 2001, and that is compounded by the Department's complacency. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West asked the Department for Education and Skills how many teachers had been the victims of serious assaults by pupils and parents in each year since 1997. In his reply, the then Minister for School Standards replied:
"My Department does not collect this information."—[Official Report, 10 April 2002; Vol. 382, c. 195W.]
That is in sharp contrast to other Government-employed staff, such as those employed by the Benefits Agency, for whom data on both physical and verbal assaults are collected.
For too long, the Government have undermined discipline in schools by insisting on a reduced number of exclusions, regardless of the circumstances, and despite all the "tut-tutting" that we heard earlier from Labour and Liberal Democrat Members when the statistics comparing various local authorities were read out.
Mr. Phil Willis: I apologise for tut-tutting earlier, but will the hon. Gent, explain to the House why he regards the number of exclusions as a measure of success?
Mr. O'Brien: I did not paint the number of exclusions as a measure of success. I know from my experience as a parent—I expect that the hon. Gentleman will know this both from his experience as a parent and as a teacher—that one of the greatest difficulties is having disruptive and unruly children in a class. Although, in an ideal world, it would be possible to help such children to feel included, there are cases where it is appropriate to consider exclusion and to make available special opportunities for those who are disrupting other children, who are willing to work, and distracting teachers. That is especially prevalent in our city schools. In my son's primary school, because of the Government's agenda, the teacher had to hold the hands of two of the most unruly children, who were not excluded, although everyone concerned thought that they should be. The teacher had to hold their hands because, as soon as those children were released, they wanted to put the fingers of all the other children into

173WH
pencil sharpeners, so the education of the entire class was completely disrupted. Therefore, far from exclusions being a measure of success, we should properly evaluate all the issues to determine what is in the best interests of children and teachers.
As I was saying, for too long, the Government have undermined discipline in schools by insisting on a reduced number of exclusions regardless of the circumstances. Real powers should now be given to headteachers and governors to take decisions about discipline in their own schools. Then, there might be some improvement in the dire statistics that show us, for example, that permanent exclusions have declined by 51 per cent. in south Tyneside. There are similar figures for the surrounding areas, including a staggering 90 per cent. in Middlesbrough.
It is the teachers in inner-city areas and elsewhere who need more support from the Government, under whom it is pitifully clear that violence on teachers by some children and parents is greater in inner cities and is significantly on the increase. To take a favoured Government gimmick, how many parenting orders have been issued since the Government introduced them? Teachers need the Government to protect them: it is clear, from everything that I am being told both locally and throughout the country, particularly in the cities, that they do not feel that they are getting that protection.
It is no wonder that there is a teacher recruitment and retention crisis. Teachers in Lambeth schools, for example, have to cope with children arriving zonked out on drugs because of the softly, softly approach to certain drugs that is apparently being blessed by the Government. I pay tribute to my MP, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who so rightly and courageously spoke out recently against that policy at Prime Minister's questions. Teacher vacancies have doubled under Labour, which is not surprising given the terrible truancy discipline problems in the cities, the Government's gimmick-a-day announcements, the relatively high costs of housing and living in some cities and the fact that core funding is being seriously diminished and adversely affected by this centralising Government holding back money for their pet ring-fenced schemes. One need look no further than the Education Bill to see how obsessed the Government are with their centralising agenda, despite all the rhetoric of autonomy.
According to the National Union of Teachers, only 42 per cent. of final-year teacher trainees will still be in the profession three years after qualification. To emphasise that point, a class of GCSE pupils at Our Lady and St John RC high school in Blackburn have been taught by seven different teachers as reported in The Mirror on 8 February 2002.
Angela Watkinson: On teacher retention and recruitment, is it not an additional problem that so many long-serving and experienced teachers in London are nearing retirement? The problem of replacing them with newly qualified teachers will be even more difficult in view of the cost of housing, administrative problems, discipline in schools and the entire package, which deters students at teacher training colleges from going into the profession. The problem will be exacerbated.
174WH
We will also have an imbalance in schools with a lack of long-serving and experienced teachers and too many newly qualified teachers.
Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. She makes a real and palpable point. Increasingly across many sectors, the transfer of functions to the younger, less experienced element is all too real. That is particularly serious in the teaching profession. Not only does one lose the experience, which is half the secret of motivating pupils and delivering education, but the Government's actions and the raising of false expectations have led to a serious crisis in morale, which is exacerbating the problem of the teacher demographic time bomb.
In our cities, as elsewhere, more and more teachers are being forced to teach subjects in which they are not trained in a desperate attempt to meet teacher shortage problems. That acts as a deterrent to those thinking of entering the profession and exacerbates the difficulty of attracting teachers, resulting in even higher percentages in city schools of teachers on supply teaching contracts, which eat away at the stability of a school. I hope that we can all agree that that is an essential element for raising pupil confidence and thus standards.
In addition, the Government have inundated schools with centrally produced paperwork. In the 12 months to March this year, the Government issued documents totalling 4,440 pages to primary and secondary schools. On average, that equates to 17 pages of Government documents for each working day. Many of these involve surveys that have to be completed by busy teachers. A recent report by the National Union of Teachers found that 57.8 per cent. of teachers leaving the profession said that one reason for doing so was the work load. There must be an immediate reduction in bureaucracy to ease the bureaucratic burden on heads and teaching staff, but with the current regime at the Department for Education and Skills, and the Government's obsession with centralisation and control, evidenced not least in their attitude to further education colleges, I am pessimistic that the desperately necessary shift in that direction will take place, to the huge detriment of teachers' morale, their recruitment and retention and the interests of children alike.
I shall leave my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West to deal with the misery, stress and highly questionable educational efficacy of AS-levels, which are having such a negative drag on teacher and pupil morale and on our city schools—I hesitate to suggest that my hon. Friend or, indeed, anyone, can be called an expert on these embryonic and unproven exams—and the Government's failure to widen access to higher education, which the Minister responsible for higher education appears to have admitted.
I draw to a conclusion by saying to the Minister that there are only a very few simple answers that I and the teachers, pupils and parents of schools in cities and elsewhere are looking for. These are that the Government, despite their dangerously arrogant self-belief, admit that they do not have a monopoly of wisdom on education; that they admit also that they have failed to deliver for more than five years, despite their rhetoric, electoral and post-electoral spin and after raising so many hopes and false expectations; that they

175WH
are now willing to think again and go back to the drawing board—not least as the Secretary of State is now saying she would not touch some schools with a bargepole, having sworn undying allegiance to the one-size-fits-all comprehensive system for the whole of her career—and recognise that the way forward is for the Government to back off setting more and more targets for a demoralised teaching work force, especially in cities, as that will not raise standards.
Above all, the Government must trust teachers with the resources to deliver what we all crave, for the sake of the children and the future of this country: an improving—not as it currently is, declining—education system in our cities, where the most vulnerable children in the country, on the whole, reside. The Government need to break their meddling, gimmicky habits, stop slagging off teachers and trust them to teach children in cities and elsewhere, and free the necessary resources from the centralised diktat of the Government so that they can run schools for the children of our cities, not for the daily diet of new Labour-spun headlines.
9.52 am
Mr. Mark Field: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing this important debate, which is on a matter of great interest to many of us in the Conservative party.
I welcome the Minister to his new post; he and I have known each for half our lives. We were together as undergraduates, when we were also on opposite sides of the political divide. At that time, the Oxford university students union was run by the Liberal Democrats—it was then the Alliance party—which provided an opportunity for us to co-operate. I hope that we can continue in a similar vein today, and beyond.
The issue is most important. Looking through the speeches that I have made in my first year in Parliament I see that this is the first time I have spoken on education, which is not to say that it is not an issue close to my heart—rather, it is the opposite. Many people of my age who have gone into Conservative politics, in particular, were scarred, having been at a grammar school, by worries about those schools being pushed into the comprehensive system during the 1970s. It was a central, defining totem of my political beliefs.
I am glad that there are several Conservative Members present. I do not wish to make a churlish point at this juncture, but it is sad, especially as there are 55 London Labour Members, that none of them is present. It looks as though no cities south of Nottingham are represented on the Government Benches in the debate. However, I appreciate that these are important issues that affect all of us.
As the product of a state school education—I was the first Member of Parliament to represent the historical constituency of Cities of London and Westminster who was not privately educated—I am proud to be able to say a few words about the matter. I will not introduce a blizzard of statistics; I left those to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. The Minister will no doubt digest them in full before his summing-up speech.
I want to say a few things about the local education authority in Westminster, and in Kensington and Chelsea where I served as a councillor for eight years
176WH
until May this year. They are inner-city local authorities that traditionally have been run by Conservatives, and have surprisingly strong academic results, given the catchment area. More than 40 per cent. of Westminster's pupils live outside its boundaries. A significant number of relatively affluent parents opt out of the state sector and send their children to the private sector, which makes Westminster's results all the more admirable. It is to be regretted that the middle class has been determined to withdraw from the system to such a large extent.
As I said, as a grammar school boy it struck me that the grammar school system was the antidote to the thriving private school sector. I do not wish to make a narrow point about grammar schools—the Labour party has thankfully moved away from that campaign—but it is often articulate middle-class parents in areas with grammar schools who can make a real difference to parent-teacher associations as governors. There is no doubt that such schools begin to decline the moment those parents vote with their feet and get out of the public sector. Westminster's education system has been in place only for a dozen or so years since the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority. To its credit, it has strongly improved its standard assessment tests for seven to 1l-year-olds in recent years.
I want to say a few words about my own educational background. I was educated at Bishop Wood school—a Church of England school in Tring, Hertfordshire—before going to Reading grammar school. Bishop Wood was an excellent school with a positive aspirational ethos which has stuck with me throughout the years. I entered it at the age of seven, and it was a great guiding force for respect, honesty and security. It allowed pupils to flourish academically in a mixed area of middle class and council estates.
A fortnight ago, I was reminded of my experience there when I visited Hampden Gurney school, a local inner-city Church of England school off the Edgware road in the city of Westminster. The school was opening a brand new building, which took me back almost 30 years to the opening of the building of the school where I had been a young pupil. As an aside, Jarvis—the large construction concern—was responsible for the excellence of the building work on an entirely new site a stone's throw from Marble Arch. In recent weeks, that company has been in the headlines for perhaps the wrong reasons. However, it is fair to say that it had done an excellent job, which parents, governors and local residents widely praised. Much of its work is outside the railway sector, a fact that has been widely forgotten.
Mrs. Evelyn Chua, the headmistress of the school, leads from the front as one of the best head teachers in the Westminster area. As anyone who has been in education will know, and as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will confirm, the best schools are led by the best head teachers. That leadership is all important.
I was struck by a comment made by a member of the parent-teacher association, Mrs. Candida Coghlan, that the school was such a success because it maintained high behavioural expectations, acknowledged that all children had special learning needs and ensured that all children had the opportunity to fulfil their potential

177WH
whatever their ability. Nothing is nearer the truth. The lack of aspiration and the low expectation in many inner-city schools are of great concern.
A minor criticism of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury is that there was a negativity about the statistics, especially in the London areas, which he brought to bear in his otherwise excellent speech. The central idea is that we must raise expectations. We should not have any excuse for failure and, above all, if we are to encourage middle-class parents to use the state sector again, we must impose on schools the view that special educational needs are not just for failing children but for all children. Each child must be treated as an individual.
I appreciate that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall start to wind up. There are some specific problems for London schools, and I should like to address one or two. On pay and conditions, Unison and other specifically teaching unions have insisted on national pay bargaining, which undermines the interests of many London public sector workers. The cost of living and working in central London is much greater than in, for example, South Shields, Middlesbrough or Liverpool. A far more reasonable London weighting is needed to take account of the increased costs and greater inconvenience. Many teachers in my constituency have to live in the suburbs, or even outside Greater London, and have long commutes both to and from work. We all know about the difficulties with the transport system, which the Mayor of London confessed would remain scratchy for at least a decade to come.
I should like to praise Westminster city council's innovative policy of assisting teachers with lifestyle coaches. The idea made the press on Sunday and is designed to help to differentiate with a benefits package at a time when central Government have put ever more pressure on the funding settlement. If I may make one small point of special pleading for London as a whole, I hope that the Minister will work with the Chancellor to ensure that the area cost adjustment, which has previously been inadequate in taking account of the genuine cost of living in London, is enhanced as far as possible. There has been great speculation that London will suffer with the area cost adjustments for the employment of public sector staff. That would make unbearable what is, for many schools, a crisis situation.
I wish the Minister godspeed in his new post. I know that he will have an exciting time and that, like me, he is the product of a state education. We used to discuss that when we were at Oxford together. I hope that he can make an impact that will ensure that many other middle-class parents entrust their children to state schools so that we have a thriving sector that genuinely competes with what the private sector can offer.
10.2 am
Mr. Mark Hoban: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing this important debate. We all believe that education is vital to the success of children throughout the country especially in disadvantaged and economically deprived city areas.
One problem that the Government have encountered is that they have had high expectations and made great promises, but have failed to improve children's
178WH
education, particularly in cities. Many failing schools are in city areas, and it is interesting that last year's Ofsted report, produced by Mike Tomlinson, notes that
"the gap between the highest and lowest attaining schools remains too large."
He points out:
"Although at primary level, the gap between the highest and lowest performing schools is narrowing, at secondary level, despite improvements within the lowest performing schools, the gap has widened."
That analysis of secondary school education is proved by statistics. In Sunderland, which is the adjacent local education authority to South Tyneside, although grades have improved, the relative gap between it and the rest of England has deteriorated since 1997, widening from 10.7 per cent. in 1997 to 10.8 per cent. in 2001. At A-level, the points increase in Sunderland between 1997 and 2001 was slower that in the rest of England. In Sunderland the average increase was 0.7 compared with 1.2 for England as a whole. The Government have yet to tackle that widening gap. A similar pattern emerges in South Tyneside. In 1997 the gap between that area and England as whole in respect of the number of 15-year-olds achieving five A to C grades at GCSE increased from 9.4 per cent. to 10.9 per cent. For AS and A-levels the improvement in South Tyneside between 1997 and 2000 was 0.7 compared with 1.2 for England as a whole.
That reveals a significant problem in those areas. Although the Government have improved results in absolute terms, the gap has widened relatively. The same Ofsted report affirms that education action zones made no difference between the best and the worst schools. Although improvement to zones was faster in key stage one than in schools nationally, the report states that
"the gap between schools in zones and schools nationally&has not reduced significantly"
in the other key stages. It is not surprising that education action zones collapsed into education excellence in cities. However, as Mike Tomlinson again points out in his Ofsted report:
"At this early stage, the initiatives had not yet resulted in rates of improvement in attainment, attendance or teaching quality significantly higher than schools nationally".
Even excellence in cities, which is supposed to be a better scheme, has yet to yield the results that the Government want and has yet to narrow the achievement gap between the best and the worst schools. Increasing centralisation under the Labour Government has failed to achieve a narrowing of the gap in educational attainment.
These problems are exacerbated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury said, by further difficulties with bullying and with teacher recruitment and retention. All those problems are far worse in areas of socio-economic deprivation at the heart of our cities. If we are to improve the education of children in this country, we must tackle those problems.
When they talk about overcoming the barriers of social exclusion, the Government make great play of improving participation in higher education. Ministers regularly trot out the target of 50 per cent. participation in higher education for this age cohort. The Government have always managed studiously to avoid explaining what higher education means, but the aspiration remains. It is a pity that social inequality in

179WH
universities has deteriorated rather than improved under the Labour Government. The Minister for Lifelong Learning acknowledged that fact at the weekend. Given that the gap between the best and the worst schools has widened, not narrowed, that deterioration is not surprising.
The answer is not to lower standards of admission to university for certain groups—a huge mistake because it amounts to recognition and toleration of under-achieving schools in cities. We should be raising educational standards in all inner-city schools to narrow the gap and ensure that children from those areas can gain access to university without the need for Government targets for greater social inclusion. We risk leaving a whole generation of inner-city children behind.
Education is an important issue in the north-east. I was born and brought up in the area. I do not share my university with the Minister for School Standards, but I did at least fight South Shields in the 1997 general election. I know the area well. The Minister will know that education is viewed as a ladder of opportunity to gain greater skills, improve access to higher education and escape low-paid industrial jobs in the region. That was the message of voters on the doorsteps in 1997. I suspect that the message was not dissimilar in 2001.
It is interesting that South Tyneside local education authority has been Labour controlled for nearly three decades, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury said. Indeed, there has been continuing pressure from Labour-controlled LEAs across the north-east over decades, which has led to a decline in standards rather than an improvement. By embracing comprehensive schools and not encouraging a meritocracy and educational attainment, they have consigned vast numbers of people in the north-east to poor educational standards.
A flagship reform of the previous Conservative Government was grant-maintained schools, which gave schools in particular areas the opportunity to raise standards and develop their own ethos. However, attempts by schools in the north-east to attain grant-maintained status were very much stamped on by LEAs, which shows that Labour-controlled authorities want children and parents in their areas to be dependent on their education.
What happens in those areas? Parents, whether wealthy or on average incomes, try to send their children to the local private sector day schools, thereby removing articulate parents and bright children from the other schools. They do not believe that their children will receive the education that they deserve in those schools. However, the vast majority of pupils, whose parents cannot afford to take that decision, are left behind to suffer a substandard education.
If the Minister wants to achieve anything in office and show that he has changed the educational culture in the north-east, he must contribute to improving the life chances of children throughout that region, particularly in the cities of Newcastle and Sunderland.
We must create a new agenda for education in our cities. The Government's centralising tendencies have so far failed to produce the narrowing of standards that we want. Given that many Labour Members have served
180WH
their time on education authorities throughout the country, it is not surprising that those same authorities have not backed children in their areas, in that they have abolished grammar schools and diminished academic values. It is therefore left to Conservative Members to try to create a new education system that encourages children and teachers to give of their best, and that encourages teachers to teach in schools in inner-city areas, which have the greatest problems.
Picking up on the work by Matthew Taylor of the Institute for Public Policy Research, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) made a valuable suggestion about focusing more money on those schools and giving them the opportunity to set their own agenda and excel. Far too often, we hear about centralising diktats from Government and schools not having the opportunity to decide how to develop their own ethos and how the money should best be spent in the interests of their children.
That centralising tendency has been the downfall of education over the past five years, and I hope that the Minister has learnt from what has happened. I am sure that he has been sent to the Department for Education and Skills to look after it on the Prime Minister's behalf, so that we may see a change—I do not hold out much hope—for parents in the north-east and other city areas, and great improvements in educational standards. The Government seem bent on destroying academic excellence, lowering standards and removing parents' and teachers' ability to run schools as they want, but they have an opportunity to make changes. The past five years have seen a tendency towards greater centralisation; now it is time for that to change. I hope that the Minister will assure us today that that will happen.
10.14 am
Simon Hughes: As a Back Bencher on this subject, I am grateful to be able to say a few words on it, because it interests me greatly. I declare two interests: I am the chair of governors of St. James's Church of England primary school in Bermondsey, and a trustee of Bacon's city technology college. I take a close interest in both, as I do in education throughout the borough.
I welcome the Minister. My local authority has just changed hands for the first time and become a Liberal Democrat council, and I know that our new executive member with responsibility for education, Bob Skelly—a competent and experienced individual—is looking forward to working with the Government and the Minister. Given the Minister's past close links with Downing street and the Cabinet Office, and given that there has been great interest in both places in trying to move the educational agenda on, I look forward to seeing a constructive partnership.
It may surprise the Minister to hear that I will not say anything critical about Government policy. That is not because I have no criticism, but because it would be more useful to make constructive suggestions that I hope he will consider.
My constituency and borough contain a wonderful educational diversity, and there are some brilliant examples of good practice in nursery, primary and

181WH
secondary schools and special schools, such as the Spa school, which greatly impressed a Conservative spokesperson during a visit this week. There is also good practice in further education colleges such as Southwark college and universities such as South Bank university, King's college and the London school of economics. We must not forget important places such as Morley college, which has provided excellent adult education for years. In that great diversity, there is evidence that often the leadership of an institution determines how well it does. Similar schools with the same numbers and mix can do very differently depending on how they are run, the impetus and enthusiasm of the head teacher and the contribution of the governing body.
There is a big issue in our community about faith schools. I repeat my view as a member of the Church and from experience: it is important for whomever runs the school to move away from faith-based admissions policies. I have seen them do no good, and although it is important to have a minimum number of pupils of the faith of the school's management, it does more harm than good to exclude people because they do not have a particular faith.
With an ever-changing school family—in inner cities, people come and go out of the school community every day, week and month—I am sure that the Minister understands that we must improve the way in which housing is allocated. That is a local authority matter, but if people are moved around from one community to the next, their children are moved too, which is not helpful in their community.
I want to put my community's shopping list. We have a great shortage of nursery places and schools, which is hugely important for inner-city development. The Government understand that, but the quicker we can move in that direction, the better start many children will get. We still have major problems with admissions at nursery, primary and secondary level. I urge the Minister to come with a fresh mind to the debate about the Greenwich judgment and re-examine whether local authorities can give the first opportunity to the children resident in that authority. There are many good community cohesion reasons for that. Will he be able to ensure, as we hope to do in a year's time in Southwark, that there is the same common admissions policy for schools that we have for universities? There is a terrible unfairness between those who know how to work the system to their advantage and those who do not. Every summer, many children in inner cities are left not knowing where they will go in September, which causes great pain and anxiety and often makes them feel undervalued.
One or two schools still do not have an independent appeals system like that of city technology colleges. I hope that the Government will review that and ensure that every state-funded educational institution has a system that allows appeals against a school's decision. Lastly in my shopping list for institutions, I hope that the Government will re-examine the funding formula for further education colleges. It is unfair that they get so much less per pupil than schools teaching sixth form pupils of the same age. FE colleges feel significantly disadvantaged.
As I have said before, to make the most of children we should provide mentors for final-year primary school pupils who share a strong interest in a subject such as
182WH
cars, rockets, ballet, fishing and football. Those children would then be more likely to be motivated as they go into secondary school. If the mentor system can remain throughout secondary school, it will work best. Such role models are a valuable addition to those provided by teachers and parents.
In addition, we must maximise the opportunities for teachers. There is still a desperate shortage of male teachers in my local authority, and in many other places. If boys and young men are to have the role models that they need as they grow up, we need to ensure that we have a greater ethnic mix and a better gender balance in our teaching staff. That case was made strongly at the conference about excluded black teenagers, convened by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), which I attended and found impressive.
Perhaps we should insist that, in future, every time a school is extended or a new one is built, planning permission is given for housing and accommodation for every sort of staff. Schools have great difficulty in attracting staff, and one head teacher tells me that congestion charging may make the situation worse.
To ensure that more parents are involved, we can follow the example of the faith communities. Many of them run schools on Saturdays and Sundays and out of hours in school buildings. We have to get away from the idea of nine-to-four school buildings and consider what has been done for years in Cambridgeshire, where all schools are seen as community institutions that need to be open during daylight hours, seven days a week.
Buildings need to be well used, but we in inner cities have suffered badly from a lack of outside space where children can be energetic. Children must enjoy adequate play and sport—including competitive sport—from the beginning. Competitive sport is important; I have never understood the argument for non-competitive sport. We do not see children watching the World cup and not feeling competitive about it; they understand the idea that somebody wins and somebody loses—the chance of winning is an incentive to do better. There must also be adequate playing fields and swimming facilities, and the charges must make it possible for them to be accessed not just during school curriculum hours but outside them.
Finally—I know that the Government are reviewing the issue—unless we go back to a way of funding university places that does not put off people from lower-income families, we shall continue to distort the cohort of people who go on to the sort of further and higher education that many of us have enjoyed. We must ensure that, for those who want it, education at all ages is seen as an option, but we should not drive 16-year-olds who do not want it into further education.
I hope that we can have a more flexible attitude to work and work experience. I have seen brilliant examples in Leeds and elsewhere of work experience for kids aged 10 or 11 who have no working role model in the family. If they want to work, we should encourage them to go down that route; they can come back to education later when they are motivated and know what they want to do. I look forward to a dialogue occurring with the Minister, and hope that we can help by learning from the Southwark experience and sharing with the Government to mutual advantage.
10.23 am
Mr. Phil Willis: I welcome the Minister to his place. He comes with an excellent pedigree, and I hope that the lessons that his father taught him on his knee are part and parcel of his psyche. I remember, as a young student, listening to his father and being inspired by his views on society—on education, in particular. There is a significant difference between what Professor Miliband said and what the Minister's mentor says at No. 10—perhaps that is a debate for another day. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on having secured the debate. It is an important one and he made a serious contribution. He put on record a series of facts that have been repeated at least 10 times, every time someone has spoken from the Conservative Front Bench.
It is a sad reflection on the present Conservative party that the hon. Gentleman failed to make any positive comments about the huge successes that many of our schools have achieved against great odds, particularly in the inner cities. He swept all that aside in his catalogue of moans and groans.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, on one fundamental issue. He enunciated the Dutch philosophy of funding students according to their needs, and I hope that the whole House can ultimately get behind him on that. The Liberal Democrats have adopted such a policy, and we commend it to the Minister. It would be useful to have his comments on it. The Dutch philosophy says that children in the education system have certain entitlements and that we should fund them according to their needs so that they can enjoy those entitlements. We should all be able to agree on that basic philosophy, which we could use to build a new school system. I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning it, and we will be pleased if his party moves in that direction.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman on the Government's failure to make huge inroads into some of the core problems. I am saddened, however, that he does not accept that 18 years of Conservative rule led to 7 million adults being functionally illiterate and to one in four being functionally innumerate. It will take significantly longer than one Parliament to deal with those problems.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On that point, the figure of 7 million includes many adults who went through their education in the 1960s and 1970s, when the comprehensive school experiment was introduced. The hon. Gentleman's attempt to relate the figures to a particular Administration is somewhat tendentious.
Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman has made his comment, but he cannot simply ignore 18 years of Conservative control over education, or excuse the failure to tackle even the literacy and numeracy problems of older adults. That is quite sad.
As always, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) made a telling contribution, on which I hope he will reflect. He referred to the flight of the middle classes from state education, and I agree that
184WH
people in many of our communities see the private sector as their only salvation. That is incredibly depressing, but the fact that 10 out of 11 members of the Conservative shadow Cabinet send their children to private schools hardly puts them in a position to tell voters, "Follow our example." They live in some of the most privileged areas, with some of the most highly performing schools and local authorities, but that is still not good enough. They prefer to send their children to the private sector; the state sector is all right for somebody else.
I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the cost of living in London, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) returned. A policeman cannot get £6,000 in additional allowances for looking after unruly youngsters after 4 o'clock, when a teacher gets half that during the day. We must deal with that fundamental issue, but it is not the long-term solution. In the long term, we must do something about chronic housing problems for key professionals in London and other cities.
The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) made an important point about the gap between the highest and lowest achievers, and drew attention to issues relating to higher education. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey commented on the issues that the Government need to address, including the admissions policy. Unless the Minister is prepared to consider the admissions policy as a key tool for ensuring that children from the poorest homes get access to the best schools on an equitable basis, we will continue to fail many of them. In winding up the debate, I hope that the Minister will say something about the plethora of admission arrangements, especially in our big cities and in London, which are aggravated by the Greenwich and Kingston judgments.
I was appalled to hear the Secretary of State's astonishing comments about our comprehensive system. Of course the system is not perfect; it has never been allowed to work or flourish, because no Government of any political persuasion have ever had the courage to create a fully comprehensive system. However, to say that she would not touch many of our schools with a bargepole and to announce the end of comprehensive education is a most appalling thing for a Secretary of State to say. I hope that the Minister will condemn those comments and those of his former friend, the Prime Minister's press secretary, which go together. It is typical of the way in which the Government smooch up to the teaching profession and to state schools, but meanwhile have another agenda. The Government's real thinking was revealed in the comments that came out of the mouth of the Secretary of State yesterday. She has sold her soul to No. 10 Downing street in order to keep her job.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey for being critical of the Government, but I intend to continue on that theme. The failure of Conservative Members and an increasing number of Labour Members to understand how difficult things are for many schools and teachers in our inner cities beggars belief. The former Secretary of State was right to say that that is not an excuse for failure, but the social deprivation in many schools makes the mountains a little harder to climb.

185WH
The comprehensive system has been an enormous success, despite its critics. In 1970, 47 per cent. of our youngsters left school without a qualification. In 2001, that figure was 5.4 per cent. Between 1899 and 1999, the number of 16 to 19-year-olds in full-time education rose from 37.5 per cent. to 75.5 per cent. That is not failure; it is success. In 1972, 14 per cent. of youngsters entered higher education under the age of 21. Last year, the figure was 34 per cent. That is success delivered by a comprehensive education system.
The accusation that we have a one-size-fits-all system is absolute nonsense. Anyone who goes into comprehensive schools, as I do, knows that each school is different. That myth exists because, since 1988, we have had a standardised curriculum and testing system, and we have introduced league tables and a standardised inspection system. What do the Government expect to happen if they move away from a one-size-fits-all system? Their notion of introducing specialist schools in the name of one-size-fits-all is appalling. The Government say that their ambition is for half the schools in Britain to be specialist and to get £500,000 extra—presumably the other half will be bog standard secondary moderns. How can they claim to want to give the poorest and most under-performing students, in the most under-performing areas, a better quality education when they are deliberately dividing them to ensure that those with more get more and those with less get less?
I would love another hour in which to attack the Government's philosophy and the demise of comprehensive education. I and my party are proud of what our schools have achieved. There is more to do, but the appalling divisions that the Conservative party envisaged and which the Minister and his hon. Friends now envisage are not the way forward.
10.36 am
Mr. Graham Brady: We are all grateful to you, Mr. Pike, for your firmness in the Chair. I shall try to behave with forbearance in the few minutes that we have left.
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing the debate, which he introduced in a magisterial fashion. He referred to the comments of the Secretary of State about schools that he would not touch with a bargepole. The Minister must tell us whether a bargepole school is better or worse than a bog standard school. Perhaps he will indicate how the Government's thinking on that is developing. I understand that the Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury yesterday that he was expecting considerable support from his hon. Friends this morning. I am sure that we are all disappointed that that support did not materialise. We would have loved to hear Labour Members speak about education in our cities. They obviously think it better to avoid the subject.
I welcome the Minister to his debut in his new role. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said that he was making his first speech in the House on education. The Minister is making his second speech on education, so this is an important opportunity for him to put his thoughts on record. Although he is a new Minister and new to the House, hon. Members will know that he does not come
186WH
to the job with clean hands. He may talk now about the need to allow teachers the space to do their job and to be professionals with time to undertake what he yesterday called their core function, but he played a key role in the Government's education policy through the years when red tape and bureaucracy were piled on schools and teachers.
The Minister spoke yesterday to the Select Committee on the importance of the creative side of education—music, art and other cultural activities in schools. I agree with him strongly. However, he sat in the policy unit in Downing street while music was squeezed out of the school curriculum up and down the country and while all creativity was squashed by AS levels and Curriculum 2000 for vast numbers of our sixth formers. He may now champion discipline in schools, but he was in a key position when the Government introduced the now infamous circular 10/99, which did more than any other single factor to undermine discipline in our schools, especially in urban areas. That in turn had an appalling effect on recruitment and retention of teachers which, as my hon. Friends have said, is a particular problem in cities. In short, the Minister may be new to his role but he has form as long as one's arm. He has much to do if he is to absolve himself of blame for the Government's failures to date.
None of us would be here today, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): Order. I am not a Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Brady: I am sorry that you are not a Deputy Speaker, Mr. Pike—I am sure that it is only a matter of time and that you will be one in short order.
None of us would be here if we did not care passionately about education, and especially about improving city schools whose achievements are all too often the worst—what the Minister calls the diversity of achievement, or the Secretary of State calls the schools that she would not touch with a bargepole. We wish him well in the challenges that he faces. The Government will have our support where they are right, for example in the specialist schools initiative or the expansion of city academies, but we will oppose them where they remain misguided. The debate gives the Minister the opportunity to engage in genuine debate about education in our cities.
I freely admit that Conservative Governments did not do enough for education in the past, although I am sure that the Minister will give us credit for establishing the city technology college movement, which is the precursor of the academy policy, and that improvements in test results began before 1997. However, he and I should accept that test results may be open to question. Performance indicators in primary schools—PIPS—results, and other measures of attainment, may have remained flat while standard assessment test results have generally improved, but there is real concern that improving SAT results may be the result of teaching to the test. Many experts in measuring educational attainment believe that that would have a stronger, sharper effect on improvement at the bottom end of the scale. Does the Minister accept that there is a pressing need for a full inquiry into the examination system, and a thorough investigation of how standards have changed over time?

187WH
With regard to the underperformance of schools in cities, the Minister was open enough yesterday to say that the Government were still at the point of pinpointing what holds us back. Hon. Members who are less charitable than me may say that, after five years, it is not good enough for the Government to be only at the point of pinpointing what holds them back. However, he will agree that discipline, truancy, and difficulties in recruiting and retaining good teachers are all important factors.
Does the Minister also agree that low expectations and poverty of ambition are the most important factors of all? His colleague, the Minister for Lifelong Learning, suggested that lower standards for university admission should be set for children from urban schools. Does he accept that that would set in stone a lower expectation for the schools that are performing worst? It would legislate for poverty of ambition, not seek to improve it, and would send a message from Government that schools in our most challenging inner-urban areas are not expected to provide the same standards of performance or levels of attainment as schools elsewhere.
Will the Minister also take the opportunity to disown the idea that he floated on 19 April in an article in The Times Educational Supplement that university places should be guaranteed for the top performing pupils in any school in an urban area, regardless of their ability or attainment? Does he accept that guaranteed university admission, which he suggested only a few weeks before he was appointed to his current post, would create an unfair system that penalised genuine achievement and operated against the interests of those from less-privileged backgrounds who have achieved? Such a system could operate unfairly across a spectrum of schools where low achievers are concentrated in one school, but where other schools in a similar area with similar challenges and levels of deprivation are succeeding and giving their pupils the ability to compete openly for places in universities. Will he instead bend himself to the urgent, harder and nobler task of raising standards in our worst-performing schools throughout the country?
Yesterday, the Minister used a telling phrase in front of the Select Committee. He said that if the Government believe something, they must try to put it into practice. Perhaps his appointment indicated the despair that is felt in Downing street at the Government's inability to put their education policies into practice over the past few years. We should all remember that the last agent of Downing street to be parachuted into the job of School Standards Minister was the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers). We must all hope that the new Minister meets with more success both in his career and in his objective of putting the Government's policies into operation.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House must accept that the challenge of raising educational standards and levels of attainment in schools, particularly inner-city schools, is vital and urgent. We must all work together to address it. I have made it clear that we will oppose in the most responsible manner and will support the Government where they get things right. But if we are to do that and to move forward in a
188WH
mood of consensus over some of the Government's thinking on specialist schools, greater diversity of provision and having freer schools by giving them greater autonomy, the Government must accept at the core of their policy that there must be no excuse for failure. That phrase was used tellingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster.
We expect our schools in the cities, as elsewhere, to perform at the highest level. They owe it to our children. It is for Ministers and for all of us in the House to give our support in the best and most effective way possible. I wish the Minister well in his new brief. It is vital. It cannot be neglected. We look forward to what he has to say. We all hope that he will be open and will make it clear where he has the courage to break with the failures of the last few years. I do not say that everything that the Government have done has been wrong, but he must have the courage to admit what has been wrong, to break with those failures and to show us how they intend to move forward.
10.47 am
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): It is an honour for me, Mr. Pike, that you are presiding over my first Adjournment debate. I want to address four sets of issues that have been underlined in this debate. The first is the challenges of education in cities; the second is the role of targeted programmes in meeting those challenges; thirdly, I want to pick up some of the other matters that have been raised in the debate; and, fourthly, I want to flag up some of the challenges ahead.
Before I do that, I congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on securing this important debate. He and I served on the Education Bill. He walked out only once. I hope that we manage to get through the next 13 minutes with a fair degree of harmony. I should also like to pick out two hon. Members. I hope that the wing of the Tory party that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) represents comes back into fashion so that his merits are finally recognised and he makes his way up within his party. I am always pleased to hear about people who have had experience of South Shields. The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) fought the 1997 election. I think the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) also fought his first parliamentary election in South Shields. If we are nothing else, we are a breeding ground for Conservatives who later win other seats. Since 1882, South Shields has been the only constituency in the UK never to elect a Conservative.
I was genuinely disappointed by the tone and approach of the hon. Member for Eddisbury. He must be living on a different planet from the rest of us if all he can see in 24,000 schools up and down the country is failure—a word he used half a dozen times. The world that I see is confirmed by the international research conducted by the OECD, which says that England has the fastest improving education system in the industrialised world. That is a tribute to teachers, pupils, parents, classroom assistants and learning mentors all around the country. It would be a crying shame if the message that everyone in the House wants to pay tribute to those efforts did not go out loud and clear. I hope that every speech and intervention has made that clear.

189WH
The facts are important. In 1997, almost half of all 11-year-olds in primary schools were unable to read, write or do basic maths to an acceptable standard; today, 71 per cent. reach such a standard in maths and 75 per cent. in English. In addition, more than half of secondary school pupils now get five good GCSEs. Those are important steps in the right direction. In 1997, the Office for Standards in Education identified 1,336 schools as failing; between May 1997 and May 2002, 899 schools came out of special measures. Those are all indicators of growing success in our education system. It would be folly not to acknowledge that.
Mr. Brady: To what extent are those trends the result of introducing better inspection regimes through Ofsted and of better information and data preparation through league tables?
Mr. Miliband: Those reforms are important underpinnings of the system, but anyone who considers primary schools, for example, will recognise that introducing the national literacy and numeracy scheme after 1997 contributed enormously to the step change in achievement.
I remember listening to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) debating pensions in the House when the issue of low interest rates and low inflation was raised in relation to Bank of England independence. He said that the Conservative party was thinking about that in 1997, and I get the feeling that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) might say that it was also thinking about many of the things that Labour has done in education. The truth is that his party did not do them in 18 years in government. Teachers and pupils should take the credit for those achievements; the Government contributed to making them possible.
Before proceeding to my four main themes, I must respond to the attempted character assassination of South Tyneside. I did not realise that this went with being a Minister, but given the remarks of Opposition Members, it is important that I say that, in all the schools that I have visited—32 primary schools and all five secondary schools in my constituency; I will have visited all 36 primary schools in the academic year—I have seen teachers of outstanding commitment and energy. It is a travesty to suggest that they are delivering a failing system. In a constituency with the fourth highest unemployment in the United Kingdom, we are achieving above average results in primary education, and we look forward to that being replicated in the secondary sector.
We must recognise, however, that there are particular challenges for teaching and learning in cities. Obviously, cities are characterised by dynamism and enterprise, but they are also characterised by poverty, generational unemployment, high levels of social exclusion, linguistic and cultural diversity, high mobility levels and transient populations. Those are all challenges for education.
When the excellence in cities programme started, only 33 per cent. of inner-city pupils achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A to C; 13.5 per cent. of inner-city schools had been identified by Ofsted as failing or having serious weaknesses, compared with 5.4 per cent. nationally; and 38 per cent. of inner-city schools had excluded five or more pupils in the previous year,
190WH
compared with 26 per cent. nationally. Those are challenges, not excuses for failure, and I have met no one teaching in a city who wants to use those challenges as an excuse for failure. A culture of high expectations has developed over the past five to 10 years, and those challenges are not a list of excuses, although they deserve recognition.
I am a great believer in the idea that we have to get the general conditions right for school improvement. It is not right to believe that there is a programme for every problem; there must be a general system that drives up standards overall. There is now increased investment and increased numbers of teachers. Increased support is going to all schools, including those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, where £550 more per pupil is spent now than in 1997, compared with a real-terms cut of £120 in the last Parliament during which his party was in office.
We must address the particular challenges of education in our cities on the basis of that rising investment. That was the purpose of the excellence in cities programme, which is designed to provide targeted support for city schools. It involves the extended use of learning mentors and the development of learning support units for pupils whose behaviour is causing problems, beacon and specialist schools, and—particularly noteworthy, given the hon. Gentleman's comments—a gifted and talented stream, which is designed to pick out the talents of pupils with particular gifts.
The evidence on the excellence in cities programme is interesting and I should like to go through it: 3,500 learning mentors, 105 city learning centres, 500 learning support units and 383 beacon schools. What standards have they achieved? I was impressed when I learned that in phase 1 local authorities, which have been going since 1999, the percentage of pupils gaining five A to C grades at GCSE rose from 34.1 to 37 per cent. Furthermore, the number of pupils gaining five or more good GCSEs improved particularly strongly in London, where the average increase over just two years was from 32.8 to 36.6 per cent. The rate of improvement in English of secondary school pupils was four times the national average, which shows that the programme should be supported, not condemned.
I shall now deal with specific points raised in the debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) will forgive me for not dealing with all his points. Some were particularly interesting. I could not agree with him more about extended hours of schooling. Any business using its plant for only 40 per cent. of the time would be viewed as a serious problem. We all know that provision for out-of-school activities has a powerful influence on performance in school. I therefore associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's wish to see school plant used more out of hours. I hope that we can improve after-hour schooling, weekend schooling and summer schools. A start has been made, but we have further to go.
Some hon. Members referred to the flight of the middle classes from the state sector. We should be careful about using that sort of language. There are serious issues about where people send their children to school. However, my figures suggest that over the past 15 years, the number of pupils in the private sector has risen from 540,000 to 560,000—an increase of only

191WH
20,000. No one should pretend that that is a perfect state of affairs, but it does not reflect any notion of a mass exodus from the state system.
Mr. Brady: The Minister is making a valid and important point. Does he agree that the true measure of the crisis in education in inner cities is the flight of middle-class people from those areas, which is largely a result of the quality of education available? Middle-class people have the wherewithal to make a change: they are voting with their feet and moving into areas with good schools. That is the flight of the middle classes—a problem that needs to be tackled.
Mr. Miliband: That is a broad-brush statement. As someone who lives in an inner city, I know that many middle-class people still live in such areas. I am prepared to consider the data, but without any supporting evidence I would not associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's view. I have not heard him specify any particular data, so he should be careful about making such allegations.
The hon. Member for Fareham mentioned creativity and the importance of a broad and balanced curriculum. Significantly, schools doing best scholastically often do the most to develop creative talents. It is dangerous to counterpose academic achievement and broader activities. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the
192WH
emphasis on literacy and numeracy was squeezing out kids' creative potential, but in my experience that is not the case.
In my remaining time I want to speak about the challenges ahead. The main difference between the Government side and the official Opposition is that we are pleased to have the fastest improving education system in the industrialised world, but without being complacent about it. We are proud of the achievements of parents and pupils in schools up and down the country, but we acknowledge that it is not enough. The Opposition say that everything is hopeless, which is a dangerous position to adopt.
The Government want to make further progress in four particular respects. First, primary schools have seen magnificent improvements in achievement, but we cannot be satisfied while a quarter of young people cannot read, write or count well when they leave them. Secondly, reform of the teaching profession is a legitimate issue, particularly regarding the time available to teach, the support that teachers receive and leadership. I shall be addressing those issues in half an hour in north London, if anyone wants to follow me up there.
The third issue is the step change in secondary schooling that is clearly necessary, and the fourth issue is the continued focus on schools in challenging circumstances. In 372 schools, less than 25 per cent. of pupils get five good GCSEs, and 199 of those schools are in inner-city areas. That is our agenda: it is about building on what we perceive to be success, but it is success with which we are not yet satisfied.

Ships and Seafarers (Safety)
11 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: This debate is about the safety of ships and mariners at sea, which is a topic that the House has not debated for several years. In particular, my contribution will be about the sinking of the MV Derbyshire in 1980, with the loss of 44 lives, including the wives of two officers. The story of the Derbyshire is incredible, and I can only scratch the surface this morning.
Hon. Members may wonder why on earth a Member who represents an inland constituency should take such an interest in the sea. The truth is that I have been fascinated by the sea all my life. I was born close to it and went to secondary school in the seaside resort of Southport. My fascination with ships began on my many visits with my father to Liverpool in my formative years. I am old enough to remember the joy of riding on the overhead railway, long since demolished, along the dock road, to look at all the mighty ships that sailed the seven seas.
The Derbyshire sank during Typhoon Orchid. No SOS was received: only oil rising to the surface identified that the ship had sunk and located its approximate position at the time. The families heard about the loss mainly through media reports, which made their grief even worse. MV Derbyshire was a single screw ore-bulk-oil combination carrier, one of six sister ships. An OBO is a design of ship that was popular in the mid-1960s, because such ships were adaptable to carrying oil or bulk cargos such as iron ore, which the Derbyshire was carrying from Canada to Japan.
The MV Derbyshire was registered at Liverpool and, at the time, was the largest ship ever built: it was twice the size of the Titanic. In length she measured 294.1 metres and, in extreme breadth, 44.28 metres. If stood on end, the ship was 60 metres taller than Canary Wharf, and had nine holds or tanks and nine hatches. She was built by Swan Hunter on the River Tees, and handed over to Bibby Tankers in Hamburg on 10 June 1976. MV Derbyshire was managed from that point until her loss by Bibby's. She was classed by Lloyd's Register of Shipping in London as a
"+ 100 A1 strengthened for ore cargoes; holds 2 and 6 may be empty or oil cargoes".
Since the tragic loss of the MV Derbyshire, bulk carriers have been sinking at a rate of one a month. From the loss of the Derbyshire in 1980 to August 1998, 1,632 seafarers lost their lives in bulk carrier incidents alone. The MV Derbyshire Family Association was established following the loss of the ship and sought to persuade the then Government to investigate its loss and the loss of loved ones. The Government declined, citing the technological difficulties of examining the wreck at a depth of two and a half miles below sea level.
I want to pay tribute to the DFA and its members for their persistence. I have worked with them since my election to Parliament in 1997, and have been impressed by their work. Their primary aim has been to use the loss of the Derbyshire to improve the safety of all those who sail at sea in OBOs. Several right hon. and hon. Members have promoted their cause in this House, and I pay tribute to them. Some of them have been elevated to the other place. My hon. Friend the Member for
194WH
Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) has been applying for this debate for several weeks, and last week I promised to give him assistance as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on the MV Derbyshire. Unfortunately, he is away in Strasbourg this week and is devastated that he cannot he with us today.
A draft Government report, published in 1985, concluded that the most likely cause of the loss of the Derbyshire was major cracking of frame 65. However, after consultations with Swan Hunter and Lloyd's Register of Shipping—and perhaps others—the draft report was substantially altered. The final version, published in March 1986, listed five possible causes for the loss: explosion, a shift of cargo, failure of the hatches, external hull damage and structural failure.
With the loss of a sister ship, the Kowloon Bridge, in November 1986, a finger of suspicion was again pointed at frame 65. Consequently, a formal investigation was appointed under Mr. Gerald Darling QC, as wreck commissioner, with three assessors. It considered the loss from October 1987 to March 1988. Its report concluded:
"For the reasons stated in this Report the Court finds that the Derbyshire was probably overwhelmed by the forces of nature in Typhoon Orchid, possibly after getting beam on to wind and sea, off Okinawa, in darkness on the night of 9/10 September 1980, with the loss of 44 lives. The evidence available does not support any firmer conclusions".
The families of those who perished were extremely disappointed at such an inconclusive result, and at the allegations of bad seamanship made in the report. The report cast further suspicions on the design features of the Derbyshire, particularly the strength of frame 65, and it was promoted as a cause of the ship's loss in articles in learned journals, by lecturers and in a book on the sinking of the Derbyshire written by Dave Ramwell and Tim Madge, which was published in 1992. The MV Derbyshire Family Association continued to put pressure on the Government for a full inquiry, with support from the International Transport Workers Federation and the maritime unions. In March 1994, the ITF agreed to back a mission to locate the Derbyshire, raising the money independently of the Government. Its part in the story cannot be over-emphasised. It brought in Oceaneering Technologies, and the wreck was located on 8 June 1994.
In a joint UK-EC assessors' report, Lord Donaldson used the results provided by Oceaneering Technologies and recommended that a joint UK Government-EC investigation be carried out in the interests of international ship safety. The deep submergence laboratory of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution of the United States carried out an extensive groundbreaking survey, which at the time was the deepest underwater forensic examination of any wreck. It provided more than 200 hours of video and 135,774 photographs, which located the position of 98 per cent. of the wreckage in 2,500 separate pieces. Through pressure from the MV Derbyshire Family Association, the all-party parliamentary group on the Derbyshire and others, we persuaded the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), to reopen the formal inquiry under Mr. Justice Colman. The present Government's role in unearthing the truth surrounding the sinking of the Derbyshire cannot be underestimated.

195WH
The inquiry was unique in that it took place in the High Court and was presided over by a senior judge. Tribute must be paid to the inquiry team, who worked with all parties involved to arrive at a definitive conclusion on the loss. From evidence of the condition of the wreck and data derived from model tests, which were conducted by MARIN in the Netherlands, strong inferences were drawn about the cause of the loss. Ventilators and air pipes located on the foredeck and leading down to the bosun's store, machinery space and ballast tank were damaged before sinking commenced in such a way as to admit substantial volumes of seawater to those spaces; the hatch covers were damaged by impact from forward before they collapsed into the holds and before they were subjected to bending on a longitudinal axis; the hull girder had not lost its longitudinal integrity at any time until after sinking had commenced; the bosun's store hatch lid did not admit water to the bosun's store until it was destroyed by impact, probably by some part of the starboard windlass; and the starboard windlass broke loose by reason of hydrodynamic loading, probably after some or all of the ventilators and air pipes to the bosun's store and ballast tank and probably the No.1 hatch covers had already been destroyed and had started to admit seawater, thereby reducing the vessel's freeboard and increasing the exposure of the windlass to weld-cracking waves.
The initiating cause of the loss of the vessel appears to have been the destruction of some or all of the ventilators and air pipes that were located on the foredeck, which led down into the boatswain's store, machinery spaces and ballast tank, and the consequent loss of freeboard at the bow due to the gradual flooding of those forward spaces.
Professor Tawn concluded from that data that the flooding of both the stores and the ballast tank—even the stores alone—could have produced sufficient loss of freeboard to expose hatch cover No. 1 to at least one hatch-breaking wave during the typhoon on 9 September 1980. Therefore, hatch cover strength became crucial, not only to the safety of the Derbyshire, but to all similar vessels, many of which are still navigating the oceans today, thus putting hundreds more lives at risk.
The recommendations of the re-hearing of the formal investigation were significant, far-reaching and necessary to protect mariners' lives. Certain issues were highlighted as crucial to the achievement of increased safety at sea—hatch cover strength, permissible freeboard and navigational improvements.
Hatch cover strength applies equally to existing ships as to new ones. However, the problem with existing ships is whether shipowners would consider the fitting of stronger hatch covers to be economically viable. The underlying deck structure may not be strong enough to support heavier covers. That problem could be combated by an increase in either the minimum freeboard level or new covers, or a mixture of both for existing ships, which would allow heightened safety in dangerous waters. There is no excuse for building new ships without strengthening their hatch covers.
196WH
The international convention on load lines 1966 governs the weight of cargo stored in the holds of all bulk carriers worldwide. Justice Colman's inquiry concluded that:
"it provides for a level of protection substantially too low by reference to modern safety standards".
The RFI report recommends that that be changed and be
"applicable at least to all existing bulk carriers"
and that they should
"more than comply with the ILLC 66 regulations for minimum hatch cover strength".
An article in the T2 section of The Times on 22 April 2002 entitled "Coffins of the High Seas" focused on the Derbyshire and the general safety of bulk carriers. A spokesman for the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers was quoted as saying that the commercial life of those vessels is
"15 years maximum, but many of the vessels still working are more than 20 years old and the incidence of loss increases dramatically after 11 years."
That implies that many OBOs are death traps and unfit for service. That implication is reinforced by the sentiments expressed in the article's conclusion by Paul Lambert of the MV Derbyshire Family Association, whose brother Peter died on the Derbyshire. He suggests that the industry
"has known for 20 years what the problem is",
and that
"bulk carriers are not seaworthy."
Paul told me that some OBOs become rust buckets after 15 years, and that beyond that age they should be subjected to much more stringent inspections than younger ships.
The RFI report concludes that the International Maritime Organisation should require the
"compulsory daily reporting of all vessels".
The report also suggests that the mariner's handbook, NP100, should be amended as regards navigation in the dangerous semicircle of a tropical revolving storm, to include the possibility of running with the wind on the port quarter in certain circumstances. Masters should be made aware of the potential dangers of water entry into forward spaces and the resulting loss of freeboard.
According to the report, an increased participation by vessels in the World Meteorological Organisation's voluntary observing ships scheme should he encouraged by a British maritime notice and an IMO circular. Weather routing agencies should make clear to masters the precise circumstances in which positive routing advice will be given to vessels during voyages. Those navigational improvements will enable the safer passage of vessels through the most dangerous seas.
Many additional features in the report place obligations on the International Association of Classification Societies, the IMO and the Department for Transport, which should co-operate as necessary. Those features are aimed at ensuring the implementation of the

197WH
improved safety standards set out in Mr. Justice Colman's report. The report recommends that IACS set up research programmes to investigate the establishment of a
"minimum strength requirement for and, if necessary, location and protection requirements for ventilators and air pipe fittings on deck".
It also recommends that chain locker access be through bolted manholes, not doors; that foredeck hatch cover displacements be monitored, preferably using camera surveillance on the foredeck; that deck fittings be secured; that as-built construction plans and plans showing alterations that have been in any dry dock worldwide be kept; and that powerful lighting and industrial video cameras be installed on the foredeck of all Capesize bulk carriers. It also contains recommendations on hatch-cover operating manuals, and recommends that the pumping system to deal with forward-space flooding be independent of the main pumps and be capable of running dry without damage and handling solid material.
Perhaps the two most important recommendations are that a marine accident database be established comprehensively to record storm damage incidents, and that all new ships be fitted with voyage data recorders, which are similar to the black box recorders that have always been fitted to aircraft. It is recommended that VDRs be retrofitted to existing ships, and the IMO is carrying out a feasibility study on retrofitting VDRs to existing bulk carriers, although it is not expected to report until January 2004.
In its 74th session last year, the IMO's maritime safety committee reported that some progress was being made. The committee was updated on the formal safety assessments that member organisations were carrying out on bulk carrier safety.
Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman rightly notes that action must be taken in the international context. Is he arguing that, given the IMO's record of reaching conclusions very slowly, the UK authorities should act unilaterally, rather than await the extremely sluggish development of new regulations?
Dr. Iddon: Yes, I am. I believe that the authorities are already taking such steps, and I look forward to the Minister saying something about that in his response.
Mr. Justice Colman has expressed concern about the progress that is being made in implementing the recommendations in the report. He warned that the sinking of the Christopher last December was a red light to the industry, and that there may be bulk carriers afloat with hatch covers that comply with ILLC 66, but which are
"of the order of 50 per cent. of what they should be in terms of structural strength".
According to him, the IACS should get its act together on hatch cover safety and lead any change on the issue.
Clearly, there is concern, given that 1,634 seafarers were lost in bulk carrier incidents in the period between the loss of the Derbyshire in 1980 and August 1998. The Christopher managed to get out a message stating that she had suffered forward hatch cover damage and was
198WH
Flooded—a fate similar to the Derbyshire's. It is clearly unacceptable for lives constantly to be lost when we have solutions to the problems within our grasp.
Mr. Ivan Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that dealing with flags of convenience would be one way to tackle the poor safety records of some shipping companies? He mentioned the ITF, and I am sure that he will join me in congratulating it on its good work. Its inspectors examine ships to ensure that they are in good condition and use the right safety methods.
Reference has been made to solving the problem internationally, but we should surely tackle it on a European basis first. Every ship that enters European waters must comply with safety regulations, so that they are not unsafe or unseaworthy, and crews must be trained to a certain standard.
Dr. Iddon: My hon. Friend is right. If I had more time, I would mention those matters. I accept that it is difficult to achieve international agreement, but there is no doubt that, in recent years, cost-cutting exercises have driven the shipping industry. I am pleased that the Government are considering flagging back ships in Britain, because one problem has been that ships have flagged out of countries that have more stringent safety requirements. Training crews is important, as is insurance to cover those staff. There are so many complex issues to deal with in shipping that it is not easy to reach international agreements.
Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman is perhaps the modern day Samuel Plimsoll. What action has Lloyd's taken to secure improved design for new shipping, as well as for the existing fleet?
Dr. Iddon: I am not an expert on shipping, but I understand that, for obvious reasons, Lloyd's Register of Shipping takes a great interest in the matter and is one of the leading promoters of safety for ships at sea.
Mr. Justice Colman is right to point out the dangerous delay in the implementation of his report. We should put pressure on all interested parties, including the Government, to speed up its implementation, so that we can offer a safe working environment for all those at sea, and provide justice for the families of the Derbyshire crew, who have fought for more than 22 years to improve safety at sea. I know that the Government are working actively to improve ship safety and that we are already well on our way to implementing many of Mr. Justice Colman's RFI report recommendations. I look forward to the Minister updating us on this important subject.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should mention that five or six hon. Members wish to speak in addition to Front-Bench Members, so hon. Members must co-operate if everyone is to have a chance to contribute.
11.22 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing this important debate. I want to focus on another

199WH
aspect of safety at sea, but I was interested to hear what he said about the lessons to he learned from the case of the MV Derbyshire. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, however, I have a coastal constituency, some 50 miles of glorious coastline, which hon. Members are welcome to visit at any time, as it includes some of the best features in the United Kingdom, including two special conservation areas—[Interruption.] I am sure that hon. Members representing Cornwall will have an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Pike—and only the second breeding pod of the bottle-nosed dolphin in the United Kingdom, so it is an important and pristine area.
I want to concentrate on a report published by the National Audit Office on 12 June, which deals with pollution from ships and accidents at sea. The report focuses on the contingency planning and response activities of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. I was interested to read the report because I have been campaigning on the issue for several months and corresponding with the Minister's Department and planning officers in Wales. The report noted a severe gap in the contingency planning of coastal local authorities in Wales to deal with maritime accidents. As hon. Members may recall, the last serious maritime accident off the coast was the Sea Empress disaster, which caused a huge environmental problem for the beaches and tourist areas of Pembrokeshire and signalled a disaster in terms of safety at sea. Prior to that there was the Braer disaster. The independent inquiries into both those disasters—Lord Donaldson's into the Braer oil spillage and that of the Sea Empress environmental evaluation committee—one in 1994 and the other in 1996, made it clear that a key recommendation was for local authorities to have a statutory duty to plan for and undertake shoreline clean-ups following marine pollution incidents.
So far we have experienced oil pollution. The time will come when we see more serious pollution off our coasts. That call by the two inquiries was backed up by a report of the National Audit Office published a fortnight ago. It called for the Minister's Department to
"consider the case for taking powers to require all coastal local authorities to have up-to-date oil spill contingency plans consistent with the national contingency plan so that the United Kingdom as a whole is properly prepared to deal with marine pollution incidents in compliance with international convention."
The implication in that statement is that we are not properly prepared at the moment; we need those statutory duties. That call has been supported by my local authority, Ceredigion county council, by Pembrokeshire national park and Pembrokeshire county council as the main sufferers of the Sea Empress disaster, by the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities. It is also the subject of early-day motion 776, which has been signed by over 60 members of Parliament, including many—I am pleased to see—from the governing party but not, so far, by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East. Perhaps he will consider whether he can support it; I would welcome that.
We need increased funding if we are to place a statutory duty on local authorities to deal with marine incidents. The three local authorities in Wales that were, unfortunately, identified by the NAO as not being sufficiently prepared for such disasters were
200WH
Monmouthshire, Denbighshire and Newport. The BBC and the Western Mail report Denbighshire as having said simply that it could not do what was asked of it unless it had the resources to do so.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, but it is not about safety at sea.
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the debate is on safety of ships and seafarers at sea. I hope that he can bring his remarks back to that.
Mr. Thomas: Thank you. Mr. Pike. I thought that the NAO report on the Maritime and Coastguard Agency was pertinent to the debate. I shall move on to another aspect of the report, which I hope will please the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) more. The agency called for changes in merchant shipping legislation. Current legislation defines major areas of the UK coast, including mine in Cardigan bay, as internal waters. That means that those waters are insufficiently prepared for maritime accidents.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, all hon. Members will recognise my final concern, which relates directly to shipping at sea and the safety of mariners. In August, two ships—I do not know whether they are of the type that has been referred to—will carry cargo for British Nuclear Fuels plc through the Irish sea, off the coast of my constituency. The Irish Government and Governments in the Caribbean and New Zealand have registered their protests. They see such shipping as a possible terrorist target. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to say how he is addressing the safety of that shipment, and how he will ensure that there are no detrimental effects from the shipping of nuclear waste through the Irish sea.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased—
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): Order. I have let you say it twice, but I am not a Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Thomas: I apologise, Mr. Pike. You should be. I thought that all hon. Members who took the Chair in this Chamber were to be called Deputy Speakers.
Mr. Peter Pike (in the Chair): The four most senior members of the Speaker's Panel are additional Deputy Speakers. Other hon. Members are known by their names. That is why we have them in front of us.
Mr. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Pike. I did not need to see your name to know it. I am sure that the fact that even I know your name means that you will soon be a Deputy Speaker.
I am pleased to have had an opportunity to outline some of the difficulties that I see affecting my constituency from marine pollution incidents; matters relating to the safety of shipping, particularly what will happen in August; and the history of some serious accidents that have been experienced off the coast of the United Kingdom, which affected both the lives of mariners and the pollution of our coast.
11.30 am
Ms Candy Atherton: I will keep my remarks short, Mr. Pike. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing the debate. The issue is important for my constituency.
I could take many tacks, but I would like to concentrate on safety in the Falmouth harbour area. Falmouth boasts one of the finest harbours in the world. For hundreds of years its mariners and fishermen have plied the seas, risking life and limb. Packet ships sailed to and from Falmouth with mail to and from the new world. Today it is home to a major ship repair yard and builds some of the great racing yachts of the world. The waters bustle and bubble with the activity of boats powered by both engines and sail. The shipyard has played host to many a ship needing repair. Disasters have long hit the Cornish coast; few hon. Members will need to be reminded of the tragedy of the Torrey Canyon.
I was delighted that the Government ensured a couple of years ago that a tug, the Far Sky, was based in Falmouth. Together with its successor, the Anglian Prince, which will be available for any future disaster, it has played a critical role in rescuing drifting vessels. A number of reports, including the Donaldson report, had recommended that we needed a western approaches guard ship on standby in Falmouth. I am pleased that the Government responded. The tug works locally with the internationally known Falmouth coastguard. The Deputy Prime Minister, a regular visitor and friend of the town, has seen its work. It oversees rescues around the globe—that of Pete Goss being just one relatively recent example. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the coastguard and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, to all at Culdrose and to those involved in sea rescues who, day and night, year in, year out, work for the good of all mariners. Hon. Members will remember the Kodima, which last winter foundered off the south Cornwall coast, providing endless decking for the gardens of Cornwall. The Far Sky was critical in rescuing the ship before it broke up on the rocks.
I do, however, have concerns. In Falmouth harbour, three different harbour authorities have jurisdiction over the Carrick roads. Pilots in Falmouth have argued long and hard that they need one authority. They are in no doubt that one authority would make for a safer harbour if a major catastrophe hit the area. I strongly support them. It seems that it is possible to reform local government and to create a Parliament in Scotland, but that to amalgamate three harbour authorities is beyond the wit of man and Government.
Twenty years ago, Falmouth was a relatively quiet harbour in terms of water sports. Now, hundreds of yachts mingle with ships weighing hundreds of thousands of tonnes. Safety measures for ships and seafarers within the harbour and local waters seem to involve many anomalies. My good friend the Minister introduced a private Member's Bill in 1996 to improve safety at activity centres. I congratulate him on that achievement. However, there are certain loopholes that I suggest, tentatively, he might address. Water sport companies training sailors need adventurous activities licences. They are happy to comply, but question why surfing is not included. Surf companies may have to obtain licences from the local authority, but those do
202WH
not require the same standards as adventurous activity licences. I am sure that all current surf companies operate to the highest level in Cornwall, but that may be something to consider in the future. Powerboats, which are the equivalent of sports cars at sea, can be driven with no training at all. Would we allow untrained drivers on motorways? Of course not. We should, therefore, consider mandatory training for those who drive powerful powerboats.
On the wider issues, the mariners of Falmouth are keen for massive improvements to be made in safety at sea. The trade union NUMAST is clear that we need to attract many more young recruits to the sea, but flags of convenience will not do so, as hon. Members have said. Nationally, the industry fears that European expansion will lead to cheap labour, particularly on ferry routes.
Many people in Cornwall want on-board conditions to be checked during port state control inspections. In recent years, several ships have been stranded in Falmouth. The crews have been living among rats, and have been dependent on the charity of the people of Falmouth. The basic safety offered by such ships has been dreadful due to lack of investment and basic maintenance, and it has often been difficult even to identify the owners. In some cases, the crews have not been paid for months, and the ships have been taken into custody because of unpaid bills.
Mr. Ivan Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the article in The Guardian today, which refers to the Cambodian ship that was arrested by the French Navy and the Spanish and Greek authorities? The article states:
"Safety is also an issue: since 1995 at least 25 Cambodian ships have been wrecked or stranded. There have also been 41 collisions, nine fires and 45 arrests."
That is purely down to flags of convenience, and we should seriously consider tackling the issue.
Ms Atherton: I thank my hon. Friend. I have not seen that article, but I shall certainly review it. Flags of convenience are clearly a major issue, and I know that the Government have considered it. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say in that regard.
Seafarers become the victims in the international game of pass the buck. Ships are often unsafe, and conditions are beyond the pale. It is vital that the Government take action internationally and in Britain to ensure that standards rise and conditions improve.
Mr. Sayeed: The fact that port state control in the EU has been toughened up has led to ships being arrested. Hitherto, they were not arrested, because port state control was ineffectively managed. The fact that they are now being arrested means that there are ships around with unpaid crews and poor conditions.
Ms Atherton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he can hardly think that the current situation is satisfactory; people in my constituency and in the wider Cornish area certainly would not. There have been small improvements, but we need greater regulation.

203WH
If young people are to be attracted into the industry in the future, they need to be reassured that there will be no more stories of unpaid crews with rats for companions. Higher safety standards will not encourage new recruits if the industry still plies the seas with ships that are in such poor condition.
I have raised small and large issues today, but safety at sea must be our number one priority, whether in international or in own waters.
11.38 am
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The House should congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), and thank him for once again raising the issue of the MV Derbyshire. It is particularly important, given that other ships of that class have been lost at sea. That seems to suggest—I put it no more strongly than that—some form of structural failure with that class, which maritime organisations should examine.
I take issue with some of the points that have been raised, particularly by the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton). She did not recognise that some measures have already been taken.
Safety legislation can be considered on three levels: international, European and national. Internationally, the shipping industry is principally regulated by the International Maritime Organisation, which is a London-based United Nations agency. The IMO has no power to make Governments or industry take action, so the principal responsibility for enforcing IMO regulations on ship safety and environmental protection rests with flag states. Much of that work is delegated to bodies called classification societies. Flag state support and enforcement is supplemented by port state control, which means that officials can inspect foreign flagged ships to ensure that they comply with international requirements.
Through the years, the IMO has adopted much useful and important legislation. The first is the international convention for the safety of life at sea. The second is MARPOL, which deals with prevention of pollution. The third is the convention on the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea, which lays down what is known in maritime circles as the rules of the road. The fourth, which has already been mentioned, is the international convention on load lines, which sets the minimum permissible freeboard according to the season of the year and the ship's trading pattern.
Shipping companies have the international safety management code, which requires them to have a licence to operate. For seafarers, there is the international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers and ILO 147, which requires national Administrations to have effective legislation on labour issues such as hours of work, medical fitness and seafarers' working conditions.
The IMO is sometimes accused of being slow, but that accusation misunderstands how it operates. It must operate by agreement, which means that it must secure agreements from parties with many different interests. It
204WH
is a slow process, and to circumvent it, port states, national Governments and the European Community have often implemented their own regulations.
European safety legislation has mainly concentrated on maritime cabotage, jobs and ensuring that internationally agreed rules, especially those of the IMO and the ILO, are strictly adhered to. The legislation has sometimes amplified those rules, particularly in relation to ferries. The EU has sought to improve the safety of navigation by developing two aids to navigation: vessel traffic management and information; and radio-navigation systems.
In the United Kingdom, the Government are advised by several organisations. The principal one is the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which was formed by the merger of the Coastguard Agency and the Marine Safety Agency on 1 April 1998. There are many doubts about the agency, and as the Minister will know, the Transport Committee argued in 1999 that the two organisations should be demerged. The Government resisted, and have continued to resist, the proposal. The Comptroller and Auditor General has also been critical in his report "Ship Surveys and Inspections", much of which concerned safety. The Public Accounts Committee took up the cudgels and published a report on 6 February 2002. Three main conclusions emerged. First, the MCA needs to focus more of its work on the riskiest vessels, rather than taking the easiest targets. Secondly, it should give more attention to the human aspects of ship safety. Thirdly, it should take firmer action to uncover and pursue significant breaches of maritime legislation.
I have a further criticism. As far as I am aware there is not one master mariner in the MCA's senior management. It seems daft that the principal organisation chosen by the Government to advise them on safe, secure maritime operations has no senior practitioner of that art but relies on those whose experience is principally shore-side. It was announced in the Queen's Speech on 6 December 2000 that the Government were putting together a draft safety Bill to cover a wider range of different workplace and transport safety issues, including port and shipping safety. More details were in the press release of 3 May 2001. It is now a year on. Will the Minister tell us what has happened to that Bill?
One of the IMO's current concerns is safety from terrorism following 11 September. As that tragedy made painfully clear, economic globalisation and technological interdependence have brought unforeseen global security threats, which affect not only sovereign states but the vessels that constantly move between their legal jurisdictions. Shipping is now a direct component in a complex logistical chain that is an integral part of the world's manufacturing process. It has also become subject to that more notorious global force—international terrorism.
Thus, we cannot speak of shipping safety without also recognising the link with maritime security. Security measures, which at present cover only passenger ships and passenger ferries, need to be expanded to cover other potentially vulnerable ships, such as gas carriers, chemical and oil tankers, not to mention the safety of personnel who man the port areas. In view of that safety-security connection, I wish to highlight the potential implications of revising chapter V of the

205WH
international convention for the safety of life at sea, which will come into force on 1 July and is at present being considered by the House.
The automatic identification system was developed to deliver digital information conveying a vessel's position, identity and other related information automatically from ship to ship and from ship to shore. The systems allow ships and coastal authorities to "see" the position of other ships, even in situations where physical obstructions would prevent radar detection. AIS also enables ships to identify other ships, assists in target tracking and simplifies information exchange by reducing verbal exchanges.
The principle of those regulations is admirable, yet the consequences of their implementation demand rather more thought and much less haste. There certainly needs to be much more provision for the training of seafarers and personnel at shore surveillance stations and ports in a number of new navigation technologies, including AIS. At the moment, that is merely being considered by the sub-committee on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping. Moreover, as a leading tanker owner and operator of large crude carriers warned, AIS
"may delay the adoption of an urgently needed holistic approach to shipping traffic safety".
It seems odd that we intend to pass a statutory instrument before 1 July, but according to its Assistant Secretary General, the IMO is now
"actively encouraging a more thorough consideration of AIS issues by means of a two-day seminar which will take place on July 15/16".
We are introducing a regulation that the IMO has not finished considering. Any seaman will tell the Government that the priority should be for multilateral arrangements that deal with collisions and groundings as prime threats to mariners and the environment. AIS may prove helpful in tracking vessels in the aftermath of an accident, but it may be less useful as a preventive measure. I hope the Minister will answer the loud call for a comprehensive international traffic control and routing system.
AIS also runs the risk of undermining the seaman's more safety-conscious reliance on the mark one eyeball, radar, proper passage planning, the rule of the road, separation zones, and a host of seaman-like actions that may be downgraded by an over-reliance on fallible VHF-AIS electronics.
I wanted to make points about flares and their disposal, but I shall write to the Minister instead. I shall also write to him about the suggestion that small boats should have to show that they have passage planning before they undertake any voyage.
11.51 am
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who has become a veritable expert on all MV Derbyshire-related matters.
The Derbyshire story has run almost throughout my career as a merchant navy officer, which began in the 1960s. It has become almost an icon of the continuing campaign to improve safety at sea and better the lot of the seafarer. I spent some 30 years at sea with the Blue
206WH
Funnel line out of Liverpool and the Glen line out of London, and sailed on some of the safest deep-sea vessels ever built. I also had the harrowing experience of sailing on some of the world's worst ships during my time as a globe-trotting, trouble-shooting chief engineer, so I have seen the best and the worst during my deep-sea days.
During the last 13 years of my seafaring career before I entered this place, I sailed as chief engineer on Dover's cross channel ferries, and was employed in that capacity on Friday 6 March 1987 when the Herald of Free Enterprise capsized off Zeebrugge on passage to Dover. It was carrying 430 passengers and 80 crewmen, and 193 lives were lost. Safety at sea has therefore been real and personal for me, and it continues to be so. My constituency of Dover has the busiest ferry port in the world, and overlooks one of the busiest seaways in the world. Thousands of my constituents are associated with the port of Dover, or sail on the ferries.
Safety at sea is a massive, international subject, as hon. Members have acknowledged. I want to confine my comments to working hours, tours of duty, fatigue and training. Although there is much to be done to improve ship design, stability and fire and flood prevention, it remains an uncomfortable fact that 70 per cent. of all accidents, incidents and losses at sea can be attributed to humans. Most incidents and founderings are the result of a combination of factors, but the human factor is present in almost all of them. The hours of work and the quality and quantity of work periods hugely influence the way in which people perform and behave. That is pertinent to cross-channel ferries as well as to deep-sea operations.
The National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers—I declare an interest as an affiliate member of that august organization—and the National Union of Seamen, now known as the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, have for many years campaigned for safer hours. Hon. Members will recall that the P & O ferry strike of 1989 was called by the National Union of Seamen to fight for safer working hours and to resist the swingeing changes enforced by the ferry company. It is tragic to recall that after many months of struggle and strife and difficult times in Dover—we still face them today—P & O's response was to sack the entire work force and bring in replacements over their heads. I want to put on record the fact that the sacked seafarers committee, led by one of my constituents, Steve Stevenson, is still campaigning for safety at sea and for justice for the sacked seafarers.
The working hours directive and its effect on seafarers' hours and our domestic trade union laws is an important issue. Every time we reflect on these matters, we realise that the seafarer is a second-class citizen who is squeezed out of the game and omitted from rules and regulations. Seafarers never receive the protection that they deserve.
The ferry industry has always been hugely competitive. The challenge of the channel tunnel increased competition. The recent removal of duty-free sales from the ferry services built up further pressure on owners and employees in respect of conditions and hours of work. When I represented merchant navy officers at the port of Dover for NUMAST, the issue of

207WH
hours and fatigue dominated the negotiations. The battle for fair working conditions is, of course, continuing.
As to the effect of working hours and fatigue, my evidence is anecdotal. I have not carried out specific research for this important debate, because I did not receive early enough notice of it. I have a copy of the NUMAST Telegraph, a publication that I recommend to all. It tells of a shipping vessel running aground in the Shetland Isles after the skipper fell asleep while alone on the bridge:
"inspectors from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch found that the man had had only seven hours sleep in the previous three days."
It goes on to say that the skipper's lack of sleep was "largely the result of the vessel having a crew of only three, one of whom was very inexperienced."
Another item is entitled, "Dozy officer is sentenced":
"A Russian officer was given a six month suspended prison sentence and fined £1,830 by a French court last month after his ship ran aground off the Brittany coast after he fell asleep while alone on the bridge."
They may not be headline incidents, but similar cases resulting from fatigue could be cited during any month of the year. They are mainly the result of the manning of the bridge and the navigation of the ship, but further areas of potential difficulty exist below that level: engine room watchkeepers, seafarers on deck and mechanics in the engine room can all have their attention spoiled by lack of sleep and rest.
Time is pressing and other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. Rather than recount further incidents, I would like to make a plea on behalf of seafarers—both officers and ratings—in respect of hours of duty, rest periods and size of crews. We cannot impose a minimum crew size on many small fishing vessels. Statutory guidance exists on minimum crew levels for larger ships, but the minimum has virtually become the norm. Instead of companies considering the most appropriate manning levels and listening to the people who run ships day in and day out—master mariners, chief engineers and ratings—they try to get away with the lowest levels. Many companies use the lowest common denominator, which results in overstretch. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) has experience in the area, but it is from afar. He painted a rosy picture, but the statistics and league tables on accidents, losses and flounderings at sea show that flag-of-convenience vessels are head and shoulders above British-staffed and British-manned vessels.
Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I was unaware of, or unconcerned about, flags of convenience. I am not, as my remarks made clear.
Mr. Prosser: I take note of the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
When the problem of hours, fatigue, flags of convenience, lack of training and fraudulently gained qualifications are combined with, and superimposed on, the experience of areas such as my patch of the straits of Dover, which has fully-laden tankers, chemical
208WH
Carriers—indeed, the whole list of carriers—and cross-channel ferries from Dover to Calais and Zeebrugge, we have a dangerous mixture.
My final plea is that the issue of hours is reconsidered, and an inquiry is held into working hours and crew sizes, so that rational decisions can be made that will improve safety for the seafarer and the owner.
12.1 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for allowing me a few of the precious moments that he has been given. I offer my speech as a lesson to other hon. Members in how to tailor remarks to fit a time limit.
I had wanted to raise several issues but will consign myself to one: the standard of safety in the fishing industry, which is a matter of supreme concern in my constituency. It involves two issues. The first is the culture in the fishing industry that safety is not important and can be overlooked. I am mindful of my experience as a solicitor engaged in an inquiry into a fatal accident on the merchant fishing vessel Annandale. My client's son had gone over the side to fix a trawl door without a lifejacket or a safety line, and the boat was hit by a lump of water. The body was never found. During that fatal accident inquiry, one of the deck hands gave evidence that he had worn a lifejacket for two weeks afterwards but had eventually stopped doing so because he was being ribbed by his crew mates. I offer that as a mere illustration of the problem.
The second factor in the worsening situation is economics. As has been said, fishing boats operate with smaller crews and higher overheads, and spend much more time at sea and less money on maintenance. Those changes all cause decreased safety levels. However, it is clear that the problem will not be solved by regulation alone; regulation has been tried and has manifestly failed. The economic difficulties of the industry need to be resolved—that is not one of the Minister's extensive responsibilities—and a change of culture in the industry brought about.
12.4 pm
Andrew George: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing this important debate. He was right that the subject is raised too infrequently in the House. According to my records, the last time that the issue of safety at sea was raised was in an Adjournment debate that I secured as long ago as 15 July 1998 on loss of lives at sea. It concentrated on the fishing industry, which concerns many hon. Members.
Several important issues were raised in the debate, and the Minister will want to respond to some of the points made about the integral role of the International Maritime Organisation. Many people are concerned that a body that can move forward only on the basis of consensus and agreement does not have sufficient teeth and cannot impose the necessary sanctions to be able to implement the regulations with which it agrees. Anything that the Government can do to rattle cages and encourage the IMO to establish the sanctions that we all want would be very much to the good.

209WH
Several projects have taken international safety standards forward, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed). I want to highlight the standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers. I have spoken to a number of senior and experienced mariners, and there is concern that much of the new training on the international stage that is being promoted at present is based too much on technology and not sufficiently on an understanding of manual navigation techniques. Master mariners are worried that navigation standards are deteriorating as a result of the new training programme. The Government should recognise the argument that it is affecting navigation and watchkeeping standards on UK-registered and overseas vessels.
It is argued that an incident 18 months ago in the Dover straits involving Ever Decent, a Taiwanese cargo vessel, and Norwegian Dream, a passenger ship, was caused by the over-dependence on technology and insufficient use of visual methods of watchkeeping. In March 1997, the loss of the MV Cita in my constituency was partly the result of insufficient crew members on board. The watchkeeper fell asleep and the vessel ran into the east coast of the Isles of Scilly. The vessel was registered in one country, owned in another and insured in another, and as a result it was impossible to make any compensation arrangements for the crew or for the people of the Isles of Scilly who were affected by the incident.
The IMO should have more teeth. It should have sanctions available to it so that, with the maritime Governments at the cutting edge of improvements in this regard, it can jump on the low standards of shipping, which several hon. Members have emphasised in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) rightly raised the issue of fishing. The Government can take the lead on that by showing that they live by the slogan of joined-up government, especially in the Department for Transport's relationship with the Ministry of Defence. When the MOD sends out reconnaissance aircraft to search for vessels, it does so as a favour, not under agreement between the Department for Transport and the MOD. In the past, I have appealed to the Ministry of Defence to scramble aircraft to go out and look for vessels, but it is under no obligation to do so, and there is no agreement between different Departments to employ the best resources for that purpose. Similarly, naval fishing protection vessels are used to inspect fisheries and to protect fish stocks. While inspectors are on board those vessels they could easily inspect safety aspects of fishing vessels. It is not beyond the wit of man or woman to sort out those issues.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made a number of important points. The introduction of the draft safety Bill announced in May 2001 certainly needs to be addressed, as do several other issues. The Minister must also take on board and investigate the often-repeated complaint that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency does not have sufficient advice from master mariners, either for its inspections or in its understanding of buoyancy. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East on securing this important debate, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
12.10 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing this important debate. Although he rightly concentrated on MV Derbyshire—we listened carefully to him—he also introduced various general issues relating to maritime safety.
On the issue of MV Derbyshire, the then Secretary of State for Transport, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister, said in a written answer of November 2000 that Mr. Justice Colman had made
"a total of 24 recommendations to enhance bulk carrier safety and safety generally."
The Secretary of State then made four promises. He said that the Department—the then DETR—
"will prepare a response to each of the recommendations…This response will be presented to Parliament…the Department will give urgent consideration, in particular, to the recommendations that the IMO—"
the International Maritime Organisation—
"should revise the relevant provisions of the International Load Line Convention 1966 and that any enhanced requirements concerning hatch cover strength should also apply to existing ships."—[Official Report, 8 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 240W.]
It would be helpful if the Minister, some 18 months later, could confirm that all those commitment have been met.
Back in May 2001, the Department, through a Minister, announced new measures to improve maritime safety, an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) has raised. It talked about the intentions set out in the Queen's Speech the previous November to draft a safety Bill, and it promised to use that opportunity to introduce three groups of measures to improve the safety of merchant shipping in the United Kingdom and safety at ports and harbours.
Let us take a closer look at some of the proposals. The first group was to improve the way in which maritime safety incidents were dealt with and to give fire authorities powers to recover the costs of fighting fires at sea. Although they have powers, but not duties, to fight fires, no mechanism is available for them to recover their costs. The second group was to improve the enforcement of shipping safety law, and the third group was to make some improvements to the powers of harbour authorities to regulate marine safety, so as to help them to implement the port marine safety code. As we well know, that was developed after the grounding of the Sea Empress in Milford Haven in 1996.
All those proposals would find acceptance and support among Opposition Members, but 13 months later there is still no sign of the Bill. Notwithstanding the problems and pressures in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, what signal does that send to the shipping industry about the Government's priorities and their failure to regard safety at sea as a serious issue? Once again, the Government are keen to issue press releases promising action, but are apparently not so keen to deliver on their promises.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred to the revised chapter V of the international convention for the safety of life at sea, which is due to come into force through a statutory

211WH
instrument on 1 July. I understand that the House of Lords is currently scrutinising it. Serious doubts and concerns have arisen, particularly from practitioners in the industry, about the universal ship-borne automatic identification system. Why, given that opposition, are the Government apparently charging ahead with the implementation of that statutory instrument? AIS is a new and untried system. What is the Government's estimate of the costs of evaluating not only the system but training shipmasters, officers and pilots in its operation and maintenance?
I have three short questions. The Minister may have time to respond to them today, but if he does not I should like him to write to me. First, is he aware that the chief inspector of marine accidents, Rear Admiral J. S. Lang, had no direct involvement in the development of AIS, nor did he contribute to the deliberations on SOLAS? Secondly, is he satisfied that the proposed statutory instrument is intra vires in committing the UK to adopt amendments to chapter V of SOLAS, which
"embrace modern and future technologies for navigational instruments"?
Finally, is he convinced that
"As a signatory of SOLAS, the UK Government is obliged to implement this revision of SOLAS",
and that
"as the UK took part in the negotiations at IMO that agreed the revision of Chapter V, the UK is content with the provisions as they stand"?
If so, what is the point of the consultation called for by merchant shipping legislation?
12.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on raising these important matters. I also congratulate him on the clarity with which he raised so many points. He listed a number of chilling statistics of loss at sea. He also gave an excellent summary of the events leading up to the sinking of MV Derbyshire and what has happened since. I associate myself with his words of congratulation to the MV Derbyshire Family Association on their relentless campaigning for improvements to safety at sea.
The debate has given us an interesting tour of the coasts of this country. We have been to Cornwall and to Wales, and we have been down to Dover. I am not sure how much coastline there is in Bolton.
Dr. Iddon: We have a canal.
Mr. Jamieson: Notwithstanding that, I recognise my hon. Friend's enormous interest in these matters. One does not have to come from a seafaring constituency to have a profound interest in these important matters.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) was very engaging and I will try to answer some of his points. Some of the issues regarding the environment perhaps went a little beyond the scope of my responsibilities and
212WH
the debate. However, he raised the important issue of the shipments of materials from Japan. I can assure him that all the International Maritime Organisation requirements will be met on those shipments. They will be transported in packages that meet all the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency. I can assure him that the Government and my Department are taking a great interest in those matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) made an excellent contribution. As a slight diversion, I should like to congratulate her on her recent marriage. It is not true that the first 20 years are the worst. It is the first 25 years, and I have well surpassed that already. In the event of a major incident in Falmouth or anywhere else that exceeded the abilities of the harbour authorities, the Secretary of State's representative for salvage and intervention would take over the command and control. That was one of my hon. Friend's concerns. That is covered in the United Kingdom's national contingency plan, and it is supplemented by the port marine safety code.
A number of hon. Members raised the issue of flags of convenience. Some flags of convenience give considerable cause for concern, but the main concern is substandard ships, not just the flag of convenience. It may be more meaningful to talk about substandard ships. The UK has been at the forefront of achieving international agreement to improve the safety and environmental performance of ships on whatever register they are placed. As several hon. Members mentioned, the port state control plays an important part in that.
Moving seamlessly to the criticism of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency that was made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), I daresay that any organisation could be criticised. However, Maurice Storey is an outstanding person, and his leadership of the new organisation has been exceptional. The agency is now organised and highly competent and has responded to many of the points that have been made. One of its tasks is the port state control. The hon. Gentleman said that the agency should focus on the riskiest vessels, which it is doing. Another criticism was that more attention should be paid to human factors. Everyone would agree with that, including the agency. If the hon. Gentleman visited the agency and availed himself of the relevant information, he might change some of the views that he expressed today.
Mr. Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has already taken too long, to judge by some faces. I may give way to him on another occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) made some important points about the working time directive and the fatigue experienced by people working at sea. He will know that the UK ratified the International Labour Organisation's convention 180 on limits on hours of work. We will shortly introduce the EC directive on the working hours of seafarers into UK law, and I assure him that the Government place great importance on safety and fatigue.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) made an engagingly short speech, on which I congratulate him. It was a model of how much one can

213WH
say in a short period. It was so good that I will take up his kind offer of some time ago to visit the Shetland Isles and partake of some of the fine hospitality available in that part of the country. I may visit some time in August, and I should be delighted to see the hon. Gentleman if he is not holidaying in the Mediterranean. He raised the important issue of sea fishing safety. I agree that the problem is the lack of a safety culture. We support the call for fishermen to wear lifejackets, which can now be worn without hindering fishing and moving around on deck. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is working with the industry to change the culture, and we are grateful for the support of the national fishing federations in that work. There is much to he done. The record of safety in the fishing industry is appalling. It has got worse rather than better in recent years, and is of great concern to us.
In the few minutes that are available to me, I want to make some general points and move to some of the important points that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. It goes without saying that shipping is vital to world trade. It is a growing global and highly competitive business. We should be on our guard to ensure that healthy competition thrives, but not at the expense of safety, which should be our paramount concern. As has been said, bulk carriers have an unfortunate safety record. The Government deplore the loss of life suffered by seafarers serving on them, and acknowledge the contribution made by the Derbyshire Family Association.
The association is now at last witnessing progress as the IMO takes decisions stemming from Mr. Justice Colman's recommendations that will make a real difference to the safety of seafarers serving on such ships. In May, the maritime safety committee of the IMO agreed two new regulations. The first was to install water ingress alarms that can be monitored from the bridge in holds and forward spaces. That issue was raised earlier. The second was to fit pump systems in forward spaces so that they can be operated without the need to traverse exposed and treacherous decks, such as those on the Derbyshire when it went down.
The new regulations could not be more pertinent to the loss of the Derbyshire, which sank rapidly, without warning and without a distress signal. The installation of alarms warning of bow flooding would have given Captain Underhill, the master of the Derbyshire, a chance to take early action to protect his ship. Had pumping systems been accessible, he might have been able to save his ship, issue a distress signal or, failing all else, given his crew a chance to abandon ship. By implementing the regulations, we will afford protection to the masters and crews of bulk carriers that was not available to those on the Derbyshire.
These achievements do not give us cause to relax our efforts. At an IMO meeting next month, the United Kingdom will introduce proposals to update the hatch cover design criteria in the current revision of the 1988 load line protocol, which was mentioned by several hon. Members. That work draws heavily upon the results of model tests that were initiated following the reopened formal investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire, which found that the collapse of hatch covers subsequent to bow flooding had led to the loss.
214WH
The Government know that their ability to improve bulk carrier safety lies in reaching international agreement at the IMO. Such agreement is most readily reached when proposed safety measures have passed the test of formal safety assessment to show that they are cost effective. The UK is leading an international collaborative formal safety assessment study on bulk carriers, which will submit its report to the maritime safety committee in December. The study considers an array of safety measures, many of which build on Mr. Justice Colman's recommendations, for both new and existing bulk carriers of different sizes. Many of the measures are passing the test, and I assure hon. Members that the UK will vigorously pursue their implementation aboard bulk carriers.
I should add that the European directive on the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers will he implemented shortly. It is relevant to my hon. Friends the Members for Dover and for Falmouth and Camborne, as it will ensure that bulk carriers calling at EU ports are loaded and unloaded correctly. That is vital, since stress and/or damage caused to the hull while the vessel is handled in port carries with it the risk of subsequent catastrophic failure at sea.
I should like to comment briefly on human factors, because they underlie much of what has been said today. The large majority of shipping accidents are caused by the human factor, not structural or equipment failures. That is not to say that seafarers should take the blame for the majority of shipping accidents. All too frequently accidents occur because the seafarers concerned are poorly trained or rewarded, badly motivated, or simply overworked with overlong shifts. Too much may have been expected from individual seafarers, and in such circumstances even the best-found ship in structural and equipment terms is a safety risk.
The need to improve the standards of training for seafarers has been recognised for some time. It might surprise many to learn that until fairly recently there was no international mandatory requirement for basic safety training, and nor were the necessary maritime skills specified. That has been addressed by the IMO in a revision of the international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers, which is now in force internationally. I hope that that covers the points made about that matter.
The problem of seafarer fatigue through overwork, which is a frequent contributor to marine accidents, has also been addressed. A European directive placing limits on seafarers' hours of work will come into force shortly.
Mr. Moss: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: Several important matters were also raised in the debate, but little time—perhaps only 15 seconds—is available.
Mr. Moss: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Jamieson: If any hon. Members want further to raise any of those matters with me, I shall endeavour to provide an effective response.
Mr. Moss: I have a quick question.
Mr. Jimmy Hood (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) should not heckle the Minister from a sedentary position.

Hospital Chaplaincy
12.30 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: It is a pleasure to initiate this short debate this morning and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. Only an hour and a half ago I sat down after winding up the debate on education in the cities, so I hope that the Minister will be generous if my thoughts are not quite as well collected as they should be.
This is an important subject, relating to an unintended consequence of the Data Protection Act 1998 for the work of hospital chaplains. My constituent, Rev. Graeme Skinner, the vicar of St. Mary Magdalene church in Sale, first raised the issue with me in March this year. He wrote to say that he was deeply concerned about the impact of the Data Protection Act on hospital chaplaincy. He described the Act as "a millstone" for the ministry and, since then, he has expressed the fear that hospital chaplaincy might be marginalized by the application of its provisions.
I should like to express my gratitude to several people in various churches who wrote to give me useful information and guidance in a complex area of law, especially Rev. Edward Lewis of the Hospital Chaplaincies Council.
In March this year I first raised my concerns on behalf of the Rev. Skinner with the Leader of the House, who kindly undertook to examine the matter further. He said that it was important that
"a law that was intended to protect our people benefits them rather than detracts from their quality of life."—[Official Report, 21 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 441.]
I wholeheartedly endorse that view which, if we can find our way through the current difficulties, should become part of the law.
I then pursued the matter with a letter to the Leader of the House, asking about the outcome of his further investigations. On Wednesday 24 April I received this response:
"Where a patient is incapable of providing consent, perhaps through serious or terminal illness, it is possible for hospital staff to disclose religious affiliation, as this may in the circumstances be in the best interests of the patient…The Department of Health is currently considering the need to issue guidance on this matter."—[Official Report, 24 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 293W.]
As the Minister knows, I pursued the matter more recently with her through questions to the Lord Chancellor's Department. On 11 June she said:
"The Data Protection Act does not prevent hospitals from passing on information about a patient's religion, but it states that they can do so only with the patient's consent or, if the patient is unable to give that consent, if it is in their vital interest."—[Official Report, 11 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 713.]
The question whether the law applies to hospital trusts in respect of whether they are permitted to pass information on to chaplaincies is complex. It is now causing difficulties for several trusts and they want to find a way through them.
216WH
I received a letter from a hospital chaplain who told me that in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), the Minister replied that
"the Department of Health's patient empowerment team is working on new guidance for chaplains with the multi-faith joint national working group"—[Official Report, 11 June 2002; Vol. 386, c. 714.]
The letter continued that it was interesting to note that a member of the joint national working group knows nothing about such dialogue. There appears to be some confusion about the steps being taken, in good faith, by all parties to try to resolve the difficulties.
I hope that the debate will be an opportunity at least to begin to clear up the confusion that is impeding hospital chaplaincies in carrying out their ministry. I received a letter recently from the chairman of an NHS hospital trust in the north-west of England, which has encountered some difficulties in this regard, but has taken a clear stand that it will continue, as far as it is humanly possible, to pass on information about patients' religious affiliation or denomination to the hospital chaplaincies in whatever way it can. The letter states:
"One must wonder why legislation from the start of the NHS has demanded that the NHS employs chaplains of many faiths within hospitals. If they are not there to assist people in their mental or physical healing, and in their spiritual needs at the time of death, and if it had not been considered to be a vital part of support in hospitals then legislation would not have demanded their existence. The same of course applies to their role in prisons and other institutions."
The current legal situation appears to be that, in ordinary circumstances, personal information, of which the religious affiliation or denomination of a patient may be an example, cannot be passed on to a third party without consent. In some interpretations of some aspects of the legislation, that requirement is qualified further, stating that explicit consent must be given. However, I understand that schedule 3 of the Data Protection Act 1998 provides the Secretary of State with powers to exclude the need for explicit consent which may, in itself, provide a way out of the problems that have arisen. The letter from the chairman of the NHS trust continued, compellingly:
"Our view is that we have a first priority to do whatever we can for our patients and of course for their carers and relatives. In our view we believe we should continue to assist the chaplains by providing information. I am taking advice from our lawyers on this matter and what steps we may need to take as a Board to record and minute this decision so that staff may act with proper authority and cover."
The Minister, having had experience in the Department of Health as well as in her current brief, will be aware that the need to clarify the situation could be an unwelcome and costly difficulty for NHS trusts. Hundreds of different bodies within the national health service may need to seek guidance and take legal advice on the circumstances in which prohibition from passing on the information might apply.
The picture so far appears to be patchy. It seems that some trusts are proceeding as if nothing had changed, some are taking guidance about the fact that the law has changed and now applies to their actions, and are taking it very seriously, and others are deeply concerned that they get it right, but do not yet know the answer and are in a state of confusion. One way of ensuring that proper legal permission is obtained for passing the information

217WH
to chaplaincies is to seek consent when the patient arrives at the hospital and the information is logged in. Again, however, it appears that the technology has not facilitated that in some circumstances, especially where computer technology is involved. I have heard of at least one instance where the software for the patient administration system—I think it is called that, but the Minister will know better than I do—would need to be changed to accommodate this factor. There are clear cost and time implications for trusts if they want to take this action. It is important that the Government give clear guidance on whether they expect trusts to take this route.
Some trusts are being as co-operative as they can and are seeking to help the chaplains to fulfil what I am sure we would all agree is a vital function to support some of the most vulnerable people at a time of great need. However, other trusts are being less co-operative. A hospital chaplain who has been having considerable difficulties wrote to me:
"Before February 2001 I did not have to worry too much about the Data Protection Act 1998. Until that time I had worked in an NHS Trust where Chaplaincy was well integrated and had a long and valued history. It was seen to be an indispensable part of the overall care team. I was designated chaplain to the oncology wards and participated fully in the inter-professional team meetings. There were no impediments to the flow of appropriate information to Chaplaincy. Then last year everything changed and I have been on a very steep learning curve!"
He goes on to point out that there are some remarkable discrepancies between categories of employees who may have access to the information. In some circumstances, the ward clerk or a receptionist may have access to information about a patient's religious affiliation, but the chaplain does not.
A key point arises about exemptions that can be applied under the Data Protection Act 1998. Two exemptions under paragraph 8 of schedule 3 cover the circumstances where
"The processing is necessary for medical purposes and is undertaken by—

(a) a health professional, or

(b) a person who in the circumstances owes a duty of confidentiality which is equivalent to that which would arise if that person were a health professional."

One could argue that both limbs would allow exemption for information to be passed to hospital chaplaincies. It could also be argued that the first limb applies. In 1998, Lloyd determined that "medical purposes" could be defined broadly to include
"preventative medicine, medical diagnosis, medical research"
and "the provision of care". Clearly, the chaplaincy provides spiritual care as part of a multidisciplinary team for someone undergoing treatment, and we need to be clear whether the first limb applies. There is a strong argument that the second limb of exemption applies.
There is a further complication that the restrictions imposed by the Act may conflict with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives patients the right, as enshrined in article 9 of the European convention on human rights, to manifest his or her religion in worship, teaching, practice and observance. The regulations may be in conflict with that right and may have serious consequences for minority faith groups such as Jews, Muslims and Roman Catholics. Many of those groups have particularly high
218WH
expectations of chaplaincy support, not least the Roman Catholic community, especially in circumstances of serious illness.
I want to make sure that the Minister has adequate time to respond so I shall draw my remarks to a close. It is increasingly clear from the many representations that I have received—the Minister knows of such representations because she has told me in the House that several hon. Members have been in touch with the Department of Health or the Lord Chancellor's Department about such concerns—that there is a problem for hospital chaplaincies seeking to fulfil their ministry. The problem may arise from confusion or from a lack of clear, robust guidance from the Department of Health, the Lord Chancellor's Department or the data protection registrar. There is urgent need for such guidance, from all three sources. If it fails to resolve what is a problem that affects many people in serious need, I seek an undertaking from the Minister that she and her Department will consider amending the law to make proper provision.
12.47 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on securing the debate on an issue that he has raised several times in the House and about which he has considerable concerns. As he said, it covers the areas of responsibility of two Departments. The Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for data protection and the Department of Health for many issues involving hospital chaplains. Health Ministers are aware of the concerns that some hospital chaplains have raised about the effect of the Data Protection Act 1998 and I will ensure that today's debate is drawn to their attention.
I shall set out the background principles behind the 1998 Act. An important principle of consent underlies that Act and the policies in the area. The Act gives effect to the 1995 EC data protection directive, which is binding on the United Kingdom. Although the United Kingdom has had data protection law since 1984, changes were necessary in order to comply with the directive. The 1998 Act requires organisations processing personal data to comply with an enforceable set of rules known as the data protection principles, which cover requirements on the fair and lawful processing of personal data and the processing of data for specific purposes. Many of those principles applied under the 1984 Act, but the directive added some requirements, in particular, broad, statutory conditions, one of which has to be met before personal data may be processed. Those requirements are set out in schedule 2 to the 1998 Act.
Under the directive, certain information, including that on an individual's religious beliefs and health, has to be treated as particularly sensitive. More detailed conditions govern the processing of such data which are, as the hon. Member said, set out in schedule 3 of the Act. Meeting one of the conditions does not remove the need to comply with the broader data protection principles but it is a necessary prior requirement. In some circumstances, the common law duty of confidence may also apply to the information about religion provided to hospitals by patients. That means that the information may not be disclosed under those circumstances by the

219WH
hospital, including to a hospital chaplain, unless the individual has consented or there is an overriding public interest.
The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998 and the work of the hospital chaplains. The service provided by hospital chaplains to patients who want spiritual care and support can have a greatly beneficial effect, and we should support them in their work. Hospitals routinely ask people who are admitted for treatment about their religion. Certainly, in the past, much of that information was made available to hospital chaplains, although it is interesting that certain issues surrounding the duty of confidence are unchanged because they were not changed by the 1998 Act, so there are some complicated legal issues in that area.
Mr. Brady: Does the Minister accept that the underlying purpose of the duty of confidence and the convention is to protect a person from discrimination and persecution? It is not to prevent someone from being put in touch with another person who can minister to their spiritual needs, where religious affiliation implies that such a person's assistance would be welcome.
Yvette Cooper: I recognise that some people might welcome the support and care, but the issue is difficult because if people do not consent to information being passed on or explicitly withhold their consent, it is difficult to argue that their consent should be overridden, even for the sake of something that we would all consider to be worth while. Some people will not want to discuss their situation with the hospital chaplain and will not want information to be passed on, so we need to tread carefully around issues relating to consent and sensitive information.
Individuals should have some control over how their personal information is used. Although there may be circumstances in which information should be passed on, in that person's interest or the public interest, there may also be situations in which it is important to respect the principle of consent. Hospitals are permitted to disclose to hospital chaplains the religious affiliations of patients whose explicit consent has been obtained. Emergency cases, in which the patient is unconscious or unable to give explicit consent, are covered by the schedule 3 condition relating to an individual's vital interests.
Concern has been raised that, under the framework, with its explicit respect for consent, hospital chaplains may not be able to carry out their work. It is important that they should provide care for those who want it, and we must deal with the genuine concerns that have been raised and the confusion described by the hon. Gentleman. However, at this stage, I am not convinced that a case has been made for an additional condition to be laid down under the 1998 Act. The principle of consent is important, and a sufficiently strong case has not been made for why it should be overridden and why information should be passed on in normal circumstances where someone has not given, or has explicitly withheld, consent, particularly because it is possible for consent to be sought and given when the information is initially sought.
220WH
I have been told about trusts where consent is routinely sought and where hospital chaplains are working well, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern that, in some places, that is not happening and difficulties are being faced. The Department of Health recognises the need for guidance with regard to confidentiality and data protection.
The patient information advisory group has been asked to consider the matter. It will shortly provide Health Ministers with advice. In addition, my Department is drawing up a code of practice on confidentiality and consent for people working in the NHS. The multi-faith joint national working group is working with officials of the Department of Health on advice and information for hospital chaplains. The hon. Gentleman asked what work has been going on and who is involved. I shall pass the question to the Department, which will reply directly to him.
Considerable work is being done. Where there is evidence that it is possible to work within the existing framework without overriding the important principle of consent, our first task should be to see what works successfully in some parts of the NHS and replicate that across the service. The Information Commissioner has also considered the matter. In her view, an adequate case has not been made for an additional condition, and it should be possible for hospitals to seek consent at the same time as they give—
Mr. Brady: The Minister makes the case that it might not be necessary to change the law. I accept that. It might be possible to arrive at a sensible accommodation. Can she give me the Government's view on whether the two exemptions in schedule 3 apply?
Yvette Cooper: I will come to that.
The hon. Gentleman raised the matter of whether chaplains are considered to be health professionals, or responsible for care. The interpretation of the Act is the responsibility of the Information Commissioner. She has set out her view that consent should be sought before information can be passed on to hospital chaplains, except in cases in which consent cannot be given.
Much wider questions about the definition of health professionals and the way in which they are classified arise. They cannot be answered purely in the context of data protection. In the first instance, they would have to be raised with the Department of Health and the Health Professions Council in terms of the nature of health professionals and the way in which hospital chaplains want to be regarded.
There are a number of ways in which the problem should be able to be addressed within the existing framework. I take the hon. Gentleman's concerns seriously and I shall follow the progress that is made in the development of the guidance. We want to ensure that people can conduct their work, which is beneficial to many patients. However, the case has not been made that that is not possible under the Act. Wherever possible, we must respect the important principle of consent, which the Government rightly placed at the core of the Data Protection Act, particularly where sensitive data is concerned. I hope that we shall be able to resolve people's concerns. Given that that has been achieved in many areas, I hope that it will also be possible right across the NHS.

Deep Vein Thrombosis
12.59 pm
Mr. John Smith: Let me start by saying how much I welcome the opportunity to speak about the important subject of flight-related deep vein thrombosis. This is the first debate to be dedicated solely to the issue, although it follows on from an excellent debate in January 2001 on the health issues associated with flying. That debate was initiated by my hon. and distinguished Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), and I am delighted that he is here today. Some considerable time has, however, elapsed since then.
My hon. Friend's debate followed on from a significant report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, which drew attention to several flight-related health issues, including, for the first time, deep vein thrombosis. The Committee made several sensible and important recommendations, and I am glad to say that the Government have taken up many of them. The most important was that they should commission a major epidemiological study into the incidence, causes and extent of flight-related deep vein thrombosis. We do not know for definite the full scale of the problem, although my view is that it is potentially a major public health hazard.
Since that distinguished report was published nearly two years ago, several significant, albeit small, research studies have been carried out. The Committee did not have them at its disposal when it considered the issue, and I believe that they prove beyond all doubt that there is a theoretical link between air travel and deep vein thrombosis. Indeed, all serious scientists working in this area around the world accept that, although they are not sure about the extent of the relationship or the exact cause of the problem.
The other findings from the key bits of research that have been undertaken since the report was published suggest that the problem is much bigger than we first imagined. For example, research by Gianni Belcaro suggests that as many as 5 per cent. of those who fly long haul contract blood clots in their lower limbs simply because they are sitting in cramped spaces for long periods. Their blood pools and stagnates in their lower limbs, feet and ankles, which, in cabin conditions, causes clotting. In the last year for which records are available, 133 million passengers flew abroad from Britain alone, so an enormous number of people might be affected if the 5 per cent. figure is right. I am not saying that it is right, but as an indication of the proportion of those who might be affected, it suggests that we are talking about more than 6 million people.
Since the publication of the distinguished House of Lords report, our own leading expert in Britain, Professor John Scurr, whom the report mentioned, has carried out further research. Although he used a small sample of slightly more than 200 people, his research shows that as many as one in 10 passengers who fly long haul develop blood clots in their lower limbs. If that is right, huge numbers of people may be affected by deep vein thrombosis. Professor Scurr's report also noted that no less than 40 per cent. of the 10 per cent. of people who develop blood clots went on to develop a deep vein
222WH
thrombosis, which could, without treatment, cause a pulmonary embolism and, in many cases, death. That is the major problem that we have with this public health issue: we are dealing with a stealth disease.
The vast majority of cases of flight-related deep vein thrombosis in this country go undiagnosed. because it can take from four to nine days for the blood clots, which are often without symptoms, to develop into a deep vein thrombosis and then up to several weeks before the thrombosis moves from the lower leg to the heart or lungs and kills the person. That is a major problem, and because we do not, and possibly cannot, record the incidents of DVT that are related to air travel, we do not know the full extent of the problem.
My interest in the subject is well established. A constituent of mine died in tragic circumstances two years ago yesterday. John Anthony Thomas, a 30-year-old policeman in the prime of his life, was not just fit and healthy, but athletic. He returned from a once-in-a-lifetime honeymoon holiday in Hawaii, and in a couple of weeks he was dead. He was buried in the same church as he had been married in several weeks earlier, which is a tragedy in anyone's imagination. I went to see the family, but I must admit that my initial reaction was that it was just one of those tragedies. It was a very sad event, but I saw it just as a one-off act of God.
Before speaking to the Thomas family I had no reason to believe anything else. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas told me that they only made the connection by accident after the consultant pathologist asked them whether their son had recently been on a long air journey. It did not appear on the death certificate, but it was almost certainly the preventable cause of that boy's death, which makes this a real tragedy. If he had been more aware of the condition, as many people in this country now are after the Government's good work of the past 18 months, his unnecessary death could have been avoided.
That is what created my interest in the issue, which was strengthened when we discovered that one of the clinicians involved in the case expressed the view that as many as one in five of all deep vein thromboses treated in the national health service could be related to air travel. That was qualified as a personal opinion based on anecdotal evidence, but 25,000 people are treated for DVTs by the national health service in England alone. If that physician is even remotely right, we are talking about large numbers of people. Incidentally, that view has been reinforced since the House of Lords report by research carried out by Emile Ferrari, which suggests that as many as 25 per cent. of all DVTs treated by health services, not only in the UK, could be directly attributable to travellers' thrombosis. We are talking about very big numbers, and it is a matter of great public concern. It is a stealth disease, because we do not see it coming. People are dying or being seriously injured, but we have no idea how many are affected.
I must place on record that the Government have done an enormous amount of work. Indeed, I believe that they lead the world in taking up the travelling health risks related to deep vein thrombosis. They are the leading player in the World Health Organisation research and are offering up to 2 million euros towards the research funding that was agreed last year and commenced last month. They are the first Government in the world to issue health warnings to certain

223WH
passengers of the risk of DVT. Our airlines now offer advice and issue warnings, but two years ago, when I had never heard of the problem—I heard about it only when it affected my constituent—that was unheard of.
Many strides have been made but, as I said, the most important recommendation from the House of Lords report 18 months or so ago was that we should commission a major epidemiological study of DVT. My fear, which I place on the record, is that we are probably no nearer to achieving that most important goal than we were when the Lords first reported, despite all the good work that has been and is being done. For example, following a recent meeting with the Minister responsible for aviation, it was indicated that, in the aviation White Paper to be published later this year, a Minister in the Department for Transport may well be given a clear responsibility for air passengers' health.
For those who do not know, let me explain that there is no protection as regards health for passengers who fly anywhere in the world, because under the Warsaw convention, there is liability only for their safety, not their health. However, as a result of my meeting, I believe that the Minister is considering—and the Government support—the recommendations of the Joint Aviation Authority on increasing seat spacing, not only to provide greater comfort and safety of egress in an emergency, but to look after the health and well-being of passengers, albeit under the auspices of the JAA. That means that all our European neighbours will introduce the same standards.
According to the reply to a question that I put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last November, it was decided to go for the World Health Organisation international research. That is perfectly understandable. I see where the Government are coming from in recommending that. The WHO is a distinguished body, and the world's leading experts will be involved. If the findings identify, as I am sure they will, the correlation between this condition and certain aspects of air travel, and discover its full extent, it will be much easier to make recommendations to the aviation industry worldwide, rather than perhaps penalising the British industry by introducing rules here alone.
That is all well and good, and I congratulate the Government on what they have done, but there is a problem. Sadly, the WHO has not raised adequate funding to carry out a major epidemiological study. Despite the support of the British Government and others, the study is likely to be quite limited. Indeed, just this week, one of the world's leading experts on air travel-related DVT, Professor Ross Baker of Griffith university in Australia, has said publicly that, although the limited studies to be carried out will be useful in their own right, we will be no nearer the truth at the end of them than we were at the beginning. The studies will be incomplete and inconclusive.
My concern is that, while we await the outcomes of the research, and the large randomised and epidemiological studies that we need to get to the bottom of the problem, people may die unnecessarily. That is the point. This public health issue is different from others that we have had to face, because we could take action now that might prevent those deaths. I am talking about action that is low-cost and, in some cases,
224WH
involves no cost, but that would protect the British public while we wait to find out the definitive results on the full scale and nature of the problem.
In the past, we have failed to take such action. Going through the records recently, I noticed that the danger of BSE in cattle being transferred to humans and creating a major public health problem was flagged up in a debate in the House 10 years before any action was taken. Much of the argument at the time was that we should wait until we got the science right before we made any decisions.
Dr. Ian Gibson: Can my hon. Friend say something about suing the airlines? Have there been any successful cases, or are there many going through the courts now?
Mr. Smith: The only successful case had nothing to do with the health of passengers, but involved the comfort and well-being of someone who paid to go on a holiday and found themselves cramped in the most unfortunate conditions on an aircraft.
One of the reasons why many airlines in this country give warnings and advice to their passengers is not to protect their health and well-being, but in case they are sued for negligence at some future date. They have a vested interest in providing warnings and advice as it could be used in evidence to protect them. It is difficult to sue a company because of the protection of the Warsaw convention. It is an area that needs re-examination for two reasons. First, far more people fly now and, secondly, far more people fly longer journeys to places abroad where they did not fly to before.
What action can we take now? My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has a Bill before the House, which would place a legal requirement on all airlines to provide warnings and up-to-date and accurate information to passengers. Most importantly it would force them to co-operate with the sort of research that needs to be carried out to prevent any more injuries and deaths from this dreadful condition. I lay down a challenge to the UK-registered airlines. If they are so damn sure that there is no connection between air travel and deep vein thrombosis, let them sponsor the research to prove the case once and for all. That would be the end of the matter.
If the airlines are so confident that there is no problem, they should co-operate and provide the independent research that we need. They might perhaps make a contribution to the WHO to allow that to happen. I fear, however, that they will not. I fear that the airlines, not only in this country, but throughout the world, realise that there is far more to this than meets the eye. They have known about it for quite some time. My hon. Friend's Bill is before the House. The Government could look at it carefully and consider adopting it or introducing guidelines. They are looking at guidelines for the British airline carriers. They have set up a health committee with the airline carriers within the Department for Transport and it is working well. Again, those are great strides in the right direction.
When I met my constituents I gave them a solemn undertaking that I would do all in my power to prevent any other parent—I am the father of a child of a similar age—going through the same trauma as theirs. The

225WH
debate today is part of meeting that commitment. I am doing what I can. Because of the progress that we have made over the past 18 months, I am convinced that the time will soon come when no air passenger will board a plane until they are satisfied that their health, welfare and well-being are the carriers' top priorities.
1.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) has been a tireless campaigner on this issue. I congratulate him and all the members of the all-party group who have been campaigning on these issues for some time. They have helped to raise awareness of travel-related deep vein thrombosis. As my hon. Friend said, a couple of years ago the matter was not widely known. They have been instrumental in pushing the issue up the agenda quite dramatically.
I welcome my hon. Friend's comments in support of the Government's work on this issue. In responding, it may be helpful if I set out some of the background and some of our thinking about how these issues will develop. Deep vein thrombosis occurs in about one in 1,000 of the general population, leading to around 25,000 NHS admissions each year. A small proportion may be related to air travel, but DVT is associated with a number of factors, such as immobility after surgery, being over 40 years of age, pregnancy, hormone treatments, inherited clotting factors, a family or history of DVT, and cancer, whether treated or not.
My hon. Friend rightly said that in November 2000 the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology published the findings of its inquiry into air travel and health. That comprehensive and, in many ways, ground-breaking work has set the agenda for aviation health, both here in the UK and internationally. My hon. Friend said that we are world leaders in this field. The inquiry paid particular attention to the issue of deep vein thrombosis. It identified the need to address the gaps in our scientific understanding and recommended that research be undertaken as a matter of priority.
In responding to the agenda established by the House of Lords inquiry, we recognised the need to have an integrated approach to the issue, so we set up the aviation health working group. The group is chaired by the Department for Transport, and the other permanent members include my Department, the Health and Safety Executive and the Civil Aviation Authority. In addition, industry, consumer and medical representatives are regularly invited to participate in the work of the group. It is a good example of joint working.
The Government's approach has been twofold. First, we have sought to ensure that passengers have access to the best available information to enable them to make an informed choice about air travel. Secondly, we have vigorously pursued the means to meet the gaps in our understanding of whether, and if so how, flying can increase the risk of deep vein thrombosis.
In November last year my Department issued information and advice to the airlines and the public on travel-related deep vein thrombosis. That included practical advice for passengers on long-haul flights on how to minimise the risk of DVT, including simple in-
226WH
seat exercises. It also advised passengers, where it was safe to do so, to take regular walks out of their seats and to minimise their intake of alcohol, which can lead to immobility and dehydration. It also identified certain groups who may be at a higher risk and advised them to see their GPs before travelling so they could have a one-to-one consultation about the likely risks.
To maximise access for the public to that information it was distributed to health services and UK airlines, published on the internet and given to NHS Direct. Anyone seeking telephone advice from NHS Direct can be given that good, practical advice. Further information on travel-related health issues is available in two publications: the booklet T6, entitled "Health Advice to Travellers", is available free from the health literature line. It also contains form E111, which is helpful to passengers who might need to recover costs for treatment should anything go wrong when they are travelling in the European Union. The booklet "Health Information for Overseas Travellers" also offers practical advice. It is aimed mainly at providing travel information for doctors and health care workers so that they can advise their patients. It is important to ensure that the health service is fully up to date on the latest scientific developments in this area. The information is also available on Ceefax. People can get this information from many different outlets.
We have closely monitored the use the airlines have made of that material. It would be pointless for us to issue it if the airlines did nothing with it. The British Air Transport Association has made a statement that all UK long-haul airlines are providing health information on DVT. We want to monitor that to check that it is happening. In my limited experience it is. The information is provided in a number of ways including in-flight magazines, leaflets, videos and announcements. My hon. Friend said that there is much more widespread knowledge of these issues than there was just a couple of years ago.
As far as we know, the UK is the only country that has published this kind of advice. Despite that, we recognise that more research is needed. That is why the UK Government agreed to fund up to £1.2 million towards the World Health Organisation's research into air travel and DVT. The WHO announced the launch of the study, which is also receiving funding from the European Commission, just a few weeks ago on 14 May.
The research involves the collaboration of several European universities and will be the first large-scale study to focus on the issue. The proposals include research aiming to determine the frequency and causes of travellers' thrombosis, analysis to identify those at greatest risk and, most importantly, studies to examine the effectiveness of preventive strategies. The question is not only why it is caused and what happens, but what can be done to maximise prevention. As the lead funding body, the UK Government will closely monitor the work as it progresses.
As my hon. Friend suggested, it is disappointing that other countries have not committed resources to this valuable work, but with the UK and European Commission funding, at least the first phase of the research can now get under way. I am pleased to confirm that negotiations are continuing with other member states, Governments and the Commission to attempt to secure funding for the second phase. My hon. Friend is

227WH
right to say that a wide-ranging epidemiological study is needed, as well as studies on preventive strategies and on what factors inside airline cabins might lead to increased risk of DVT. We intend to continue rigorous negotiations with other Governments to bring them on board for this research. Public awareness might well be greater in the UK than in other member states, but the research could act as a catalyst for raising awareness in other countries. I hope that that will put further pressure on Governments to participate in the studies in the second phase.
The first phase will address the critical issues, including the possible link to air travel and analysis of risk factors. As I said, we intend to use the launch to encourage others to participate. We will be actively involved in examining all phases of the research. As my hon. Friend rightly said, we must spread the knowledge that comes out of the research. I understand that the WRIGHT forum, dealing with World Health Organisation research into global hazards of travel, will be established. It will be an annual meeting at which the project's progress will be reported and new data emerging from the research will be discussed and disseminated across all member states. A scientific executive committee will attempt to assess information strategies and ensure that, as the research emerges, the widest possible group of people will gain knowledge and take practical steps to minimise the effects on families. My hon. Friend has described the tragic consequences of deep vein thrombosis and my sympathies go out to all families that have lost a loved one as a result of DVT. I know that my hon. Friend has maintained close contact with many of those affected.
In concluding this debate I would like to pay tribute to these families' hard work in campaigning on this issue. Families and parliamentarians have been equally active. Genuine progress has been made since the House of Lords inquiry. It is fair to point to the now widespread public awareness of the disease. The public now has much greater access to advice, which should enable them to make well-informed judgments about minimising risks. For the vast majority of passengers, travel by air has no effect on their health. Although no human activity can be made entirely risk free, by using easy-to-follow advice and taking sensible precautions, all passengers can minimise their level of risk.
Deep vein thrombosis is not just an issue for the UK. In taking forward the recommendations of the House of Lords inquiry, we can claim to be leading the way internationally. All involved, including my Department, the Department for Transport, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Health and Safety Executive, industry and groups such as the all-party committee, have come a long way. We must keep up the momentum, and the World Health Organisation's research will help to provide the impetus. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to press the Government to do even more to ensure that we avoid the sorts of tragedies that he highlighted today.

Export Controls (Tanzania)
1.29 pm
Norman Lamb: It is appropriate to offer my condolences to the families of all those who died in the tragic rail crash in Tanzania that was reported yesterday. That is the last thing the country needs.
I shall set out in detail the results of my research into the extraordinary story of how a British arms manufacturer came to sell a totally inappropriate military air traffic control system to Tanzania. I shall give the history of the scandal, before dealing with the role of Barclays bank in facilitating the deal, and with the case for reforming Government procedures, which is long overdue.
Tanzania is one of the world's poorest countries. In 1998, its per capita gross national product was $220. In the same year, its external debt was $7,603 million. It became eligible for, and received, debt relief amounting to some $3 billion under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. It first made enquiries about purchasing an air traffic control system in 1993, when it invited tenders, but it was not until 1997 that a part-owned subsidiary of BAE Systems made a slightly adjusted application through the preliminary advice process—the F680 procedure—for an export licence, to be agreed by the United Kingdom, for a military-capable system to be designed and manufactured by BAE Systems.
F680 is a preliminary advisory process for companies that want to export military equipment that requires an export licence. It is a Ministry of Defence procedure, despite the fact that a different Department—the Department of Trade and Industry—will consider the export licence application. According to the House of Commons Library, it seems that all sides consider a positive indication under this procedure to be "preliminary clearance". The Ministry of Defence gave advice and preliminary clearance on the BAE system in August 1997. The Department for International Development was not consulted, and did not even know about it. In effect, that gave the green light for the whole deal to proceed, despite the fact that the export licence application was not considered until December 2001. Tanzania and BAE Systems entered into a binding contract for the purchase of the military system, and the Tanzanian Government confirmed the financial package to the International Monetary Fund. In a communication to the IMF dated 18 July 2000, the Tanzanian Government claims that
"we were unable to finance it through bilateral or multilateral aid. We nonetheless were able to obtain bank and supplier financing of US $35 million on concessional terms that comply with the performance criterion on external borrowing".
I shall return to those criteria.
As we now know, a loan from Barclays bank facilitated the purchase. Despite the Tanzanian Government's claim in the letter of intent to the IMF that financing came from "bank and supplier", BAE Systems claimed to me that it was not party to the financing arrangements
"which were entered into between Barclays Bank and the Government of Tanzania."

229WH
However, it is worth noting that, as at 12 September last year, Barclays bank plc held an interest in 93,632,529 ordinary shares in BAE Systems.
In a letter to me, the IMF confirmed that the 1999 financing package
"yielded a weighted average grant element of 35.9%."
Barclays bank has not explained why, as a commercial lender, it has seen fit to subsidise heavily an arms sale to a highly indebted developing country. Tanzania accepts that the system is designed, in part, for military purposes. In their letter of intent to the IMF dated 18 July 2000, the Tanzanian Government state:
"For safety reasons, we have acquired a new radar system to strengthen air traffic control in Tanzania…the system will also be used for military purposes".
It is the military dimension of the air traffic control system that has been the cause of its considerable expense. David Rider of Jane's Air Traffic Control told the BBC that the BAE system was an air defence system under another name and was "far too expensive" for a civilian system. I have now been told that even the military capability of the system is inadequate. It covers only about one third of the country, and two more systems would be needed to cover the whole country. The civilian capability covers only the area around Dar Es Salaam and Mount Kilimanjaro airport.
In a preliminary report responding to questions from the World Bank dated 29 October 2001, the International Civil Aviation Organisation stated that
"these systems have been designed for military purposes…The high cost of these systems are related to the military components and sub-systems inherent in the design."
The report also indicated that the system used ageing technology and was
"not adequate and too expensive"
to be used primarily for civil air traffic control purposes. I understand that the further report prepared by ICAO following an in-depth study of the system will not contradict those conclusions. Indeed, it seems worse than that, as someone at the World Bank described it to me as a bombshell. It seems as if a modern civilian system could have been purchased for as little as $5 million, compared with the actual cost of this useless system of about $40 million. It is a white elephant, and there is no point attempting to adapt it because it would be cheaper to start again.
On the deal's finance, Barclays bank claimed in a letter to me on 8 April 2002 that
"Barclays support for defence related exports is dependent on the appropriate export licence being granted".
However, the Department of Trade and Industry Minister responsible for export control revealed that the Government only approved the export licences in December 2001, which was two years after Barclays had agreed subsidised financing, as reported to the IMF. In a further letter of 3 May 2002, the bank suggested that it had received "Government approval in principle" at an early stage, presumably under the F680 procedure. However, it refused to discuss details of the Tanzania deal.
Tanzania is part of the debt initiative for heavily indebted poor countries, so it had to satisfy the International Monetary Fund that the loan from Barclays was at concessional rates. A heavily indebted
230WH
poor country that is receiving debt relief cannot secure a commercial loan for military equipment, so it had to show that the rates were concessional to fulfil its obligations under the HIPC initiative. The IMF confirms that it accepted that the loan was at concessional rather than commercial rates. It said that
"the terms of the financing package obtained by Tanzania in 1999 for its air traffic control system yielded a weighted average grant element of 35.9 per cent., which is consistent with the definition of concessionality under the terms of the IMF's concessional loan facility, the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility".
I have written to Barclays twice to find out why it got involved in the deal, but have so far received no explanation. Someone at the World Bank told me last week that he had never before come across a commercial organisation subsidising the purchase of military equipment by a heavily indebted poor country. It does not make sense. In the absence of a proper explanation from Barclays, others are inevitably trying to establish the truth. Various theories have been put forward. Barclays might simply have had a fit of generosity, but that seems unlikely. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that, on 11 October 2000, Barclays secured a banking licence to operate in Tanzania. Was that the payback for subsidising the deal? The other more sinister explanation is that the contract price was fiddled and artificially inflated so that it looked to the outside world as if Barclays was providing a concessional loan, which was necessary to get the deal past the IMF.
Perhaps Barclays provided a commercial loan on a lower sum, which seems to be the view of the Secretary of State for International Development. On 15 May, she said in Parliament:
"Somehow, a loan from Barclays bank, which is funding the project—there is no way that Barclays can provide concessional funding—has been reported to the IMF as being concessional, so the project squeaked through, which is very odd."—[Official Report, 15 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 763.]
If that is correct, then it seems that there has been fraud. When a Secretary of State alludes to corruption, surely it is time thoroughly to investigate the financing of the deal. I have also been told that bungs were paid to oil the wheels of the deal.
Did the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry know of those bizarre financing arrangements when she decided to grant the export licence in December last year? If so, what inquiries did she make, and what did she discover? Furthermore, did she know about the allegations that bungs or bribes were being paid? I challenge Barclays to clear the matter up once and for all. The longer that it remains silent, the more suspicion will grow about the propriety of the deal.
The latest development is that the full ICAO report on the system has been completed and sent to the Tanzanian and U K Governments. I understand that the World Bank wanted Tanzania to publish the report, but so far it has failed to do so. It now appears that BAE Systems has produced six pages of comment on the report. The Tanzanian President has also questioned some of the technical details. Apparently, nothing will be published until those issues have been considered. I also understand that the president of the World Bank will visit Tanzania soon to discuss the deal.

231WH
Furthermore, the Tanzanian President has written to the Prime Minister to ask for help in extricating Tanzania from that disaster.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Tanzania, I offer my sincere condolences to the Tanzanian people for the deaths of more than 200 people near Igandu.
We are aware of the privity of the contract between the Government and Barclays, and the procedures that the hon. Gentleman has so strenuously outlined. Given that, is he aware that a solution might have been for the Tanzanian Government to be responsible for, say, £9 million of the contract, which would have sorted out the Dar Es Salaam domestic air traffic control requirements, and on the back of the Dar Es Salaam bombing and particularly in the light of 11 September—
Mr. Jimmy Hood (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman should only be making an intervention.
Norman Lamb: In response to what I understand the hon. Gentleman's question to be, the Tanzanian people must not be punished as a result of that disaster. The finger must be pointed at the Government and the role of Barclays bank and BAE Systems.
The Ministry of Defence's F680 application procedure must be re-examined. In response to every question that I put to the Ministry on the matter, I have been told that it provides guidance only at the marketing stage and that it in no way compromises the consideration by the Department of Trade and Industry of a subsequent application for an export licence. That is clearly not true in the BAE Systems case. The F680 clearance led to the signing of a binding contract, the finalising of a subsidised loan from Barclays, the building of most of the equipment and the payment of at least $15 million to BAE Systems before the application for an export licence was considered. Is that really how the system is supposed to work? Is the Secretary of State happy with being presented with a fait accompli in that way? If the F680 application process is not to undermine proper consideration of export licence applications, all relevant Departments must be consulted in such cases. Companies must surely be advised that, should they win the tender, they should apply for the export licence before entering a binding contract.
With regard to the rules on the granting of export licences, the Government's response to the Lords amendments to the Export Control Bill has weakened the sustainability test. Although the Bill is a step in the right direction, crucially, after its passage through Parliament, it will still be possible for that scandal to be repeated. The Secretary of State is supposed to have regard for the so-called consolidated criteria, no. 8 of which addresses development concerns. That criterion was clearly ignored in the case of BAE Systems. I understand that jobs and the interests of BAE Systems were the decisive factors. That means that we continue to have inconsistent Government policy across Departments. The International Development Act 2002 contains at its core the test of sustainable development. The Export Credits Guarantee Department has now built sustainability into its procedures.
232WH
In a speech made by the Chancellor in 1997 in Mauritius, he said:
"We need to make sure that poor countries never again become saddled with insupportable debt burdens. The UK will ensure that export credits for poor, highly-indebted countries will only support productive expenditure."
If only that were the case with this scandal. We have a much more relaxed approach to arms sales. The lobbying of the arms industry has presumably paid off. That needs to change.
It also worries me that there is such a close relationship between the Government and BAE Systems. First, we know that BAE provided £12 million in sponsorship for the mind zone at the dome, presumably not long after preliminary clearance was given by the Ministry of Defence. Secondly, on 16 May 2002, it was announced that Sir Richard Evans, chairman of BAE Systems, was to lead the new aerospace innovation and growth team, a joint Government-industry group, the purpose of which is to
"secure agreement between government and the industry on a shared vision and strategy."
Thirdly, I understand that BAE had eight staff working for free, on secondment, at the Ministry of Defence. Although I would not necessarily object to any of those initiatives on its own, a picture develops of an over-close, unhealthy relationship. I would like the Minister to respond to that concern.
I hope that the Minister will respond directly to the detailed points and questions that I have raised today. There is a real need for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the whole saga, which, so far, we have not had. I hope that the Minister will, at least, provide straightforward answers, so that we can start to understand how that outrage occurred and find a way of preventing its repetition. I hope that he will not be tempted to suggest that my concerns about wrongdoing are in any way irresponsible. It is clear from several parliamentary exchanges that the Secretary of State for International Development shares our concerns, and I urge the Minister to accept that to give debt relief and millions of pounds in aid to Tanzania while foisting a useless military system on that country makes absolute nonsense of Government policy.
1.47 pm
The Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions (Alan Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate, and I add my condolences to the families of those who died in yesterday's tragic rail crash in Tanzania.
The Foreign Secretary made it clear in his oral evidence to the Quadripartite Committee on 21 March that the Government's decision to issue two export licences in December 2001 in no way obliged the Tanzanian Government to proceed with the purchase of an air traffic control system. That decision has always been for the Tanzanian Government. The question for our Government was whether the licence applications contravened the consolidated criteria announced to Parliament in October 2000, and whether the proposed export would seriously undermine Tanzania's economy or seriously hamper its sustainable development, contrary to criterion 8 mentioned by the hon.

233WH
Gentleman. The decision to issue the licences stands, and the Government have no intention of revoking them.
I now turn to the issues raised in the recent International Civil Aviation Organisation report and the allegation that the system is a waste of money. I reiterate that our decision to issue the licences did not oblige the Tanzanian Government to proceed with the purchase of an air traffic control system. It is essentially a commercial transaction between Tanzania and a British company. The Tanzanian Government must decide which system best meets their needs, and the ICAO report raises several issues to be dealt with by them.
The UK Government have been at the forefront of international efforts to strengthen the regulation of the arms trade and to deal with proliferation. We were instrumental in obtaining agreement for an EU code of conduct on arms exports, including the sustainable development criterion, which is at the heart of this debate. As Ministers have made clear on numerous occasions, the Government will listen and respond to the concerns of the public and Parliament. With that in mind, the Government have put beyond doubt their continuing commitment to sustainable development by amending the Export Control Bill. During the recent debate on the Export Control Bill in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville announced that the Government had also recognised the need to consider how criterion 8 can most effectively be applied in assessing relevant export licence applications, and had agreed that there was a need for clearer procedures within Whitehall for reaching decisions when sustainable development is an issue.
The Cabinet Office was asked to facilitate an interdepartmental discussion of the issue, involving all Departments with an interest. That discussion is under way and a statement will be made to the House as soon as possible.
The Government have opposed damaging Opposition changes to our amendment. Those changes would impose an unnecessary straitjacket on the administrative regime, forcing consideration of issues that are of no relevance to an export. They would have significant resource implications, are completely unnecessary and mechanistic, and would destroy our targeted case-by-case approach to export licensing. They would risk distracting advisers away from consideration of issues that really matter.
I would like to deal with the issue of corruption raised by the hon. Member for North Norfolk, not just today but in the House on 19 June 2002. As there has been an allegation of wrongdoing and criminal activity on the part of BAE Systems and Barclays bank, I want to put it clearly on the record that the Government have no evidence that the deal was in any way corrupt. We are committed to combating bribery and corruption in whatever sector of the economy it may occur. This is why we are 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 across industry, as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials and the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 make clear.
234WH
I turn to development aid to Tanzania. Since 1997, no Government have done more to increase international aid or ensure that the debts of the poorest countries are cancelled. We increased overseas aid to £3.376 billion in 2001–02, and we are working with our partners to cancel £100 billion of debt of the world's 42 most heavily indebted poor countries. The Government remain committed to supporting Tanzania's poverty reduction strategy. Our bilateral development assistance stands at some £80 million a year. Such assistance goes towards strengthening economic and political governance; improving public services, including health and education; and helping to provide key infrastructure, such as water and roads, in rural areas. That said, we and other donors want to be satisfied that mechanisms are in place to ensure that the resources provided are used effectively for the purposes intended and that they produce results. Tanzania has made impressive progress in many areas, and we want to build on that. We urge the Government of Tanzania to engage fully with the international community on wider issues of policy, prioritisation and the efficient use of resources. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is going to Tanzania to discuss the way forward.
There has also been a suggestion that the Government's lack of objection to the marketing of the BAE Systems air traffic control system, recorded through the Ministry of Defence F680 process, in some way forced their hand to issue the export licences relating to the eventual supply of equipment. That is simply not the case. I shall quickly explain the process in the hope that that will address such concerns once and for all.
The Ministry of Defence F680 process gives exporters advice on their proposals to market goods overseas. It is made clear when F680 advice is given that it emphatically does not constitute an export licence, nor does it prejudge a decision on the eventual consideration of an export licence application. That is made clear to exporters because, as in the case of the Tanzanian deal, several years can pass between the marketing stage and receipt of application. Obviously, the circumstances can change radically during that period. It is entirely feasible that, even when the Government advise no objection to a company marketing its product, when the time comes to sign the contract, an export licence may not be granted.
I understand that the Ministry of Defence has arranged for a copy of the guidance provided to industry on the F680 process form to be placed in the Library. It has been remarked that the company's decision to start production before an export licence was issued had a bearing on the Government's decision. That is simply not the case. Whether the company had started production or the fact that equipment had been part-manufactured was not remotely relevant to the application that came before Ministers. The assessment was made on the basis of the criteria announced in Parliament, not on how close the company was to exporting the system. It is a company's commercial decision whether to start production without an export

235WH
licence. However, the Department of Trade and Industry's export control organisation advises exporters against entering into special production or a binding contract until an export licence has been granted in case the Government decide against issuing a licence or there is a delay.
Many critics have insisted that the decision on BAE Systems highlights the need for prior parliamentary scrutiny of export licence applications. The Government take great care when making such licensing decisions in the full knowledge that those decisions will be examined closely and that Ministers will properly be held accountable for them by Parliament through the annual reports on strategic export controls.
Norman Lamb: Is it not true that, prior to the export licence being granted, BAE Systems made the case to the Government that there would be potential job losses if the licence were refused? Can the Minister categorically state that BAE Systems did not make that representation?
Alan Johnson: I have no knowledge of any such representation being made. However, I can respond to one of the hon. Member's earlier points about whether the Department was aware of the terms of the loan between Barclays bank and the Tanzanian Government. We seek all the information that we need from an applicant to enable us to take a reliable export licensing decision against the criteria. The details of the information sought and provided in that case, as in others, is commercially confidential.
236WH
Many critics have insisted that that decision highlights the need for prior parliamentary scrutiny. We are very careful. The Quadripartite Committee has acknowledged that few other EU member states approach the UK's level of transparency and that our annual reports are
"the most transparent reports of their sort in Europe".
In their response last July to the Quadripartite Committee report of 14 March 2001, the Government rejected prior parliamentary scrutiny of export licence applications on practical grounds and as a matter of principle. We believed that a system of prior scrutiny could not be made to work without having a materially adverse impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the licensing process and without causing significant damage to the competitiveness of UK exports.
During the passage of the Export Control Bill in another place, Lord Campbell-Savours proposed a defence exports scrutiny committee to scrutinise export licence applications. On Third Reading of the Bill in the House of Lords on 20 May, my noble Friend, Lord Sainsbury made it clear that the Government were still concerned about several aspects of that proposal. However, Lord Sainsbury made it clear that Ministers intend for examination of the proposal to continue.
The hon. Gentleman has taken a great interest in the matter for some time, and at no stage have I suggested that that is in any way irresponsible. I assure him that decisions on export licence applications continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria announced in Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Public Libraries
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received from local authorities regarding Public Library Standard 18. [62679]

  Dr. Howells
  Councillor Bob Littlewood, the London borough of Redbridge's Cabinet Minister for Culture and Leisure wrote to my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Blackstone on 16 April 2002. His letter referred specifically to Public Library Standard 3(i) and 18. Other authorities have written either about the standards in general or about other of the standards individually.

  PLS 18, in common with the other standards, helps to define authorities' existing statutory obligations under the Public Library and Museums Act 1964 to provide library services that are comprehensive and efficient.

  I am monitoring the application of the public library standards through the annual library planning process. Analysis of the 2001 plans shows that nearly all authorities are using the introduction of the standards to plan for improvements in the quality of their library services but that, in many cases, authorities recognise that this will require them to direct more of their budgets into their library services than hitherto. It is for library authorities to ensure that they make the right allocation of resources to ensure the provision of a comprehensive and efficient service within the meaning of the Act.

  Camelot
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Comptroller and Auditor General has been given access to all the papers the relevant Government Departments hold on whether Camelot and its associated companies are run by suitable people. [63642]

  Mr. Caborn
  The National Lottery Commission has given the Comptroller and Auditor General access to all the papers held by the commission which he wished to examine as part of his inquiry into its award of the second National Lottery licence, except those which it would not be lawful for the commission to disclose. A number of Orders opening gateways allowing access to these papers have already been made; action to open the remaining gateways, which relate to the Criminal Justice Act 1987 and the Companies Act 1985 and 1989, is in hand by the Departments responsible for those Acts and should be completed shortly.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was of publishing her 742W
  Department's annual report for each of the past three years; and if she will provide a breakdown of the costs incurred. [63348]

  Dr. Howells
  The cost of publishing the Department's annual report for each of the past three years was as follows:

  Annual report costs 2000–02

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Design, typesetting, pdfs

  40,212

  45,144

  56,105

  Print (buy back of copies from The Stationery Office)

  18,310

  24,648

  125.000

  Proofreading

  648

  533

  570

  Total

  59,170

  70,325

  81,675

  1 Estimated print costs.

  Note:

  The costs for 2002 include the development of a new design template which the Department plans to follow for the next two to three years

  ITV Digital
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress of discussions on the situation at ITV Digital. [63672]

  Dr. Howells
  ITV Digital is in administration and progress with the administration is a matter for the administrators. ITV Digital surrendered the licences granted to it under the Broadcasting Act 1996 on 30 April 2002. These licences were re-advertised by the Independent Television Commission. I understand that the ITC has received six applications and aims to award the licences by 4 July. Decisions on the licence awards are a matter for the ITC.

  Regional Broadcasting
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what discussions she has had with the ITC over the Charter for Broadcasting in the Nations and Regions; [63603]

  (2) what safeguards to preserve the current level of regional programmes are to be introduced in the Charter for Broadcasting in the Nations and Regions; [63604]

  (3) what assessment has been made of the impact of the Charter for Broadcasting in the Nations and Regions on independent television companies. [63605]

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the ITC on the change in hours for regional broadcasting which they are proposing for the Meridian area; and if she will make a statement. [63865]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department was kept informed of progress as the ITC negotiated the Charter for Broadcasting in the Nations and Regions with the ITV companies. The Charter seeks to enhance investment in regional programme production, introduce a more effective regional schedule and strengthen regional accountability. The draft Communications Bill introduces requirements for Ofcom to set Channel 3 services targets to secure quality and levels of investment in programmes produced in the regions for the regions.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she proposes to adopt the new model of television licence fee evasion referred to in the National Audit Office report, "Collecting the Television Licence Fee"; and what estimate she has made of the level of television licence fee evasion for(a) the last month for which figures are available and (b) the last five years. [64586]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department is adopting the new model with effect from today. This will enable the BBC to use these new, improved figures in its annual report and accounts, as recommended by the NAO report.

  The new model uses improved data to estimate the number of licensable premises. Consequently the level of estimates of evasion for previous years has been revised upward. The figures from the new model show, as did those from the old model, that evasion has declined steadily in recent years. The new model estimates evasion at 7.8 per cent. at the end of May 2002, compared with 8.6 per cent. at May 2001 and 11.4 per cent. at May 1997.

DEFENCE

  Trident
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what discussions he has participated concerning a successor warhead for Trident; when his last discussion of this subject was; and if he will list the other participants in that discussion. [63452]

  Dr. Moonie
  None. We currently have no plans for a replacement for Trident, and no decision on any possible successor system is yet needed. In line with the policy set out in the Strategic Defence Review, we intend to maintain a minimum capability to design and produce a successor to Trident should this prove necessary.

  Gulf War Veterans (Scotland)
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gulf war veterans live in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [58564]

  Dr. Moonie
  Of the 53,462 United Kingdom service personnel who were deployed to the Gulf during the 1990–91 conflict, the Ministry of Defence has records of the post codes for 45,302 who are still alive, of which 3,817 are in Scotland. The post codes were gathered between 1996 and 2001 for the purposes of a series of epidemiological studies and may now be out of date.

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to ensure that employees of Serco Operations will be offered broadly comparable final salary pension schemes in that company's final salary pension scheme when their jobs are transferred to QinetiQ; and if he will make a statement. [63168]

  Dr. Moonie
  Future pension arrangements for employees of Serco Operations who are due to transfer to QinetiQ were agreed on 18 June 2002 between QinetiQ,744W
  Serco and the trade unions. All of those who were members of Serco's final salary pension scheme will be offered membership of the QinetiQ final salary pension scheme when they transfer.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) budget and (b) timescale is for the programme to improve single living accommodation for armed forces personnel. [63163]

  Dr. Moonie
  The budget for improvements to single living accommodation is £2 billion.

  Project SLAM in conjunction with parallel projects is aiming to deliver 70,000 new or upgraded bed spaces within a 10-year period commencing in 2003.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to improve the single living accommodation at RAF Stafford. [63165]

  Dr. Moonie
  The need to upgrade single living accommodation (SLA) at RAF Stafford was considered when compiling the RAF SLA modernisation programme, (Project SLAM). However, as RAF Stafford was assessed to have sufficient SLA at grade 2 condition or above to meet its long term requirements, it was not included in the programme. Along with other stations with grade 2 accommodation, RAF Stafford will be considered for upgrade once the worst RAF SLA has been upgraded.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the criteria are for prioritising the projects for the improvement of single living accommodation for armed forces personnel. [63164]

  Dr. Moonie
  Prioritisation is on a "worst first" basis at locations where there is a long term operational need for single living accommodation (SLA).

  The worst SLA is defined as grade 3 and below, as assessed against the Ministry of Defence's four tier system laid out in Joint Service Publication 315.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if in future he will place in the Library copies of submissions made to local planning authorities concerning the atomic weapons establishments as they occur, and inform the House as they are deposited. [63451]

  Dr. Moonie
  No. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence complies with Department of the Environment Circular 18/84 (Town and Country Planning Act 1984) in a similar manner to all Government Departments, non-Department authorities and other Crown bodies regarding submitting and advertising of Notices of Proposed Development (NOPD). The local planning authority treats the NOPD in the same way as they do a planning application submitted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. NOPDs are advertised in the local press by the planning authority in the same manner as a planning application. Standard orange Notices from the planning authority are displayed at the gates of AWE Aldermaston and at the entrance to The Mearings at AWE Burghfield for the statutory 21 days.
  745W
  The public are at liberty to view and purchase copies of all Notices and the outcome of same from the local planning authority.

  Suicide (Service Personnel)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many suicides by service personnel on duty have been investigated by civil authorities, broken down by each of the armed forces, since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [63678]

  (2) how many suicides by service personnel on duty have been committed by those having served less than two years, broken down by each of the armed forces, since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [63680]

  (3) how many suicides by service personnel on duty have resulted in officers' ammunition rounds being found to be missing, broken down by each of the armed forces, since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [63685]

  (4) how many service personnel deaths while on duty have been of officers under 25 years of age, broken down by each of the armed forces, since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [63679]

  (5) how many suicides by service personnel on duty have been recorded in each of the armed forces since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [63677]

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

  Shoeburyness
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many controlled explosions were carried out at the Shoeburyness ranges in each of the last 20 years; [63784]

  (2) how many shells were fired at the ranges in Shoeburyness in each of the last 20 years; and how many of these were subsequently recovered: [63787]

  (3) how many complaints were made about noise caused by explosions at the Shoeburyness ranges in each of the last 20 years. [63785]

  Dr. Moonie
  A search of the archives is being undertaken to ascertain what records we have for the period requested. I will write to the hon. Member when this search has been completed and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implication of the changes in ownership of QinetiQ for range activities at Shoeburyness; and if he will make a statement. [63783]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Shoeburyness Range site, which is currently managed by QinetiQ, remains in Ministry of Defence ownership. In common with all MOD's contractors, it is QinetiQ's responsibility to ensure that its activities comply with the law in meeting its contractual obligations to the MOD. MOD has retained those legal and regulatory controls necessary to meet its responsibilities as the site's owners.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in identifying the factors that have caused ill health in Gulf War veterans; and if he will make a statement. [63551]

  Dr. Moonie
  As a group, Gulf veterans report significantly more ill-health than other comparable groups. A number of possible factors for this have been suggested but peer-reviewed scientific research, confirmed and validated by other researchers, has no identified the cause. Further important research is underway, and the Government is committed to carrying out some such further research. I hope to announce some new areas of research shortly. I would encourage members of the scientific community who have other new ideas to submit proposals for further work to the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC will assess the proposals and recommend to the Ministry of Defence those which it considers to be soundly based and of sufficient scientific merit to justify being taken forward.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set up a Royal Commission to investigate the causes of Gulf war illnesses; and if he will make a statement. [63773]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence accepts that some veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict have become ill and that many believe this ill health is unusual and related to their Gulf experience. There is evidence that Gulf veterans report more ill-health than other comparable groups. The Government attach great importance to investigating the causes of this and believe that the best way of doing so is through scientific and medical research. A number of important research projects are currently under way and I hope to announce further work shortly. The Government do not believe that a Royal Commission to investigate the causes of Gulf veterans' illnesses would be helpful at this time.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Defence Diversification Agency and proposals to establish defence diversification councils. [63809]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Diversification Agency now has 15 offices throughout the United Kingdom, and is continuing to work closely with regional development agencies and the UK business community as a whole to enable the exploitation of defence-funded science and technology.

  Work is on-going to establish a Defence Diversification Council and I hope to make an announcement in the near future.

  Lance Corporal Robert Lyttle
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the outcome was of the trial of Lance Corporal Robert Lyttle of the RIR; and what the outcome was of disciplinary measures taken against this soldier. [63953]
  747W
  Dr. Moonie
  Lance Corporal Robert Lyttle of the Royal Irish Regiment was tried at Edinburgh High Court on 21 April 2002; he was found guilty of indecent assault and was subsequently sentenced to three years imprisonment.

  Howe Barracks
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions have been reached following the investigation of the circumstances leading to a child being taken to hospital having taken an ecstasy tablet alleged to have been supplied by an individual based at the Howe Barracks in Kent. [63849]

  Mr. Ingram
  During investigation by the civil police, six members of the Royal Irish Regiment were questioned in respect of allegations of supplying an ecstasy tablet to a child. One Ranger was subsequently charged with supplying ecstasy; the case is now with the Crown Prosecution Service. One Ranger was cautioned for possession of ecstasy and one received a reprimand for possession.

  Defence Estate
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what works are in hand to improve the fabric of the defence estate in each establishment in Wiltshire. [63828]

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

  Married Quarters
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the quality of married quarters for service families in Wiltshire. [63827]

  Dr. Moonie
  Service families accommodation in mainland United Kingdom is managed and maintained by the Defence Housing Executive. Of the 2,205 properties in Wiltshire, 134 are at standard 1 for condition, 1,512 at standard 2, 539 at standard 3 and 20 at standard 4. Standard 1 for condition is achieved when a property meets a series of criteria which have been agreed with the services and families' representatives. They included modern bathroom and kitchen facilities, double glazing, energy efficiency and security measures.

  Training
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent in the last 12 months on training by the(a) Royal Navy, (b) Royal Marines, (c) Army and (d) RAF in the United Kingdom; and what proportion of these totals was spent in Scotland. [63929]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 3 April 2002,Official Report, column 1019W.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions have been made by his Department in the last year under authority from the Royal Prerogative. [63126]
  748W
  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 5 November 2001,Official Report, column 25W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will reply to the question from the hon. Member for Pendle relating to the cost of the funeral of the Queen Mother. [64323]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have written to the hon. Member today.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Reproductive Health Programmes
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report. column 884W, on reproductive health programmes, what the aims are of the HIV/AIDS and reproductive health programme in Zambia; how much funding has been provided to it by her Department per annum since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [62586]

  Clare Short
  The aim of DFID's "Family Planning and HIV/AIDS" project in Zambia is'To increase the use of modern methods of family planning and use of condoms for HIV/STI prevention.'

  The project is a successor project to the "Family Planning Logistics" project which also directly addressed HIV/AIDS and reproductive health issues. It was approved in September 2000. Funding of £2.9 million has been provided as follows:

  Year

  Amount £000

  2000

  116

  2001

  1,439

  2002

  1,345

  Total

  2,900

  DFID is currently developing a targeted £20 million multisectoral HIV/AIDS programme in Zambia while continuing to address the impact of HIV/AIDS through all sectors of its wider country programme.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 884W, on reproductive health programmes, what the aims are of the Regional HIV/AIDS Programme of the Southern African Development Co-ordinating Committee; how much funding has been provided to it by her Department per annum since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [62585]

  Clare Short
  The aim of this programme is to support the Southern African Development Community's (SADC) HIV/AIDS strategy with a focus on interventions in Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland.

  The main outputs will be:
  Strengthening of SADC's Health Sector Coordination Unit (and its successor following SADC restructuring);
  Improved inter-country coordination and strengthening of National AIDS Control Programmes;

  749W
  Increased promotion of, and access to, low cost condoms via social marketing;
  Support to people living with HIV/AIDS groups for increased advocacy and service capability;
  More effective management of sexually transmitted infections, particularly in private sector employing migrant labour;
  Increased ability in Government Departments and NGOs for behaviour change communication interventions.

  The programme became operational in May 1999. Expenditure to date totals £750,668.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 884W, on reproductive health programmes, what the aims are of the sexual and maternal health programme in Malawi; how much funding has been provided to it by her Department per annum since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [62584]

  Clare Short
  Since 1997, my Department has committed a total of £23.5 million for sexual, reproductive and maternal health programmes in Malawi. The main purpose is to increase access to, and utilisation of, reproductive, maternal (ante-natal, delivery and post-partum care) and sexual health services and adoption of safer sex practices especially among the poor, young people and marginalised groups. A further benefit is the positive effect such help can have in countering the incidence of HIV/AIDS.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 25 February 2002,Official Report, column 884W, on reproductive health programmes, what the aims are of the sexual and reproductive health programme in Zimbabwe; how much funding has been provided to it by her Department per annum since 1997; if funding continues; and if she will make a statement. [62583]

  Clare Short
  Zimbabwe has one of the world's worst HIV/AIDS epidemics. Adult HIV prevalence is 34 per cent.. and it is estimated that 2,000 to 3,000 people die of AIDS each week.

  DFID's Sexual and Reproductive Health Programme is a £20 million programme approved in 2000 to run over five years. It aims to prevent and mitigate the impact of HIV/AIDS for poor Zimbabweans. The programme works through civil society and parastatal organisations and activities focus on promoting behaviour change, condom supply and sexual health services for high-risk groups, and capacity building for community home-based care. The programme has spent £5.267 million in the last two years and continues.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what decisions have been made by her Department in the last year under authority from the royal prerogative. [63133]

  Clare Short
  The Department does not keep records of the individual occasions on which powers under the royal prerogative are exercised.

  Nepal
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department 750W
  has given the Nepalese Government to assist it in rebuilding facilities destroyed due to terrorist attacks by Maoist groups. [63477]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not provided assistance to the Nepalese Government to rebuild facilities destroyed by Maoists. My Department has, however, developed a programme of short-term support for people in conflict affected areas, and is working to reorientate the entire DFID programme towards conflict resolution.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the estimated cost is of damage to UK-funded projects in Nepal due to terrorist attacks by Maoist groups. [63476]

  Clare Short
  Maoist insurgents in Nepal have not so far targeted UK development staff or project activities and, despite the worsening security situation throughout the country, UK funded-development assistance is continuing, albeit more slowly.

  Development Projects (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what standards her Department uses to assess the environmental impact of proposed development projects; and whether the environmental standards applied to development projects are less stringent than those applied in the United Kingdom. [63515]

  Clare Short
  DFID are rarely involved in funding major infrastructure projects of the sort that would require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) in the UK. DFID procedures require environmental screening on all projects above £1 million, or below this threshold if significant environmental impacts are anticipated. The screening is supported by DFID's environmental guide, which provides guidance, such as screening checklists that highlight potential beneficial and adverse impacts. If initial screening indicates that an activity could have significant impacts on the environment, then further investigation must be undertaken, which may include further environmental analysis; a full EIA; or an environmental audit. The objective of DFID's appraisal system is not only to assess potential positive or negative impacts, but also to seek opportunities to improve policy formulation and decision-making, e.g. we are currently undertaking an appraisal of strategic choices regarding Russia's accession to the WTO.

  The DFID environmental appraisal process applies to expenditure on policies, programmes and projects. The EC EIA directive, transposed into UK legislation, currently applies to projects (e.g. building new roads, building power stations, etc.), but the EU directive on programmes and plans (2001/42/EC) is in the process of becoming UK law. DFID procedures also allow for intermediate level of investigation—environmental analysis—where a full EIA is not required. In the UK EIA legislation there is no such intermediate form of analysis.

  Safe Drinking Water
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the aid distributed by her Department in the past five years has funded the provision of safe drinking water in developing countries. [63513]
  751W
  Clare Short
  DFID place as much emphasis on access to appropriate sanitation as they do on access to safe water. Much of the work supported by DFID is for both water supply and sanitation, for example, support to the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council and the Water and Sanitation Program. Therefore, it is not possible to clearly apportion financial expenditure to water supply solely.

  The proportion of bilateral aid commitments whose principle aim was to target safe drinking water and adequate sanitation in developing countries was 6 per cent. on average over the last five years. This represents a commitment of 3 per cent. total aid commitments on average.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Sewage Disposal Companies
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what powers exist for local authorities to take legal action against sewage disposal companies on grounds of public nuisance. [57142]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 May 2002]: Local authorities have no statutory nuisance powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to deal with nuisance from sewage treatment works. However, it is possible for local authorities or the public to take common law action. My Department is currently exploring the available legislation and existing controls as a possible means to address the problem of nuisance from sewage treatment works in the future.

  Committee Mandates
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on the management of the research programme for management and storage of radioactive waste and management of the community plan of action in the field of radioactive waste 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. [55687]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Advisory Committee on Programme Management for the Management and Storage of Radioactive Waste was established under European Council Resolution 77/C 192/01 of 18 July 1977. The committee advises the European Commission on the Community Plan of Action in the field of radioactive waste which was last renewed by Council Resolution 92/C 158/02 of 15 June 1992. This plan expired at the end of 1999. However, as an interim arrangement the committee continue to advise the Commission on the aspects of the plan.

  The committee has met once in the past 12 months. Its annual cost to public funds is negligible. The UK is represented by officials from my Department and the Scottish Executive.
  752W
  The committee is currently advising the Commission on preparation of the fifth report regarding the situation and prospects of radioactive waste management in member states of the European Commission. Previous reports are publicly available from the Commission of the European Communities.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Waste Management 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. [61707]

  Mr. Meacher
  The committee's mandate is to assist the European Commission to adapt aspects of wastes directives. It tends to be strategic/thematic in nature.

  The committee generally meets twice per year and last met on 21 March 2002. The UK's representation is determined by the agenda for each meeting but the basic representation is usually two officials. The cost to public funds comprise travel and subsistence costs incurred in attending a one day meeting in Brussels (approximately £650 per meeting) and staff costs (around £700 per meeting). The Commission reimburses the travelling costs for one official's attendance at each meeting.

  The meeting on 21 March focused on the development of thematic strategies on resources and on recycling and the planned EC Communication on Waste Prevention Targets.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the mandate of the EU Committee for the adaptation to technical and scientific progress of the Directive on the protection of the environment is; how many times it has met over the last 12 months; when it is next due to meet; what the United Kingdom representation on it is; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members of it; and if she will make a statement. [62920]

  Mr. Meacher
  The question does not specify which Directive is being referred to. Many Directives have as their objective the protection of the environment, and many of them have committees for the adaptation to technical and scientific progress.

  Water Quality
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Harrow, West, on 16 May 2002,Official Report, column 830W on the Water Framework Directive, what measures the Government are (a) taking and (b) intending to implement prior to 2012 to prevent deterioration of water quality in the United Kingdom. [60669]

  Mr. Meacher
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Measures taken to prevent deterioration of water quality in England are already in place, such as discharge consent conditions in relation to quality standards for water, the management of water quantity (through abstraction licensing) and measures to protect groundwater under the Groundwater

  753W
  Regulations. These measures help meet obligations from existing Community water quality legislation and domestic river quality objectives.

  (b) Under the Water Framework Directive, article 4. in making operational the programmes of measures in the river basin plans, member states have to implement the necessary measures to prevent deterioration in the status of water bodies. All measures must be operational by 2012 at the latest.

  It is too soon to say what additional water quality protective measures might need to be implemented prior to 2012. To the extent that new regulatory powers are needed, they will be included in proposed regulations on which we plan to consult next year.

  Implementation of the Directive in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and with respect to the devolved functions in Wales, are matters for the Scottish Executive, the Northern Ireland Executive and the National Assembly for Wales.

  Rio Earth Summit
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps have been taken by the Government since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 to(a) set goals on environmental protection and (b) improve eco-efficiency and resource productivity relating to land use issues; and what these (i) goals and (ii) improvements have been. [44344]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have put in place a range of planning guidance to promote a sustainable pattern of physical development and land and property use. Sound planning policies and an effective and efficient planning system are central to the Government's policies to improve eco-efficiency and resource productivity. Our policies concentrate the majority of new development within existing urban areas and in doing so help to reduce the need to travel and safeguard the countryside from unnecessary development. We have a target to provide 60 per cent. of additional dwellings on previously developed land by 2008 which, as a result of our policy changes. has been met.

  Planning policy is also supported by a number of fiscal measures aimed at improving environmental outcomes; by encouraging better use of existing property to reduce new build, through a 150 per cent. tax credit for cleaning up contaminated land, and through taxes introduced on landfill in 1996, and on the quarrying of aggregates in 2002. Legislation to apply modern standards of conditions to old mineral workings was extended in 1995 to apply to all such sites, and tougher environmental tests before opencast coal sites can be opened or enlarged were introduced in 1999. Action, both statutory and voluntary, has commenced to limit or remove the more damaging existing planning permissions which threaten the integrity of the sites proposed or designated under the EU' s Natura 2000 network. This includes a major voluntary purchase by English Nature of the most important and vulnerable lowland peat bogs in England.

  The Department and its agencies have a variety of mechanisms to protect and enhance the rural environment. These include nearly £1 billion for agri-environment schemes under the England Rural Development Programme, and further support by English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Environment Agency. DEFRA also provides 75 per cent. of funding for national
  754W
  parks for the same purpose. These mechanisms are making a significant contribution to a number of the Government's PSA targets, including those to reverse the decline in farmland birds by 2020, and bring 95 per cent. of all nationally important wildlife sites into favourable condition by 2010. They also contribute to meeting the targets for maintaining/restoring priority habitats and species under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan which was drawn up to meet commitments flowing from the Rio Earth Summit.

  Waste Refrigeration Equipment
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the length of time needed to clear the backlog of refrigerators and freezers stored by local authorities. [62666]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: Information given by companies investing, or intending to invest, in treatment plant suggest that sufficient plant should be in place by the end of the year to ensure that the backlog of fridges does not increase further and that the backlog of appliances will be dealt with during 2003.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), of 15 January 2002,Official Report, column 270W, on waste refrigeration equipment, when the new recycling plants will come online; and what their capacity will be. [62668]

  Mr. Meacher
  New recycling plant are already coming online in the UK. Two mobile plant with annual capacities of 150,000 each are operating in Lewes and Northampton, the former since April and the latter since May. Three static plant, with annual capacities of 300,000 each, are due to be operating by the end of July. Further plant will be installed by the end of the year.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to provide funding to local authorities to assist with the disposal of refrigerators, beyond the £6 million allocated for the last financial year. [62975]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: I will make an announcement shortly setting out my proposals for additional funding for waste disposal authorities.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many refrigerators and freezers are being stored by local authorities pending disposal or recycling. [62667]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: Current estimates are that there are more than 900,000 units awaiting treatment.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her estimate of the extra costs to local authorities in 2002–03 as a result of the EU Directive on the recycling of refrigerators and freezers. [63077]

  Mr. Meacher
  Although the initial annual cost is likely to be around £40 million this will decrease as plant are commissioned, competition becomes established and more fridges that do not need treatment enter the waste stream.

  EU Management Committees
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the EU Committee for the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the decision establishing a common procedure for the exchange of information on the quality of surface fresh water in the Community is next due to meet; whether experts nominated by the Scottish Executive(a) have been and (b) are members; and if she will make a statement. [63931]

  Mr. Meacher
  The role of the committee, which is set out in Article 8 of the decision (Council Decision 77/795/EEC, OJ L 334, 24.12.1977, p29), is to give its opinion on any measures proposed by the Commission which are necessary to adapt the decision's provisions to technical or scientific progress. The committee has not met for more than five years and there are no meetings scheduled. Therefore the most recent meeting predated the establishment of the Scottish Executive in 1999, and potential UK representation has not been addressed. In the event of any meeting being scheduled, officials in this Department would, as a matter of course, liaise with their counterparts in the Scottish Executive.

  Radioactive Material
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what safeguards are in place to prevent the theft of radioactive material from(a) hospitals, (b) universities and (c) other establishments licensed to hold such material. [62543]

  Mr. Meacher
  Under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 any person who keeps or uses radioactive material must have a certificate of registration from the Environment Agency. The certificates impose responsibilities in respect of security and general management. The Agency carries out a regular programme of inspections to ensure that the conditions of the certificate are being complied with. The Agency would not hesitate to take enforcement action if conditions were not being complied with.

  The Agency has recently carried out a programme of inspections at sites holding higher activity sources. At most sites security arrangements were found to be satisfactory. In a small number of cases the need for improvements was identified. The Agency will ensure that these improvements are implemented.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent action she has taken to measure trends in air quality in St. Albans, with special reference to nitrogen oxide levels near motorway junctions; and if she will make a statement. [61787]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are currently three non-automatic nitrogen dioxide monitoring stations in St. Albans, which are part of the UK nitrogen dioxide diffusion tube monitoring network. The sites are in roadside and urban background locations. The trends at these sites are shown in the table, in addition to a fourth site which closed at the end of 2000. Concentrations at all sites have increased since monitoring began in 1993, although levels are close to or well below the annual mean standard for nitrogen 756W
  dioxide of g/m3. St. Albans district council also operate other diffusion tube sites which are not part of the UK network, one of which is near the motorway.

  Annual mean nitrogen dioxide (g/m3) at four sites in St. Albans, 1993–2001. Measurements using diffusion tubes

  Annual mean NO2 (g/m3)

  Roadside

  Intermediate

  Background

  St. Albans Background

  1993

  25.7

  18.5

  15.4

  14.7

  1994

  33.5

  24.3

  22.3

  16.4

  1995

  42.7

  39.9

  34.4

  27.0

  1996

  56.1

  42.1

  42.2

  33.4

  1997

  42.4

  32.8

  29.5

  25,3

  1998

  36.8

  30.8

  22.3

  23.8

  1999

  44.3

  35.1

  29.3

  27.0

  2000

  42.8

  34.9

  27.9

  23.5

  2001

  41.8

  NM1

  28.6

  24.3

  1 Monitoring site closed at the end of 2000.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will set out her Department's advice on the appeal processes involved in the registration of GM seeds. [62992]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: A sequence of mechanisms applies, which enable appeals to be made at various stages in the development of a GM variety prior to the marketing of seeds of that variety.

  1. Before a GM crop variety can be considered for seed registration it must have been assessed at European level for safety to human health and the environment and be approved for placing on the market under Part C of Directive 90/220/EEC on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms. This directive has now been replaced by the new Directive 2001/18/EC, which has to be implemented by member states by October 2002. Under part C of the new directive, the European Commission and all member states discuss applications for consents to market GMOs (including GM seeds) in the EU and may ask for further information, make comments on, or present reasoned objections to the proposed release. The Commission is required to consult the public while the application is being considered, and these views are copied to all member states. The Commission and member states then make a collective decision on the application, and a marketing consent is either granted or refused. The new directive (like its predecessor) does not have any specific provisions for appeal against the decision to grant or refuse consent. However, it does ensure that if new information comes to light regarding the risks posed by the GMO to human health or the environment, the consent can be altered or revoked as appropriate.

  2. The Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 2001 provide a three-stage appeal process. On payment of the appropriate fee, persons affected by a proposed relevant decision (which includes proposals to add any varieties, GM or conventional, to the UK National List) may make written representations to the national authorities and/or oral representations to a person appointed by them. The national authorities are required to consider such written and/or oral representations before taking a relevant decision and must give notice of their decision and the reasons for it as well as information about how that decision may be appealed to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal.

  3. The Plant Breeders' Rights Regulations 1998 set out similar arrangements in respect of plant breeders' rights.

  Environmental Liability
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government's position on the proposed EU directive on environmental liability. [57621]

  Mr. Meacher
  The purpose of the proposed Directive is to establish a framework for the prevention and remediation of environmental damage in accordance with the principle that the polluter pays. This represents an important and significant development in EC environmental law. The Government have therefore conducted a public consultation on the proposals, and the UK position on the detail of the proposal will be finalised in the light of the comments received.

  In broad terms however, the Government support a regime which is equitable, proportionate, clear, insurable, easy to implement, does not damage business competitiveness, and delivers clear environmental benefits.

  The partial regulatory impact assessment submitted to Parliament (COM (02) 17), indicates that much of the environmental damage covered by the directive is already the subject of existing domestic regimes, but the proposals go further in some respects. The directive would set higher standards of remediation and introduce the concepts of equivalent compensation and interim losses. Further benefits would arise from introducing a regime across the European Community which would harmonise the rules and standards for environmental liability across member states. Provided that the right balance between costs and benefits is achieved, this proposal could therefore play a useful part in safeguarding the environment.

  Noise Forum
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the United Kingdom Noise Forum's inaugural conference on 20 May. [62573]

  Mr. Meacher
  I was very pleased to attend the conference and have received some encouraging feedback from those who attended. My officials are currently preparing a conference report which will be published and sent to all those who attended the conference. I shall also make copies available to both the House Libraries and in addition it will be placed on the DEFRA website at http://defraweb/environment/noise/index.htm. It is my intention, once I have received the report, to consider its recommendations and decide how Government can take these forward with a view to taking action on the various problems noise causes to society.

  Waste Paper Exporters
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will review the operation of the PERN system. [63781]

  Mr. Meacher
  The current system of PRNs and PERNs has worked moderately well, allowing the UK to increase recovery from 30 per cent. to 48 per cent. over four years. However, if there are specific problems I am open to discussion about how these can best be resolved.
  758W
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the criteria used for granting packaging export recovery notes to waste paper exporters. [63774]

  Mr. Meacher
  PERNs are issued by exporters accredited by the Environment Agency to businesses or schemes obligated under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended).

  I understand that, in order to be accredited, exporters must undergo scrutiny by the agency on the basis of the same criteria used to scrutinize reprocessors wishing to be accredited to issue PRNs.

  Duck Producers
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many inspections have been carried out on the premises of duck producers in the last five years. [63170]

  Mr. Morley
  The State Veterinary Service carried out 50 welfare inspections of duck producers during 2000 and 32 welfare inspections in 2001. Separate figures for duck welfare inspections are not available for earlier years.

  Japanese Knotweed
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research the Government are conducting into tackling Japanese knotweed, with particular reference to natural biological methods of control. [57931]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department is not currently undertaking any research specifically into biological control of Japanese knotweed.

  However, through the joint DEFRA/Environment Agency flood management research programme, the Government are supporting a programme of work relating to management and control of aquatic and riparian plants, including Japanese knotweed, by the Centre for Aquatic Plant Management. Also, English Nature, the Government's scientific adviser on wildlife and conservation in England, has commissioned a study on management of problem non-native species, which includes consideration of Japanese knotweed.

  National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will announce how the National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund will be distributed. [64784]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am pleased to announce today the arrangements for the distribution of the National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund. Local authorities in every region of England (apart from London which is being handled separately) will receive a total of £42 million in 2002–03 from the fund to kick start new projects. The money will go to schemes that improve recycling, complement municipal waste management strategies and contribute to a better quality of life for residents.
  759W
  From over 190 applications to the fund for 2002–03, 112 schemes were approved by DEFRA with the assistance of an expert panel. Details of the successful schemes will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses shortly when the local authorities have been informed. We are now inviting applications for grants from the fund for 2003–04 when £76.3 million will be available; almost double the amount for 2002–03.

  The national fund prioritises five key areas:

  improving partnership initiatives between authorities;

  contributing to high performance, innovation and best practice;

  establishing a challenge fund for general projects;

  developing community initiatives;

  turning around low recycling performance.

  Overall, England recycled just 10 per cent. of its household rubbish in 1999–2000—one of the lowest rates in Europe and we are taking action to improve this. We have set a target of 25 per cent. recycling by 2005–06 and have allocated £19.9 million from the fund for helping turn around low performance and £12.5 million for partnership working. The assistance given by this fund will help some of the lowest performers in their efforts to reach a minimum recycling rate of 10 per cent. in 2003–04.

  Neighbourhood renewal is also a key area of Government policy and over half of the 88 NRU local authorities in England are low recycling performers. 21 NRU local authorities were approved for direct grant in 2002–03, amounting to a total of some £14 million.

  We will be publishing revised guidance for the submission of bids to the fund for 2003–04 very shortly on DEFRA' s website.

  Albatrosses/Petrels
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department has implemented since June regarding the conservation of(a) albatrosses and (b) petrels. [61168]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The main threat to albatrosses and petrels arises from long-line fishing for tuna and toothfish in the southern oceans, in which I understand that no metropolitan UK vessels are involved. Last June the UK signed the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP), made under the Convention on Migratory Species. ACAP will require its parties to co-operate in the development and implementation of an action plan for the conservation of these species, encompassing both the control of fishing activities, including measures to mitigate the impact of long-line fishing, and the protection of breeding sites, some of which are in the UK's overseas territories. The RSPB has recently undertaken research into these and other bird species on Gough Island, funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  The Government are currently in discussion with the authorities of the range state overseas territories to ascertain whether they need new legislation in order to implement the requirements of ACAP. We are also considering the position in respect of the metropolitan UK, and will explore with our partners in the European Union the prospects for wider European participation.
  760W
  I hope the UK will be in a position to ratify ACAP, possible initially on behalf of some of the overseas territories, later this year.

  Food and Agriculture Organisation Discussion Paper
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the recent FAO discussion paper on Good Agricultural Practice, with specific reference to the section on animal welfare; and if she will make a statement. [63330]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  FAO's discussion paper on Good Agricultural Practice was circulated for comment to the "Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD) Major Stakeholder Groups" defined in chapter 14 of Agenda 21. The UK Government have not been consulted and we have as yet made no assessment of the paper.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what is the maximum safe concentration of ethinyloestradiol in foods for human consumption. [60833]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  Ethinyloestradiol is a human drug that is available only on prescription. It is not authorised for use in animals and its presence in any concentration in food is unacceptable.

  It has not been possible to identify a dietary concentration of ethinyloestradiol that is universally accepted as being safe for everyone, as a level of exposure that is without hormonal effects has not been found. In addition, ethinyloestradiol is a human carcinogen, but a threshold dose below which there is no increased risk of cancer for anyone has not been established.

TREASURY

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decisions have been made by his Department in the last year under authority from the royal prerogative. [63139]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 207W.

  VAT (Face Value Vouchers)
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the consultation on the VAT treatment of face value vouchers announced in the 2002 Budget. [64686]

  John Healey
  Customs have today issued a consultation document entitled "Modernising the VAT Treatment of Face Value Vouchers". Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. Responses to the consultation are invited by 1 October 2002.

  Queen Mother (Memorial Coin)
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans Her Majesty's Government have to issue a coin in memory of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. [61140]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation that a crown piece should be issued to celebrate the life of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. Collector versions of the coin will be ready by early summer and the coin will also be available, later in the year, at its face value of £5 from most post offices.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 5 February 2002 to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison),Official Report, column 851W, on fraud and error, if he will place a copy of the report on the benchmarking exercise on working families tax credit fraud in the Library. [56462]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue are continuing to analyse the data from their compliance benchmarking exercise. We shall be considering the results, and questions of publication, when we have received their report.

  Remarriage Statistics
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the married population was represented by those previously divorced in each year since 1997. [60839]

  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. Andrew Turner, dated 25 June 2002:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the proportion of the married population represented by those previously divorced in each year since 1997. (60839)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) produces estimates by current marital status annually, but these are not additionally available by the previous marital status. Hence estimates of the married population are not available separately for those who had married for the first time, those who remarried after being divorced, and those who remarried after being widowed.

  However, ONS has made some special estimates of the proportion of the married population who had remarried after a previous divorce, using the General Household Survey (GHS). Using the 1998 GHS for England and Wales, it is estimated that 15 per cent of married men had remarried after a previous divorce, and the corresponding figure for women was 14 per cent. The proportions for 2000 were the same as those for 1998. (There was no GHS in 1997 or 1999).

  Of the 2000 population of men who had re-married after divorce, 7 per cent had divorced between 1997 and 1999, inclusive. The corresponding proportion for women who had remarried after divorce was 6 per cent. Small sample numbers do not allow reliable estimates for individual years of divorce to be made.

  MPs (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information is held by his Department on each hon. Member in relation to(a) personal relationships, both
  762W
  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. [61819]

  Ruth Kelly
  Information that may be held by the Treasury, Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise is limited to what is available from published reference sources, information which the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise hold in connection with the tax affairs of individuals and companies and information that HM Customs and Excise may also hold in connection with other matters such as customs investigations. Aside from information from published sources, the Departments are debarred from releasing such information to third parties either by statute or as a result of their duty of confidence to the individuals concerned.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will set out the timescale for changing the landfill tax rules to make contaminated soil disposed of to landfill liable to the full rate of landfill tax; [63489]

  (2) what the Government's policy is on changing the landfill tax rules to make contaminated soil disposed of to landfill liable to the full rate of landfill tax. [63490]

  John Healey
  The Government are satisfied that the exemption from landfill tax for waste arising from the clear up of contaminated land is continuing to play an important role in encouraging the redevelopment of brownfield sites, and have no plans to withdraw it. HM Customs and Excise will, however, review the exemption in 2004, in the light of developments in waste management techniques.

  Iraq
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assets belonging to Saddam Hussein have been seized and are held by the UK Government; and if he will make a statement. [63552]

  Ruth Kelly
  The most recent (first quarter 2002) statistical returns to the Bank of England indicate that UK banks' liabilities to Iraq amount to $634 million. These funds are frozen under the terms of Article 3 of The Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2000. There are restrictions in the Order on the disclosure of details relating to individual accounts. The Government is committed to maintaining UN controls on its international obligations against the Government of Saddam Hussein until Iraq complies with UN Security Council resolutions.

  Black Economy
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his policy to include the black economy activity in EU countries when assessing convergence; and what his assessment is of the effect of so doing in respect of each EU economy. [63864]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government has said that it will complete an assessment of the five economic tests within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 10 May 2002,Official Report,

  763W
  column 396W, on tax credits, whether the figure for the number of recipients of child tax credit in paragraph 3.2 of "The Child and Working Tax Credits: The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System", represents the number of families expected to (a) claim and (b) be eligible for CTC. [64210]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In the publication, "The Child and Working Tax Credits: The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System", families receiving the child tax credit are defined as those expected to both claim and be eligible for the credit.

  Endowment Mortgages
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to compel the publication of the commissions earned by sellers of endowment policies. [64314]

  Ruth Kelly
  Independent financial advisers who advise on the sale of endowment policies are required to disclose the cash value of commissions they would earn on those sales before a policy is effected.

  Equivalent disclosure, of the costs of the sale, is required where a tied salesman makes a sale.

  Landlords
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received concerning anomalies and disincentives in the tax system facing individual and corporate landlords. [63910]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have received a number of representations from a variety of organisations regarding taxation.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the accuracy of UK economic growth figures prepared by the Office for National Statistics. [61975]

  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. Nick Gibb, dated 25 June 2002:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the accuracy of the UK economic growth figures proposed by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). I am replying in his absence. (61975)

  ONS consistently applies well documented and internationally validated methods, and works with an extensive range of data sources founded on sound statistical practice. The National Accounts framework enables a high degree of validation through well structured balancing and alternate estimates of conceptually equivalent measures.

  Customs and Excise
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many mobile detection teams are employed by Customs and Excise in Scotland; how many staff are employed in each team; what the shift-work pattern is of 764W
  each team; what the budgetary provision is for each team; and what the budgetary provision was for each team in each year since 1997. [63710]

  John Healey
  For operational reasons it is not Customs policy to disclose specific information on the number of staff in teams, their work patterns or their specific budgetary provision.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the expenditure by the Customs and Excise on advertising was in each fiscal year since 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [63632]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise did not run any advertising campaigns between April 1997 and March 1999.

  Between April 1999 and March 2000, £83,000 was spent on a campaign to raise awareness of the Custom's confidential hotline and to encourage people to phone with information to help Customs.

  £1.6 million was spent on an advertising campaign between April 2000 and March 2001 to support the Tackling Tobacco strategy. This was the first burst of a three year campaign and aimed to raise awareness of the links to organised crime and of the penalties for those who are caught smuggling or dealing in illicit tobacco. Among all our audiences there was a steady increase in awareness of Government action and the penalties. Research has shown 41 per cent. awareness of the advertising among the general public. Within trade groups, awareness increased significantly among HGV drivers (at 83 per cent.) and retailers (81 per cent.).

  Between April 2001 and March 2002, £830,000 was spent on campaigns including burst two of the Tackling Tobacco smuggling campaign (spend £560,000) and an information campaign for the Joint Fashion Industry Teams (spend £29,000). This was a regional campaign in London and Leicester to raise awareness of the information line for the fashion industry to help them understand the rules on VAT, benefits, taxes and employment to help them to operate in the formal economy.

  All expenditure quoted excludes VAT. Figures include advertising and related campaign costs, such as production and research.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of dogs used by Customs and Excise in(a) Manchester and (b) Hull are (i) drugs detector dogs and (ii) cash detector dogs; [63705]

  (2) how many cash detector dogs are used by Customs and Excise at the Rosyth ferry port; [63703]

  (3) how many dog handlers were employed by Customs and Excise in (a) 1997–98. (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02 in (i) Glasgow, (ii) Aberdeen, (iii) Hull and (iv) Manchester; [63704]

  (4) what use is being made of the dog husbandry facility at Glasgow Airport. [63706]

  John Healey
  There are currently 11 dogs operational in Manchester and Hull and five vacancies. When filled, these will bring the total to 16 operational dogs, comprising nine drugs dogs, four currency dogs, and three multi-skilled drugs/tobacco dogs, each with one handler.
  765W
  The consolidation of detector dog resources in large units based in Manchester and Hull has enabled Customs to provide the full range of dog skills (drugs, tobacco and cash) in support of frontier activity across northern England and Scotland. The deployment of the detector dogs is flexible, intelligence led and focused on the delivery of operational impact.

  The Rosyth/Zeebrugge ferry service started on 17 May 2002. Customs staff will be deployed regularly at Rosyth on a risk free basis, both from flexible multi-functional teams currently located in Scotland and, as required, from UK national strike force teams, including detector dogs from the Manchester and Hull units.

  The consolidation of dog resources to Manchester and Hull followed reviews on the usage and outputs of detector dogs, including those based at the former Aberdeen and Glasgow units. The number of dog handler posts in Manchester has remained at eight from 1997 to date. From 1997 to 2001, four posts were based at Hull, increasing to eight posts this year.

  Aberdeen dog unit had three posts in 1997–98 and 1998–99, and the dog unit closed in the summer of 1999. Glasgow dog unit had four posts in 1997–98 and 1998–99 and five posts in 1999–2000. This reduced to four posts in 2000–01 and the unit closed in summer 2001. When the dog unit at Glasgow Airport was closed in the summer of 2001, the facility was dismantled and the land returned to the British Airports Authority.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what targets and performance indicators are included in his public service agreements with the Department of Education and Skills; which are in respect of the performances of named local education authorities; and what steps he takes to(a) monitor the achievement of those targets and (b) audit the quality of information obtained to the Department from less local education authorities as to their performance against those targets. [62214]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department does not include indicators in its public service agreement targets specific to named local education authorities. However, all LEAs and schools are required to set annual targets for the performance of their pupils in the Key Stage 2 and 3 national curriculum tests and GCSE examinations.

  LEAs are required to set out targets in their Education Development Plans (EDPs). The Department and Ofsted work together to assess the quality of EDPs and DIES education advisers provide guidance to assist LEAs in preparing and developing plans, which are submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. DfES both supports and challenges LEAs through monitoring and evaluating the implementation of EDPs. LEAs are visited by education advisers at least once a term; in addition EDPs are reviewed annually, and all LEAs are required to submit annually an update on targets for the coming school year for each school and the LEA as a whole, covering the targets listed in the EDP, and an evaluation report showing outcomes against targets at school and LEA level.

TRANSPORT

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) on how many occasions the National Air Traffic Control Service's computer has malfunctioned; [63123]

  (2) what recent delays have been caused by the failures of the National Air-Traffic Control Service's central computer; [63125]

  (3) what steps are being taken to improve performance of the National Air Traffic Control Service's central computer; [63122]

  (4) what has been the average duration of blackout during failures of the National Air Traffic Control Service's central computer. [63124]

  Mr. Spellar
  While these are essentially operating matters for NATS my understanding is as follows.

  NATS computer systems have failed on three occasions in recent months—at West Drayton on 27 March with aggregate total delays to all affected aircraft of 88,000 minutes; West Drayton again on 10 April with delays of 34,000 minutes; and at Swanwick on 17 May with delays of 82,000 minutes. NATS first action is to take immediate steps to reduce traffic volumes to levels that can be safely handled by the contingency arrangements in place. While this impacts on airline punctuality, the first priority must be to ensure safe operation.

  There was no interruption to radar services, and at no time did controllers lose contact with pilots. Actions in regard to software and equipment have been taken to prevent any recurrence of these problems.

  Aircraft Seating
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made on implementing the recommendations of the anthropometric study to update minimum aircraft seating standards commissioned by the Joint Aviation Authority. [63756]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) are still considering the recommendations contained in the anthropometric report. The UK Civil Aviation Authority has urged the JAA to reach an early decision on a common European standard for seat spacing.

  Mr. Martyn Rogers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Maritime Coastal Agency has to award Mr. Martyn Rogers of Brixham, Devon, an ex-gratia payment following the Parliamentary Ombudsman's report of December 2001. [63902]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The detailed claim submitted by Mr. Rogers' accountants on 13 February 2002 is being carefully considered by the Treasury Solicitor's Department on behalf of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The Treasury solicitor is waiting for a response from Mr. Rogers' accountants to their request of 26 April for clarification of a number of elements of the claim.

  Multi-modal Studies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which multi-modal studies(a) have reported, (b) are in progress and (c) are planned; and what the

  Multi-modal study and location

  Reported

  Access to Hastings

  Reported December 2000

  Cambridge to Huntingdon (A14)

  Reported August 2001

  South East Manchester (Stockport, Manchester Airport Link West, Poynton)

  Reported September 2001

  West Midlands Area (M5/M6 and M42 between M40 and M6)

  Reported October 2001

  West Midlands to North West (M6)

  Reported May 2002

  London to South West and South Wales (A303, M4)

  Reported May 2002

  A1 (North of Newcastle) Tranche 2

  Reported May 2002

  North/South Movements in the East Midlands (M1 Junctions 21 to 30)

  Reported May 2002

  (b) The multi-modal studies that are currently in progress and their expected reporting dates are as follows:

  Multi-modal study

  Expected report date

  A453 (M1 Junction 24 to Nottingham)

  June 2002

  Hull (East/West) Corridor (A63 and A1033 to Port of Hull)

  July 2002

  Tyneside Area (A1/A19)

  August 2002

  London to Ipswich (A12)

  August 2002

  South and West Yorkshire Motorway Box (M1 J30 to A1 West Yorkshire/M18/M62 and A1(M)

  August 2002

  South Coast (Southampton to Folkestone Coastal Corridor)—(M27, A27 and A259)

  August 2002

  ORBIT—Transport Solutions Around London (M25)

  October 2002

  Thames Valley (London to Reading—M4)

  November/December 2002

  M60 Junction 12–18 (West to North Manchester)

  December 2002

  London to South Midlands (A1, M1, M11, A5 and A421)

  December 2002

  Norwich to Peterborough (A47)

  February 2003

  West Midlands to East Midlands (A42/M42 to M6 Corridor and M69 and A38)

  April 2003

  (c) The final two multi-modal studies that are planned but have yet to commence are as follows.

  These studies are expected to report in 2004.

  Multi-modal study and location

  A52 (Clifton Bridge to Bingham, Nottinghamshire).

  A34 (North from Southampton).

  Railtrack
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 11 June 2002,Official Report, column 1137W, if he will list the major stations owned by Railtrack plc. [64369]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand that Railtrack plc owns some 2,500 stations across the national network, the great majority of which are leased to train operating companies for them to manage. However, Railtrack plc manages directly 14 of the largest stations, known collectively as "major stations". These are as follows:

  London Bridge

  London Charing Cross

  London Euston

  London King's Cross

  London Liverpool Street

  London Paddington

  London Victoria

  London Waterloo

  Birmingham New Street

  Gatwick Airport

  Leeds City

  768W
  expected completion date or final report date is in each case. [63833]

  Mr. Spellar
  (a) The multi-modal studies that have reported and a final report published are as follows:

  Manchester Piccadilly

  Edinburgh Waverley

  Glasgow Central.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the total cost of Railtrack administration. [63762]

  Mr. Spellar
  As the exact extent of the period of administration is, at this stage, unknown it is not possible to estimate the total cost of administration.

  However the fees of the Administrator and his advisers are currently averaging £3.25 million per month.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much the direct grants paid to Railtrack were, and when they were paid by the SRA, resulting from the increase in access charges granted to Railtrack as part of the last periodic review carried out by the ORR; and if he will make a statement. [62297]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: Direct grants from the SRA to Railtrack are a substitute income stream to track access charges from passenger train operators. In the absence of grant, access charges would need to be higher.

  Appendix D of the Regulator's October 2000 Periodic Review sets out the profile of grant payments to Railtrack. Further grants agreed as part of the April 2001 agreement between Government and Railtrack are profiled in the appendices to the Regulator's letter to Railtrack of 9 April 2001.
  769W
  Grant payments have so far been made of £337 million on 1 October 2001, £162 million on 16 November 2001 and £493 million on 1 April 2002.

  Central Railways
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the SRA will complete the next stage of its work on Central Railways. [63768]

  Mr. Spellar
  The SRA is expected to provide a report to Ministers by September 2002.

  Rail Freight
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) statutory rules, (b) guidelines and (c) regulations control access to network information provided to companies who wish to put forward proposals for the development of new freight connections. [62285]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Transport on 20 June 2002, Official Report, column 510W.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the outcome of the review of the PUG2 upgrade of the west coast main line. [63161]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority hopes to publish its west coast main line strategy in the next month or so. This will set out the authority proposed approach to the future development of the line, and to making the most effective use of the capacity which the upgrade will provide.

  Secure Stations Scheme
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the stations which have accreditation under the secure stations scheme; and if he will make a statement. [64096]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have placed in the Libraries of the House a list that records the name of each of the 143 stations accredited under the secure stations scheme as of 21 June 2002.

  The percentage of stations accredited under the scheme is small in relation to the number of stations eligible to he accredited under the scheme. However. the accredited stations account for approximately one third of the total annual passenger throughput of overground rail journeys.

  Railway Byelaws
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what(a) discussions he has had and (b) representations he has received from the railway industry on the railway byelaws since June 2001; and if he will make a statement; [64139]

  (2) what assessment of the railway byelaws has been made by his Department; what plans there are to update these byelaws; and if he will make a statement. [64140]
  770W
  Mr. Jamieson
  After several years of assessment and development of the byelaws made by the British Railways Board, the national railway operators made new byelaws using a common framework set. The Secretary of State confirmed these byelaws on 19 December 2000 and they came into operation on 18 February 2001. There are no plans to update them.

  Union Railways (North) Limited, Union Railways (South) Limited and Hull Trains Limited have written to the Department about their proposals for making byelaws based on the framework set. GNER, Arriva Trains Merseyside and Thameslink have also made inquiries regarding the interpretation and application of their current byelaws.

  Railway Vandalism
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what legislation exists relating to vandalism on the railways; what plans he has to update this legislation; and if he will make a statement. [64142]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The legislation used by the British Transport police in relation to acts of vandalism is:

  England and Wales

  Criminal Damage Act 1971

  Railway Byelaws

  Scotland

  Malicious Damage (Common Law)

  Railway Byelaws

  Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland) Act 1995.

  Under the Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997, Railtrack, as the infrastructure controller, is required to prevent unauthorised access to the track, so far as is reasonably practicable and to the extent necessary for safety.

  There are no plans to update this legislation in relation to vandalism on the railways.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance has been given by his Department to(a) the British Transport police, (b) the Health and Safety Executive and (c) the railway industry regarding vandalism on the railways; what plans he has to update the guidance; and if he will make a statement. [64143]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department has not issued any guidance on vandalism on the railways as this is an operational matter for the industry. However, the Minister for Transport, John Spellar, spoke at the Trespass and Vandalism on the Railways Conference in October 2001 where he encouraged the leading players in the industry to implement a more coherent national strategy to deliver a sustained, visible and effective campaign to tackle the problem. The Government are pleased to note that all sections of the rail industry recently came together in the National Route Crime Group to examine and promote ways of tackling trespass and vandalism on the railways.

  East London Line
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make resources available to enable rail freight to be diverted away from train paths required for the East London Line extensions. [64287]
  771W
  Mr. Jamieson
  As outlined in its Strategic Plan, the SRA is currently advancing feasibility work on an upgrade of the Gospel Oak—Barking line and take future growth in freight path demand away from the Dalston—Highbury and Islington section of the East London Line extension. However, it is not expected that existing freight paths using the Dalston—Highbury and Islington section will be diverted away from the route. The freight operators hold access rights with the rail regulator for this section, and the ability to run electric traction and gauge-sensitive traffic on the route means these paths are unlikely to be released.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in funding the East London Line extensions. [64285]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The advance works which London Underground are currently undertaking on the northern extension have been funded by the Strategic Rail Authority. The Authority, together with Transport for London and London Underground, is now engaged on a review of the scope of the project as a whole, and in doing so is looking for a robust revised business case, procurement options and the interdependencies on other projects. The revised business case should be submitted to Government in the autumn.

  Light Transport Schemes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) support and (b) guidance has been given by his Department to (i) local authorities, (ii) industry and (iii) others regarding the development of (A) light rail schemes, (B) tram schemes and (C) guided busways; and if he will make a statement. [64102]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The initiative in bringing forward proposals for major local transport schemes, including light rail, tram and guided bus schemes, in England outside London, rests with the local transport authority concerned. Officials in my Department and the Government offices are ready to provide information, support and guidance as required and often meet the promoters of individual schemes. In addition, from time to time they arrange forums and workshops for local authorities and their advisers on particular transport modes: workshops have already been held this year on both light rail and guided bus. Officials also regularly provide background information and support to individuals studying and researching this area.

  Relevant general guidance, covering all transport modes, which is freely available to all interested parties includes (a) the Department's guidance to local authorities on the preparation of Local Transport Plans (LTPs) (issued in March 2000) and LTP Annual Progress Reports (APRs) (latest edition issued in March 2002) and (b) the Department's guidance on the appraisal of major local transport schemes (most recently updated in May 2002).

  Network Rail
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment(a) has been made and (b) is planned by (i) his Department, (ii) the SRA, (iii) the rail regulator and (iv) other organisations for which he is responsible; of the accountability of Network Rail; and if he will make a statement. [64136]
  772W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Network Rail will be accountable to its members and to the Rail Regulator. Its board and management will be incentivised to meet demanding performance targets, defined by the Rail Regulator and aligned to the SRA' s strategic plan. It would also have obligations under its network licence and to its funders and customers.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what support his Department(a) has given and (b) plans to give to improve co-ordination of bus services. [64138]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department supports the encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport services. My officials are engaged in constructive dialogue with all stakeholders, including the Office of Fair Trading, to work together towards achieving these goals.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations have been received by his Department on fuel duty rebates for bus services; what plans he has to reform fuel duty rebates; and if he will make a statement. [64101]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department receives from time to time representations from local authorities, bus companies and other organisations on the existing fuel duty rebate scheme and possible changes to it. We are currently taking forward the review of bus subsidies, including fuel duty rebate, announced in the April Budget. This will build on the on-going study by the Commission for Integrated Transport on value for money from bus subsidies.

  Bus Regulation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from(a) industry and (b) passenger groups regarding the regulation of buses; and what changes he (i) has made and (ii) plans to make to regulation within the industry. [64137]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The bus industry is broadly content with the existing regulatory framework and advocates stability. As for passenger groups, the National Federation of Bus Users has made representations on the improvement of service provision and reliability, particularly through bus priorities, but has not specified regulation of the industry as a major concern.

  We are always looking at ways of improving the details of regulation. On 1 March we extended the notice period for introducing or changing a local bus service registration to 56 days, and abolished the rule which allowed local service operators to alter timetables by up to 5 minutes from the registered time without changing the registration. We will soon be consulting on proposals to facilitate the registration of flexibly routed local bus services.

  Quiet Lanes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which local authorities included proposals for quiet lanes in their annual progress reports 2001 finance forms; and how many quiet lanes were proposed in each case. [63507]
  773W
  Mr. Spellar
  The table shows the information provided within the local transport plan annual progress reports submitted in August 2001 of those English authorities outside London which included proposals for the designation of roads as quiet lanes.

  Authority

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Bath and north-east Somerset

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Blackburn

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Cheshire

  2

  3

  3

  6

  4

  Cumbria

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Darlington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Derbyshire

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Devon

  1

  5

  6

  7

  7

  Dorset

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  East Riding

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Halton

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Isle of Wight

  1

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Kent

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Lancashire

  0

  6

  0

  0

  0

  Medway

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Milton Keynes

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Oxfordshire

  0

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Poole

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Rutland

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shropshire

  4

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Solihull

  0

  0

  2

  3

  4

  Somerset

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  0

  10

  20

  20

  20

  Surrey

  2

  6

  6

  6

  2

  Telford and Wrekin

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Thurrock

  0

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Wiltshire

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  York

  0

  2

  4

  6

  8

  Source:

  LTP Annual Progress Reports 2001

  School Run
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research has been conducted(a) by and (b) for his Department on the impact of the school run on (i) congestion, (ii) traffic growth, (iii) pollution, (iv) children's health and (v) road casualties; and if he will make a statement. [64100]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has commissioned an extensive programme of research, following advice from the School Travel Advisory Group. The results of completed projects can be found on the Department's school travel website at www.local-transport.dft.gov.uk/schooltravel/.

  Road Signage
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) guidance and (b) legislation exists with relation to road signage on (i) motorways, (ii) trunk roads, (iii) local authority roads and (iv) unadopted roads; what changes have (1) recently been made and (2) are planned in each case; and if he will make a statement. [64134]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The principal legislation specifying the design and use of traffic signs (as traffic signs are defined in section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) to be placed on any road (as road is defined in section 142 of the 1984 Act), is the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 1994, SI 994/1519, as 774W
  amended by SI 1995/2769 and SI 1995/3107. We consulted last year on draft revised and updated TSRGD and expect to publish the TSRGD 2002 later this year.

  Guidance on the design and use of traffic signs is contained in the Traffic Signs Manual. Chapter 7, published in 1997, gives guidance on the design of sign faces. Revised Chapters 4 (design and use of warning signs) and 5 (road markings) will be published with the revised TSRGD. We have also consulted on proposals for publishing updated and revised guidance on the provision of directional signs to tourist destinations in England. Other relevant guidance is published in Local Transport Notes, including LTN 1/94 on the design and use of direction signs, Circulars (Roads), and Advisory Leaflets. Copies of the current Traffic Signs bibliography has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Road Surfaces
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which local authorities included proposals for noise reducing road surfaces in their annual progress reports 2001 finance forms; and what the total km of quiet road surfacing proposed was in each case. [63499]

  Mr. Spellar
  The table shows the information provided within the local transport plan annual progress reports submitted in August 2001 by those English authorities outside London which included road maintenance proposals which use new noise-reducing surfaces.

  Kilometres

  Authority

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Barnsley

  4

  4

  3

  4

  4

  Blackburn

  4.2

  5.8

  6.8

  6.8

  6.8

  Bolton

  5

  3

  1

  2

  2

  Bradford

  19

  22

  17

  17

  17

  Buckinghamshire

  17

  14

  13

  13

  13

  Calderdale

  10

  17

  13

  14

  15

  Cambridgeshire

  168

  140

  140

  140

  140

  Cheshire

  2

  1

  2

  1

  2

  Cornwall

  60

  65

  70

  75

  80

  Darlington

  3

  5

  3

  4

  4

  Derby

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Devon

  46

  77

  44

  45

  53

  Dorset

  11

  7

  6

  7

  10

  Durham

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  East Sussex

  0

  0.5

  0

  0

  0

  Hampshire

  4

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Herefordshire

  12

  12

  12

  12

  12

  Knowsley

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  25

  27

  27

  27

  27

  Leeds

  10

  14

  12

  12

  14

  Leicestershire

  22

  31

  18

  18

  18

  Lincolnshire

  32

  34

  36

  38

  40

  Medway

  4

  4

  5

  3

  3

  North Somerset

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  0

  0.5

  0.5

  Northamptonshire

  5

  4

  5

  4

  4

  Northumberland

  9

  6

  7

  5

  8

  Peterborough

  8

  8

  8

  8

  8

  Reading

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Rutland

  3

  4

  6

  6

  6

  Sefton

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Solihull

  2

  3

  2

  2

  2

  Somerset

  50

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stockton on Tees

  13

  13

  13

  13

  13

  Suffolk

  90

  90

  90

  90

  90

  Sunderland

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Surrey

  44

  18

  19

  4

  0

  Telford and Wrekin

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Thurrock

  11.7

  4.2

  3.7

  3.7

  3.7

  West Sussex

  65

  85

  67

  67

  67

  Wakefield

  0

  2

  2

  2

  2

  775W

  Kilometres

  Authority

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Warwickshire

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wigan

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Wokingham

  3

  1

  3

  3

  2

  Worcestershire

  15

  15

  11

  11

  11

  Source:

  LTP annual progress reports 2001

  Road Tolls
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the potential impact of road tolls on(a) motorways and (b) trunk roads on the level of road usage on other roads; [59328]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the amounts that could be raised by the introduction of road tolls on motorways. [59327]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Various assessments of the impact of road user charging have been made in the background analysis document of the 10-year plan for transport and "Modernising the Taxation of the Haulage Industry Progress Report One", published by HM Treasury, HM Customs and Excise and the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  A number of multi-modal studies have also examined the impact of applying road user charges within their study areas. These papers are the work of study consultants. The Government have made no estimates of the revenues that might be generated.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decisions have been made by his Department in the last year under authority from the Royal Prerogative. [63138]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Records are not kept of the individual occasions on which powers under the Royal Prerogative are exercised nor could it be practicable to do so.

  Joint Working
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the protocol on joint working between his Department and(a) the Department for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs and (b) the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. [63505]

  Mr. Darling
  My Department works closely with all Government Departments including DEFRA and ODPM.

  Refurbishment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the refurbishment projects that(a) are in progress and (b) will start within the next six months; and what action is being taken to ensure that these will procure certified timber. [59775]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.
  776W
  There are two major refurbishment projects currently under way or to commence during the next six months in the Department of Transport. These are:
  Federated House, Dorking (Highways Agency): the use of timber from certified sustainable sources is included in the specification.
  Eland House, London (DTLR(C)): the use of timber from certified sustainable sources will be included in the specification.

  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 will be accounted for by staff costs; what the figures were for 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [61017]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following the split of the Department between the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department for Transport, the departmental expenditure limit (DEL) for the Department for Transport has yet to be settled.

  Promotion Panel
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many officers promoted from Band 6 to Band 5 at the HSE NW regional office, Manchester from January 1998 to December 2001, were successful at promotion panels in open competition; how many unsuccessful candidates were subsequently promoted; and if such promotions are in line with HSE policy and procedures. [62720]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number of Band 6 officers promoted to B5 at the HSE NW regional office between January 1998 and December 2001 was six.

  The information regarding the number of unsuccessful candidates who were subsequently promoted is not readily available.

  Regional Spending
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department's(a) capital and (b) revenue spending for each English region in each year since 1992 was. [62811]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the capital and revenue spending for each English region since 1992 for the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and its predecessors is not available. Details of identifiable public expenditure outturn by region and function are published in the annual Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (Cms 2821, 3201, 3601, 3901, 4201, 4601, 5101 and 5401).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  New Partnership for Africa's Development
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the development of the New Partnership for Africa's Development. [62121]

  Mr. MacShane
  The New Partnership for Africa's Development (NePAD) is a long term agenda for Africa,
  777W
  designed by African leaders for the attainment of sustainable development. Our work on the G8 Africa Plan shows our strong support for NePAD and we will seek to build stronger partnerships with those countries which put the NePAD principles into practice.

  Russia
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on bilateral relations with Russia. [62123]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Bilateral relations are excellent, with an intensive programme of high-level visits. The Prime Minister is in regular contact with President Putin: they will next meet at the G8 summit on 25–26 June. We actively support Putin's programme of reforms, and we have a productive dialogue on the full range of issues.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Russia about combating terrorism. [62125]

  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions are taking place with Russia on combating international terrorism. [62132]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last discussed counter-terrorism with the Russians during the G8 Foreign Ministers' Summit in Canada on 12–13 June.

  Middle East
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Israeli representatives concerning the situation in Israel and Palestine. [62124]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 12 June my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed with Prime Minister Sharon how to resolve the conflict in the Middle East, and generate confidence in a genuine political process. The Foreign Secretary spoke to Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres on 28 April. I had a discussion with the Israeli Ambassador on 18 June, at which I expressed concern about the situation in the region, and explored ways to restart a political process.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with European Union Foreign Ministers to co-ordinate their response to the situation in the middle east. [62139]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in almost constant contact with his European Union colleagues Most recently, he attended the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 17 June, during which European Union Foreign Ministers discussed the situation in the middle east.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent security developments in Pakistan. [62126]
  778W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We remain seriously concerned about the security situation in Pakistan and are appalled by the many incidents of terrorist violence against Pakistani and foreign nationals. The vicious attack on worshippers in an Islamabad church in March and the two recent bombings in Karachi were particularly horrifying. As soon as the news of the latest bombing reached us, I immediately issued a statement expressing our sympathies to the friends and relatives of those killed.

  We will continue to urge the Pakistani authorities to sustain their efforts to root out the terrorists and bring them to justice. The threat of war between India and Pakistan has further undermined the security environment in the region. We are encouraged by the recent steps taken by the Pakistani and Indian Governments to defuse tensions and will continue to urge them to move away from confrontation and towards dialogue.

  World Trade
  Rosemary McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the effect of US steel tariffs on world trade. [62127]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn).

  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on post-Doha world trade liberalisation. [62135]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope).

  Zimbabwe
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had concerning Zimbabwe at the recent European Council meeting in Seville. [62128]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had no formal discussions with EU partners on Zimbabwe at Seville.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the political situation in Zimbabwe. [62134]

  Mr. MacShane
  What is happening in Zimbabwe is a man-made tragedy. Zimbabwe's only way back from disaster is through the restoration of the rule of law, an end to political violence, a return to democratic legitimacy, and the adoption of credible economic policies.

  Our policy towards Zimbabwe is to sustain an international consensus by working with European, Commonwealth, US, African and other international and democratic friends to help restore democracy, good governance, respect for human rights and the rule of law.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Zimbabwean Government on the future of land owned by British expatriates; and if he will make a statement. [62110]
  779W
  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham).

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what penalties can be imposed on an EU member state which does not enforce the travel ban imposed on members of the Zimbabwean Government. [62166]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The travel ban is imposed by a Common Position (2002/145/CFSP of 18 February 2002). Under Article 15 of the Treaty on European Union, all member states are obliged to implement Common Positions. All member states have fully implemented and enforced the travel ban so far and we expect them to continue doing so. There are no penalties under the Treaty applicable in these cases.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which EU body oversees the implementation by member states of the travel ban restrictions imposed on the various members of the Zimbabwean Government. [62167]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 17 June 2002]: The European Union travel ban is imposed by a Common Position (2002/145/CFSP of 18 February 2002). Under Article 15 of the Treaty on European Union, all member states are obliged to implement Common Positions. The responsibility for implementing Common Positions lies with member states.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the status is of the discussions with the Spanish Government on the future of Gibraltar. [62129]

  Peter Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave earlier in the House today to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle).

  Malawi
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Malawi to discuss bilateral relations. [62130]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Secretary of State has no plans to visit Malawi.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on plans for monitoring the forthcoming elections in Jammu and Kashmir. [62131]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We welcome the Indian Government's commitment to hold free and fair elections later this year in Jammu and Kashmir. We also welcome the measures announced recently by the Chief Election Commissioner aimed at delivering that commitment, including the presence of Indian and international monitors.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role the UK Government will play in easing tensions between India and Pakistan [62133]
  780W
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK Government's role in reducing tension in Kashmir. [62141]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have been working actively with our partners in the international community to encourage both India and Pakistan to reduce tensions, and to help create the conditions for them to negotiate a long-term solution to their differences.

  As part of the co-ordinated international diplomatic effort, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Pakistan and India on 28 and 29 May. He is in regular contact with both sides, and with our key international partners. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also spoken at length to both sides, and to world leaders, including Presidents Bush and Putin, about the situation.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the present situation in Kashmir. [62138]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier in the House today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff).

  EU Overseas Aid
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings he has had with his EU counterparts regarding the distribution of the EU overseas aid package. [62137]

  Peter Hain
  The General Affairs Council held its annual "orientation" debate on the EU's external action, including the EC external budget, on 18 February. There was a brief follow-up discussion at the May 13 GAC meeting. The negotiations on the EC budget for 2003 are under way at official level in Brussels.

  European Commission
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Commission's role in foreign policy development. [62140]

  Peter Hain
  The Commission bears responsibility for implementing a range of European foreign policy tools. These include external trade questions (including sanctions), European external assistance and some external aspects of Justice and Home Affairs. The European Commission is not, however, responsible for the European Union's common foreign and security policy, which is intergovernmental (Title V of the treaty on European Union), though the Commission is fully associated with the Union's foreign and security policy.

  Geneva Convention
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Fourth Geneva convention. [62142]

  Mr. MacShane
  Together with their 1977 additional protocols, the four Geneva conventions of 1949 remain the cornerstone of international humanitarian law. The Fourth Geneva convention is the most lengthy, affording
  781W
  protection to civilian populations, which the experiences of the second world war showed to be singularly deficient in the international legal instruments adopted hitherto. The Government consider that the conventions have collectively stood the test of time and that, where properly applied, the Fourth convention and additional protocols offer a high degree of protection and serve to reduce the degree of suffering to which civilians may be exposed by conflict.

  East Timor
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what continuing support the Government will offer to East Timor. [62143]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner).

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the performance targets that his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004; and if he will specify for each target(a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. [60470]

  Mr. MacShane
  In addition to the performance targets listed in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004, the FCO's service delivery agreement, agreed under the 2000 Spending Review, contains a number of targets for the period 2001 to 2004. Progress against the FCO's SDA targets is monitored by the FCO, using a combination of internally-generated management information, and through a series of scorecard measures agreed with HM Treasury. The FCO's current PSA, SDA, and information on scorecards can be consulted on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk). The following public bodes sponsored by the FCO have performance targets:

  BBC World Service (including BBC Monitoring) (public corporation)
  Targets for the BBC World Service are included in the FCO's PSA, scorecards to the FCO's PSA, and in the BBC World Service's annual report on output and performance measures. Targets are set by the FCO in consultation with the World Service. Progress is monitored by the FCO.
  Targets for BBC Monitoring are set out in scorecards to the FCO's SDA. Additional key performance indicators/targets are set out in BBC Monitoring's corporate plan. These key performance indicators and targets are set by the FCO and other stakeholders in BBC Monitoring (Ministry of Defence, Cabinet Office and BBC World Service) in consultation with BBC Monitoring, and achievement is monitored by the stakeholders.

  Britain-Russia Centre (executive non-departmental public body)
  Performance targets for the Britain-Russia Centre are set out in its corporate plan. The plan is approved by the FCO and the FCO monitors progress against it.

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe (executive non-departmental public body)
  Performance targets for the British Association for Central and Eastern Europe are set out in its corporate plan. The targets are set by the association, agreed with the FCO3 and monitored jointly by the association and by the FCO.
  782W
  British Council (executive non-departmental public body)
  The British Council's annual corporate plan summarises the British Council's key operational and financial targets for the year. Progress against its targets is monitored by the British Council and the FCO.

  The Great Britain-China Centre (executive non-departmental public body)
  The Great Britain-China Centre has annual objectives which are included in its corporate plan. These objectives are set and progress against them monitored by the Great Britain-China Centre board in conjunction with the FCO.

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission (advisory non-departmental public body)
  The Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission's corporate plan contains annual performance targets. The plan is approved, and progress against its targets monitored, by the FCO.

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy (executive non-departmental public body)
  The Westminster Foundation for Democracy's performance targets are set through a consultative process between the FCO and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy's executive and board. Progress against targets is formally monitored quarterly by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy's board, which is attended by the FCO.

  Wilton Park (executive agency)
  A target for percentage of respondents who rate Wilton Park's conference programme highly is set out in a scorecard to the FCO's PSA. A number of additional targets for Wilton Park are incorporated into Wilton Park's corporate plan and information on its performance against them is in its annual report. These additional targets are set by the FCO-led Wilton Park departmental board in consultation with Wilton Park, and achievement is monitored by the departmental board annually.

  Wilton Park Academic Council (advisory non-departmental public body)
  The Wilton Park Academic Council's work is monitored by the FCO, which acts as Secretariat to it.

  Arms Trade
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what end-use monitoring his Department carries out on the re-export of small arms, manufactured under British licence production agreements, by(a) MKEK (Turkey), (b) Pakistan Ordnance Factories and (c) Brugger and Thomet (Switzerland). [61983]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have no specific end-use monitoring arrangements on the re-export of small arms manufactured overseas under commercial licence from defence manufacturers located in the UK.

  The Government focus their efforts on assessment of potential end-use at the export licensing stage, including where needed through checks made by our posts overseas. Carrying out effective risk assessment on end-users before making the export licensing decision is the surest way of preventing arms from falling into the wrong hands. The Government remain committed to carrying out end-use monitoring in those circumstances where this will genuinely add value to our efforts to minimise the risk of misuse and diversion and where such monitoring is practicable. Our overseas posts have standing instructions to report on allegations of misuse of any UK-origin defence equipment and to take this into account during the export licensing process.
  783W
  Licensed production of arms overseas typically depends on the supply to the overseas producer of controlled component parts and technology by the company licensing the manufacture of its products. Any controlled equipment or technology exported from the UK to a production facility licensed under a commercial arrangement between a British company and an overseas company would be assessed on a case by case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. Our criteria clearly set out our commitment to take account of the risk that exports might be diverted to an undesirable end-user or re-exported under undesirable conditions. The criteria were set out in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) to hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on 26 October 2000, Official Report, columns 199–203W.

  Any exports of controlled equipment or technology that take place under commercial licensed production agreements entered into by UK-owned defence manufacturers located overseas would be subject to the export control rules of the country in which those defence manufacturers are located.

  India/Pakistan
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what services are available at the British high commissions in India and Pakistan for British citizens who do not wish to leave their respective countries. [61194]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: We have been advising Britons to leave Pakistan since 31 May. We continue to do everything we can to help any British national who chooses to remain in India or Pakistan despite our advice. Our posts in India continue to provide the full range of consular services. While Chennai and Kolkata continue to offer a full visa service, a reduction in staff means that our visa services are more limited in Delhi and Mumbai.

  In Pakistan we have recently closed our mission in Lahore but our posts in Islamabad and Karachi are still offering the full range of consular services. Reduced staff levels there mean, however, that services may take longer to provide. Furthermore, Karachi is no longer able to offer a visa service and Islamabad is only able to offer a much reduced visa service.

  We have advised British nationals who choose to remain in either country to stay in touch with our high commissions, and to monitor the media (including our website—www.fco.gov.uk). We stay in touch with British nationals who have registered with us through a network of wardens (such networks are maintained by FCO diplomatic posts in many countries overseas; wardens are volunteers who help to disseminate information to the resident British community) in both India and Pakistan, and we are encouraging any British national who remains in either country, and who has not registered with the high commission, to do so.

  Peru
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Peru. [62783]
  784W
  Mr. MacShane
  We enjoy good relations. I visited Peru for the inauguration of President Toledo last July. The Prime Minister met President Toledo at the EU-Latin American and Caribbean summit on 17 May. HRH the Duke of York paid an official visit to Peru in March. DFID's development co-operation programme stands at approximately £4.5 million per annum and we have committed a further £4 million, over five years, to President Toledo's anti-poverty economic recovery programme "A Trahajar". We are also supporting the rebuilding of democracy and support for human rights in Peru, as well as indigenous rights, police and military reform and drugs co-operation. The UK is one of Peru's main trading partners in the EU, and one of the largest foreign investors in Peru.

  Timber
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new steps the Government will take to verify the implementation of the bilateral agreement between the United Kingdom and Indonesia regarding the trade in illegal timber products. [63058]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Work towards implementation of this memorandum of understanding is ongoing both in the UK and in Indonesia. We are currently negotiating an action plan to implement the MOU with the Government of Indonesia in consultation with civil society and the private sector in both countries. The action plan will include means for monitoring progress and should be finalised by September this year.

  Israel/Palestine
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the area by(a) acreage and (b) location on the (i) Israeli and (ii) Palestinian side of the planned and actual fence and trench which goes beyond their borders as defined by the (A) 1947 and (B) 1967 UN Resolutions. [63355]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The fence and trench are at an early stage of construction. We do not have definitive figures on the areas of Israeli and Palestinian territory affected by the proposed or actual construction. We will continue to monitor the facts on the ground.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a map of the fence and trench(a) planned and (b) under construction between Israel and the Palestinian west bank. [63356]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Her Majesty's Government have no plans to publish maps of Israeli Government proposals for a fence and trench. This is a matter for the Israeli Government.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations(a) have been made and (b) he plans to make to (i) the Israeli Government and (ii) Arab nations concerning the plans by Israel to build a fence and trench dividing Israel and the Palestinian west bank; and if he will make a statement. [63354]
  785W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have repeatedly made clear to the Israeli Government that only a political process leading to a comprehensive settlement will produce lasting peace. Physical barriers alone will not give the Israeli people the long-term security they deserve. Our efforts with Arab and other Governments will continue to focus on breaking the cycle of violence by restarting the political process. I raised this issue with the Israeli ambassador last week.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his Department's policy to support the construction of a fence and trench dividing Israel and the Palestinian west bank; and if he will make a statement. [63358]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is not. We do not believe that the construction of a fence and trench dividing Israel and the west bank will provide lasting security for Israel, which can only be achieved through negotiation of a permanent settlement by Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's estimate is of the number of Israeli civilians killed by Palestinian suicide bombers who were understood to have entered Israel from(a) the Palestinian west bank and (b) Gaza. [63360]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  According to Israeli Defence Forces figures, 215 Israeli civilians have been killed by suicide bombings since the beginning of the current intifada. The Israeli Defence Forces claim that no suicide attack inside the Green Line has come from Gaza, and that all have originated in the west bank.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the(a) length, (b) structure, (c) size and (d) defensive effectiveness of the fence and trench being constructed between Israel and the Palestinian west bank. [63357]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At present, the fence and trench are at an early stage of construction. We continue to monitor the facts on the ground as they develop.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the United States concerning the construction of a fence and trench dividing Israel and the Palestinian west bank; and if he will make a statement. [63359]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have not yet discussed Israel's construction of a security fence with the Government of the United States.

  British Council Library (Paris)
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the British Council Library in Paris; and if he will make a statement. [63333]

  Mr. MacShane
  The lending section of the Council's library in Paris will close at the end of June. The lending collection will be donated to public institutions, such as the French National Library and the specialist English studies libraries, and so will remain accessible to the 786W
  public in Paris. Investment of £445,000 will enable part of the centre to re-open in the autumn with an Open Learning area with 30 dedicated computers and a video conferencing facility. A free access information service will also provide 40 UK periodicals and newspapers, reference books on education and the learning of English in the UK, and guidance on cultural, educational and scientific services from Britain.

  Nepal
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Nepalese Government regarding the escalation of terrorist attacks by Maoist groups. [63480]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are very concerned about the situation in Nepal. This brutal insurgency by the Maoists is undermining Nepal's young democracy and fragile economy. Maoist terrorists are conducting a savage campaign of intimidation in Nepal to further their own political aims.

  The UK has long been a friend of Nepal and we are committed to continuing our developmental, political and military assistance to them. This message was reiterated to the Nepalese Prime Minister during his visit last month to the UK by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for International Development and my predecessor, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). We reassured the Nepalese Prime Minister of our full support, but also made clear the need for effective action by the Nepalese Government on reform and development.

  We have just hosted an international conference in London with representatives from the Nepalese Government and from other countries who share our concerns, to discuss how the international community can best co-ordinate its efforts in supporting the people of Nepal. We will continue to develop an integrated approach to security, reform and development within Nepal.

  The UK has put together a comprehensive package of developmental and military assistance totalling more than £30 million for this financial year. This money will cover projects aimed at short-term development and to reinforce Nepal's development, military and police capacity.

  Unlawful Killings (UK Nationals)
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK nationals were unlawfully killed in(a) Egypt, (b) Jordan, (c) Lebanon, (d) Syria, (e) Turkey, (f) Iraq, (g) Iran, (h) Israel, (i) Algeria, (j) Morocco, (k) Libya, (l) Tunisia, (m) Pakistan, (n) Nigeria, (o) Sudan, (p) Ethiopia, (q) Saudi Arabia, (r) Oman, (s) Yemen, (t) Kuwait and (u) UAE in the period from 1 May 2000 to 1 May 2002. [63542]

  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) Egypt: 0

  (b) Jordan: 0

  (c) Lebanon: 0

  (d) Syria: 0

  (e) Turkey: 2

  (f) Iraq: 0

  787W

  (g) Iran: 0

  (h) Israel: 2

  (i) Algeria: 0

  (j) Morocco: 2

  (k) Libya: 0

  (l) Tunisia: 2

  (m) Pakistan: 6

  (n) Nigeria: 3

  (o) Sudan: 0

  (p) Ethiopia: 0

  (q) Saudi Arabia: 7

  (r) Oman: 0

  (s) Yemen: 0

  (t) Kuwait: 0

  (u) UAE: 0

  Sudan
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff are assigned to the unit headed by Mr. Alan Goulty as Special Representative to Sudan; and what the budget of his office is for the current financial year. [63853]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Special Representative for Sudan is supported by a joint FCO/DFID Sudan Unit which has a permanent staff of four officials who can call on advisers across Whitehall as necessary. The staff and running costs of the unit for the current financial year come to approximately £450,000. In addition to this sum, the Sudan Unit and other DFID officials have call on another £7.75 million for humanitarian aid and peace-building activities.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Government have had with the Government of Sudan since 1 January. [63820]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government has continuous contact with the Government of Sudan through our diplomatic missions in London and Khartoum. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development visited Sudan in January. The UK Special Representative and other officials have had a series of discussions with members of the Sudanese Government since January, mainly on issues related to peace.

  G8 Foreign Ministers' Summit
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on matters discussed, matters of agreement and disagreement, and decisions taken at the meeting of G8 foreign ministers in Whistler, Canada; and if he will place in the Library copies of all documentation circulated at the meeting, excluding security sensitive information. [63852]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary represented the UK at the meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Group of eight in Whistler, Canada on 12–13 June.

  Issues discussed at the meeting included counter-terrorism, Afghanistan, South Asia, the middle east, non-proliferation, the Balkans, Cyprus and the Korean Peninsula. No formal decisions were taken on these or other issues, though a G8 statement on Afghanistan and a progress report on G8 activity against terrorism were
  788W
  agreed and issued at the meeting. Copies of those documents and of the Canadian chairman's summary of discussion have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Visas
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many appeals were lodged against visa refusals in(a) Mumbai, (b) New Delhi and (c) Islamabad in 2001; and when he will re-open the entry clearance operation in (i) Mumbai, (ii) New Delhi and (iii) Islamabad. [64231]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of appeals received in 2001 by Mumbai, New Delhi and Islamabad are shown below:

  Mumbai: 733

  Islamabad: 4,941

  New Delhi: 1,396.

  Entry clearance operations in Mumbai, New Delhi and Islamabad are not closed.

  We are currently operating a restricted visa service in New Delhi and Mumbai. Since 4 June, New Delhi and Mumbai have only accepted settlement applications, urgent medical and compassionate cases and drop box applications for limited categories of travellers including previous visitors and returning residents.

  Since 6 June Islamabad has been offering a very limited service, accepting applications through Fedex from returning residents and urgent medical and compassionate cases, including settlement and family visit applications in these categories.

  We are keeping service and staffing levels under constant review. Our aim is a phased resumption of normal service at the security situation permits and staffing levels build up.

  From 24 June New Delhi and Mumbai will be extending the service offered to accept applications in a broad category of 'straightforward' traveller.

  Also from 24 June the visa service in Islamabad will be extended to include applications from:

  a business visitor with a letter of invitation from a company in the UK who has travelled to the UK within the last three years and has evidence of this travel;

  holder of a valid UK Work Permit;

  a member of an airline crew on a route which passes through the UK;

  a seaman with a previous visa for the same purpose. Applications must be accompanied by the seaman's book and a letter from a recognised shipping company

  the spouse or child (under 18) of one of the above categories, and accompanying the main applicant to the UK.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department will supply answers to the chronology points discussed during the meeting with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and his constituent, the Reverend Jason Clark. [64365]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The chronology queries, to which the hon. Member refers, are Mr. Clark's contradictions of the Embassy and FCO's records.
  789W
  It was agreed during the hon. Member's meeting with my noble Friend Baroness Amos on 20 February, that the chronology issue would be reviewed once our mutual concerns about Mr. Clark's health (and corresponding clemency plea to the Abu Dhabi authorities) had been addressed. I understand that this was agreed with Michael Clark himself in a meeting with embassy staff on 20 January 2002. As soon as these concerns are resolved, we will address the issues surrounding the discrepancies in our respective chronology of events in this case.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decisions have been made by his Department in the last year under authority from the Royal Prerogative. [63130]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 6 December 2001,Official Report, column 467W, and to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 15 October 2001, Official Report, column 967W, to which I have nothing further to add.

  Subcontinent (Land Mines)
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Governments of India and Pakistan concerning the deployment of land mines on their shared border. [62103]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We deplore the use of antipersonnel landmines. Although no recent representations have been made since 1998, when the United Kingdom became a State Party to the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use. Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, we have lobbied all states non-party, whether users of anti-personnel landmines or not, to ratify the convention.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effects of unrest in Gujarat on relations between India and Pakistan. [62119]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We assess there to be no direct link between the recent unrest in Gujarat and relations between India and Pakistan.

  £ million

  Assessment of strategic options, acquisitions and alliances for the mails business

  1.75

  Assessment of strategic options for the Post Office Network (including Universal Bank and Your Guide)

  0.99

  Advice on implementation of the Postal Services Act

  0.22

  Other (including project co-ordination, expenses and unallocated costs)

  0.10

  1 These figures should be seen as indicative as there was some cross over between projects.

  Consignia
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to her oral statement of 13 June 2002,Official Report, column 1022, on Consignia, whether the provisions of the sixth VAT directive exempting public postal services from VAT apply to

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  KPNQwest
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received concerning the financial situation at KPNQwest and the possible shutdown of its Ebone network; what effect she estimates this may have on internet users; and if she will make a statement. [64321]

  Mr. Timms
  I have not received any representations regarding the possible shutdown of KPNQwest's network, although officials in the Department and at Oftel are watching developments closely.

  Some UK ISPs and websites may use KPNQwest for their connection to the internet. Loss of KPNQwest would not necessarily mean complete loss of internet access as major ISPs are likely to have more than one supplier of internet connectivity. It is possible however that access to some websites would be slowed down until traffic were fully rerouted via other networks.

  There is a competitive market for internet connectivity, meaning that ISPs and websites should be able readily to obtain internet connectivity from other suppliers, if they have not already done so, since they were advised by KPNQwest to make contingency arrangements on 30 May.

  Post Office
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent, broken down(a) by consulting firm and (b) by project, on A6, Post Office consultancy and other expenditure related to the Post Office, as stated in Annex b in the Trade and Industry Government Expenditure plans for 2000–01; and if she will make a statement. [63545]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: Payments to individual consultants are commercially confidential. The firms that advised Government were:

  Deloitte and Touche (Financial Advice)

  Herbert Smith (Legal Advice)

  OC&C (Strategy Consultants)

  RKR (Strategy Consultants)

  Lazard (Investment Bank).

  An independent legal adviser also provided a limited amount of legal advice.

  The amount paid for advice per project is as follows1

  all licensed postal operators; and if she will make a statement. [63504]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK VAT exemption for public postal services applies only to the Post Office company and its wholly owned subsidiaries, such as Consignia plc, providing the public postal service.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices in Scotland have changed proprietor in each of the last five years. [62417]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter which falls within the day-to-day responsibility of Consignia and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what decisions have been made by her Department in the last year under authority from the Royal Prerogative. [63137]

  Ms Hewitt
  Records are not kept of the individual occasions on which powers under the Royal Prerogative are exercised, nor could it be practicable to do so.

  Trade Subsidies
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support schemes are available from the European Union for small and medium-sized enterprises in Britain; how much funding is available; and what proportion of this funding has been taken up by small firms in the last three years. [60499]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The primary source of European Union support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the United Kingdom is the European Structural Funds. For the funding period 2000–06 the UK has been allocated approximately £10 billion from these funds.

  The priorities for this funding were the subject of negotiation with the Commission which resulted in a number of agreed programming documents being approved during 2000 and 2001. Expenditure under the programmes can be undertaken until 2008.

  Since each document was drawn up and negotiated on the basis of the needs of the area concerned, the way in which support for SMEs is addressed varies between programmes. Although each programme includes a number of activities which involve either direct or indirect support to SMEs, the funding under the programmes is not disaggregated in a way that enables the amounts available or spent only for the benefit of SMEs to be easily identified, and it would involve disproportionate cost to provide this information.

  Radioactive Materials
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are in place to protect radioactive materials already in the United Kingdom that could be used to build a dirty bomb. [62709]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: Nuclear materials on licensed civil nuclear sites and in transport are subject to rigorous regulatory requirements set, and monitored by, the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS). Nuclear power generators comply with the Nuclear Generating Station (Security) Regulations 1996, made under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Other sites comply with Directions made under the Atomic Energy Act 1954 and the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. All civil nuclear material in the UK is subject to Euratom
  792W
  safeguards and to the terms of the UK/Euratom/IAEA Safeguards Agreement. Radioactive material, in accordance with the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, requires a certificate of registration from the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. The certificates impose responsibilities in respect of security and general management. In addition, the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1999 require employers to have in place appropriate accounting procedures. The regulatory bodies carry out regular programmes of inspections to ensure compliance and would not hesitate to take enforcement action were there a failure to comply with regulatory requirements.

  Small Rural Businesses
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent steps her Department has taken to support small rural business. [63528]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The DTI and the Small Business Service (SBS) are supporting rural business in a number of ways.

  The Development Fund for Rural Renewal, part of the Phoenix Fund, is supporting 20 projects with grants totalling £3 million. These projects aim to help rural business communities that have been affected by foot and mouth.

  The Business Link network provides services to all small businesses including small rural business and some have specific programmes targeted on this sector. The SBS is pulling together examples of good practice in helping small rural businesses to assist Business Link operators in this work.

  The Business Link website, www.businesslink.org, is being enhanced to include specific advice on rural issues and signposting the others who are also able to assist rural businesses.

  There are many other activities taking place at local and regional level, many in co-operation with regional development agencies.

  SBS has recently published research on 'Encouraging and Supporting Enterprise in Rural Areas" and will be looking to use the results of this research in discussion with others active in supporting rural businesses.

  Coal Industry
  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much coal has been imported into(a) Scotland and (b) Wales in each year since 1997. [60281]

  Mr. Wilson
  Separate import figures for Scotland and Wales are not available. Total imports of coal into the UK since 1997, in millions of tonnes, were as follows:

  Tonnes (million)

  1997

  19.7

  1998

  21.2

  1999

  20.3

  2000

  23.4

  2001

  135.5

  1 Provisional

  793W
  Sources:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 2001 (The Stationery Office)

  Energy Trends, March 2002 (DTI publication)

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the contribution to the UK economy of the textile industry. [63671]

  Mr. Timms
  The UK textiles industry accounted for 0.4 per cent. of UK GDP in 2000. In 2001, UK employment in the sector was 107,000 and UK exports were valued at £3.6 billion.

  My Department recognises the UK textile industry as an important contributor to the UK economy and through its active support of the industry-led Textiles and Clothing Strategy Group, will continue to work with this key manufacturing sector to ensure it continues to improve and develop in the global economy.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average number of working hours per week for UK workers was in the last year for which figures are available; and what plans she has to move this closer to the EU average. [63956]

  Alan Johnson
  The average number of working hours per week for all UK workers (including part-time workers) was 37.7 in 2000, which is comparable to the EU average of 37.8.

  BNFL
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether British Nuclear Fuels consulted her Department in advance of appointing Dr. Jim Currie to the BNFL Board. [63845]

  Mr. Wilson
  Yes.

  Solar Energy
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with BP on the building and operation of a solar photovoltaic cells plant in Wales. [63851]

  Mr. Wilson
  My predecessor and I have had meetings with a number of PV cell manufacturers, including BP Solar, to discuss the possibility of establishing manufacturing plants in the UK.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives she plans to take to increase expenditure on solar energy technology, with specific reference to(a) photovoltaics, (b) solar water heating and (c) solar interseasonal heat storage technologies respectively. [63855]

  Mr. Wilson

  (a) On 26 March I launched the £20 million First Phase of the Major Photovoltaics Demonstration Programme (MDP), which should result in 3,000 domestic roofs and 140 larger non-residential buildings receiving PV systems over the next three years. In addition, the Domestic and Large Scale Field Trails are already underway with a combined budget of around £l0 million. They should result in at least 500 domestic roofs
  794W
  and 15 large public buildings receiving PV installations. Subsequent phases of the MDP are dependent on the success of the First Phase and on sufficient funds being available.

  (b) Solar Water Heating is a proven and reliable technology with an established but small market in the UK. We are considering support for it, along with other small-scale renewable technologies, under the £10 million Community and Household Scheme, which is currently being designed. An announcement will be made in the autumn and grants are likely to be available by the end of this year.

  (c) Little work has been done in the UK on interseasonal storage. While heat may be 'free' and the technology itself quite simple, the cost of the necessary equipment and infrastructure is the barrier to wider exploitation. We will, however, be keeping a watching brief on seasonal heat storage developments.

  Renewables Advisory Board
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who the members of the Renewables Advisory Board are; and what their qualifications are to sit on the board. [63856]

  Mr. Wilson
  Provisional members attended the first interim meeting of the Renewables Advisory Board on 21 May 2002. We shall publicise shortly the details of the formal selection process, including the skills required, and will invite applications for the appointment of members to the full Board.

  Nuclear Waste (Russia)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with Russian representatives on security of nuclear waste. [62136]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Department is responsible for the management of the interdepartmental programme for addressing the nuclear legacy in the Former Soviet Union (FSU), and Ministers and officials, plus those in other Government Departments are in regular discussion with their counterparts on a range of nuclear issues, not just the security of nuclear waste. The £84 million programme to tackle nuclear problems in the Former Soviet Union was announced to Parliament in July 2000 to cover the period 2001 to 2004, and future funding levels will depend on the outcome of the current Spending Review. The programme has, as one of its priorities, nuclear safety and security issues in Russia. An important element of the UK programme is assisting Russia in tackling the nuclear waste problems associated with the 100+ decommissioned nuclear submarines in NW Russia; particularly the safe disposal and secure storage of spent nuclear fuel from such vessels. Current discussions with Russia centre on concluding a legal framework agreement covering liability, tax and access issues etc.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she is taking to prosecute construction companies who operate in the black economy. [63050]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The actions which the revenue Departments will take against those who operate in the informal economy and commit tax offences are laid down in the published

  795W
  prosecution policies of the responsible Departments. They will also work with colleagues in other Departments when other offences, such as benefit fraud, exist too.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total amount of national insurance contributions lost owing to false self-employment claims on CIS4 tax certificates was in each year for the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [63097]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available.

  Endangered Species (Derived Products)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new steps her Department has taken to regulate British companies trading in products derived from endangered and threatened species. [63059]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply.

  British companies are subject to the provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) which is implemented in the EU by Council Regulation (EC) No. 338/97 and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1808/02.

  Table 1: Northern Ireland prosecutions for offences related to extortion: 1994–99

  Offence

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Blackmail

  22

  38

  25

  14

  32

  5

  Bribery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Kidnapping

  19

  26

  35

  17

  15

  13

  Soliciting financial support for proscribed organisation

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Soliciting or inviting support for proscribed organisation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Intimidation—residence/occupation

  56

  9

  25

  43

  22

  21

  Intimidation—person leave employment

  0

  2

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Intimidation—to do/refrain from doing any act

  12

  9

  9

  7

  7

  7

  Threats to harm

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  109

  86

  95

  82

  77

  48

  Table 2: Northern Ireland convictions for offences related to extortion: 1994–99

  Offence

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Blackmail

  9

  28

  13

  14

  26

  4

  Bribery

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Kidnapping

  8

  20

  14

  12

  12

  10

  Soliciting financial support for proscribed organisation

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Soliciting or inviting support for proscribed organisation

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Intimidation—residence/occupation

  18

  5

  17

  24

  13

  9

  Intimidation—person leave employment

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Intimidation—to do/refrain from doing any act

  8

  6

  5

  4

  3

  5

  Threats to harm

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Total

  43

  62

  50

  54

  55

  30

SCOTLAND

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what decisions have been made by her Department in the last year under authority from the royal prerogative. [63136]
  796W
  Under these Regulations all commercial trade in endangered species is prohibited and permits may only be granted for trade in threatened species where it is clear that trade will not be detrimental and that the specimens were lawfully acquired. No new steps to regulate British companies have been taken, although the Regulations governing the enforcement of CITES are under review. One of the issues being considered is whether offences relating to internal trade should be made arrestable and the existing penalties increased. We intend to go out to public consultation on these proposals later in the year.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Extortion
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many prosecutions for extortion have been pursued in Northern Ireland in each year since 1994; and how many convictions have resulted. [63430]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no one offence for extortion. The following tables provide the most relevant offences and convictions related to extortion during the period 1994 to 1999. Figures from 1999 to date are not yet available.

  Mrs. Liddell
  Records are not kept of the individual occasions on which powers under the royal prerogative are exercised, nor would it be practicable to do so.

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what property her Department(a) leases and (b) owns in (i) Edinburgh and (ii) London. [63121]
  797W
  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department leases its office accommodation in Edinburgh and London.

  Public Expenditure
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) of 14 May 2002,Official Report, column 573W, on public expenditure, what assumptions were used to allocate the cited increases to Scottish health spending due to the 2002 budget, relating to (a) the percentage of the population used for the application of the Barnett formula, (b) the comparability factor used, (c) the total additions to English health spending and (d) other factors included in the calculation. [63769]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The rules for calculating the Barnett consequentials for increases in English expenditure are as set out in the Statement of Funding Policy. The latest available population figures were used.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many young people have(a) participated in and (b) found jobs as a result of the New Deal in each constituency in Scotland; [61301]

  (2) how many young people have received full-time education, training or work experience with the voluntary sector or the Environment Taskforce as a result of the New Deal in each constituency in Scotland. [61302]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I have been asked to reply.

  Constituency results for the New Deal for Young People are contained in the Constituency Tables, which are available in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Cross-border Information Sharing
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 15 May 2002, Ref 55286, on cross-border information sharing on child sex offenders and child abusers, for what reason confidentiality will be maintained for the protocols being developed. [59230]

  Jane Kennedy
  Confidentiality is maintained because sex offenders and child abusers are often skilled at evading detection. Combating them is the priority and it is considered that to make public procedures, protocols and arrangements would have a detrimental effect on the ability to monitor and manage risk.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if(a) his Department and (b) its agencies have a policy of not considering applications for employment by persons over a particular age. [59455]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are no formal age restrictions for recruitment to the Northern Ireland Office. An upper age limit is not set but advertisements for posts in the Northern Ireland Office state that the normal retirement age. under existing pension arrangements, is 60.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost was of the Department's 2001 staff Christmas party; and how many people attended. [61656]

  Jane Kennedy
  The cost overall of the Northern Ireland Office's 2001 Christmas party was £682.50. The breakdown of this cost is as follows:

  £

  Catering

  352.50

  Band/disco

  260.00

  Bus hire

  70.00

  Tickets were sold to staff at a cost of £8.00. Approximately 120 tickets were purchased. The sale of the tickets covered the overall cost of £682.50 and the surplus was donated to charity.

  Terrorists
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will make a statement on his proposals to deal with the issue of on-the-run terrorists. [64216]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government have committed themselves to taking steps to resolve this issue, which we believe is an important part of drawing a line under the past. We are still considering how best to discharge that commitment. Once that process is complete we will make an announcement.

  Police Numbers
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers there were in Northern Ireland on(a) 9 September 1999 and (b) 31 May 2002. [64089]

  Jane Kennedy
  The number of police officers in Northern Ireland on 9 September 1999 and 31 May 2002 were as follows:

  Regular

  Full-time Reserve

  Part-time Reserve

  9 September 1999

  8,522

  2,767

  1,188

  31 May 2002

  6,947

  2,070

  994

PRIME MINISTER

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Prime Minister which Government Departments have a Sikh adviser to advise on matters relating to the Sikh community; and how they are selected. [63611]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: As part of the Government's commitment to diversity, a number of Departments employ diversity and equality advisers. These liaise with various communities on policy, operational and employment matters. Some of these, for example in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Defence, focus specifically on issues relevant to the Sikh community. Comprehensive information on the numbers and specific remits of individual advisers is not held centrally.
  799W
  Selection for all permanent civil service posts is based upon merit.

  Channel Islands
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has received from elected representatives from the state of Jersey in respect of radioactive risks posed to the Channel Islands. [63854]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received one representation on this issue, which has been passed to the Lord Chancellor for reply in view of the Lord Chancellor's responsibility for relations with the Crown Dependencies.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting with Prime Minister Aznar on 18 June. [64232]

  The Prime Minister
  I met the Prime Minister of Spain in London on 18 June as part of the regular EU presidency tour of capital cities before a European Council. It was a very positive discussion covering the main agenda items for the Seville European Council on 21 and 22 June, including: a set of proposals and timetable for asylum and immigration; Council reform matters; the importance of keeping to the proposed enlargement timetable; national government involvement in the Convention on the Future of Europe and how to maintain the Spanish presidency's good progress on European defence issues.

  Special Advisers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 27 February 2002,Official Report, column 1268W, on special advisers, whether the briefing material contains information relating to (a) the previous Conservative Government and (b) alternative policies held by opposition parties. [64233]

  The Prime Minister
  All briefing material is provided in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code, and the Special Adviser Code of Conduct.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions in the last 12 months when he has used powers granted by the Royal Prerogative. [63135]
  800W
  The Prime Minister
  Records are not kept of the individual occasions on which powers under the Royal Prerogative are exercised nor could it be practicable to do so.

  Kananaskis Summit
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Watford of 19 June 2002,Official Report, column 268, what proposals he will be putting to the forthcoming G8 summit at Kananaskis that would increase access for exports from sub-Saharan Africa to OECD countries; and how much these measures would generate in terms of increased exports from sub-Saharan Africa in each year. [64367]

  The Prime Minister
  The G8 summit is taking place in Kananaskis tomorrow and Thursday. The UK has put forward proposals for Africa on trade as part of a larger package of commitments on conflict, education, health, development assistance and debt. G8 members are committed to the objective of duty-free and quota-free access for all products originating from Least Developed Countries (LDCs) at the World Trade Organisation Doha Ministerial in November 2001. The UK sees it as imperative to move forward on integrating LDCs into the multilateral trading system and ensure they can harness the benefits of trade for poverty reduction. The forthcoming G8 summit in Kananaskis offers the opportunity to take forward these issues. The European Commission has estimated that developing country gains from a 50 per cent. cut in tariffs by both developed and developing countries would be in the order of $150 billion, around three times current aid flows.

  Transatlantic Air Services
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 12 June 2002,Official Report, column 860, how many meetings have taken place between the UK and US Governments since 1 February to discuss liberalisation of transatlantic air services; when the meetings took place; when the next meeting is scheduled; who was present at the meeting; and what the outcome was of the discussion. [64322]

  The Prime Minister
  Further to the answer I gave at Prime Minister's questions I would like to outline the nature of the contacts made regarding this issue. It is right that we are keen to liberalise the US-UK air services agreement, but only on the basis that the terms are right and fair. Contact has continued to take place at official level. Ministerial discussions were conducted last year, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Transport discussed it with the American Administration in January. I have asked the Secretary of State for Transport to review all the options and consider the best way forward to restart the discussions formally.

WALES

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [61004]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer he received from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 June 2002,Official Report, column 130W.

  Public Service Agreement Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [61045]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department does not have a Public Service Agreement.

  Broadband
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what targets he has set for the roll out of broadband services; and if he will make a statement. [61798]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government have set a target for the UK to have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005. We have not set any specific targets relating to broadband in Wales as these are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Grants
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [62043]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department came into existence in 1999 and makes no grant payments (other than to the National Assembly for Wales). It is a matter for the Assembly whether to continue or discontinue grants made by the former Welsh Office prior to 1 July 1999.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what decisions have been made by his Department in the last year under authority from the Royal Prerogative. [63140]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 182W.

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Change of Category of Maintained Schools (Wales) Regulations; [63263]
  802W
  (2) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the BSE Monitoring (Wales) Regulations; [63279]

  (3) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Code of Conduct (Qualifying Local government Employees) (Wales) Order; [63295]

  (4) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Children (Leaving Care) (Wales) Regulations; [63311]

  (5) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Accounts and Audit (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63216]

  (6) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Beet Seeds (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63232]

  (7) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Optical Charges and Payments) and (General Ophthalmic Services) (Amendment) (No. 3) (Wales) Regulations; [63241]

  (8) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Amendment) (Wales) (No. 9) Order; [63249]

  (9) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Education (Foundation Body) (Wales) Regulations; [63255]

  (10) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Wales) (No. 9) Regulations; [63271]

  (11) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Decisions Documents and Meetings) (Wales) Regulations; [63287]

  (12) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Amendment) (Wales) (No. 8) Order; [63303]

  (13) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Undersized Whiting (Revocation) (Wales) Order; [63319]

  (14) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Welfare of Farmed Animals (Wales) Regulations; [63259]

  (15) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Welsh Language Schemes (Public Bodies) Order; [63267]

  (16) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Prescribed Waste (Wales) (Revocation) Regulations; [63283]

  (17) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Conduct of Members (Principles) (Wales) Order; [63299]

  (18) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Relocation Grants (Forms of Application) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63315]
  803W
  (19) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Farm Waste Grant (Nitrate Vulnerable Zones) (Wales) Scheme; [63220]

  (20) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Vegetable Seeds (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63228]

  (21) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Special Waste (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63235]

  (22) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Agricultural Holdings (Units of Production) (Wales) (No. 3) Order; [63245]

  (23) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Feeding Stuffs and the Feeding Stuffs (Enforcement) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63238]

  (24) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the General Teaching Council for Wales (Additional Functions) (Amendment) Order; [63275]

  (25) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Local Commissioner in Wales (Standards Investigations) Order; [63291]

  (26) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Meat (Enhanced Enforcement Powers) (Wales) Regulations; [63307]

  (27) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Standards Committee (Grant of Dispensation) (Wales) Regulations; [63296]

  (28) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Wales) (No 9) (Amendment) Regulations; [63265]

  (29) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations; [63281]

  (30) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Code of Conduct (Non-Qualifying Local government Employees) (Wales) Order; [63297]

  (31) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) (Amendment) (Wales) Order; [63313]

  (32) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Parent Governor Representatives and Church Representatives (Wales) Regulations; [63218]

  (33) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Abolition of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce (Consequential Provisions) (Wales) Regulations; [63226]
  804W
  (34) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Specified Risk Material (Amendment) (Wales) (No. 2) Regulations; [63234]

  (35) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Wales) (No. 9) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations; [63243]

  (36) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Local Authorities (Members' Allowances) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63251]

  (37) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) (Amendment) (No 2) (Wales); [63257]

  (38) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Plant Health (Amendment) (Wales) Order; [63273]

  (39) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Adjudications by Case Tribunals and Interim Case Tribunals (Wales) Regulations; [63289]

  (40) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Central Rating List (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations; [63305]

  (41) what discussions he has had with the Footand-Mouth Disease (Ascertainment of Value) (Wales) (No. 5) Order; [63253]

  (42) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Education (Assisted Places) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63261]

  (43) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Teacher Training Incentive (Further Education) (Wales) Regulations; [63269]

  (44) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Local Authorities (Referendums) (Petitions and Directions) (Wales) Regulations; [63285]

  (45) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Education (School Government) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations; [63301]

  (46) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Housing Grants (Additional Purposes) (Wales) Regulations; [63317]

  (47) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Mandatory Travel Concessions (Reimbursement Arrangements) (Wales) Regulations; [63222]

  (48) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Fodder Plant Seeds (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63230]

  (49) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Wales) (No. 10) (Fees) Regulations; [63237]
  805W
  (50) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Agricultural Holding (Units of Production) (Wales) Order; [63247]

  (51) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Agricultural Processing and Marketing Grant (Wales) Regulations; [63277]

  (52) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Standards Committees (Wales) Regulations; [63293]

  (53) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Common Agricultural Policy (Wine) (Wales) Regulations; [63309]

  (54) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Transport of Animals (Cleansing and Disinfection) (Wales) Order; [63264]

  (55) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63280]

  (56) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Carers (Services) and Direct Payments (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63312]

  (57) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Local Authorities (Approved Investments) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63217]

  (58) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Wales) (No. 12) Regulations; [63225]

  (59) what discussions he has had with the First

  Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Wales) (No. 11) Regulations; [63233]

  (60) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges) (Amendment) (No. 2) (Wales) Regulations; [63242]

  (61) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Children's Commissioner for Wales Regulations; [63250]

  (62) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Education (Assisted Places) (Incidental Expenses) (Amendment) (Wales) Order; [63256]

  (63) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Inspection of Education and Training (Wales) Regulations; [63272]

  (64) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Conduct of Members (Model Code of Conduct) (Wales) Order; [63288]
  806W
  (65) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Wales) (No. 8) Regulations; [63304]

  (66) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Street Work (Inspection Fees) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63260]

  (67) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Agricultural Subsidies (Appeals) (Wales) Regulations; [63268]

  (68) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Local Authorities (Proposals for Alternative Arrangements (Wales) Regulations; [63284]

  (69) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Commission for Local Administration in Wales and Local Commissioner in Wales (Functions and Expenses) Regulations; [63300]

  (70) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Housing Renewal Grants (Prescribed Form and Particulars) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63316]

  (71) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Education (Schools and Further and Higher Education) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63221]

  (72) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Seed Potatoes (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63229]

  (73) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Potatoes Originating in Germany Notification (Wales) Order; [63236]

  (74) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Agricultural Holdings (Units of Production) (Wales) (No. 2) Order; [63246]

  (75) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Processed Animal Protein (Wales) Regulations; [63252]

  (76) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the General Teaching Council for Wales (Functions) (Amendment) Regulations; [63276]

  (77) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Local Authorities (Alternative Arrangements) (Wales) Regulations; [63292]

  (78) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Contaminated Land (Wales) Regulations; [63308]

  (79) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Marking of Meat, Meat Products, Minced Meat and Meat Preparations) (Wales) (No. 2) Regulations; [63266]
  807W
  (80) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost effectiveness of the Potatoes Originating in Egypt (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63282]

  (81) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Local Authorities (Proposals for Executive Arrangements (Wales) Order; [63298]

  (82) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Housing Renewal Grants (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63314]

  (83) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (Consequential Amendments) (Schools) (Wales) Regulations; [63219]

  (84) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Oil and Fibre Plant Seeds (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63227]

  (85) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Plant Health (Amendment) (Wales) (No. 2) Order; [63215]

  (86) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Amendment) (Wales) (No. 11) Order; [63244]

  (87) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Wales) (No. 10) Regulations; [63239]

  (88) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Air Quality Limit Values (Wales) Regulations; [63258]

  (89) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Education (School Day and School Year (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63274]

  (90) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Discharge of Functions) (Wales) Regulations; [63290]

  (91) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Gelatine (Intra-Community Trade) (Wales) Regulations; [63306]

  (92) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Amendment) (Wales) (No. 10) Order; [63248]

  (93) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Specified Risk Material (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63254]

  (94) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Sweeteners in Food (Amendments) (Wales) Regulations; [63262]

  (95) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Seeds (Fees) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63270]
  808W
  (96) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Local Authorities Executive Arrangements (Functions and Responsibilities) (Wales) Regulations; [63286]

  (97) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Feeding Stuffs (Sampling and Analysis) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63302]

  (98) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Education (Publication of Draft Proposals and Orders (Further Education Corporations) (Wales) Regulations; [63318]

  (99) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Smoke Control Areas (Authorised Fuels) (Wales) Regulations; [63223]

  (100) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Cereal Seeds (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63231]

  (101) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Children's (Protection from Offenders) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63240]

  (102) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Prohibition of Vaccination) (Wales) Regulations; [63278]

  (103) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Local Government Investigations (Functions of Monitoring Officers and Standards Committees) (Wales) Regulations; [63294]

  (104) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Disabled Children (Direct Payments) (Wales) Regulations; [63310]

  (105) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Countryside Access (Draft Maps) (Wales) Regulations; [63561]

  (106) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Education (External Qualifications) (Description of Tests) (Wales) Regulations; [63569]

  (107) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the BSE Monitoring (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63553]

  (108) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Housing Renewal Grants (Prescribed Forms and Particulars) (Amendment No. 2) (Wales) Regulations; [63557]

  (109) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations; [63565]

  (110) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Farm Enterprise Grant and Farm Improvement Grant (Wales) Regulations; [63573]
  809W
  (111) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (Wales) Regulations; [63559]

  (112) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Smoke Control Areas (Authorised Fuels) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63563]

  (113)what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) (Charges) (Amendment) (No. 2) (Wales) Regulations; [63571]

  (114) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Foot and Mouth Disease (Amendment) (Wales) (No. 13) Order; [63555]

  (115) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Colours in Food (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations; [63567]

  (116) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) (Amendment) (No. 3) (Wales) Regulations; [63562]

  (117) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot and Mouth Disease) (Wales) (No. 13) Regulations; [63570]

  (118) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Import and Export Restrictions (Foot-and-Mouth Disease) (Wales) (No. 14) Regulations; [63554]

  (119) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Housing Renewal Grants (Amendment No. 2) (Wales) Regulations; [63558]

  (120) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Non-domestic Rating Contributions (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations; [63566]

  (121) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Travel Concessions (Extension of Entitlement) (Wales) Order; [63574]

  (122) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Relocation Grants (Forms of Application) (Amendment No. 2) (Wales) Regulations; [63556]

  (123) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Countryside Access (Local Access Forums) (Wales) Regulations; [63560]

  (124) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Preserved Rights (Transfer of Responsibilities to Local Authorities) (Wales) Regulations; [63564]

  (125) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the South Wales Sea Fisheries Committee (Levies) Regulations; [63572]
  810W
  (126) what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the cost-effectiveness of the Education (Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales) (Conferment of Function) Order; [63568]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 18 June 2002,Official Report, column 316.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the occasions in the last 12 months when he has used powers granted by the Royal Prerogative. [63127]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Records are not kept of the individual occasions on which powers under the Royal Prerogative are exercised nor could it be practicable to do so.

  Elected Mayors
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy on elected mayors. [64227]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our policy on directly-elected mayors is set out in the 2001 Local Government White Paper—Strong Local Leadership, Quality Public Services. Where local people think that a directly-elected mayor is right for their area, we think they should have the opportunity to vote for one. Councils have conducted extensive consultations with local people, who can also require a mayoral referendum by organising a petition signed by 5 per cent. of local electors or more.

  The Secretary of State has the power in certain circumstances to direct a council to hold a referendum, including where it appears that the council has failed to have due regard to the outcome of local consultations. I told the House on 7 March 2002, Official Report, column 553W, that the Secretary of State did not intend to make any such directions until after we had completed a review of the regulations governing mayoral referendums, following the report "Reinvigorating Democracy? Mayoral Referendums in 2001" which the Electoral Commission published on 1 February 2002.

  Since that time we have been putting in place proposals for a comprehensive performance management regime for councils, including independent assessment of their corporate performance. We are giving greater freedoms and flexibilities to all councils, with greater freedoms for high performing authorities.

  Within this framework, we believe it will be right for each council to make and justify to local people its own judgments on the outcome of any consultation about proposals for a new constitution. Accordingly, in cases where, in our view, having regard to the outcome of the consultation, the judgment a council has reached does not appear to be justified, our approach will be not to intervene to direct a referendum.

  We had informed Birmingham, Bradford and Thurrock councils that the Secretary of State was minded to require them to hold a referendum, on the grounds that the councils failed to have due regard to the outcome of local

  811W
  consultations. These councils judged that the results of their consultation on new executive arrangements did not warrant giving local people the opportunity of a referendum. We took, and continue to take, the view that the consultation results would have justified a referendum.

  However, on the basis of the approach I am announcing today, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister does not propose to use his powers in these cases. We believe it is right that we make this clear to the councils today in order to remove uncertainty for them.

  Flooding
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his Department's role in preparing for floods; and how it is co-ordinated with DEFRA's responsibility for flood management. [63708]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department's principal role in preparing for floods is through the co-ordination activities of the Severe Weather Sub-Group of the Central Local Partnership, which is chaired by Ministers from this Department. There is also regular contact between both Ministers and officials from this Department and the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

  In addition, the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions published in February 2002 guidance to owners of homes and small businesses and people undertaking building work as well as planning authorities on "Preparing for floods". This complements the advice given on the consideration of flooding in the planning system (Planning Policy Guidance Note 25 "Development and flood risk"), published by the then DTLR in July 2001 and on measures of flood protection ("Damage limitation") and recovery from flooding ("After a flood") published by the Environment Agency in September 2001.

  Mobile Home Parks
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will bring forward legislation to protect the rights of park home residents. [63836]

  Mr. McNulty
  We are currently considering the options for changes to the law that would implement the undertakings given by the Government in its response to the Park Homes Working Party report.

  Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) date, (h) location and (c) purpose was of visits by Ministers in his Department to Wales since 1997; and when he next intends to visit Wales. [62081]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was formed on 29 May 2002.

  Since 1999 the Government have published an annual list of all visits undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. This Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Information in respect of UK travel is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  812W
  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister 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. [60746]

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

  Planning
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy regarding planning gain. [64224]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government published a consultation paper "Reforming Planning Obligations: delivering a fundamental change" in December 2001. This was a strategic level consultation and proposed the introduction of a tariff-based approach to planning obligations. We received over 500 responses, the majority of which welcomed our proposals. Ministers are considering policy options and there will be a policy statement in due course.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects to publish a policy paper on planning reform. [62790]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We intend to continue driving forward the reform of the planning system. following the wide-ranging review set out in the Green Paper "Planning—Delivering a Fundamental Change".

  The Deputy Prime Minister will issue a policy statement prior to the parliamentary summer recess setting out how we intend to take forward the reform agenda when it is ready.

  Housing (North-West)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proposals he has to amend regional planning guidance in the north-west to allow local authorities to encourage the allocation of land zoned for industrial use to be used for housing. [63149]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Secretary of State's Proposed Changes to draft Regional Planning Guidance for the north-west were published on 20 May 2002. Policy UR5. This calls on local authorities to review existing commitments in development plans so that a realistic balance can be found between catering for strategic investments, providing for local indigenous economic growth and in meeting the broader social requirements of urban renaissance. Land that is no longer needed for business purposes could be put to alternate uses such as housing, with possibly a mix of uses considered.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Government's new target is for the number of houses to be built in the north-west by 2021; and by how much this has changed from previous targets. [63152]
  813W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Secretary of State published proposed changes to draft Regional Planning Guidance for the north-west on 20 May 2002. These changes reduced the annual rate of housing provision form that in draft RPG by 15 per cent. The annualised average rate of housing provision for the region is 12,790 dwellings. The annualised figures apply to the period up to 2006 reflecting the 'plan, monitor and manage' approach set out in PPG3 which moves away from the previous 'predict and provide' approach. The proposed changes give weight to avoiding any premature release of greenfield land which would undermine attempts to promote the use of recycled land and the redevelopment of existing unfit and unpopular housing. Tackling low demand and abandonment lies at the heart of the revised strategy. The Secretary of State, in the consultation, on the proposed changes has requested views on whether the changes are sufficient to prevent the unnecessary release of greenfield land or whether there should be further changes to reflect the recommendations made by the Transport, Local Government and Regions Committee in its report on empty homes that no new planning permissions should be granted for greenfield sites.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the cost of the planned reduction of new houses in the north-west region will be distributed among local authorities in the north-west; and if brownfield sites will be treated more favourably than greenfield sites. [63383]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Secretary of State's Proposed Changes to Draft Regional Planning Guidance for the north-west were published on 20 May 2002. The distribution of housing provision in the region is dealt with in Policy UR7. The broad split, set out as annual average rates of provision net of clearance, is as follows:Manchester/Salford/Liverpool: 2,990
  Rest of Greater Manchester, Merseyside plus the Unitary Authorities of Halton and Warrington: 4,310
  Cheshire (exc. Halton and Warrington), Cumbria and Lancashire: 5,490.

  A more detailed breakdown is available in Table 5.1 of the proposed changes to Regional Planning Guidance for the north-west.

  The Government are committed to maximising the re-use of previously developed land and the conversion of existing buildings to promote regeneration and minimise the amount of greenfield land being taken for development. Policy UR4 of the proposed draft Regional Planning Guidance regional brownfield target of at least 70 per cent. has been set. This varies from 90 per cent. in Liverpool/Manchester/Salford to 50 per cent. in Cumbria. Further investment will be needed to meet these challenging targets and the Northwest Development Agency's strategies will need to be integrated with those of local planning and housing authorities to regenerate urban areas with mixed and balanced communities.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reason his Department cut the number of houses to be built in the north-west region to 12,790; what effect he estimates their decision will have on the area; what account was taken of the north-west regional development agency's aim of encouraging more employment in the north-west in making this change; and if he will review his decision after the first year of operation. [63151]
  814W
  Mr. McNulty
  The Secretary of State's Proposed Changes to draft Regional Planning Guidance for the north-west were published on 20 May 2002. A key part of the strategy is to achieve the renaissance of urban areas by encouraging balanced economic growth and regeneration in a sustainable way. The proposed reduction in the annual rate of housing provision, coupled with an increase in the proportion of housing provided on previously used land from 65 per cent. to 70 per cent. are aimed at delivering this, while avoiding the premature release of greenfield land and promoting the use of recycled land, including the redevelopment of existing areas of unfit and unpopular housing; while supporting the Northwest Development Agency's aim of encouraging more employment in the NW region.

  The plan monitor, manage approach will enable the annual rates of housing provision to be kept under continuous review, with an expectation that regional planning guidance will be reviewed and rolled forward at least every five years or more frequently if monitoring reveals clear signs of either under or over provision.

  Homelessness
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on homelessness among young people in the South West. [63826]

  Mr. McNulty
  Between 1 January and 31 March 2002, there were 2,790 households in the South West region accepted by local authorities under statutory homelessness provisions, of which 153 were in the priority need category "vulnerable young person".

  The Homelessness Act 2002 will place a statutory requirement on local housing authorities to adopt a strategy for preventing homelessness in their district and ensuring that sufficient accommodation, and any necessary support, is available for people who are, or may become homeless. On 14 March 2002, authorities were invited to submit proposals to the Homelessness Directorate in my Department for funding for local homelessness strategies. 21 authorities in the South West region have submitted bids which are being considered currently.

  An Order has been laid for approval by Parliament to extend the groups of people who have a priority need for accommodation under the homelessness legislation. This will ensure that vulnerable homeless people leaving institutions, young people including those leaving care, and people fleeing domestic, racial and other forms of violence get the help they need.

  In addition to the funding available for homelessness strategies, £8 million per annum has been provided to local authorities (through the local government finance settlement, with effect from 2001–02) to implement the Homelessness Act. A further £10 million will be allocated in 2002–03 to enable authorities to deliver the Priority Need Order.

  Housing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on the provision of schemes for guaranteeing(a) deposits and (b) rent for tenants in private rented accommodation. [63912]
  815W
  Mr. McNulty
  Rent Deposit Guarantee Schemes, which combine Deposit schemes and Rent in Advance/ Guarantee Schemes, can be effective in helping homeless households access the private rented sector. The Government fully recognise the valuable and vital service which Rent Deposit Guarantee Schemes can play in tackling homelessness. This is recognised in our recent report, "More than a roof'. It is for this reason that we currently fund a number of rent deposit schemes aroundthe country, and we would expect local authorities

  Revenue grants provided directly by ODPM1

  £000

  1997–982

  1998–992

  1999–20002

  2000–012

  2001–023

  2002–033

  Revenue support grant

  961

  708

  432

  98

  300

  0

  Redistributed non-domestic rates

  3,254

  3,328

  3,606

  4.006

  3,962

  4,466

  Specific and special grants outside AEF

  Single regeneration budget (SRB)

  20

  20

  18

  17

  0

  0

  Housing acts urban developments grants to debt changes

  0

  0

  16

  0

  16

  16

  House renovation grants capital financing specified capital grants (SCG)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  168

  0

  Total revenue grants

  4,235

  4,056

  4,072

  4,121

  4,446

  4,482

  1 Revenue figures are from ODPM. OPDM previously within DETR/DTLR

  2Outturn figures

  3Budget figures

  Housing grants provided directly by ODPM1,4

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Housing revenue account subsidy2

  2,205

  1,915

  1,724

  4,006

  2,717

  2,608

  Disabled facilities grant

  90

  90

  157

  162

  168

  180

  Private sector renewal grant3

  78

  60

  87

  0

  0

  0

  Starter homes initiative

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  450

  Homelessness

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9

  0

  Total

  2,373

  2,065

  1,968

  1,661

  2,894

  3,238

  1 The table excludes credit approvals (including those arising from the capital receipts initiative and The cash incentive scheme) as these represent permission to borrow. The financing of debt interest arising from this borrowing is already included in revenue support grant and HRA subsidy.

  2 Increases in 2001–02 and 2002–03 due to introduction of major repairs allowance.

  3 Up until 1 April 2000, Government met 60 per cent. of private sector renewal up to annual allocation limit. Since 1 April 2000. provision made within single capital pot.

  4 Figures relating to expenditure by Housing Corporation unavailable.

  Local Government (Internet Access)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) district, (b) borough, (c) city, (d) county, (e) town and (f) parish councils do not have access to the internet and world wide web. [63927]

  Mr. Raynsford
  All district, borough, city and county councils have access to the internet and the world wide web. We do not collect information on internet access relating to town and parish councils.

  Supporting People Programme
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to ensure that the(a) level and (b) distribution of the Supporting People special grant will ensure that London local authorities receive sufficient resources to meet their identified needs. [63959]

  Mr. McNulty
  Baseline allocations for 2003–04 will be based on current spend in 2002–03, plus an allowance for inflation. ODPM is providing guidance to assist local
  816W
  to continue to include such schemes within their homelessness strategies.

  Fareham
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what moneys have been provided(a) directly and (b) via agencies for which the Department has responsibility to the Fareham district since 1997. [63618]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The available information for Fareham district council is as follows.

  authorities in identifying current spend. Allocations for 2004–05 should be derived from the final report of the Supporting People Allocation Formula project, which is due by March 2003. The report will summarise the main features of the funding model, how it has been derived, target allocations and pace of change issues.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his assessment of the progress of London local authorities with the Supporting People programme in readiness for the launch of that programme. [63958]

  Mr. McNulty
  Progress of all authorities is monitored regularly by the Implementation team of the Supporting People Programme. Nationally there has been significant progress made, particularly in London, over the last year. A significant number of tasks remain to be delivered by April 2003, however, and close monitoring and support will continue.

  ILD 2000
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to continue to provide transitional protection to local authorities in England affected by the introduction of the ILD 2000; and if he will continue to provide such relief until findings of the review of the method of determining that index are implemented. [63960]

  Mr. McNulty
  No decisions on the future on transitional protection have been made as yet. We will consider the implications of the work to explore developing and updating the Indices of Deprivation 2000 on transitional protection during the course of that project.

  Concessionary Zones
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funding was(a) provided for concessionary zones in the control total for Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services SSA and (b) received for concessionary zones for the EPCS SSA by each local authority in 2001–02. [63962]

  Mr. Raynsford
  An additional £54 million was provided for concessionary fares in 2001–02, including £8 million already announced in the Spending Review 2000. This funding was distributed using the District Services formula within EPCS. Funding for separate services within the block is not identified.

  Leicester Mayor
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on proposals for an elected mayor for Leicester. [64225]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on 1 November 2001,Official Report, column 795W. Further to that answer, having carefully considered the circumstances of Leicester, we decided that it would not be appropriate to direct a mayoral referendum and we understand the Council have now begun operating their new constitution, involving a leader and Cabinet.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the commercial value of the site of the Millennium Dome if it were vacant. [63834]

  Mr. McNulty
  Independent advice from Jones Lang Lasalle satisfied us that demolishing the Dome would produce a lower return for the Government than retaining it and developing the site through the agreement with Meridian Delta Limited. Precise valuations are commercially confidential.

  Draft Local Government Bill
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what consultation was undertaken on making the Draft Local Government Bill a web-based publication only. [63926]
  818W
  Mr. Raynsford
  No specific consultation took place. The decision to make this document a largely web-based publication is consistent with our e-government objectives. However, paper copies remain available on request for those that want them.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish a consultation document on his proposals for a new system for the distribution of funding to local authorities. [62344]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As I announced to Parliament on 11 June, we intend to publish a consultation document containing our proposals for a new system for the distribution of general revenue funding to local authorities by mid-July.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many reports have been made to his Department through the Government office of the north-east by the North East Assembly accounting for expenditure of money provided under the Strengthening Regional Accountability Initiative; and if he will publish them. [62549]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government office has arrangements in place which require the North East Assembly to submit quarterly reports accounting for expenditure of money provided under the regional chambers fund. The quarterly reports are followed by a meeting between the North East Assembly and the Government office for the north-east, to discuss the reports in more detail.

  The North East Assembly has submitted one report, accounting for expenditure for the final quarter of 2001–02. This report was assessed and approved in line with guidance issued by the then Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  The report has not been published. The North East Assembly is a voluntary body and it is for them to decide whether to make their accounts available to the public.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Departmental Staff (Scotland)
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of(a) civil service, (b) executive agencies and (c) non-departmental public body jobs under the remit of her Department are located in Scotland; and how many of each have been relocated to Scotland since May 1997. [56316]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  There are approximately 590 jobs under the remit of my Department located in Scotland. They are all at the Student Loans Company, a non-departmental public body (NDPB) based in Glasgow since it was set up in 1990. This represents approximately 8 per cent. of NDPB jobs under the remit of my Department.

  Graduates
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the lowest decile average annual earnings are of an employed graduate in each 10-year cohort over 25 years. [52917]

  Margaret Hodge
  The following table shows gross weekly earnings at the lowest earnings decile of individuals, in each age group, who hold a first degree or higher qualification and are in full-time employment. The figures are estimated from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).

  Estimated gross weekly earnings at the lowest earnings decile, within each age group, for individuals who hold a first degree or higher qualification and are in full-time employment

  Age group

  Gross weekly earnings at lowest earnings decile £

  25–34

  270

  35–44

  340

  45–54

  310

  55–641

  320

  All aged 25–641

  300

  1 Includes women aged 60–64 who are in employment.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, spring 2001. GB figures.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the upper decile average annual earnings are of an employed non-graduate in each 10-year age cohort over 25 years. [52918]

  Percentile gross weekly earnings (not seasonally adjusted) by level of highest qualification, 2001—England, full-time employees aged 16 to 59–64

  All full-time employees

  Level 5 (higher degree or equivalent)

  Level 4 (first degree or equivalent)

  Level 3 (2+ A—levels or equivalent

  Trade apprenticeships

  Level 2 (5+ GCSEs at grades A*-C or equivalent)

  Below level 2 (GCSE below grade C or equivalent

  Other qualification

  No qualification

  Min (first percentile)

  96

  208

  157

  99

  112

  80

  73

  90

  53

  10th percentile

  190

  326

  259

  191

  218

  162

  173

  176

  150

  20th percentile

  231

  404

  323

  231

  253

  205

  202

  216

  180

  30th percentile

  273

  469

  379

  263

  286

  231

  231

  248

  202

  40th percentile

  309

  518

  423

  300

  311

  269

  262

  278

  228

  Median

  350

  572

  480

  341

  345

  299

  293

  313

  250

  60th percentile

  404

  621

  531

  384

  396

  337

  329

  349

  283

  70th percentile

  470

  691

  600

  433

  448

  384

  369

  399

  308

  80th percentile

  558

  854

  702

  507

  507

  448

  428

  473

  350

  90th percentile

  715

  1.110

  900

  643

  613

  577

  525

  614

  450

  Max (last percentile)

  1,493

  1,910

  1,856

  1,299

  957

  1,167

  980

  1,069

  802

  Notes:

  1. Earnings data are based on information from about two fifths of all respondents.

  2. Respondents whose hourly pay is £100 or more are excluded from the sample.

  3. Gross weekly and hourly earnings data are known to be underestimated in the LFS, principally because of proxy responses.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey (LFS), autumn (September 2001 to November 2001)

  European Agency Workers Directive
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the effect of the European Agency Workers Directive on schools. [59364]

  Mr. Miliband
  An initial regulatory impact assessment of the proposed directive on agency workers prepared by
  820W
  Margaret Hodge
  The following table shows gross weekly earnings at the highest earnings decile of individuals in each age group, for:

  (a) all non-graduates qualified up to Level 3 or below; and

  (b) non-graduates whose highest qualification is at Level 3.

  The figures are for individuals who are in full-time employment, and are estimated from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).

  Estimated gross weekly earnings at the highest earnings decile of full-time employees in each age band, for (a) non-graduates and (b) those who hold a Level 3 qualification

  £

  Age group

  All non-graduates

  Non-graduates who hold a Level 3 qualification

  25–34

  570

  640

  35–44

  670

  810

  45–54

  620

  730

  55–641

  570

  730

  All aged 25–641

  620

  730

  1 Includes women aged 60–64 who are in employment

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, spring 2001. GB figures.

  Average Weekly Earnings
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average weekly earnings were in the last year for which figures are available, of each decile of those whose highest educational qualification is(a) a higher degree, (b) a first degree, (c) A Level or equivalent, (d) GCSE/0 Level or equivalent, (e) GCSE below grade C and (f) no qualification. [59115]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The information requested is contained in the table.

  my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and industry has been placed in the Library of both Houses.

  The Commission's proposal would, as it stands, require that agency workers in schools did not receive less favourable basic working and employment conditions than comparable permanent workers. The proposal contains limited derogations from this requirement, which may be applicable in some cases. The proposal is subject

  821W
  to the co-decision procedure and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry remains in dialogue with other member countries and the Commission.

  Refurbishment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the refurbishment projects that(a) are in progress and (b) will start within the next six months; and what action is being taken to ensure that these will procure certified timber. [59767]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department has no refurbishment projects in progress and no future plans that will call for the use of timber.

  Further Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the(a) capital costs and (b) additional revenue cost involved in the creation of new dedicated 16 to 19 provision in (i) Hackney, (ii) Islington and (iii) Lambeth. [60042]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 11 June 2002]: The information requested is estimated as follows:

  £

  Project

  Capital funding committed by LSC

  Revenue funding committed by LSC

  Hackney

  7,720,000

  3,203,750

  Islington

  5,590,000

  100,000

  Lambeth

  0

  30,491

  These figures relate to the Learning and Skills Council commitment at the time of reply to the new provision proposed after area inspections in the three boroughs.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many representations she has received in each month since August 2001 about(a) non-payments or delayed payments to ILA providers, and (b) imminent bankruptcy, liquidation or administration of ILA providers. [60230]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The information requested, covering the period 1 August 2001 to 31 May 2002, is set out in the table. The table shows contact with providers by telephone, and through letter and email. Several of the telephone contacts may relate to one provider. While all correspondence is logged not all telephone calls have been recorded. This was particularly the case just prior to the closure and in the immediate aftermath when the level of incoming calls to the Department was very high. In addition, covering the same period, some 70,000 calls have been logged by the ILA centre in Darlington. These calls are not categorised and therefore are not included.
  822W

  Telephone representations

  Written representations

  Month

  Payment query

  Potential receivership

  Payment query

  Potential receivership

  2001

  August

  —

  —

  3

  —

  September

  —

  —

  —

  —

  October

  14

  —

  1

  6

  November

  33

  —

  9

  3

  December

  42

  1

  29

  4

  2002

  January

  29

  1

  16

  —

  February

  16

  1

  12

  1

  March

  40

  8

  15

  1

  April

  45

  8

  15

  1

  May

  19

  5

  23

  2

  Higher Education Students
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answers of 18 March 2002,Official Report, columns 113–14W, on higher education, if she will provide a further breakdown of the participation in higher education for each year group of those aged between 18 and 30, showing the percentage attending (a) full-time and (b) part-time and (i) degree and (ii) sub-degree courses of higher education. [60453]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 10 June 2002]: The individual year of age entry rates for 2000–01 broken down by mode of study are shown in the table.

  Percentage

  Age1

  Full-time entry rate2

  Part-time entry rate2

  Overall initial entry rate2

  183

  19.9

  0.5

  20.5

  19

  9.5

  0.5

  10.0

  20

  2.2

  0.5

  2.7

  21

  1.1

  0.4

  1.5

  22

  0.7

  0.4

  1.1

  23

  0.5

  0.4

  0.9

  24

  0.4

  0.4

  0.7

  25

  0.3

  0.3

  0.7

  26

  0.3

  0.4

  0.6

  27

  0.3

  0.4

  0.6

  28

  0.2

  0.3

  0.6

  29

  0.2

  0.3

  0.6

  30

  0.2

  0.3

  0.5

  Total4

  36.0

  5.0

  41.0

  1 Age as at 31 August 2000.

  2 HE entrants in 2000–01 as a percentage of separate age population; excludes entrants with previous HE experience and excludes courses of less than one year duration. The overall IER is the sum of the unrounded full-time and part-time initial entry rates, calculated using student records collected by HESA and LSC, and ONS population estimates. Note: as a result of the 2001 Census, the ONS are intending to release revised population estimates by early 2003. This could result in some changes to the figures shown in this table.

  3 Includes a small number of entrants aged 17.

  4 The individual rates are rounded to the nearest 0.1 per cent. and so do not sum exactly to the totals which are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Breakdowns of the initial entry rate by level of undergraduate course are not available. For the purposes of the IER calculation no distinction is made between initial entrants to first degree or other undergraduate courses of at least one year duration.

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the performance
  823W
  targets that her Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004; and if she will specify for each target (a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. [60468]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department has a wide range of targets to deliver its agenda. High level targets are set out in "Delivering Results, A Strategy to 2006", available via the DfES website, www.dfes.gov.uk. These are cascaded through non-departmental public bodies, local education authorities and schools and reflected in their plans. Progress against targets is monitored by the Department, the Office for Standards in Education, the Adult Learning Inspectorate, and by non-departmental public bodies and local partners involved in the delivery of the education, training and skills agenda. The Department publishes information on performance against key targets in its departmental report, which is available from the House of Commons Library, and via the Department's website, www.dfes.gov.uk.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are(a) in place and (b) under discussion in her Department in order to ensure compliance with the WEE Directive. [60739]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy at the Department for Trade and Industry, on 12 June 2002,Official Report, column 1266W.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was of the Department's 2001 staff Christmas party; and how many people attended. [61652]

  Estelle Morris
  My Department held no centrally organised Christmas parties for staff in 2001. Some individual divisions or teams will have organised their own events, but these would have been funded by contributions from the staff themselves.

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information is held by her Department on each hon. Member in relation to(a) personal relationships, both current and past, (b) financial status and dealings,

  Minister

  Date

  Location

  Purpose

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  27 April 2000

  Llandudno

  National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers conference

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Learning and Technology

  7 March 2001

  Cardiff

  Part of a series of events for young people to discuss citizenship issues

  Secretary of State for Education and Employment

  23 March 2001

  Abergavenny and Newport

  School visit, and to address the Secondary Heads Association conference

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Young People and Learning

  15 October 2001

  Ewloe

  Association of Youth and Community Workers conference

  Secretary of State for Education and Skills

  27 March 2002

  Cardiff

  Association of Teachers and Lecturers conference

  824W
  (c) connections with companies and interest groups, (d) connections with Governments and (e) published works; and what was held in January 2002. [61834]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Ministers and officials in the Department for Education and Skills 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.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the levels of tuition fees are for overseas students attending universities in England and Wales in each year since 1996; and what concessions applied to students from(a) low income and (b) heavily indebted poor countries. [62027]

  Margaret Hodge
  The requested information is not held centrally. Universities are responsible for setting their own level of tuition fees for overseas students. Overseas fees are generally around £6,000 to £8,000 per year for an undergraduate course but can range from £4,000 to £17,000 per year depending on the institution, the level and the type of course. The UK Government and other UK organisations provide a number of scholarships and awards to help international students study in the UK. For example, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is providing up to 1,000 extra postgraduate and research places through the Chevening scholarship scheme. Universities also have flexibility in dealing with individual students' circumstances and waive or reduce fees where they consider appropriate: a number of universities are currently waiving overseas fees for students from Zimbabwe.

  Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the(a) date, (b) location and (c) purpose was of visits by Ministers in her Department to Wales since 1997; and when she next intends to visit Wales. [62070]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  (holding answer 17 June 2002]: From the information available to me, which does not date hack to 1997, the following visits to Wales have been undertaken by Ministers in this Department and its predecessor the Department for Education and Employment. In all cases travel for these visits was undertaken fully in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.
  825W
  No further visits are planned at present.

  Sixth-form Provision
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what impact this year's funding proposals will have on the budgets of(a) community colleges, (b) sixth-form colleges and (c) sixth-form schools. [62253]

  Margaret Hodge
  Total funding for further education in 2002–03 allocated to the Learning and Skills Council is £4.25 billion. This is a £313 million, or 5 per cent., increase over expenditure in 2001–02. The allocations by the Department cover FE sector colleges and do not differentiate between sixth-form colleges and general FE colleges.

  The LSC has a budget of £1.35 billion for the funding of LEAs for post-16 education in schools in 2002–03. Comparable figures for LEA spending in 2001–02 are not available. Every school has a Real Terms Guarantee figure based on spending in the baseline year, 2000–01. The overall budget for every school with a sixth form must contain an element which is at least equal to that amount. The 2002–03 LSC funding allocation for two thirds of school sixth forms is higher under the LSC formula than under the Real Terms Guarantee.

  Community Colleges
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action the Government are taking to improve the level of retention of academic staff in community colleges. [62254]

  Margaret Hodge
  Over £310 million is available to the further education sector over the period 2001–04 for the teaching pay initiative, specifically to recruit, retain and reward high quality teachers and lecturers. This is separate to any general pay increase a teacher or lecturer may receive. We have also introduced training bursaries, and from this autumn we will be introducing golden hellos and (subject to the approval of Parliament) the repayment of teacher loans. All are recruitment and retention initiatives which offer significant financial rewards both to students training to be teachers and lecturers, as well as to those taking up teaching posts in FE shortage subject areas.

  Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the universities, founded before 1992, that will receive a developmental visit from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. [62457]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: The relevant institutions are: the universities of Oxford, Durham, Newcastle Upon Tyne, London, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, Nottingham, Reading, Southampton, Hull, Exeter, Leicester, Keele, Sussex, York, East Anglia, Essex, Kent at Canterbury, Lancaster, Warwick, Aston, Bath, Bradford, Brunel, City, Loughborough, Salford, Surrey.

  This represents all pre-1992 universities other than Bristol and Cambridge. These two universities will be subject to full institutional review in 2002–03.
  826W
  Under the new quality assurance arrangements to be introduced by the QAA later in 2002, all institutions will be subject to full institutional review. If they are not scheduled for institutional review in 2002–03, they must undergo at least one development visit from the QAA.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the role and responsibilities of Learning and Skills councils in regard to funding private training providers which provide courses accredited by official examination boards. [62678]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) is able to fund training providers who were not previously eligible for Further Education Funding Council funding and who offer courses accredited by examination boards. It has produced a manual 'Initial Assessment of New Provision' which gives guidance on how it will assess and approve any new providers.

  Once a provider has been judged to be a suitable supplier of post-16 learning provision, it is eligible for LSC funds. However private training providers do not have an automatic right to direct funding by the LSC. Local LSCs, as part of their planning work, will carry out a strategic assessment of the adequacy and quality of local provision to determine areas that need to be strengthened or where there are gaps in provision. It is a matter for the local councils to arrange for the delivery of such provision from appropriate existing or new providers.

  Local councils also monitor the results of inspections of private training providers. It is crucial that the highest standards are achieved and maintained and, where this is not so, the councils will take tough action to improve or replace the provision.

  Performance Tables
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to develop value-added methodologies; and when she expects to publish value-added information in school performance tables. [62778]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The methodology to be used for the value added measures was discussed in the consultation document, Publication of School and College Performance Tables in 2002, issued in March, copies of which have been placed in the Library. Final decisions based on that consultation will be announced in July.

  This year, we intend to publish value added measures in the secondary school performance tables of progress made from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 and from Key Stage 3 to GCSE/GNVQ for all secondary schools. We are also conducting a pilot programme for measures of progress made from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2 for primary schools, with full publication planned for 2003. We aim to pilot a measure of value added between Key Stage 2 and GCSE/GNVQ in 2003, and between GCSE/GNVQ and A/AS-level in 2004, prior to full publication the following year.

  Infant Classes
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average teacher to pupil ratio was in each year since 1997 in infant classes. [62854]
  827W
  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Information for primary schools is shown in the table:

  Pupil teacher ratio in primary schools1 1997–20022 Position in January each yea

  Pupil: teacher ratio

  1997

  23.4

  1998

  23.7

  1999

  23.5

  2000

  23.3

  2001

  22.9

  20022

  22.5

  1 The pupil:teacher ratio within schools is the ratio of the full-time equivalent number of pupils (counting each part-time pupil as 0.5) to the full-time equivalent number of teachers.

  2 Provisional.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children have been statemented in Buckinghamshire and (b) the Chesham and Amersham constituency in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [62856]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: The information requested is shown in the table:

  Pupils with a statement of special educational needs in Buckinghamshire local education authority and Chesham and Amersham constituency1 1993–20022 Position in January each year

  Buckinghamshire3

  Buckinghamshire4

  Milton Keynes4

  Chesham and Amersham constituency

  1993

  3,287

  5—

  5—

  5—

  1994

  3,506

  5—

  5—

  5—

  1995

  3,234

  5—

  5—

  5—

  1996

  3,615

  5—

  5—

  5—

  1997

  3,737

  5—

  5—

  549

  1998

  5—

  2,409

  1,369

  559

  1999

  5—

  2,347

  1,402

  549

  2000

  5—

  2,340

  1,332

  592

  2001

  5—

  2,338

  1,198

  590

  2002

  5—

  2,235

  979

  6—

  1 Includes maintained primary and secondary schools and maintained and non-maintained special schools.

  2 Provisiona

  3 Before local government re-organisation.

  4 After local government re-organisation.

  5 Not applicable.

  6 Not available.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the contracts awarded by her Department since January 2000 for(a) the Fast Track Teaching Programme, (b) the Teachers' International Professional Development Scheme and (c) leasing laptop computers to teachers, stating in each case (i) the name of the successful contractor and (ii) whether the contracts were subject to open tender. [62957]

  Mr. Miliband
  Contracts have been let for:the development and delivery of the Fast Track Teaching Programme to Interactive Skills, for the assessment and selection of applicants and the staging of three professional development
  828W
  events; and to the Centre for British Teaching, for the provision of on-going professional development and job-finding services. Contracts were subject to open tender;
  the delivery of the Teachers' International Professional Development (TIPD) programme to the bodies listed below. The first three of these contracts were awarded to the organisations which had completed the relevant pilot work. The other four were subject to competitive tender to a number of selected providers:

  1. British Council for the provision of short-term visits and exchanges

  2. Technology Colleges Trust for the provision of short-term visits

  3. League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers for the provision of short-term visits

  4. British Council for the provision of visits on the school determined element

  5. National Foundation for Education Research for the evaluation of the TIPD programme

  6. Technology Colleges Trust for the provision of short-term visits

  7. League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers for the provision of short-term visits;

  the purchase of laptops under the Laptops for Teachers scheme to the suppliers listed below. Contracts were subject to open tender:

  Acer UK Ltd.

  Apple

  Canon UK Ltd.

  Compaq Computer Ltd.

  Compusys

  Computacenter

  DELL Computer Corporation Ltd.

  Egton Consulting and Technical

  Ergo Computing UK Ltd.

  European Electronique

  Hi-Grade Computers plc

  IBM UK Ltd.

  Links Education Limited

  Merseygrid

  NEC Computers International

  Novatech Direct Ltd.

  PC World Business

  Ramseys

  RM plc

  Teksys Ltd.

  Tulip Computers

  Viglen Ltd.

  Watford Electronics

  XMA Ltd.

  Unpaid Advisers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 468W. on unpaid advisers, if she will list the steps that were taken to ensure no conflicts of interest arose as a result of this appointment. [62970]

  Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 19 June, 2002,official Report, column 332W.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of pupils living in(a) a residential care home and (b) with foster parents took (i) authorised and (ii) unauthorised absence in the last five years for which figures are available broken down by (A) Government Office region and (B) local education authority. [63115]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: This level of detail is not available. Information on the number of pupils missing due to authorised and unauthorised absence is collected at school level and information on individual pupils cannot be identified from this data.

  Appointments
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who is responsible for appointing(a) the chair and (b) the board of trustees of the (i) British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, (ii) National College of School Leadership, (iii) Teacher Training Agency, (iv) Technology College Trust and (v) Centre for Information on Language Teaching. [63117]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: The information requested is listed below:

  (i)(ii) and (iii) my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is responsible for the appointments of the chairs and board members of the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA), National College of School Leadership (NCSL) and the Teacher Training Agency (TTA). Appointments to all three bodies are made in accordance with the guidance issued by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA).

  (iv) The chair of the Technology Colleges Trust (TCT) is appointed by the Trust's Council of Management (Council). Members of the TCT's Council are appointed in accordance with the Trust's Articles of Association.

  (v) The chair and governors of the Centre for information on Language Teaching (CILT) are appointed by the governors. The governors consult and involve a range of other bodies that have an interest in the work of the CILT, to assist in selecting suitable persons to appoint.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what decisions have been made by her Department in the last year under authority from the Royal Prerogative. [63128]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle on 25 October 2001, Official Report, column 328W.

  ME
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what educational assistance is given to pupils with myalgic encephalomyelitis who miss schooling through illness. [63144]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  In November last year, the Department for Education and Skills jointly with the Department of Health published statutory guidance "Access to education for children and young people with Medical needs". The guidance sets out minimum standards 830W
  of education for all children who are unable to attend school due to their medical needs, including those with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME).

  Local Education Authorities' responsibilities towards pupils who are unable to attend school because of their medical needs should ensure that pupils are not at home without education for more than 15 working days and that children educated at home receive a minimum of five hours home tuition a week. The nature of the provision must be responsive to the demands of what can be a changing medical condition.

  The Chief Medical Officer's report on Children and Young People with ME was published by the Department of Health in January this year, taking into account the recommendations of an independent working group. The report proposes ways in which clinicians and the National Health Service might improve the health and social care of those affected by CFS/ME. It also includes references to education provision.

  Funded Initiatives
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the funded initiatives which have been introduced by her Department since 1997, stating(a) the level of funding in each year for each initiative and (b) whether those resources were provided direct to (i) schools, (ii) local education authorities and (iii) other bodies outside her direct control. [63939]

  Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: Details of spending by my Department including new initiatives funded from 1997–98 and plans up to 2003–04 are presented in Table 4.2 of the departmental annual report issued 12 June 2002 (CM 5402, pages 35–36).

  Schools funding is paid to local education authorities who are required to devolve the majority of funding to head teachers. Other funding is paid via other bodies including the Learning and Skills Council, the Higher Education Funding Council, Connexions partnerships, the Student Loans Company and the Sure Start programme.

  Training Organisations
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many national training organisations have been wound up; how many have been replaced by skills sector councils; and how many will not be replaced. [63969]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have not wound up any national training organisations although we removed their formal recognition from 31 March 2002. National training organisations are independent bodies and are free to carry on as entities in their own right. The continued funding, operation and staffing of former national training organisations are decisions for the board of each organisation.

  We are, however, establishing a smaller, stronger network of sector skills councils in sectors where employers can demonstrate their proposals meet stringent sector skills councils' standards. Former national training organisations may make proposals for a sector skills council licence although it has never been the intention to replace national training organisations with sector skills councils on a head to head basis.
  831W
  We are working with five trailblazer sector skills councils and have recommended that a further four sectors move quickly to a development phase.

  Teachers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many trainee teachers have benefited from golden hellos in each year since 1998, broken down by Government office region. [64109]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department has received claims from local education authorities for reimbursement of golden hello payments made post-training to teachers in the local Government office regions as follows:

  2000–011

  2001–021

  East Midlands

  86

  51

  East of England

  122

  88

  London

  112

  73

  North East

  29

  16

  North West

  167

  129

  South East

  168

  61

  South West

  122

  64

  West Midlands

  136

  47

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  131

  40

  1 Financial year

  The decline in the number of golden hellos paid in 2001–02 is caused by teachers deferring to take their payment until after completion of induction under the new arrangements operating from September 2000. The number of payments is expected to rise significantly in 2002–03.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers working in schools in the Greater London area are between(a) 50 and 55 and (b) 55 years and over. [63588]

  Mr. Miliband
  The numbers of teachers in regular full or part-time service in the maintained schools sector in London Government office region at 31 March 2000 (the latest date for which provisional data are available) who were(a) aged 50 and 54 inclusive and (b) aged 55 or over were as follows:

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  50 to 54

  6,800

  1,400

  8,200

  55 and over

  3,300

  1,200

  4,500

  Some 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of part-timers are not recorded on the Teacher's Pension Scheme, from which the data are obtained.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the change in standard spending assessment for education has been for(a) Wiltshire and (b) England in each year since 1987. [63831]
  832W
  Mr. Miliband
  The current funding system was introduced in 1990–91 and the following table provides the information requested since then.

  Increased percentage (in cash terms)

  Wiltshire

  England

  1990–91

  —

  —

  1991–92

  16.4

  16.2

  1992–93

  6.5

  7.1

  1993–94

  —

  —

  1994–95

  2.3

  1.8

  1995–96

  1.6

  1.2

  1996–97

  4.8

  4.3

  1997–98

  —

  —

  1998–99

  5.2

  5.5

  1999–2000

  6.8

  5.7

  2000–01

  5.9

  5.4

  2001–02

  5.1

  4.8

  2002–03

  6.5

  6.0

  Notes:

  Figures for 1993–94 and 1997–98 are not shown because they do not reflect like for like comparisons:

  1. From 1993–94 further education was no longer included in the SSA.

  2. Following local government reorganisation, Swindon became an LEA in its own right in 1997–98 and was no longer included in Wiltshire's SSA.

  3. In 1997–98 £527 million was taken out of the education SSA to fund the nursery voucher scheme.

  4. The percentage increases expressed in the chart above are adjusted to reflect changes in LEA functions from 1998–99 onwards.

  5. 2002–03 figures include the Learning and Skills Council allocation for post-16 education.

  Education Policy
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what extra funding has been allocated within the SSA to carry out education policy initiatives during this financial year, broken down by local authority. [63601]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Education Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) is unhypothecated. It is therefore up to local education authorities to decide how much funding they should allocate for education policy initiatives: there is no specific allocation within Education SSA for 2002–03 at local level.

  Special Grants
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what extra funding to schools in England she has provided in the form of special grants outside the SSA from 1999 to the present; how much has been provided; and for what purposes. [63602]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the Department's special grants paid under section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 from 1999–2000 to 2002–03. The table does not include specific grants provided by the Department such as the Standards Fund.
  833W

  £000

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  School Standards Grant

  —

  293,219

  631,307

  645,027

  School Budget Support Grant

  —

  50,000

  —

  —

  Education Budget Support Grant

  —

  —

  52,394

  —

  Teachers Pay Grants

  —

  276,573

  479,275

  120,835

  GM Transitional Grants

  7,376

  21,010

  10,335

  33

  Post-Sixteen Budget Support Grant

  —

  —

  —

  20,100

  Notes:

  1 2002–03 figures are provisional estimates/payments made to date and, as such, are likely to change.

  2. Figures are in cash terms.

  Regulation
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the work of the Better Regulation Task Force in reducing unnecessary regulations for which her Department is responsible. [63158]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  We have taken forward the recommendations in the Better Regulation Task Force's report "Red Tape Affecting Head Teachers" in April 2000. For those recommendations relating to deregulation, we have taken appropriate measures in the current Education Bill, in particular for deregulation of school governance arrangements, and the streamlining of some governance functions.

CABINET OFFICE

  Public Appointments (Sikhs)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many public appointments are held by Sikhs. [63610]

  Mr. Alexander
  My Department does not collect data on the number of Sikhs appointed to public appointments. It collects diversity data for public appointments on the following criteria: Bangladeshi; Black-African; Black-Caribbean; Black-any other; Indian; Pakistani; Chinese; mixed ethnic background; any other Asian; White; or any other ethnic background.

  My Department publishes summary ethnic data covering all Government Departments in the Public Bodies' yearbook; the latest edition is 'Public Bodies 2001'.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Scottish Devolution
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many times his office has made representations to the Scottish Executive since May 1999 broken down by(a) Department approached, (b) subject and (c) date; [59528]

  (2) what plans he has to transfer the administration of reserved powers and functions of the Department for Work and Pensions, its executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies within its remit from his Department to the Scotland Office; [59529]
  834W
  (3) how many representations the Scottish Executive has made to his Department since May 1999 broken down by (a) Scottish Executive Department, (b) subject and (c) date. [59530]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 24 May 2002,Official Report, column 600W.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what effect problems with NIRS2 have had on their ability to produce research and statistics on pensions [61381]

  Mr. McCartney
  Data from NIRS fed into two regular pensions related national statistics publications issued by the Department. The publications were "Contributions and Qualifying Years for Retirement Pension" and "Second Tier Pension Provision". The most recent published data relates to the financial year 1995–96. NIRS2 is now able to produce the data required for the Department's statistical publications and departmental analysts are currently working on processing and investigating NIRS2 data covering the financial years up to 2000–01. It is intended that publication will resume later this year.

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what decisions have been made by his Department in the last year under authority from the Royal Prerogative. [63141]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Pendle by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Darling) on 24 October 2001,Official Report, column 243W.

  Benefit Fraud (Sefton)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Sefton council. [64865]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's (BFI) report on Sefton council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The BFI reports that the council has actively demonstrated a strong commitment towards raising standards within its benefits service and has many areas of good practice. The report also shows that Sefton has some scope for making improvements.
  835W
  The report notes that a single housing benefit and council tax benefit claim form had been introduced and that this was broadly in line with BFI's national model.

  Inspectors found that 94 per cent. of the claims examined had been assessed accurately and that the supporting evidence had been considered. A weakness was identified in the evidence gathered about earnings and capital.

  There were some delays in processing renewal claims and inadequate checks on claims that were not renewed. BFI also found that the council did not have a benefit overpayment policy and lacked the necessary management controls to be assured that overpayments were dealt with correctly.

  The council has taken positive steps to counter benefit fraud. The performance of the counter fraud team was found to be effective, systematically achieving successful prosecutions although the council had not offered administrative penalties or issued a caution since introducing its prosecution policy. Investigation work might also be targeted more effectively to increase the number of benefit frauds detected.

  Following a best value review by the council of its benefits services, elected Members had approved new investment to increase the number of staff allocated to benefits and improvement to IT.

  Sefton administered some £73 million in housing benefits in 2000–01.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  A BFI best value inspection report on the benefits service is also published today and has been placed in the Library. It examines the service from a customer service and value for money point of view. For best value, inspectors found that Sefton council provided a fair or one star benefits service, which would probably improve to be equal to that of high-performing authorities.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Royal Prerogative
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what decisions have been made by his Department in the last year under authority from the royal prerogative. [63048]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Records are not kept of the individual occasions on which powers under the royal prerogative are exercised, nor could it be practicable to do so.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Charities
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's policy is on the voluntary registration of charities. [64866]

  Beverley Hughes
  The current regulations which made registration voluntary for charities connected with a number of religious bodies expire on 1 October 2002. My noble Friend Lord Filkin is today laying a new statutory instrument to extend those regulations until 1 October 2007. The Performance and Innovation Unit, as part of their review of the legal framework for charities, are considering the matter of exception and their report will be published in due course. The extension of the regulations will allow time for the implementation of any changes which the report may recommend.

  Child Asylum Seekers
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of places required for children in accommodation centres(a) during the pilots, (b) in five years and (c) in 10 years. [51744]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 April 2002]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) gave my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward) on 24 May 2002, Official Report, column 551W.

  Ministerial Private Offices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the running costs were of(a) his Ministers' private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff and (b) his Department in each year from May 1997 to the nearest date for which the information is available. [40986]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Running costs for the Home Secretary's office, his Ministers' offices, the Private Office Management Support Unit and Parliamentary Secretariat for each year from 1997 were as follows:

  Year

  Pay costs

  Other running costs

  1997–98

  1,551,644

  572,622

  1998–99

  1,566,018

  1,202,633

  1999–2000

  1,619,459

  791,588

  2000–01

  1,223,794

  841,809

  2001–021

  1,643,622

  943,022

  1 Figures are provisional as at year end

  Running cost information for the Department for the period from May 1997 is published in the appropriation and resource accounts which are already in the public domain. Figures for 2001–02 will be published in due course.

  European Arrest Warrant
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the United Kingdom definition is for the purposes of the proposed European arrest warrant of(a) swindling, (b) racism and (c) xenophobia. [63340]
  837W
  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The list in Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant contains broad headings, designed to ensure that all serious offences are caught. It is for the requesting state to decide whether the conduct in question falls within one of the headings.

  In the United Kingdom (UK), depending on circumstances, if issued by a judicial authority in the UK, "swindling" would include offences under the Theft Acts of 1968 and 1978.

  The UK has a number of offences which could fall into the category of "racism" and "xenophobia". These include racial discrimination, incitement to racial hatred, possession and distribution of racially inflammatory material and publication of material intended to stir up racial hatred.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which offences in France for which British citizens could be extradited under the European arrest warrant are unknown to British law. [63366]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government are not responsible for the law of another European Union member state. It will be for the requesting state to establish that the offence in respect of which extradition is sought is one covered by the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant.

  The Government believe those who break the law of France while in that country should be returned to stand trial there, irrespective of whether the conduct is an offence under United Kingdom law. In the same way, we would expect France to return someone who had broken the law here even if the conduct was not contrary to French law.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether(a) non-British residents of, (b) British overseas territories citizens resident in and (c) UK citizens resident in (i) Gibraltar, (ii) Jersey, (iii) Guernsey, (iv) Alderney, (v) the Isle of Man, (vi) British sovereign bases in Cyprus and (vii) other British overseas and dependent territories will be subject to the proposed European arrest warrant. [63331]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The European arrest warrant system will operate in Gibraltar, as stated in Article 33 of the Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between member states. The Framework Decision does not apply to the jurisdictions of British overseas territories or the crown dependencies. The nationality of any resident has no bearing on the applicability of the proposals.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what safeguards he proposes to prevent the extradition of UK citizens under the European arrest warrant for offences which are unknown to English or Scots law. [63365]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Government believe that those who break the law of another European Union (EU) member state while in that country should be returned to stand trial there, irrespective of whether the conduct is an offence under United Kingdom law, in the same way that we would expect our EU partners to return someone who had broken the law here even if the conduct was not illegal in the person's country of nationality.
  838W
  However, the legislation to give effect to the European arrest warrant will provide that no one can be extradited from the United Kingdom for conduct which takes place in this country and which is not contrary to United Kingdom law.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what safeguards he proposes to prevent the extradition of UK citizens under the European arrest warrant without there being a proper case to answer. [63367]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Currently extradition between Council of Europe countries, which includes all European Union member states, is governed by the European Convention on Extradition (ECE).

  Under the terms of Article 12 of the ECE, extradition requests have to be accompanied by an arrest warrant (or certificate of conviction, in conviction cases), a statement of the offences for which extradition is requested and a copy of the relevant enactments.

  Requests do not have to be accompanied by material establishing that there is a case against the person whose extradition is sought. That will not be changed by the introduction of the European arrest warrant.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which jurisdiction it is proposed will determine, under the European arrest warrant, whether the property in the UK of British residents may be seized as evidence. [63339]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  As is currently the case with extradition requests, in European arrest warrant cases decisions on seizure of property in the United Kingdom (UK) for use as evidence will be taken by the British police in accordance with UK law.

  Work Permits
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many work permits were awarded to persons from(a) India, (b) South Africa, (c) Bangladesh and (d) Jamaica recruited to UK police forces in the last five years. [62633]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of work permits issued to United Kingdom police forces are listed in the table.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  India

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  South Africa

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Bangladesh

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Jamaica

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  None of these were for non-European economic area nationals to be employed as a police officer. The occupations in question were an intelligence analyst and two analyst programmers.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are(a) in place and (b) under discussion in his Department in order to ensure compliance with the WEE Directive. [60755]
  839W
  Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Energy and Construction (Mr. Wilson) on 12 June 2002,Official Report, column 1266W.

  Asylum Accommodation Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the interim report by Mr. Stephen Moore into the Yarl's Wood disturbances; and if he will make a statement. [60288]

  Beverley Hughes
  The final report of Mr. Moore's inquiry will be published as soon as practicable after the completion of the investigation into the events at Yarl's Wood removal centre. The timing for this will be dependent upon the progress of the separate inquiries being conducted by Bedfordshire police, Bedfordshire fire and rescue service, Bedfordshire county council and Group 4.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the nature of the educational facilities and curriculum he plans for asylum accommodation centres. [59275]

  Beverley Hughes
  Children in accommodation centres will receive an education which will mirror that provided in schools, suitably tailored to their needs, and which will prepare them for entry to school if necessary.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision he has made with his Department's budget for the construction and running of asylum accommodation centres in each of the next three financial years. [59076]

  Beverley Hughes
  Spending plans and priorities for all Home Office areas, including accommodation centres for asylum seekers, are under discussion with Treasury as part of Spending Review 2002 which covers the period 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 16 May 2002,Official Report, column 842W, on alcohol, if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter to chief police officers and chief executives of local authorities regarding the measures relating to alcohol consumption in public places contained in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. [62195]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  A copy of the letter of 24 August 2001 to all chief executives of local authorities and chief officers of police has now been placed in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to him dated 22 April 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Miss H. Abdi. [61762]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 25 June 2002.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to him dated 28 March 2002 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. A Abu-Jazad. [61682]
  840W
  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 21 June 2002.

  Drugs
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what recent discussions he has had with medical professionals about the possible dangers of taking cannabis; what their advice on the matter was; and if he will make a statement; [61945]

  (2) what recent discussions he has had with chief police officers about the level of drug-motivated crime being committed; and if he will make a statement; [61947]

  (3) what recent discussions he has had with the Crown Prosecution Service about the prosecuting of people found in possession of cannabis; what form the discussions took; and if he will make a statement: [61943]

  (4) what recent discussions he has had with chief police officers about the arresting of people found in possession of cannabis; what form those discussions took; and if he will make a statement; [61944]

  (5) if he will estimate how much crime is committed, motivated by (a) cannabis and (b) other illegal drugs; and if he will make a statement. [61946]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The problem of drug misuse and the amount of crime associated with it, such as crime committed to help fund a drug habit or organised crime involving the supply of illicit drugs motivated by financial gain, are central to the Government's drugs and crime reduction strategies. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers have regular and frequent discussions with chief police officers on these and related matters.

  Additionally, representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers and officials from the Crown Prosecution Service are regularly involved in discussions with Home Office officials on these and related issues, such as arrest referral and offences of cannabis possession.

  Regarding levels of crime motivated by cannabis, Home Office Research Study 205 "Drugs and Crime: The results of the second developmental stage of the NEW-ADAM programme" by Bennett, T. (2000), copies of which are in the Library, states that there is some suggestion that, for offenders in general, cannabis use is associated with a slight inflation of criminal involvement. However, for offenders who use heroin and crack/cocaine, whether or not they also use cannabis makes little difference to their considerably higher level of offending. Regarding levels of crime motivated by all illegal drugs, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 22 May 2002, Official Report, column 450W.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has met Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, the Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, to consider the possible dangers of taking cannabis and related issues relevant to the drug's classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The advice he received is contained in the Advisory Council's report, "The classification of

  841W
  cannabis under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971", which was published on 14 March 2002, copies of which are in the Library.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to strengthen sentencing measures in relation to people who deal drugs in close proximity to schools. [62904]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Severe penalties are already available to the courts for people convicted of supplying drugs. The maximum penalty for supplying class A drugs is life imprisonment, the maximum penalty for supplying class B drugs is 14 years imprisonment and the maximum penalty for supplying class C drugs is five years imprisonment.

  It is vitally important to protect young people from the harm that can be caused by drugs. Officials are currently looking into this matter, bearing in mind the discretion that the courts already have to take into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender, including all aggravating and mitigating factors.

  There are no specific proposals at this time.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were(a) arrested and (b) successfully prosecuted for drugs-related offences in (i) Telford and (ii) the United Kingdom in 2001–02. [62907]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The available information, relating to persons arrested for offences involving drugs (trafficking, supplying, possession, etc.) and those proceeded against and found guilty of such offences in England and Wales in 2000 is shown in the table.

  Statistics for 2001 will be available in the autumn.

  Figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively.

  Persons arrested, proceeded against and convicted of drug offences in 2000

  Telford petty sessional area

  West Mercia Police force area

  England and Wales

  Number of persons arrested

  1—

  1,451

  2107,700

  Number of persons proceeded against

  73

  716

  51,251

  Number of persons convicted

  377

  660

  44,621

  1 Not available centrally

  2 Estimated

  3 May include persons proceeded against in earlier years.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the views of the people of Lambeth and Brixton on the experiment to treat cannabis possession as a non-arrestable offence. [63334]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 20 May 2002]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has noted carefully the findings of the report carried out by the Police Foundation on the community's response to the Lambeth cannabis policing experiment. He recognises that while the report records high levels of support for the scheme, for many that support is conditional upon police officers spending more time dealing effectively with serious crime in the borough.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will answer the question tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull on 11 April concerning witnesses attending identification parades. [61816]

  Mr. Denham
  With apologies for the delay in replying to the hon. Member's question, I refer him to the answer I gave on 24 June 2002 on this issue,Official Report, column 697W.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the budget was for IND in 1990; and what the current budget is for IND. [62200]

  Mr. Denham
  The budget for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate IND for 2002–03 is 1,031 million. This figure is provisional and any proposed changes will be notified to Parliament though supplementary estimates. This figure is also on a resource basis and no comparable budget figures are available for 1990. However, IND expenditure for the two financial years covering 1990, on a cash basis, was as follows:

  Actual expenditure £ million

  1989–90

  78.7

  1990–91

  90.9

  A significant portion of the overall budget for 2002–03 relates to asylum support, which before 1999–2000 was assigned to the Departments of Health and Social Security not the Immigration and Nationality Directorate.

  Asylum Seekers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum have been made in each year since 1994. [61331]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 June 2002]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Applications1,2 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1994–2001

  Year

  Applications received (principal applicants only)

  Applications received (including dependants)3

  1994

  32,830

  42,200

  1995

  43,965

  55,000

  1996

  29,640

  37,000

  1997

  32,500

  41,500

  1998

  46,015

  58,500

  1999

  71,160

  91,200

  20004

  80,315

  98,900

  20014

  71,700

  88,300

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  2 May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement

  3 Offices between January 1999 and March 2000.

  4 Provisional data.

  Information on asylum applications is published quarterly. The next publication will be available from 30 August 2002 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on press and advertising campaigns in 2001–02; and what the planned expenditure is for 2002–03. [60917]

  Beverley Hughes
  Spend on press and advertising campaigns for 2001–02 was £14.4 million exclusive of VAT.

  The campaigns covered:

  Vehicle crime reduction

  Police recruitment

  Electoral issues

  Drug misuse

  Child protection on the internet.

  Planned expenditure for 2002–03 has not yet been finalised.

  Passport/Visa Fraud
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are to make passports and visa information better protected against fraud; what assessment has been made of the viability of biometrics; and if he will make a statement. [63066]

  Beverley Hughes
  The British digital passport is one of the most secure in the world. It is machine readable and complies with the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) standard for passports. It contains a digital photograph and a digital signature of the holder, and the personal identification page is protected by a clear plastic laminate incorporating a holographic device which further protects the portrait. The personal identification page is also protected by a series of laser perforations. The use of special paper and printing techniques provide added security. The security features in the passport document remain under continuing review in case a feature is compromised by fraudsters.

  The United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) is considering the use of biometrics (fingerprints, iris, facial recognition) in passport books and cards both to further enhance security and to prevent the issue of multiple passports in the same identity. It is keeping in close touch with work being undertaken by ICAO post September 11 to develop an international standard for the use of biometrics in passports. In addition and in support of the concept of an entitlement card the UKPS has commissioned a study from the National Physical laboratory on the application of biometrics in an entitlement scheme. This study will look at iris, fingerprint and facial recognition templates and their application within large databases.

  The issue of visas at diplomatic posts overseas, is the responsibility of UKvisas, a joint Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth Office Department. Visas are issued on specifically designed vignettes that contain various security features in a common European Union format. A revised European Union common format vignette is being designed and should be brought into use in April 2004. The new format will incorporate space for a digital photograph of the applicant. There are no plans
  844W
  to use biometrics as part of the visa process but UKvisas is monitoring developments in this area including the Immigration Service trial at Heathrow.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the key targets set for his Department are for each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [56223]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 21 May 2002]: The Department's key targets are set out in its Public Service Agreements published in 2000, which are available on the Home Office's website.

  The Department is setting targets for the next three years as part of the 2002 Spending Review process. The new targets will be published in the Treasury's White Paper in the summer.

HEALTH

  Doctors (Suspensions)
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate the cost to the national health service of the salaries of doctors on suspension and absent on special leave during the most recent year for which figures are available; [45728]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 12 April 2002, Official Report, column 692W, on doctors (suspensions), what the total cost was to the NHS of the suspensions; and what the costs were in (a) doctors' and dentists' salaries, (b) payments to locum replacements and (c) legal fees. [57150]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department routinely collects information quarterly in regard to the suspension of hospital medical and dental staff and reported costs incurred. This information is not broken down into salary or locum costs or legal fees. Of the 30 doctors and community dentists currently suspended for more than six months, 22 are consultants. No such information is held regarding doctors on special leave.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money is owed within the NHS; and(a) by whom and (b) to whom it is owed. [45852]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested will be placed in the Library.

  Smallpox Vaccine
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Powderject has applied for a licence for the smallpox vaccine; and if such a licence was included in the specification provided by his Department. [53951]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has bought an unlicensed smallpox vaccine. It is anticipated that the company will seek a licence at an appropriate time in the future. The company has agreed to abide by the new European Union guidelines, as set out by the European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products for the development of vaccinia based vaccines against smallpox. Currently, there are no smallpox vaccines available that are licensed.

  GP Out-of-hours Co-operatives
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP out-of-hours co-operatives there are; and how many of these are connected to the NHS intranet. [54267]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are estimated to be about 240 general practitioner (GP) out-of-hours co-operatives in England. But they are not national health service organisations and as such the Department does not therefore collect or hold comprehensive data on them. For similar reasons GP co-operatives are not connected to the NHS intranet.

  Overseas Doctors
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to make it easier for doctors from Australia and New Zealand to practise in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [57962]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health is working closely with the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice, Specialist Training Authority and medical Royal Colleges to enable suitably qualified and experienced doctors from overseas wishing to enter the UK medical practice to do so as quickly as is possible.

  In November 2001, we removed the funding bar that has prevented overseas doctors being funded for training in general practice. We expected to see even more applications this year as a result.

  Design Champions
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the appointment of design champions with NHS trusts. [59857]

  Mr. Lammy
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appointed my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (the Lord Hunt of Kingsheath) as the Ministerial Design Champion for the Department. My noble Friend wrote to all national health service trusts including primary care trusts on 16 May 2002, asking the chair to nominate a design champion accountable to the trust board. The nominated design champion will take the lead in ensuring that capital schemes reflect the principles of good design at every stage of the procurement process.

  Departmental Sponsors
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which hon. Members have been appointed as sponsors to his Department since 7 June 2001; and when each of them were appointed; [59969]

  (2) what the duties are of hon. Members appointed as sponsors to his Department; and what assistance is given by officials in his Department to them in carrying out these duties. [59982]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 10 June 2002,Official Report, column 1105W.

  Computers
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are(a) in place and (b) under discussion in his Department in order to ensure compliance with the WEE Directive. [60759]

  Mr. Lammy
  My hon. Friend is referred to the answer given by the Minister of State (Mr. Wilson) at the Department of Trade and Industry on 12 June 2002,Official Report, column 1266W.

  Performance Targets
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the performance targets that his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are required to meet, apart from those set out in the public service agreements for 1999 to 2002 and 2001 to 2004; and if he will specify for each target(a) who sets it and (b) who monitors achievement against it. [60471]

  Mr. Lammy
  The key performance targets for the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies are set by Ministers and are published as part of their business plans. Achievement against the targets is reported on by the agencies in their annual report and accounts. Copies of these documents are available from the Library.

  For each agency or non-departmental public body, monitoring of performance against the targets during the year is carried out by a senior official of the Department who is responsible for the performance management of the body concerned. For the agencies further scrutiny is carried out by the non-executive ministerial advisory boards.

  In addition the Department is committed to six standards for the delivery of public services to meet the needs of citizens. These standards are called Service First and include:

  1. Answering correspondence (includes letters, faxes and emails) within twenty working days;

  2. Seeing callers with an appointment within 10 minutes of that appointment time; and seeing callers without an appointment within 20 minutes;

  3. Answering telephone calls quickly and helpfully within 10 rings;

  4. Provide clear and straightforward information about its services and those of related providers;

  5. Have a complaints procedure; and

  6. Do everything reasonably possible to make its services available to everyone.

  These targets are monitored by corporate affairs within the Department.

  Ministerial Cars
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of ministerial cars for his Department was in each year from 1995 to 2001 and from 1 January 2002 to date. [61428]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  847W

  Ministerial car costs—by yea

  £

  Actual costs

  April 1995 to March 1996

  289,733

  April 1996 to March 1997

  297,691

  April 1997 to March 1998

  316,572

  April 1998 to March 1999

  317,209

  April 1999 to March 2000

  400,792

  April 2000 to March 2001

  372,090

  April 2001 to March 2002

  358,661

  January 2002 to date

  169,018

  of which included in 2001–02 year:

  135,989

  of which 2002 year to date:

  33,029

  Total

  2,385,776

  The increase from 1999 has been partly due to an additional ministerial post.

  Health Care Design Teams
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 May 2002,Official Report, column 857W, on the design champion, what form Lord Hunt of Kings Heath's personal mentoring of four health care design schemes takes. [615261

  Mr. Lammy
  My noble Friend, the Lord Hunt of Kings Heath is mentoring four national health service schemes. He has already met with two trusts; visiting the site and meeting with the chief executive, chairman, project director and key members of the team including the trust design champion.

  He will support the trust in ensuring that design excellence is considered at all stages of the procurement process, and in addition will support the team, understand the scheme proposal and raise the profile of design excellence.

  Hip Replacements
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elective primary hip replacements were performed in 2000–01. [61437]

  Mr. Hutton
  There were 35,287 elective primary hip replacements carried out in the national health service in England in 2000–01.

  Note:

  OPCS (operation) codes used were W37–39 and W46–48, excluding W37.3, W38.3, W39.3, W46.3, W47.3 and W48.3. And also excluding those episodes with a primary diagnosis of S72.0–S72.2 (fractured neck of femur).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Prescriptions
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he and Ministers have had with NICE regarding the prescription of(a) irinotecan and (b) oxaplatin. [61457]

  Ms Blears
  None. As part of routine business, the Department has responded to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the normal way as a consultee in the appraisal process.

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs he expected the NCAA to validate in its first year when he established it. [61439]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Clinical Assessment Authority (NCAA) does not validate doctors. The Government expected the NCAA to develop assessment frameworks for doctors in hospital and community and primary care organisations in its first year. During this period, the NCAA also managed nearly 200 referrals from trusts and health authorities for advice and support in local handling of performance issues.

  Monitoring
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has a mechanism for monitoring(a) health authorities' and (b) primary care trusts' compliance with their statutory obligations to provide NICE recommended (i) drugs, (ii) treatments and (iii) technologies. [61077]

  Mr. Lammy
  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.

  Circulars
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many circular documents have been sent by his Department and by the NHS Executive to the chief executives of NHS trusts since 1 June 2001; how many pages there were in each such document; and if he will make a statement. [61495]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has issued 43 formal referenced circulars to chief executives of national health service trusts since 1 June 2001. A list of these circulars, showing the number of pages of each one, has been placed in the Library.

  Entertainment Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of the Department's 2001 staff Christmas party; and how many people attended. [61663]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department did not hold a corporate Christmas party for staff in 2001. Christmas parties paid for by staff at no expense to the public purse have been excluded from this answer.

  Broadband
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the benefits of access to broadband services for improving patient care; and if he will make a statement; [61801]

  (2) what targets he has set for the roll out of broadband services in (a) GP surgeries and (b) hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [61802]
  849W
  Ms Blears
  As set out in the NHS Plan, the national health service in England will have the most up-to-date information technology systems to deliver services faster and more conveniently for patients, including:

  electronic booking of appointments for patient treatment;

  access to electronic personal medical records for patients;

  electronic patient record systems in hospitals and primary and community trusts;

  electronic prescribing of medicines giving patients faster and safer prescribing as well as easier access to repeat prescriptions;

  facilities for telemedicine allowing patients to connect with staff electronically for advice.

  To deliver these services will require the provision of a robust and high capacity networking information technology (IT) infrastructure with sufficient capacity and broadband connectivity. We are taking action by introducing a new national programme and implementation plan for IT in the NHS which will significantly step up the pace of getting modern IT in place to support front line patient care and ensure that IT both drives change and gets the best from the extra resources the NHS is now getting.

  There are no specific targets for the roll out of broadband services to general practitioner (GP) surgeries and hospitals in England. However, a significant number of NHS organisations are already using broadband links to NHSnet, the NHS managed networking service.

  At least 30 per cent. of NHS trust sites currently have broadband connections where broadband is defined as transmission capacity of 256,000 bps or higher. GP practices in England are being encouraged to take up broadband services. Former health authorities were each invited to nominate two practices for centrally funded broadband connections. To date funding has been made available to 40 practices.

  Health Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on the basis of the findings of the high level performance indicators and clinical indicators, what the(a) death rate, (b) death rate for cancer, (c) rate of admissions for serious injury and (d) teenage conception rate was (i) in each former health authority or present primary care trust area in the Government office north east area and (ii) on average in England; and if differences are widening in each case. [62202]

  Mr. Lammy
  The death rate, death rate for cancer, rate of admissions for serious injury and teenage conception rates can be found in the "Compendium of Clinical and Health Indicators 2001" in the Library.

  In addition for teenage conception, new data for the year 2000 were published by the Office for National Statistics in Health Statistics Quarterly 13 (February 2002). This is also available in the Library.

  These sources contain the rates for England, Government office regions (GOR) and at former health authority level. Data are not currently available for primary care trusts.

  The data show that:
  Death rates have fallen considerably during the 1990s for both England and the north east GOR. The absolute difference between the death rates for England and for north east GOR has narrowed
  850W
  over this period. In 1990 the average mortality rate in north east GOR was 15 per cent. higher than the average for England, in 2000 it was 13 per cent. higher.
  Death rates for cancer have fallen considerably during the 1990s for both England and the north east GOR. The absolute difference between the death rates for England and that for the north east GOR has narrowed over this period. However in relative terms there has been little change (it was 16 per cent. higher in both 1990 and 2000).
  Overall, hospital admission rates for serious injury have increased between 1995–96 and 1999–2000, although the number of years for which these data are available is not sufficient to establish a clear trend. The north east GOR has higher admission rates than the England average throughout this period and the gap has widened between England and the north east GOR both in absolute and relative terms (from 9 per cent. higher in 1995–96 to 15 per cent. higher in 1999–2000 in relative terms).
  The teenage conception rate for girls and young women under I8-years-old in the year 2000 was 6.2 per cent. lower in England and 10.0 per cent. lower for the north east GOR than in 1998. Although the rate for the north east was still higher than for England in 2000, the gap between the two areas was less both in absolute and relative terms than it was in 1998 (21 per cent. higher in 1998 and 16 per cent. higher in 2000 in relative terms).

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which Ministers and officials had meetings with representatives of(a) the Confederation of British Industry, (b) the Engineering Employees Federation, and (c) the Engineering Marine Training Authority during the last year; who they met; and what the subjects and outcomes of their discussions were. [62209]

  Mr. Lammy
  Ministers and civil servants have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals as part of the process of policy development and analysis.

  As with previous Administrations it is not this Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists.

  Members of Parliament (Personal Data)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [61827]

  Mr. Lammy
  Ministers and officials in this 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.

  EEA Doctors
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what period of training doctors from the EEA are required to complete before being eligible for consultant positions in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [62673]

  Mr. Hutton
  Doctors with European Economic Area (EEA) free movement rights who hold qualifications listed in the European Specialist Medical Qualifications
  851W
  Order (1995) are automatically entitled to entry to the specialist register. No further training is required. Doctors on the specialist register are entitled to apply for consultant posts in the United Kingdom, in open competition. There is no automatic entitlement to a consultant post in the national health service for UK or EEA doctors.

  Doctors from EEA states who do not hold recognised qualifications would otherwise have to obtain a certificate showing they have fully completed training in the UK.

  Nationals of EEA member states undertaking medical training in the UK, leading to the award of a certificate of completion of specialist training, are subject to the same conditions and standards as UK medical trainees.

  UK Biobank
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the ownership of patent rights following the identification of individual gene sequences from blood samples donated to the project Biobank UK. [62276]

  Ms Blears
  The UK Biobank represents a database that can be used to investigate the combined effects of genotype, lifestyle and environmental exposures on the risk of developing the common multi-factorial diseases of later life. Policies on the ownership of intellectual property arising from research using the data contained within the UK Biobank have yet to be finalised, and are the subject of on-going consultation. Current thinking is that ownership of such intellectual property will reside with the organisation that hosts the workers undertaking the research. A key issue to be resolved is whether either the funding bodies or the hub should seek to retain any control over the intellectual property and whether this would be acceptable to the organisations hosting such research. A condition of using the UK Biobank is that, after a short period of time to allow for the preparation of publications or filing of patent applications, all results generated from analysis of the samples or data held must be added to the central databases and hence be made available to other researchers.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to allow the disclosure of personal genetic information from Biobank UK and NHS sources to third parties. [62274]

  Ms Blears
  Only anonymised genetic information and linked clinical data from the UK Biobank will be released to third parties. An independent monitoring body, separate from the UK Biobank funders, will be established to develop the detailed policies regarding access to anonymised samples and data. These proposals are in accord with the recommendations made by the Human Genetics Commission in their report on the use of personal genetic data. All proposals to use the information contained within the UK Biobank will also have ethics committee approval and will be reviewed by the scientific management committee. Arrangements for any commercial use of the samples or data will be explained to participants when their consent is sought.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to commission an independent review of value-for-money of the genetic record project Biobank UK. [62275]
  852W
  Ms Blears
  International scientific peer review of the protocol for the UK Biobank project was used to inform the recent funding decisions of the Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust and the Department. It is anticipated that recruitment to the UK Biobank will not begin until at least the middle of 2003 and it will then be several years before the first outputs are obtained. The work of the UK Biobank will be subject to at least annual review by the funding partners. It is too early to consider commissioning an independent value-for-money review of this initiative.

  Myeloma
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent grants the Government have made available to treating and finding a cure for myeloma; [62687]

  (2) what recent research and studies the Government have undertaken to find the cause of multiple myeloma. [62683]

  Ms Blears
  The main Government agency for research into the causes and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding via the Department funds research to support policy and the delivery of effective practice in the national health service.

  The MRC is currently funding a clinical trial directly aimed at the treatment of multiple myeloma. The project is entitled `Myeloma IX Trial' and is being carried out at the university of Leeds by Dr. J. A. Child, at a total cost of £1.5 million over eight years.

  The Department is funding a project entitled targeted treatment of multiple myeloma using gene and protein expression profiling. This is being carried out at the university of Leeds by Dr. F. E. Davies at a total cost of £463,000 over five years.

  Other research projects into the causes and treatment of cancer may also be relevant to myeloma. There have been no Government grants for the treatment of myeloma, other than in national health service allocations, and these are not separately identified.

  Debt
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much debt each primary care trust had at the beginning of the 2002–03 financial year; [62844]

  (2) if he will list the amount of inherited debt for each strategic health authority. [62845]

  Mr. Hutton
  The transfer of assets and liabilities from health authorities to primary care trusts and strategic health authorities will not be known until the audited accounts are available for financial year 2002–03.

  E-medicine
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to develop electronic referral and discharge letters. [62351]

  Ms Blears
  The information management and technology target sand strategy for the national health survey are set out in "Building the Information Core" published in January 2001. Copies have been placed in the Library.
  853W
  The strategy includes specific targets for booked admissions, electronic record systems and provision of pathology and discharge summaries over the NHS net. The work to achieve these targets will provide the capability for relevant information about the purpose of the referral, and the results of treatment, to be transferred using structured electronic messages from general practitioner to hospital, hospital to hospital and hospital to social care systems.

  Waiting Times
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on trends in waiting times for(a) orthopaedic out-patients appointments and (b) orthopaedic operations at the Royal United hospital, Bath in the last 12 months. [62649]

  Ms Blears
  Action to verify data supplied by the trust in relation to waiting times is still under way.

  There is so far no indication that waiting times for orthopaedic appointments or procedures have been adversely affected by the discovery of the manipulation of the in-patient treatment waiting lists at the trust.

  Neurologists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many neurologists were practising in the NHS in each year since 1995; and what the projected numbers are for each year to 2005. [62544]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table. There has been a 38 per cent. increase in the number of neurologists working in the national health service between 1995 and 2001.

  Hospital medical consultants within the neurology speciality, England as at 30 September

  Number

  1995

  260

  1996

  260

  1997

  280

  1998

  300

  1999

  300

  2000

  330

  2001

  360

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  The Department's current projections show the number of additional trained specialists who will be available to take up consultant posts in the neurology specialty, over the 2000 baseline. The figures in the following table are approximations.

  Supply projections for the neurology specialty (based on 2000 census basement) Additional numbers of trained specialists available to take up consultants posts in the specialty

  year

  Head count

  2002

  30

  2003

  70 (390)

  2004

  80 (400)

  2005

  80 (410)

  854W
  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  The baseline projections take into account outputs from training and retirements.

  Other recruitment and retention measures include international recruitment, conversion of staff in other grades and delayed retirements. The projections assume that retirement patterns return to current levels after the NHS plan period.

  Psychiatric Illness (Ethnic Minorities)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2002.Official Report, column 1045W, on Asian women, when he intends to launch the consultation on the national suicide prevention strategy; if he will list those organisations to whom it will be sent; and if he will make a statement on the findings of the national survey of ethnic minority psychiatric illness rates in the community and on the action he intends to take as a result. [63047]

  Jacqui Smith
  The national suicide prevention strategy for England was launched for public consultation on 26 April 2002. A copy of the consultation document has been placed in the Library.

  Copies of the document were sent to the following organisations:

  Health and local authorities

  Strategic health authorities

  National health service trusts

  Primary care trusts

  Government Departments

  Royal colleges

  Voluntary organisations

  Independent healthcare hospitals and providers

  plus a broad range of organisations and individuals with an interest in suicide prevention.

  The national survey of ethnic minority psychiatric illness rates in the community (EMPIRIC study) was a major survey of psychiatric illness rates in the community among ethnic minority adults aged 16–74 living in England. The survey was used to make comparisons with the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity in the general population.

  Findings of the EMPIRIC study are informing the black and minority ethnic mental health strategy.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will implement a compulsory obligation for pharmacists to undertake and document their continuing professional development. [63111]

  Mr. Lammy
  We are working with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain to bring forward an order under section 60 of the Health Act 1999 in 2003 to modernise the professional regulation of pharmacy, which is expected to include the necessary powers to implement a compulsory obligation for pharmacists to participate in continuing professional development.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she will reply to the letters of the honourable Member for West Derbyshire of 1 February, 1 March and 5 April concerning NHS Direct. [63184]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department has no record of receiving this correspondence. The Department's ministerial correspondence unit is seeking a copy of this correspondence.

  Appointments (Membership of Secret Societies)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to require applicants for posts in health authorities, hospital trusts and primary care trusts to disclose membership of secret societies; and if he will make a statement. [63329]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have recently issued a health service circular on pre and post appointment checks for all persons working in the NHS in England (HSC 2002/008). The circular instructs national health service employers to carry out a range of checks on applicants for posts in the NHS, including the taking up of references, criminal record checks where appropriate and occupational health checks. We have no plans to extend these checks.

  Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the one-off compliance costs to the NHS in real terms are of replacing the Ionising Radiation (Protection of Persons Undergoing Medical Examination or Treatment) Regulations 1988, with the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000. [63202]

  Ms Blears
  No data have been collected on the one-off compliance cost to the national health service in real terms of replacing the Ionising Radiation (Protection of Persons Undergoing Medical Examination or Treatment) Regulations 1988, with the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000. However, the new regulations formalised many features of good practice believed largely to be already present in the NHS.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual compliance cost was to the NHS in real terms, of the Ionising Radiation (Protection of Persons Undergoing Medical Examination or Treatment) Regulations 1988. [63201]

  Ms Blears
  The annual cost to the national health service in real terms of compliance with the Ionising Radiation (Protection of Persons Undergoing Medical Examination or Treatment) Regulations 1988 has not been estimated. The additional cost, however, compared with the overall costs of providing imaging and radiotherapy services is negligible. The regulations laid down basic measures for the radiation protection of persons undergoing medical exposures. These regulations were replaced by the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many lives he estimates were saved as a result of the introduction of Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000; and if he will make a statement. [63204]
  856W
  Ms Blears
  It is not possible to estimate how many lives were saved as a result of the introduction of the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000, which came fully into force 1 January 2001. These regulations implement the European Community Directive 97/43/Euratom that was introduced following reappraisal of the risks of exposure to ionising radiation. The regulations revoke and replace the Ionising Radiation (Protection of Persons Undergoing Medical Examination of Treatment 1988 (POPUMET) which implemented an earlier EC Directive. However, the new Regulations formalised many features of good practice believed largely to be already present in the national health service under POPUMET.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the annual compliance cost is to the NHS of the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000. [63203]

  Ms Blears
  The annual compliance cost to the national health service of the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000 has not been estimated. The regulations that came fully into force on 1 January implemented European Community Directive 97/43/Euratom. The regulations replaced earlier legislation in force since 1988 that laid down basic measures for the radiation protection of persons undergoing medical exposures.

  Consultant Neurologists
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many posts for NHS consultant neurologists are unfilled; and if he will make a statement; [63468]

  (2)how many people are being trained to become consultant neurologists; and how many were being trained in May 1997; 63470]

  (3)what the approved number of posts for consultant neurologists was in the national health service in each of the last five years; [63467]

  (4)how many consultant neurologists were employed by the national health service in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [63466]

  Mr. Hutton
  As at 30 September 2001, there were 122 staff within the senior house officer training grade and 162 staff within the registrar group training grade in neurology. Census data are collected every September; the corresponding number of staff in 1997 was 141 and 159 respectively.

  The number of consultant neurologists employed in the national health service in each of the last five years is shown in the following table. There has been a 29 per cent. expansion in consultant numbers since 1997.

  Hospital medical consultants within the neurology specialty

  England as at 30 September

  Number

  1997

  280

  1998

  300

  1999

  300

  2000

  330

  2001

  360

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census
  857W
  The NHS vacancy survey has been conducted in March each year since 1999. The survey collects information on the number of posts, which trusts are actively trying to fill, which have been vacant for three months or more.Neurology speciality data were not collected in the March 2001 survey. However, the data were collected in this year's survey, the results of which will be available for publication in July 2002.

  Overseas Nurses
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses from overseas were working in United Kingdom hospitals in 2001. [63474]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  In order to practice as a nurse overseas applicants must register with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), formerly the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting. Overseas nurses registered with the NMC do not necessarily work in the national health service. The number of entrants to the register in the last three years are in the table.

  Overseas trained nurses and midwives registering with the UKCC.

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Overseas nurses registered with the UKCC

  3,621

  5,945

  8,403

  Heart Transplants
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had heart transplants in the United Kingdom in 2001. [63473]

  Mr. Lammy
  The total numbers of heart transplants performed in the United Kingdom in 2001 are listed in the table.

  Number

  Cadaveric heart

  156

  Domino heart1

  10

  Heart/lung

  32

  Kidney/heart

  4

  Heart/liver

  1

  Liver and heart/lung

  1

  1 A "domino" transplant is when one person has both heart and lungs transplanted for lung disease and their original heart is transplanted into another person.

  Vaccines
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Lewes of 11 March 2002,Official Report, column 823W, on vaccines, what response he has received from (a) Glaxo Smith Kline and (b) the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control; and if he will place a copy of replies received in the Library. [49883]

  Ms Blears
  [Holding answer 15 April 2002]: Glaxo SmithKline has confirmed that based on still available information that it is highly probable that batches 3741 and 3732 were issued in this country. Unfortunately they
  858W
  no longer have details of the quantities of vaccine or the places where the vaccine was supplied. Since vaccines were not centrally purchased and distributed at that time, there are not central records either. Information on individuals who received these vaccines will only exist if the general practitioner at the time of the immunisation recorded the batch number, and the patients' notes are still available.

  At the time that batches 3741 and 3732 were issued, the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) only routinely assayed potency of pertussis vaccine using the Kenrick test. The mouse weight gain test, that was suggested to give high toxicity results for the two batches used in Eire, was not used in the release tests for pertussis vaccine by NIBSC at that time.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms are in place to monitor the use of resources earmarked for cancer treatment. [50803]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 18 June 2002]: We have already asked health authorities how much of the growth money they are planning to spend on cancer. In May 2002, we will ask them to provide an outturn stating how much they have actually spent during 2001–02, to set alongside information on progress with implementing the NHS Cancer Plan.

  will continue to monitor progress, including the use of earmarked funds via primary care trusts in 2002–03.

  Overseas Recruitment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from foreign Governments about recruitment for the NHS of(a) nurses and (b) doctors in their countries; and if he will place copies in the Library. [58034]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: In the past year we have received representations from the following countries concerning recruitment to the national health service:

  Austria

  Bulgaria

  China

  Czech Republic

  Egypt

  Georgia

  Germany

  Ghana

  Greece

  India

  Indonesia

  Iran

  Italy

  Japan

  Philippines

  Poland

  Spain

  Switzerland

  Taiwan.

  859W
  It is not our policy to publish the contents of written representations received from foreign Governments.

  Management Information
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the written answer of 15 May 2002, ref 56282, for what reason basic management information in respect of the 2001–02 outturn figures is not available; and if he will make a statement on the steps he intends to take to ensure that up-to-date management information is available to the NHS Executive and to Ministers. [58341]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: The information required by the Department is confined to that needed to manage its overall spending limits and the performance of individual bodies against their key financial duties. The audited annual accounts for 2001–02 of the national health service bodies will be published locally and will be available centrally in the autumn.

  Drug Users (Treatment and Rehabilitation)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average waiting time is from GP referral to initial treatment for users of illegal drugs, broken down by each statutory drugs service in England; and if he will make a statement; [62407]

  (2) what the waiting time is from referral to initial consultation for users of illegal drugs, broken down by each statutory drugs service in England; and how many such services have met the Government target of a two week waiting time limit from GP referral to initial consultation. [62408]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 19 June 2002]: Estimated figures for waiting times for referral to initial consultation are listed in the following table. These figures were compiled to assist the national treatment agency in setting targets for reducing overall waiting times and are the latest currently available. Figures for 2000–01 are currently being collated and will be available shortly.

  The targets for treatment services are as follows. This information relates to the local authority area, not for each individual agency.

  weeks

  Average baseline waiting time

  Maximum acceptable lengths of wait

  Treatment modality

  1999–2000

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Inpatient detoxification

  6.1

  4

  2

  Community prescribing-specialist

  10.2

  6

  3

  Community prescribing GPs

  5

  4

  2

  Structured counselling

  4

  4

  2

  Structured day-care programme

  3.3

  4

  3

  Residential rehabilitation

  5.4

  4

  3

  The information that is available to the Government are the longest wait for different modalities of treatment in each drug action team (DAT) area. DATs reported these figures in December 2001 as part of the routine planning process for treatment at local level. The National Treatment Agency will publish more comprehensive data later this year.

  Cardiac Units
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to set up a new programme for the development of cardiac units in the UK. [63606]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 21 June 2002]: The expansion plans for cardiac units in England are part of the comprehensive programme of development in cardiac services set out in the national service framework for coronary heart disease. The expansion programme is being pursued to ensure that heart patients are treated according to need rather than location. Consequently, investment is being focused on those parts of England with historically low capacity in cardiac surgery. Capital developments are taking place in Papworth, Wolverhampton, South Tees, Bristol, Sheffield, Blackpool, Liverpool, Central Manchester, South Manchester, Leeds and Plymouth. These developments will be completed in 2006. Any further expansion in capacity will be considered in terms of its ability to deliver the standards of care set out in the national service framework. In addition, from 1 July, patients who have been waiting for more than six months for a heart operation will be offered the choice of treatment elsewhere, which will enable more patients to be treated more quickly.

  Bed-blocking
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that money provided to East Sussex county council social services to relieve bed-blocking in local hospitals has been used for that purpose; [63549]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the incidence of bed-blocking in east Sussex. [63550]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: The Government recognise that delayed transfers of care are a problem across the south east and east Sussex has been acutely affected. East Sussex county council, in consultation with Surrey and Sussex health authority and the local national health service trusts, is currently exploring all possible options for reducing these delays.

  Local authorities were required to provide a written statement of their proposed use of additional funding and the targets for reductions of delayed transfers. Progress towards targets has been monitored by the Department through the weekly reporting process and the capacity maps submitted to the Department.

  MRSA
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many lives were lost in NHS hospitals as a result of MRSA in the last year. [63812]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his previous question, on May 2002, Official Report, column 403W.

  Bilateral Ministerial Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Ministers in his Department have held meetings with Ministers and officials of the Irish Government since 1 June 2000; when and where each meeting took place; which Ministers were involved in
  861W
  each meeting; which Irish Government Departments were involved in each meeting; and which Ministers and officials from the Irish Government attended each meeting. [63086]

  Mr. Lammy
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Gisela Stuart), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met the Irish Health Minister (Michael Martin) on 18 July 2000 in Dublin. She also met the chief executive of the Irish Food Standards Agency (Dr. Patrick Wall). No other meetings have taken place.

  Elderly People
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which general practitioner practices in(a) the Chesham and Amersham constituency and (b) Buckinghamshire were participants in the trial for assessing the assessment and management of elderly people. [62793]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: I have been advised that this is a local project, organised by Chilton and south Buckinghamshire primary care trust, involving general practitioner practices in the Chesham area. For that reason, no information is held centrally.

  Macular Disease
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the number of persons affected by wet age-related macular degeneration in one eye only who will pay privately to be treated by photodynamic therapy; [63900]

  (2) how many persons have a treatable form of wet age-related macular degeneration; [63892]

  (3) what plans he has to introduce speedy treatment of those with early wet age-related macular degeneration; [63899]

  (4) what advice he intends to issue on restricting the treatment of (a) cataracts, (b) glaucoma and (c) diabetic retinopathy to persons in whom both eyes are affected; and if he will make a statement; [63895]

  (5) what assessment he has made of draft NICE guidance that those with an eye in which the sight is worse than 6/36 should not be treated by photodynamic therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration; and if he will make a statement as to the number of persons who would go blind as a result of its implementation; [63896]

  Cancelled operations for non clinical reasons, NHS trusts in England, 2001–02, quarter 4

  Trust

  Number of last minute cancellations for non clinical reasons in the quarter

  Cancellations as a percentage of elective admissions

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  114

  1.1

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  82

  1.0

  Airedale NHS Trust

  29

  0.6

  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals NHS Trust

  16

  0.2

  Barking Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust

  506

  3.8

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  384

  4.9

  Barnsley District General Hospital NHS Trust

  41

  1.0

  862W
  (6) how many persons NICE recommends should be treated by photodynamic therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration; and if he will make a statement; [63893]

  (7) what advice he intends to issue to ophthalmologists concerning the treatment of patients with wet age-related macular degeneration in one eye only; [63894]

  (8) what assessment he has made of the increased risk to a person with sight in one eye only of (a) injury and (b) disease leading to blindness; [63897]

  (9) what steps he intends to take to ensure early diagnosis of wet age-related macular degeneration affecting the other eye of a person in whom one eye is already affected. [63898]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answers 24 June 2002]: A study sponsored by the Macular Disease Society in 2001 estimated that there were 182,000 people with age-related macular degeneration with a best eye visual acuity below that judged appropriate for certification as blind or partially sighted. It is estimated that 10 to 15 per cent. of those will have the "wet" type of the condition, for which photodynamic therapy is intended as a treatment. However, it is not possible to say how many of those are affected in only one eye.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) published their final appraisal determination (FAD) on the use of photodynamic therapy as a treatment for age-related macular degeneration on 12 June. The appraisal process has not yet been completed and NICE have not made any recommendations on photodynamic therapy. NICE are seeking the views of consultees during the appeal process and will consider carefully any points that are made.

  NICE's recommendations may change as a result of the appeal process; it would therefore be inappropriate for the Department to comment at this time. The Department will consider the implications of the final NICE guidance. The earliest guidance could be available to the NHS is at the end of July or early August, providing there are no appeals.

  The NICE guidance on photodynamic therapy will not have implications for the treatment of cataracts, glaucoma or diabetic retinopathy.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest average figures he has for the number of operations cancelled each week broken down by each NHS trust. [63878]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 24 June 2002]: Figures for cancelled operations are published on a quarterly basis. The latest available figures are shown in the table.
  863W

  Cancelled operations for non clinical reasons, NHS trusts in England, 2001–02, quarter 4

  Trust

  Number of last minute cancellations for non clinical reasons in the quarter

  Cancellations as a percentage of elective admissions

  Barts and the London NHS Trust

  211

  2.1

  Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust

  46

  0.8

  Bedford Hospital NHS Trust

  152

  3.1

  Birmingham Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  42

  1.1

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust

  111

  1.1

  Birmingham Women's Healthcare NHS Trust

  25

  2.5

  Blackburn Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  154

  1.9

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  234

  2.4

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services

  4

  2.0

  Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust

  97

  1.7

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  84

  0.7

  Brighton Health Care NHS Trust

  86

  1.3

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  174

  2.3

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  61

  1.1

  Burton Hospitals NHS Trust

  93

  1.7

  Bury Health Care NHS Trust

  16

  0.4

  Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust

  5

  0.0

  Cardiothoracic Centre Liverpool NHS Trust

  65

  2.5

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals

  143

  1.1

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust

  51

  0.9

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital

  63

  1.1

  Chorley and South Ribble/Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trusts

  107

  1.0

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  3

  0.0

  City Hospitals NHS Trust

  119

  1.7

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  78

  0.7

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  125

  2.3

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  26

  0.9

  Dewsbury Health Care NHS Trust

  152

  3.7

  Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Trust

  116

  0.9

  Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust

  106

  1.3

  Ealing Hospital NHS Trust

  98

  3.4

  East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  162

  1.9

  East Cheshire NHS Trust

  77

  3.3

  East Gloucestershire NHS Trust

  144

  1.6

  East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust

  35

  0.3

  East Somerset NHS Trust

  20

  0.6

  Eastbourne Hospitals NHS Trust

  78

  1.8

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

  20

  0.2

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  199

  3.1

  Frimley Park Hospital NHS Trust

  58

  0.8

  Gateshead Health NHS Trust

  22

  0.5

  George Eliot Hospital NHS Trust

  25

  0.5

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust

  71

  1.1

  Good Hope Hospital NHS Trust

  34

  0.6

  Great Ormond Street Hospital For Children NHS Trust

  71

  1.6

  Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospital NHS Trust

  71

  0.5

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  201

  1.8

  Harrogate Health Care NHS Trust

  11

  0.3

  Hastings and Rother NHS Trust

  181

  6.1

  Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Trust

  75

  0.8

  Hereford Hospitals NHS Trust

  104

  2.9

  Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  130

  2.9

  Hinchingbrooke Healthcare NHS Trust

  88

  2.1

  Homerton Hospital NHS Trust

  11

  0.5

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  301

  2.2

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  52

  0.7

  Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust

  1

  0.1

  James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust

  65

  1.7

  Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust

  78

  1.3

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  172

  2.0

  Kings Lynn and Wisbech Hospitals NHS Trust

  80

  1.4

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  54

  1.1

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  172

  0.7

  Leicestershire and Rutland Healthcare NHS Trust

  5

  3.0

  Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  46

  1.2

  Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust

  27

  0.9

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital NHS Trust

  187

  3.3

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust

  76

  0.9

  Mayday Health Care NHS Trust

  210

  4.8

  Medway NHS Trust

  24

  0.5

  Melton Rutland and Harborough PCT

  12

  2.3

  Mid Cheshire Hospital NHS Trust

  170

  3.3

  Mid Essex Hospitals NHS Trust

  62

  0.9

  Mid Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust

  146

  2.0

  Mid Sussex NHS Trust

  59

  2.9

  Milton keynes General Hospital NHS Trust

  179

  4.7

  864W 865W

  Cancelled operations for non clinical reasons, NHS trusts in England, 2001–02, quarter 4

  Trust

  Number of last minute cancellations for non clinical reasons in the quarter

  Cancellations as a percentage of elective admissions

  Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust

  33

  0.5

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  142

  2.0

  Newbury and Community PCT

  8

  1.5

  Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  260

  1.1

  Newham Healthcare NHS Trust

  106

  3.5

  Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust

  76

  0.5

  North Bristol NHS Trust

  171

  1.6

  North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  128

  1.6

  North Cumbria Acute NHS Trust

  167

  1.9

  North Devon Healthcare Trust

  5

  0.1

  North Dorset PCT

  3

  0.5

  North Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  63

  1.5

  North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  44

  0.9

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  146

  2.3

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  26

  0.6

  North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust

  306

  2.3

  North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust

  26

  0.4

  North West Anglia Healthcare NHS Trust

  11

  1.3

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  121

  1.2

  Northallerton Health Services NHS Trust

  1

  0.0

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  313

  3.9

  Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust

  85

  0.7

  Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust

  40

  0.4

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  324

  3.6

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust

  12

  0.7

  Oldham NHS Trust

  144

  2.0

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust

  428

  3.6

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  5

  0.1

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  114

  1.9

  Pinderfields and Pontefract NHS Trust

  333

  3.5

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  209

  1.8

  Poole Hospital NHS Trust

  142

  2.1

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  183

  1.5

  Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  196

  3.7

  Princess Royal Hospital NHS Trust

  33

  1.0

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust

  15

  0.3

  Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust

  237

  6.0

  Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  18

  0.8

  Queens Medical Centre NHS Trust

  20

  0.2

  Riverside Community Health Care NHS Trust

  9

  n/a

  Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic and District Hospital

  13

  0.7

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  85

  2.0

  Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust

  31

  0.5

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust

  80

  0.9

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust

  76

  0.6

  Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust

  69

  1.4

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust

  295

  2.5

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust

  108

  0.9

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  27

  0.3

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals

  99

  1.0

  Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust

  60

  1.5

  Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust

  19

  0.2

  Royal National Orthopaedic NHS Trust

  40

  2.3

  Royal Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  18

  0.6

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospitals NHS Trust

  163

  2.4

  Royal Surrey County and St. Lukes Hospital NHS Trust

  118

  1.6

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

  207

  3.0

  Royal West Sussex NHS Trust

  76

  1.7

  Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust

  28

  0.4

  Salford Hospitals NHS Trust

  64

  1.1

  Salisbury Health Care NHS Trust

  139

  2.3

  Sandwell Healthcare NHS Trust

  52

  0.9

  Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Health Care

  36

  0.7

  Severn NHS Trust

  3

  0.5

  Sheffield Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  7

  0.3

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  149

  0.7

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust

  209

  3.3

  Shropshire's Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  2

  1.5

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  3

  0.1

  South Devon Healthcare NHS Trust

  71

  0.9

  South Durham Health Care NHS Trust

  54

  0.8

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  498

  5.6

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  143

  1.0

  South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust

  31

  0.8

  South Warwickshire General NHS Trust

  57

  1.1

  South West Dorset PCT

  1

  0.3

  866W 867W

  Cancelled operations for non clinical reasons, NHS trusts in England, 2001–02, quarter 4

  Trust

  Number of last minute cancellations for non clinical reasons in the quarter

  Cancellations as a percentage of elective admissions

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  116

  0.9

  Southend Health Care NHS Trust

  97

  1.1

  Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  88

  0.7

  Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS trust

  14

  0.3

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  256

  3.1

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospital NHS Trust

  226

  2.8

  St. Mary's Hospital NHS Trust

  21

  0.3

  Stockport NHS Trust

  93

  1.3

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital NHS Trust

  24

  0.7

  Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust

  63

  1.1

  Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust

  70

  1.0

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  421

  11.4

  Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust

  133

  1.5

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  37

  1.0

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  453

  3.4

  United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  159

  1.1

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  56

  0.7

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  119

  1.I

  University Hospital of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

  136

  1.5

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  175

  0.6

  Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust

  31

  0.5

  Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery NHS Trust

  42

  3.8

  West Dorset General Hospital NHS Trust

  256

  4.4

  West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  173

  1.8

  West Middlesex University NHS Trust

  17

  0.6

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  145

  2.5

  Weston Area Health NHS Trust

  35

  1.5

  Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust

  270

  4.7

  Whittington Hospital NHS Trust

  72

  2.6

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust

  26

  0.6

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  61

  0.8

  Worcester Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  63

  0.7

  Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust

  16

  0.2

  Wrightington Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  77

  0.8

  York Health Services NHS Trust

  13

  0.2

  England

  19,973

  1.5

  London Medical Schools
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of redundancy committees at London medical schools. [61467]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.
  868W
  The role of redundancy committees is set out in the University Commissioners' Model Statutes which arises from the Education Reform Act 1988. Academic staff in medical schools who are employees of a university will be covered by statutes adopted in line with the model.

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts
State Pension Credit Act,
National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act
Land at Palace Avenue, Kensington (Acquisition of Freehold) Act.

Civil Service: Equal Opportunities
Baroness Gould of Potternewtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with their progress towards achieving equal pay and equality of opportunity in the Civil Service.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the Government have committed all departments and agencies to undertake an equal pay review and to prepare any necessary action plans by April 2003. Departments and agencies are at various stages of reviewing their pay systems. We are making good progress with equality of opportunity in the Civil Service, with increasing numbers of women, ethnic minority and disabled staff at all levels, including the senior Civil Service.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed Answer. I am given to understand that in response to a survey among staff on Civil Service diversity, which was conducted sometime last year, more than half of those who replied did not believe that promotion policies operated fairly or were based on individual merit, and were particularly to the detriment of women and ethnic minorities. Given that finding, can the Minister indicate whether there are any plans to undertake a skills and qualifications audit of Civil Service staff in order to ensure that promotion prospects are felt to be fair and based purely on the merits of candidates?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Civil Service takes very seriously the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness and others. We are not clear about what is to be gained by having information on the skills and qualifications of around half a million staff. We
1192
believe that it is most important that departments and agencies operate a system of open advertising of vacancies, where staff are free to put themselves forward and to demonstrate how their skills and experience are relevant to the post.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, in view of the Minister's reply to the Question of my noble friend Lady Gould, can he explain why women whose jobs have been rated as of equal value to those of men—women in administrative work and men in technical work whose jobs have been rated as of equal value—are paid less? Can he explain why?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, taking that point across the economy as a whole, the gender pay gap was assessed and explained by the Equal Opportunities Commission task force as arising through, yes, unfair—and, indeed, sometimes unlawful—discrimination in pay systems: the impact of the different patterns of male and female careers; and occupational segregation of the workforce. The task force estimated that up to half of the gap was caused by discrimination in pay systems. But government departments are leading by example in carrying out pay reviews, which are to be completed by April 2003. Research by the trade union Amicus suggests that only 1 per cent of private sector employers have similar plans.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister agree that inability to make progression in a service amounts to a form of unequal pay? Does he recognise that there are complaints from middle rank civil servants who might expect to progress well but who, as women, are encouraged to take time off when they are having a child or to work part time, and then find it very difficult indeed to get back into full-time work within the same job or the same kind of job'? Will any of the units established under the recent reforms announced by Sir Andrew Turnbull turn their attention towards ensuring that the Government's targets for progression of women within the Civil Service are achieved?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in regard to the final part of the noble Baroness's question, there will be a unit, led by Alice Perkins, which will attend to these issues with the same kind of commitment as has been displayed in recent times. The targets for women within the workforce were from a 1998 baseline of around 18 per cent of women in the senior Civil Service. By October last year that figure had gone up from 18 per cent to more than 25 per cent. I am pleased to say that we now have four women Permanent Secretaries and that the proportion of women recommended for appointment to the fast stream has increased almost to parity with men.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, does the Minister recall the Government's target in respect of appointments to public bodies, whether paid or unpaid, that, by 2005, 45 to 50 per cent of such

1193
positions should be filled by women? Can the Minister assure the House that these targets are being applied, in particular, to the chairmanship, deputy chairmanship and chief executive positions of all such appointments?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I cannot reply to that point in detail as it is wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I shall inquire into the matter and ensure that my government colleagues are made aware of the concern.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, would not the Minister's assurances to noble Baronesses on all sides of the House carry more weight were it not for the fact that, while other employers pay women an average of 20 per cent less than they do men—which is bad enough—the Government pay their women employees 28 per cent less, which is truly appalling?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the equal opportunities survey that I mentioned gave a figure of 18 per cent. The trade union survey quoted by the noble Lord cited 28 per cent, but the bases of the two surveys were very different. The survey indicating a figure of 28 per cent conflated full-time and part-time employees and was therefore not comparable.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, it is helpful to hear the Minister tell us that we had four female Permanent Under-Secretaries. But does he recall that Dame Evelyn Sharp was a Permanent Under-Secretary when Richard Crossman was Minister for Housing?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I do indeed recall that. I also recall that Dame Evelyn moved over to television and kept us under a very strict regime.

Immigration: Fast-track System
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkesasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many immigrants have been admitted to the United Kingdom this year under the new fast-track system for those with special skills and, of these, how many have been admitted to fill National Health Service posts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, 338 applications for the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme have been successful up to mid-June from a total of 831 considered; 184 successful applications were from individuals already in the United Kingdom. As no work permit is required prior to entry, applicants from overseas are not admitted to the UK to fill vacancies, but rather to look for work. The scheme has also been
1194
designed to allow priority applications from general practitioners. We have had three successful priority applications as of 12th June.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Having studied the Home Office website today, I am slightly puzzled. It provides a seven-page application form for those wanting to come to this country under the fast-track procedure. It indicates that people must be coming from overseas. A similar website set up by the National Health Service and covering the international recruitment of doctors also makes clear that they must come from overseas. Furthermore, the National Health Service website states that a work permit must be obtained; whereas the Home Office website—I congratulate the Minister on the fact that it has received a Plain English Campaign award, which is good news—refers specifically to doctors. If someone wants to take up a post in this country and if a health authority needs doctors urgently, which is the quicker way to obtain entry—through the work permit system or through the new fast-track system?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, both appear to be working well. Under the work permit system, which is the traditional route, an NHS employer signals that it is looking for doctors or other skilled professionals. To date, 207 doctors have been granted work permits by that route, and many more are en train from Spain and Germany. Some 21,000 nurses have also been issued with work permits.
The Highly Skilled Migrant Programme, which is very new—it has been running for only four months—is an alternative route of entry for a highly skilled medical professional such as a GP. The benefit is that applicants can come into the UK without having been offered a job by an NHS employer. They would then have a period of time to obtain employment to qualify them to continue with work permit status in the UK. Both routes are possible. The work permit route is the more traditional one, but the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme has certain advantages, as I have indicated.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, how many professionals entering the country under these schemes have come from Muslim countries? Is my noble friend aware of allegations that certain entrants of south Asian origin are being discriminated against because their standard of English is not considered to be good enough, while others from European countries whose English is even poorer have been allowed to come in? Can my noble friend clarify the position?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I do not have the figures on the proportion from the Indian Sub-continent or from Asia more generally. Clearly, for good reasons, there are processes for ensuring that people can communicate effectively with patients if they are entering NHS employment. Furthermore, before an NHS trust recruits doctors or nurses from certain areas, including Asia, the Caribbean and Africa, there

1195
is a screening process to try to ensure that we do not denude developing countries of scarce medical staff should they need them. I note the noble Baroness's further point and I shall look into it.
Lord Chan: My Lords, following on from what the Minister said, does he agree that refugees in the United Kingdom with medical qualifications should be helped to upgrade their skills in order to practise in the National Health Service?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I certainly agree that part of the NHS strategy, on which I seem to be answering questions this afternoon, is about upskilling virtually all employees in the organisation, hence the considerable investment in training going in for nurses and doctors. We are also trying to ensure that as much work as possible is delegated downwards so that those skills are used more generally. I have nothing to add apart from my general endorsement of that approach.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, will the Minister clarify part of his Answer to my noble friend? He said that the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme and the fast track applied to medical staff such as doctors. Has the Minister seen the form which, my noble friend tells me, states that the 50 points that can be awarded for a professional qualification apply only for the GMC qualification—that is, for a doctor? Does that mean that the only medical staff covered by the scheme are doctors and that dentists and other health professionals are not within it?
Lord Filkin: No, my Lords. As the noble Baroness clearly said, an element of the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme gives GPs 50 automatic points if they qualify to practise as a GP in the United Kingdom, for reasons that one can understand. Other highly skilled professionals, including consultants or research professionals, could apply under the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme. They would not qualify for the automatic 50 points, but they might well qualify because they had a doctorate, a particular relevant international qualification or other expertise or because they were highly paid. There is some dreadful points system that awards so many points for particular skills and experience to demonstrate that a person is highly skilled. If a person has sufficient points, they get entry to the UK and can then pick up a job. Others could get in, although without the 50-point bonus.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that under the Treaty of Rome, doctors and other registered healthcare professionals, such as dentists, may get full registration in the United Kingdom with the General Medical Council and the other statutory regulatory bodies? Under that treaty it is not possible to impose a language test on those coming in from the European Union. However, it was agreed many years ago that it was perfectly proper for National Health Service employing authorities to invite such individuals to take a language test before
1196
being employed in the NHS. To what extent are the NHS employing authorities seeking that type of testing?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, from recollection, what the noble Lord has said sounds correct. If there is an error in it, I shall drop him a note qualifying it. I do not know to what extent NHS trusts are applying the language test. I could speculate that if they thought there was any doubt when they interviewed somebody, they might follow that through with some further testing. I shall ask the Department of Health and we will correspond directly on that.

Farm Incomes
2.53 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarthasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to raise family farm incomes above the national minimum wage.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government recognise the economic problems facing British farming and we will work in partnership with the industry to help it meet the challenges that it faces. In the autumn we intend to publish a strategy for sustainable food and farming in England, which will build on the valuable work of Sir Don Curry's policy commission. Devolved administrations are also pursuing their own strategies.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Will he acknowledge that the national minimum wage now stands at £8,100 per annum and that the figures just published for the year ending 2001 show that the average net income for all UK hill beef and sheep farms was £4,000—half the national minimum wage? The average income for all farms in the UK was £5,000. That is the difference between £4·10 an hour on the national minimum wage and £2 an hour for family farms. Is not that an intolerable situation? Families cannot be sustained on farms any more. What will the Minister do urgently to raise incomes above the national minimum wage for farmers and their families? Will he also legislate to make it illegal for supermarkets to sell farm produce at below the cost of production?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the position of the incomes of many of Britain's farmers is very worrying and leads to some of the consequences that the noble Lord referred to. However, a direct correlation with the minimum wage is not appropriate, as the income is in part a wage and in part a self-employed income and is profit rather than gross wage, to which the minimum wage figure applies. I do not think that there is a direct read-across. Moreover, it is not the Government's responsibility to determine the incomes of the workforce, self-employed or employed. We are attempting to provide a framework for the recovery of

1197
farming that will enable profit to come back into farming over the medium term. We shall not intervene directly on the income front.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that overall farm incomes are now at their lowest level in real terms since 1975 and in money terms have fallen by 71 per cent since 1995? At the same time, British agriculture receives more subsidy than the rest of British industry put together. Is there not something fundamentally wrong with our system of agricultural support?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is absolutely right. I welcome my noble friend's intervention in the debate. He has remained silent on agricultural matters for far too long. We recognise that there is a fundamental problem with the common agricultural policy, which not only does not benefit the taxpayer and the consumer, but also is of detriment to farmers and has for many years given the wrong signals to farmers. It has not supported their incomes, the kind of production that consumers want or the environment. That is why we are proposing a positive programme of reform for the common agricultural policy. We hope to see a proposal from Commissioner Fischler next month that will introduce some radical reforms through the mid-term review. Unless we alter the direction of the common agricultural policy, some of these problems will continue to affect British and European farming.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the Minister said that he would be publishing a reply to the Curry report, but I did not hear him say when he would do that. The Government certainly cannot be responsible for the incomes of individual farmers, but he knows very well from the present situation that we are at a critical moment. Many people will look at this year's harvest and the outcome of this year's accounts after the end of foot and mouth and may then make a final decision on whether to stay in agriculture. The Government will certainly have to face the consequences of that, even if they do not get into the issues of individual incomes.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Curry commission rightly pointed out that some fundamental changes are needed in farming. That will inevitably involve some restructuring of farming and some refocus of farm production. Many in the industry will have to take some painful decisions. We are trying to establish within the food chain as a whole a viable medium-term framework under which money will get back into farming and farmers will be producing closer to the demand from consumers. We have already taken some steps following the Curry report to put in place a structure that will help farming in the rest of the food chain. We have also said how we want to change the nature of regulation on farming, which at times is too great a burden on many of Britain's farmers. That is already beginning to fall into place. Following the public spending review, we will be able to establish a
1198
three-year programme of expenditure in support of the modernisation of farming to which the Government are committed.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, apart from the food chain, will the Minister comment on all the parts of an animal—for instance, a sheep—that can no longer be marketed for reasons such as the Russians no longer taking sheepskins and the Food Standards Agency now suggesting that sheep's intestines cannot be sold as natural sausage casings, although I believe that that is not based on firm scientific evidence? What is the effect on the incomes of sheep farmers of all those losses into the rest of the chain?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware that the most vulnerable and hardest-hit sector of the livestock industry is sheep farming, partly for the reasons outlined by the noble Baroness and partly because of past production decisions and the aftermath of foot and mouth. I am not sure whether she is suggesting that some of the burdens of the losses in the sheep sector should be borne by the processors and the supermarkets, to revert to an earlier question. What is needed now and in the medium term is a stable market for what remains of the sheep sector. That is part of what is being dealt with in the output from the Curry commission, both in the establishment of an English Collaborative Board and in the Food Chain Centre which we have established.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I remind the House of my family's farming interest. I should also like to push the Minister further on the issue. He has talked about the medium term, the Curry report, and the other reforms for which we are waiting. Frankly, however, many farmers—but particularly small family farmers—are going bust and have no time to wait. Therefore, while we are waiting, how will the Government ease back on some of the emerging regulatory measures, lessen the paperwork that burdens all farmers, and ensure fair competition so that our farmers can compete fairly with other European colleagues?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret to say that many of the noble Baroness's requests either are, or help towards, achieving medium-term solutions. The regulation process certainly needs to be rationalised, both in the number of regulators with which farmers must deal and in the ease of access to the regulations. We also need to simplify the relationship between UK and European regulations. However, the regulatory burden is not the essential problem of farming. Farming's essential problem is that farming production has been distorted by the common agricultural policy and other pressures on farming and that it does not meet the needs of the ultimate consumer. That is what we have to address, that is what the Curry commission pointed to, and that is what the Government are pursuing.

Exchange Rates
3.1 p.m
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any target exchange rate for sterling in relation to the euro.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government do not have a specific exchange rate target, but a stable and competitive pound is sought over the medium term. The key to a stable and competitive pound is low and stable inflation, combined with sound public finances.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he not agree that the debate on entry to the euro is now inevitably hotting up, and that it would be very helpful for British manufacturing industry if the Government could make their hand rather clearer than they have done to date? With sterling having decreased by 10 per cent against the euro and approaching the range at which many businesses think it would be reasonable to exchange sterling for the euro, surely this is the time when the Government should say, "The five economic tests have been passed. Let us now make it clear that we are going to have a national referendum on whether or not we join the euro".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not agree that it would be in the interests of British industry and commerce for us to advance in any way the proper consideration of the five economic tests. We have undertaken to complete those five economic tests within two years of the last general election, and we shall do so. We shall do so when it is in the best economic interests of this country.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, since EMU is designed to hold the emerging EU mega-state together, is it not dishonest of the Government to set economic tests, however bogus and whatever they may be, for what is clearly a constitutional project?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I do not accept the premise of the question, the conclusion that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, draws must be illegitimate.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Lord—
Lord Tebbit: My Lords—
Noble Lords: This side!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, we are not going to quarrel about it.
Does the noble Lord agree that whether we scrap the pound and join the euro is such a vital and fundamental decision that it ought not to be entered
1200
into lightly? Does he remember how, in 1989, the same sort of people asking this question urged us on to join the ERM come what may, and what a disaster that turned out to be? We do not want high unemployment again—1 million extra unemployed—or 100,000 people to go bankrupt, do we? I therefore agree with the noble Lord that the Government are right in being cautious.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am unnerved to find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that this is a fundamental question for this country—of course it is. We have already said that we see significant advantages for this country in being part of European monetary union. We recognise that there are constitutional issues, but they are surmountable. The fundamental decision that has to be taken is an economic one. It will be taken with due seriousness not only by the Government but also by Parliament and the people of this country.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the movement of the pound against the dollar in recent days effectively demonstrates that the argument that we should not join the euro zone because the pound is effectively linked to the dollar is patently not true?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords., the Government do not comment on short-term exchange rate changes.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, when recalling who said what and when in recent years, is it not a fact that many noble Lords speaking against Britain joining the euro have repeatedly in the past couple of years predicted that the euro would go through the floor, and that the whole thing would fall apart? However, in a matter of days—or, at most, weeks—the euro will probably return to parity against the dollar and prove a very successful project.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that that question is addressed to me. Certainly many Members of this House have said many times in the past two and a half years that the euro was not a success because it had a weak exchange rate. I do not notice them saying that it is a success now that it is stronger.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what are the constitutional issues to which he just alluded?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not wish to add anything to that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have already

1201
said. Indeed, I have answered a number of Written Questions from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on this issue which are available from Hansard.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, would the noble Lord find himself less embarrassed by the company he has to keep if the Government were more prepared to argue positively the case in which they claim to believe?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not embarrassed in any way by the company I keep. Moreover, my personal opinions are of no importance in this matter, even if there were any differences—which there are not. I think that we all regard the Government's position on the issue as being responsible, as recognising the importance of the issue, and as being prepared to take the views of the people of this country seriously, while giving priority—as I am sure is right—to the protection of this country's economic interests.

Middle East
3.8 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice; namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the latest developments in the Middle East peace process?
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government welcome President Bush's statement which calls for a final settlement within three years— including,
"two states living side-by-side in peace and security"—
and sets out what both parties have to do to achieve this goal. He said that there must be "an end to terror", and that,
"Israeli settlement activity in the Occupied Territories must stop".
He went on to say:
"Israelis and Palestinians must address the core issues … This means that Israeli occupation that began in 1967 will be ended through a settlement negotiated between the parties, based on UN Resolutions 242 and 338, with Israeli withdrawal to secure and recognised borders. We must also resolve questions concerning Jerusalem, and the plight and future of Palestinian refugees".
Although there are some uncomfortable messages for the Palestinian Authority, Her Majesty's Government are glad that President Arafat has welcomed the speech. We strongly support the call for reforms to the Palestinian Authority and for new elections. These will be an opportunity for the Palestinian people to decide who will lead them towards a final and peaceful settlement. Her Majesty's Government will do all we can to assist in the process outlined.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness for that reply.
1202
Does she accept that we, like the Government, welcome the US positive engagement in the Middle East crisis; and, indeed, express the hope that they will persist as it will be an arduous and long process? Does the noble Baroness agree that it would be right to see President Bush's speech more as a set of principles than as a detailed blueprint? Does she also agree that it rightly reflects a good part of the Crown Prince Abdullah plan for two states living in harmony—and, we hope, constructively—side by side and for a balance of obligations to be fulfilled by both sides; that is, a reformed Palestinian Authority with a new leadership in due course, rejecting terror, matched by the end of occupation coming about in stages and a reduction, indeed, the end, of what President Bush calls "settlement activity"? I am not sure what that really means.
Does the noble Baroness agree that everything really depends on the precise nature and sequence of those obligations and on what the frontiers of the new transitional, or eventually permanent, state will be? Does she accept that the details in the full text of the speech are much more enlightening in terms of describing the heavy obligations on Israel than the newspaper reports which were carried in most newspapers this morning? Given that there really will be no advance until there is an end of suicide bombing and probably no end of suicide bombing until there are moves to end the Israeli occupation, how does the noble Baroness feel that the British Government can help take all this forward?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said on the positive engagement of the United States. I agree with him that the speech that we have seen bears a strong resemblance to many of the points put forward earlier this year by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in the plans that he suggested might be a possible way forward. Copies of President Bush's speech have been put in the Library of the House. I agree with the noble Lord that it makes interesting reading. It is very much a set of principles rather than details. It is worth noting that the President has said that he has asked Secretary of State Powell to work intensively with Middle Eastern and international leaders to realise the vision of a Palestinian state, focusing them on a comprehensive plan to support Palestinian reform and institution building. He has charged his Secretary of State with taking that issue forward.
The United Kingdom will do whatever it can to help in that process. The speech itself does not mention a conference, but we understand that the United States still believes that a conference would be helpful and that it would want to engage at ministerial level with Palestinians and Israelis and, of course, with members of the quartet as well. The United Kingdom will hold itself ready to help with preparing for and monitoring of any elections which might take place.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, if we all welcome this clear statement that there is to be a two

1203
state solution to the problem, we also recognise that the Palestinians have to have a state on the West Bank and that does require a rather clearer statement about the ultimate withdrawal from the settlements than is contained at the moment within President Bush's speech. The Government must make it clear that the very peculiar alliance of Christian fundamentalists and Jewish fundamentalists who feel that the whole of the land of Israel should now be part of a single state, with the implication that Palestinians should be forced to cross the Jordan, should be opposed and that a two-state solution has to have clear borders between two states sharing the land west of the Jordan.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made it clear that there is to be a two-state solution. The President of the United States is an enormously influential and powerful man, but it is not for him to decide that. It will, of course, be a matter for the people of the region—the Palestinians and the Israelis—who must understand (as I am sure we hope that they all do) that the way forward on this issue is not through the appalling violence that we have seen in recent weeks but through a negotiated settlement. It is very much to be hoped that they see the wisdom not only in what is being put forward today by the President, but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, in the way that it reflects so much of what has been put forward by Crown Prince Abdullah. It is up to both sides to take the matter forward.
The noble Lord went into details about where the individual borders of the states might run. That would be a matter for negotiations. But the President of the United States has made it clear that he thinks that the Israeli forces need to withdraw to the positions that they held prior to 28th September 2000, which refers hack to the Mitchell committee, and says that the Israeli settlement activity has to stop. Those are the tenets from which he is beginning. We very much hope that this opportunity will be seized by both sides to find a peaceful solution to their very longstanding problems.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister care to tell the House whether or not Her Majesty's Government agree with President Bush when he implicitly calls for the removal of Mr Arafat as leader of the Palestinian Authority? As the Palestinian Authority has already stated that it wishes to hold elections in the Palestinian area, does my noble friend agree that it would be far better if Israel were to try to help create the conditions in which fair elections could be held there so that the Palestinian people could decide for themselves who they wished to have as their leader?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, let us be clear what the President of the United States actually said. He said:
"Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership so that a Palestinian state can be born. I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror".
1204
The noble Lord has said that he draws some implications from that. I agree with him that it is up to the Palestinian people to choose their leaders. We look forward to the democratic elections which, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, quite rightly pointed out, President Arafat has already said should be the way forward. It will require action by both the Palestinians and the Israelis to make those elections happen. Of course, they will enjoy the support of the international community both in helping them to prepare for those elections and in the monitoring that will take place around those elections. That is an important point, but it involves both the Israelis and the Palestinians seeking to make the elections fair and open.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that President Bush commented on the need for a different leadership because he shares the views of many of those of us who seek peace in the Middle East that the present Palestinian leadership would create a terrorist state in waiting?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the reasons for President Bush saying what he did are a matter for him. Her Majesty's Government have made it very clear that we expect President Arafat and the Palestinian leadership to do everything that they can to combat terror, which has been such an appalling facet of what has happened in the Middle East. I can do no more than repeat what I said; namely, that it is the firm view of Her Majesty's Government that this is a matter for the Palestinian people. Until the elections are held, President Arafat is the elected president of the Palestinian Authority and the representative of the only organisation with which Israel can negotiate at the moment.

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill
3.18 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clause 3,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 4 and 5,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 6 to 10,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 12 and 12,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 13 to 19,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 20 to 28,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 29 to 44,

Schedule 8,

1205

Clauses 45 to 49,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 50 to 61,

Schedule 10,

Clause 62,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 63 to 84,

Schedule 12,

Clause 85,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 86 to 92.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Proceeds of Crime Bill
3.19 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, before the noble Lord on the Woolsack puts the Question, does the noble and learned Lord have a faint feeling of embarrassment at the fact that out of the 232 amendments to be moved today and later, he is responsible for 130, or over half of them?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendments that I shall move are constructive and will be welcomed by all. Therefore, I have no sense of embarrassment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Agency and its Director]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert—
"(4A) But the Director must obtain the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service as to the number of staff appointed under subsection (4)(a)."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, 146, 221 and 222.
Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 are technical amendments that we have identified as being necessary to confirm the agency's status as a non-ministerial department and the director's employment status as a civil servant. They do not reflect any change in policy.
Amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are required to confirm non-ministerial department status. Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 are needed because it is normal for the Minister for the Civil Service to have a formal role in determining the number of civil servants employed and their terms of employment.
Amendment No. 5 is required because a non-ministerial department must be funded directly rather than via the Home Office vote. The amendment makes
1206
provision to that effect. It also deletes the provision currently made for the agency's accounting procedures. As a non-ministerial department, the agency will automatically be subject to existing government accounting rules under the Government Resource and Accounts Act 2000 and no further provision is needed in the Bill.
The change will require a consequential amendment to the money resolution that was passed in October in another place. The Government will seek that when the Bill returns there after noble Lords have completed their consideration.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 6 are needed in view of the director's intended status as a civil servant. The nature of the director's role—carrying out public functions on behalf of the state—is such that he will be a civil servant. Whether or not the head of a non-ministerial department is a civil servant depends on the nature of his functions and the relationship with Ministers.
The director of the Serious Fraud Office, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the chairman of the Inland Revenue are all civil servants. Although the heads of some other non-ministerial departments are not civil servants—the chief inspector of schools is one example—the director of the new agency will be more akin to the director of the Serious Fraud Office.
Amendment No. 3 deletes the reference to the director being added to the list of office holders who can be members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. As the director will be a civil servant, that provision is not needed. Amendment No. 2 requires formal approval from the Minister for the Civil Service of the terms on which the director holds office.
Amendment No. 6 deletes the reference to the director being added to the list of office holders who are disqualified from membership of the Westminster Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. As a civil servant, he will automatically be disqualified from membership. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, moved amendments to disqualify the director from membership of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I hope that she will accept that, as a result of these amendments, the director will now be automatically disqualified from being a member of those bodies.
Amendments Nos. 146, 221 and 222 will ensure that there is a proper basis for the secondment of police officers to the new assets recovery agency. Amendments Nos. 221 and 222 provide for the secondment of police officers from England, Wales and Northern Ireland to the agency on standard central service terms. Making the provisions will not require any officers to be seconded to the agency but it will ensure that they can be seconded on terms that protect their conditions of service in appropriate cases.
Amendment No. 146 makes provision in respect of the work that any seconded police officers will be able to undertake at the agency. Clause 1(5) provides generally that anything that the director is authorised or required to do may be done by a member of staff of the agency or a person providing services under

1207
arrangements that are made by the director if the director authorises them to do so. Clause 319(2) already makes one exception to that general provision as it prevents the delegation of the director's tax functions to persons providing services.
Amendment No. 146 will make a further exception in respect of seconded police officers. Those officers will be seconded on central service terms and will remain constables and retain their police powers. It will not therefore be appropriate to have seconded police officers working on civil recovery cases. The amendment simply provides that seconded officers will not be able to undertake civil recovery work on behalf of the director. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise simply to thank the Minister for tabling amendments in response to our debate in Committee. They provide for the automatic disqualification of the director of the assets recovery agency from being a Member of the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I, too, have no objection to the amendments. I intended at this stage to make the same point as that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill. We are getting back to the bad old days of two or three years ago, when major Bills kept appearing with hundreds of government amendments. That has happened again on this occasion. It suggests serious overload on parliamentary counsel. I hope that we shall not see that happening again.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Assets Recovery Agency]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 2 to 6:
Page 267, line 13, at end insert "with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service"
Page 267, leave out lines 14 to 17.
Page 267, line 28, at end insert "with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service"
Page 267, line 30, leave out paragraphs 6 and 7 and insert—
"6 (1) These amounts are to be paid out of money provided by Parliament—

(a) the remuneration of the Director and the staff of the Agency;

(b) any expenses incurred by the Director or any of the staff in the exercise of his or their functions.

(2) Subject to anything in this Act any sums received by the Director are to be paid into the Consolidated Fund."
Page 269. leave out lines 12 to 20.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 6 [Making of order]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert "unless it is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify its not doing so"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 30, 32, 33, 58, 60, 61, 65, 82, 84 and 85.
I shall begin by concentrating on Amendments Nos. 7 and 65. which relate to Clause 6. This issue has been debated at length in your Lordships' House and
1208
another place. We continue to reiterate our deep concern about the Government's refusal to give the courts any discretion to decide whether or not to proceed with an investigation if an investigation is requested by the prosecutor. As currently drafted, an investigation is mandatory even if there are exceptional circumstances that justify its not being so. That, we believe, risks injustice. It is a denial of any safeguards and shows, we believe, a somewhat disturbing mistrust of our judges.
Our amendments seek to persuade the Government that there should be in the Bill an element of discretion whereby the court can intervene and prevent proceedings from taking place where there are exceptional circumstances that justify its not doing so, thus preserving a safeguard, albeit a minimal one.
I fully suspect that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will respond by saying, as he did in Committee, that there are already sufficient safeguards in Clause 10. I must say that I disagree, particularly in view of the draconian powers contained in the Bill. The defendant is placed in the position of having to satisfy the court that there is a serious risk of injustice. The onus is on him or her rather than the prosecutor or the court. The introduction of exceptional circumstances at an earlier stage is in our view a fairer approach, which does not render the Bill unworkable or ineffective.
On the amendments relating to Clause 6 that were tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford, the effect would be roughly the same. Amendment No. 8 and subsequent consequential amendments propose that if there is a serious risk of injustice, proceedings should stop there and then. The threshold is the serious risk of injustice. Our amendment is slightly different in that it expressly refers to "exceptional circumstances". If the Government are not prepared to agree that proceedings should stop when there is a serious risk of injustice, they should, we contend, be prepared to stop at "exceptional circumstances".
I view the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord. Thomas of Gresford, as the wicket and our amendments as the long stop. If the amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford, are not acceptable, it would be quite absurd to refuse ours.
I turn to the amendment relating to Clause 75. The amendment, which was proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and to which my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kingsland have been added, deals with the interpretation of a criminal lifestyle. The defendant has a criminal lifestyle if the offence concerned is, first, specified in Schedule 2 under the heading "Lifestyle Offences". In passing, I wonder whether they should be called "criminal lifestyle offences". However, that is clear, and we welcomed the schedule in Committee. Secondly, there is also a criminal lifestyle if it constitutes conduct forming a part of criminal activity or if it is an offence committed over a period of at least six months.

1209
As I said, in Committee we welcomed the inclusion of Schedule 2. However, the list of offences is not conclusive. Notwithstanding that subsection (2)(a) of Clause 75 is clear, paragraphs (b) and (c) allow for a wider test; namely, for conduct forming part of a course of criminal activity or an offence committed over a period of at least six months.
Therefore, in spite of Schedule 2, which we welcome, the concerns remain as expressed by my honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary in another place and by myself concerning minor traffic offences leading to the label "criminal lifestyle" when we both spoke on the matter at Second Reading. Particularly given the Government's continued aversion to judicial discretion, we firmly believe that the taint of a criminal lifestyle should attach only where the course of criminal activity or the offences committed over a period of six months are punishable by imprisonment. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the amendments in this group could have been dealt with as two different groups. The first group includes Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 37, 38, 65 and 66. Three are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and three are in my name. The second group includes Amendments Nos. 30, 32, 33, 58, 60, 61, 82, 84 and 85, all of which are in my name together with that of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, have now added their names.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House if the two groups were put down together for debate. They are both concerned with mitigating what we see as the draconian impact of the provisions in Clauses 6 and 75 relating to the question of a criminal lifestyle. As I said, the two groups contain somewhat different approaches.
The first group—that is, the one starting with Amendments Nos. 7 and 8—gives the court power to hold that a defendant does not have a criminal lifestyle, even if the conditions in Clause 75 are certified. The second group says that the offences needed under Clause 75 to constitute a criminal lifestyle must be either the specified offences or other offences which are punishable by imprisonment. Those are different points. They are not, in fact, inconsistent with each other, but each would serve to mitigate the impact of the criminal lifestyle provisions. If the Government could see their way to accepting either amendment, that could well temper the impact of Clauses 6 and 75 to a level that was tolerable.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, we believe that it is right to give the court some degree of discretion. We are not proposing that the discretion would be an absolute one in which the court would have power whenever it thought fit to dispense with the hearing of an application for a confiscation order. But, of course, the finding that a defendant had a criminal
1210
lifestyle would give rise to a substantial second trial— the criminal trial being the first. In the second trial, the defendant would have to prove effectively that any property held by him at the time of his conviction, or transferred to him six years or less before the start of the proceedings which resulted in that conviction, were not the proceeds of crime. That would not be easy.
Therefore, the application for a confiscation order is potentially oppressive. It puts a heavy burden on the defendant, even if ultimately he succeeds in proving that none of the property is the proceeds of crime. Surely it is right that the court is able to say, "We have heard what was said at the trial. We have heard what the prosecutor said in opening the application for a confiscation order, but we think that it would be unjust to the defendant to force him to defend his right to property." We say that the court should be able to say that the conditions of Clause 75 were technically satisfied but it would be unjust to require the defendant to go through the process of proving title to assets.
The Government can, of course, say, and no doubt will say, that the prosecutor or director have a discretion not to ask for a confiscation order. But surely it cannot be said that the prosecution will never exercise that power oppressively. The prosecution is not, in a real sense, an impartial party, and the judge, who is impartial, should have the power to stop the application for a confiscation order where it would be unjust to proceed.
Amendment No. 7 is very much to the same effect. It requires not that it should be unjust but that there should be exceptional circumstances. Both are directed at what would no doubt be the rare and unusual—but still possible— event of the prosecution acting oppressively in proceeding to ask for a confiscation order.
The alternative route involves restricting the power to find a criminal lifestyle to cases where offences can be punishable by imprisonment; that is, the three offences—the one which led to the conviction and the two prior ones within the preceding six-year period—which will, under Clause 75, lead to holding that a criminal lifestyle exists. We say that the power should be limited to offences punishable by imprisonment.
We are not suggesting that they should be indictable offences. We accept that some offences are triable either way. Indeed, a few which are triable only summarily could justify a finding of a criminal lifestyle. But if the offence is so minor that it can never lead to prison, then we believe that it should not lead to a confiscation order.
At one stage the Government gave the example of an offence which was not punishable by imprisonment but which could lead to a considerable gain by an offender. They gave the example of a developer who felled protected trees on a development site in order to make it easier to develop the land. That may be an example of a summary offence which may lead to a gain. It is an offence which is not punishable by imprisonment. But surely it is not the type of offence which should lead to the conclusion that there is a

1211
criminal lifestyle or which should lead to a confiscation order. Surely, the answer to a case of that kind is to make it possible to impose a much higher fine on the offender. That leads to a question which to my knowledge has not been raised in this debate, and on which I should like to hear the views of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
In the case given in the example, the offender may be—probably will be—a corporate body rather than an individual. The question is whether a corporate body can have a criminal lifestyle. That is an important question. Let us suppose that over a six-year period a major supermarket chain with hundreds of stores throughout the country is convicted on three occasions of minor infringements of food safety legislation from which it has benefited, perhaps to the extent of a few pounds. Does that mean that the chain has a criminal lifestyle? Certainly, if a corporate body is capable of having a criminal lifestyle, that would appear to be the case. That conclusion would be rather unwelcome to at least one noble friend of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
Equally, looked at from the other side, if a corporate body cannot have a criminal lifestyle, there is potentially a major loophole in this legislation. As a matter of ordinary English, I find it hard to see how any legal person can have a lifestyle without being a living and sentient being. That seems to me to be an important issue, which is unclear and which should be considered.
I return to the original point. We ask the Government to accept Amendment No. 7, which we would be happy to support, Amendment No. 8, or our own group of amendments to Clause 75 to make it necessary for an offence to be punishable by imprisonment. In the absence of that, we believe that potentially a serious injustice is waiting to emerge from this legislation.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, surely Amendment No. 7 raises an issue of principle, which I do not believe the Government have fully answered. It goes to the whole root of the question of the use of judicial discretion. Clause 6 and the powers to make the necessary confiscation orders and findings of criminal lifestyle can be implemented following an application by the prosecutor or the director—who, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, are not neutral bodies in this matter—to ask the court so to proceed. If they ask it, the court has no alternative but to make that order or to proceed in that way, whereas if the order is not requested, the court still has a discretion on its own decision to proceed under Clause 6.
If it is right that there should be discretion in the court to proceed under Clause 6 even though an application has not been made, I cannot understand why equally there should not be a discretion in the interests of defendants to refuse to proceed under Clause 6, even if the application has been made, if the
1212
court thinks it unjust to do so. It seems to me that that is fair and reasonable and that that is what the Bill should say.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, which give the court a discretionary "get out" clause. We have heard that Clause 75 specifies that one of the conditions of a criminal lifestyle shall be considered if the defendant is convicted of any of the offences within Schedule 2. Schedule 2 contains a wide range of offences, from serious issues such as arms trafficking and drug dealing to offences which are serious hut could be the result of fairly minor convictions. I am thinking of the reference within Schedule 2 to copyright offences. In Committee I suggested instances where the defendant could have committed a relatively minor offence but must be considered to have a criminal lifestyle because that offence is specified within Schedule 2. The example I gave was of a student who might have made or dealt in an illicit recording; who might perhaps have illicitly copied a CD or video and distributed it to his or her friends.
When I raised that in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, drew our attention to the fact that dealing would have to take place. There would have to be a commercial basis. But what if that were the case and the theoretical student copied a CD on to cassette and distributed it among his friends for money? That individual may well be guilty of a copyright offence. But surely, if it were done on a minor basis, it would be absurd to say that that individual had a criminal lifestyle. Therefore, the court should have discretion in proceeding.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, there are three groups of amendments. They have been divided slightly differently by noble Lords, but all are on the theme of criminal lifestyle. I would divide them in this way. The first two groups of amendments are rather similar because the effect of both groups would be to prevent the criminal lifestyle procedures from being triggered under certain circumstances. Amendments Nos. 7, 37 and 66 would empower the court not to decide whether a defendant had a criminal lifestyle if it considered that there were exceptional circumstances. Where it decided to exercise its discretion, the court would not proceed to confiscate the defendant's benefit from his general criminal conduct. I assume that the court would still be required to confiscate the defendant's benefit from his particular criminal conduct.
Amendments Nos. 8, 38 and 66 would require the court to decide whether the defendant satisfied the criminal lifestyle test, but it would nevertheless be able to decide that he did not have a criminal lifestyle if it was satisfied that there would be a serious risk of injustice in so doing. Again, where the court exercised that power, there would be no attempt to confiscate the defendant's benefit from his general criminal conduct. However, as with the first group of amendments, the court would nevertheless be required to confiscate his benefit from his particular criminal conduct.

1213
The effect of the third group of amendments is straightforward. The amendments would make it impossible for any criminal to be treated as having a criminal lifestyle where the offence or offences of which he had been convicted were not punishable by imprisonment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, those areas have been covered both in Committee and in another place.
I shall start with the first two groups of amendments. Both those groups would dispose of one of the central policies of the Bill and as such would be wholly unacceptable to the Government. It is important that criminals know exactly what they expose themselves to in confiscation terms when they commit criminal offences. One of the great strengths of the Bill is that it makes clear when crimes will attract a criminal lifestyle regime and when they will not.
Introducing a discretionary power not to proceed, whether it refers to exceptional circumstances or to a serious risk of injustice, would do away with that certainty and introduce instead what the Government regard as an unnecessary subjective and discretionary element. It would also erase the consistency of approach that we hope to achieve across the jurisdiction, because courts up and down the land would almost certainly exercise the powers differently in cases that were not in fact materially different.
I anticipate that your Lordships would agree that the inconsistent application of justice is bad and undesirable. The Government do not consider either as a matter of principle. There can be either exceptional reasons for the court not to proceed or a serious risk of injustice in treating a defendant as having a criminal lifestyle. The criminal lifestyle regime has effect only where there is good reason to suppose that the defendant is living off crime. The tests have been carefully selected to catch only repeat offenders or those guilty of lengthy or inherently acquisitive offences. I am grateful again for the appreciation expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, at the schedule identifying those latter offences.
However, I remind your Lordships of the safeguards that can be relied on. First, the confiscation hearings are instituted only by the court or on the application of the director of the agency or the prosecuting authorities. The director and the prosecuting authorities are under a duty to act reasonably and will not mount hearings in inappropriate cases.
Furthermore, in a criminal lifestyle case, the court has power not to make the assumptions, if the assumptions—obviously—are shown to be incorrect or if there would be a serious risk of injustice. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General therefore accept
1214
that a decision of the prosecution to proceed with an application for a confiscation order could be judicially reviewed on the grounds of irrationality?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I need to consider that because normally, and in many cases, the decision of a prosecuting authority in the exercise of its discretion is not amenable to judicial review. I shall certainly consider the question and come back to the noble Lord.
In terms of the Human Rights Act, the prosecuting authorities are public bodies and subject to the duties under that Act.
I want to emphasise that the provisions of Clause 10(6) of the Bill, state that the court,
"must not make a required assumption in relation to particular property or expenditure if—

(a) the assumption is shown to be incorrect, or

(b) there would be a serious risk of injustice if the assumption were made".

That safeguard exists if the court considers it right or if the test of serious risk of injustice is made out in relation to particular property or expenditure. I beg to differ from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe—that is an important and valuable safeguard.
If the court therefore decides not to make the assumption, because it is shown to be incorrect or because there is a serious risk of injustice, the prosecutor or the director—whoever is bringing thecase—will have to prove on a balance of probabilities every penny of the defendant's benefit.
For those reasons, shortly, the regime that has been constructed appears to us to be soundly based. I want to remind noble Lords of two matters. First, the idea that it is mandatory for the court to embark on a process of confiscation and mandatory in certain circumstances for it to make assumptions is not new to the Bill: it exists already in legislation.
I took the trouble to ask what was said in another place during the passage of the Drug Trafficking Bill 1993, which became the Drug Trafficking Act 1994. The then Minister—of course the Minister in the party of the noble Baroness—said, in referring to discretionary assumptions, that:
"During the six years in which the legislation has been in force, the courts have declined to apply the assumptions in a number of major cases, thereby placing the prosecution in the impossible position of being expected to prove matters in relation to the offender's property which are solely within his knowledge".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B, 8/6/93; col. 76–77.]
That reinforces an important point. The defendant will know where his property comes from; the prosecutor rarely will have that information.
The noble Baroness stated that the onus would be on the defendant to show a serious risk of injustice for the purpose of Clause 10(6)(b), to which I have just referred. But under Clause 16(4) the prosecutor must state if he has any information to suggest that there might be a serious risk of injustice if the assumptions are made.

1215
I turn to the third group of amendments. One of the fundamental approaches to the Bill is to deal with the proceeds of crime on an "all crime" basis. In the context of criminal confiscation, that means both the benefit from any criminal conduct—summary or indictable—should be liable to confiscation and that any offence should be capable of triggering the criminal lifestyle provisions, provided that the specified criteria—repetition of offences and so forth—are satisfied.
In the criminal lifestyle schedules, the offences are both indictable and attract terms of imprisonment. The amendments exclude the possibility of an offender who satisfied one of the other tests being treated as having a criminal lifestyle where the offences did not attract a term of imprisonment, regardless of the duration and regardless of the number of times such offences had been committed. Therefore, to introduce what is proposed in these amendments would be to introduce a test which is no less arbitrary than the test proposed by noble Lords in amendments tabled earlier in the passage of the Bill; namely, that the triggering offences should each have generated a certain level of proceeds.
The tests which are set out in Clause 75(2)(b) and (c) are not designed to reflect the seriousness of the offences but the duration and repetition of the offences concerned. The fact that they have given rise to benefit is an indication that the defendant has a criminal lifestyle. As has been said before, it is the capacity of offences to generate benefit that drives the agenda, not their seriousness in other ways. Again, I remind noble Lords that a number of offences specified in Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice Act 1998—that is existing confiscation legislation which provides for confiscation where there are certain repeat offences— also include offences which are summary only and which include no term of imprisonment.
So there is nothing new in including the possibility of offences which are summary and which do not carry imprisonment into this kind of legislation. That means that at the moment if two or more convictions are obtained, the magistrates' court has the power to make a similar confiscation order to the criminal lifestyle order under the Bill.
So we believe that allowing the third group of amendments would represent a weakening of the current powers of the courts. Two particular questions were raised. The first was by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about a body corporate. A corporate body is a person and can have a criminal lifestyle, subject to the usual rules about showing the necessary mens rea, the necessary mental state, for the commission of offences. As the noble Lord says, to allow a vehicle to be used as the means of committing crime and gathering the proceeds of crime as a device for avoiding the implications and the safeguards in the Act would be wrong. So of course he is right to say that a corporate body should be covered. If a developer, for example, was repeatedly flouting local authority laws and making substantial profit, I respectfully suggest that it would be appropriate to apply the criminal lifestyle test where the prosecutor applied for it.
1216
As he did in Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, raised the question of copyright—in particular offences relating to commercial distribution. Today, he raised the example of a student. If a student were involved in such activity on a commercial basis, if he were engaging in the sort of crime that gives rise to substantial benefit—that is, piracy of intellectual property, counterfeiting and large-scale distribution—I think that the noble Viscount would agree that it is appropriate that he should be subject to that process.
It will always be possible to identify examples in which the prosecutor is most unlikely to proceed with an application. Whether it is the supermarket chain with three minor food safety convictions or a student doing something minor who gets himself on the wrong side of the provision because his activities are in some way termed commercial—although I cannot quite understand how that would happen—I should not expect the prosecutor to proceed. Earlier, I reserved the question of whether a decision could be judicially reviewed. The view of my advisers is that there could be judicial review of the prosecutor's decision to ask for a confiscation order. I suggest that the public interest is such that such an application would rarely be successful, but as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised the matter, there is an additional safeguard for him.
So all three groups of amendments would substantially undermine central provisions of the Bill. I therefore invite the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to withdraw her amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, not to press his.
4 P.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his response, although I am deeply disappointed by it. As I said in opening, these important matters of principle have been debated at length both here and in another place with good reason but, sadly, not to our satisfaction.
We are asking for a minimum safeguard to kick in in exceptional circumstances. We are concerned when the Attorney-General refers to the amendments introducing an unnecessary, subjective and discretionary element. Is introducing such an element into our criminal justice system so terrible? What is the Government's approach to the ability of the courts and the judges to decide, in exceptional circumstances, whether it is right for a prosecutor to be able to ask and, as a result of that simple question, for an investigation to take place?
There is a serious problem here. Let us turn the argument on its head. As drafted, the Bill provides that the court must make a confiscation order even if it is of the opinion that exceptional circumstances justify it not doing so. That cannot be right; no one could possibly agree with that.
Turning to the amendments to Clause 75 and the interpretation of "criminal lifestyle", it is clear that as drafted the tests are not designed to reflect the gravity

1217
of the offences but, as the Attorney-General said, to test the duration of the course of the criminal activity during which what may be very minor offences have been committed. We are genuinely concerned about that. I respectfully suggest that the weakness of the Attorney-General's argument was demonstrated when he said that in the case of three minor offences relating to food safety standards or a student copying music onto CDs, the Government would not expect the prosecutor to proceed. The point is that the prosecutor can proceed.
In Committee, the Attorney-General dismissed the prospect of the over-zealous and unreasonable prosecutor. But that may be wishful thinking. With the expected creation of financial targets for the assets recovery agency, there will be pressure on prosecutors unrelated to the merits and justice of each case. Nowhere is the dichotomy between criminal justice and revenue generation in the Bill so clearly in view. Surely it is only right for the judge, who has sole responsibility to determine these matters, to retain residual discretion.
We are deeply concerned about those issues. We are now at Report stage. By tabling amendments that would reserve opportunities for discretion to exceptional circumstances, we have been entirely reasonable and sensible. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 137; Not-Contents, 131.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Crickhowell,L.

Ackner, L.

Cuckney, L.

Addington, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

AstorofHever, L.

Deedes, L.

Attlee, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Avebury, L.

Ecdes of Moulton, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

EdenofWinton, L.

Biffen, L.

EUes, B.

Blatch, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Boardman, L.

Elton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bridges, L.

Flather, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Fookes, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L

Buscombe, B.

Freeman, L.

Byford, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Caithness, E.

Geddes, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Geraint, L.

Campbell of Croy. L.

Goodhart, L. [Teller]

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Goschen, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carrington, L.

Greenway, L.

Chadlington, L.

Hanham, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Colwyn, L.

Henley, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Higgins, L.

Crathorne, L.

Holdemess, L.

1218

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hylton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Rees,L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rennard, L.

Kimball, L.

Renton, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Kingsland, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Roper, L.

Lindsay, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Liverpool, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Sandberg, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Lucas, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Lyell, L.

Sharman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Sharpies, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

ShuttofGreetland, L.

McNally, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Maddock, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Soulsby of Swafiham Prior, L

MarandKellie, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Taveme, L.

Montrose, D.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Naseby, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Newby, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Northesk, E.

Trefgame, L.

Northover, B.

Vivian, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Waddington, L.

O'Cathain, B.

WadeofChorlton, L.

Onslow, E.

Wakeham, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Patten, L.

Walmsley, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Wamock, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Weatherill, L.

Plumb, L.

Wigoder, L.

Prior, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Pym,L.

Willoughbyde Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Desai, L.

Ahmed, L.

Dixon, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Donoughue, L.

Alli, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Dubs, L.

Andrews, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ash ton of Upholland, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bach, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bamett, L.

Filkin, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

FyfeofFairfield, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Gale, B.

Billingham, B.

Gavron, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gilbert, L.

Blease, L.

Golding, B.

Brett, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Goudie, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carter, L.

Gregson, L.

Chorley, L.

Grenfell, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Haskel, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hayman, B.

Crawley, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

David, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hoyle, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

1219

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Prys-Davies, L.

Rea, L.

Islwyn, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Rooker, L.

Jeger, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sawyer, L.

Jones, L.

Serota, B.

Jordan, L.

Sheldon, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Simon, V.

Lipsey, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Slim, V.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Stallard, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Strabolgi, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Masham of Ilton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Thornton, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Turnberg, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mitchell, L.

Uddin, B.

Morgan, L.

Varley, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Nicol, B.

Whitaker, B.

Orme, L.

Whitty, L.

Parekh, L.

Wilkins, B.

Paul, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pendry, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Peston, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.18 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Lord Alton of Liverpoolmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert—
"() If the conditions referred to in subsection (2) relate to an offence involving the trafficking of people the court must order that sums payable under subsection (5) be paid into the trafficked persons fund."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in my name—Amendments Nos. 10, 40, 68, 129, 142 and 211—have been grouped. After the balloted debate in your Lordships' House on 13th March, in which several of your Lordships, including my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, participated, we had constructive discussions with the Minister's predecessor—the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—and with officials. I would have preferred it, however, if, along with the other amendments that he tabled for today, the Minister had produced some proposals on the subject of people trafficking.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is an appropriate moment to return to the issue of trafficking and to consider how the recovered assets of those involved in the trade might be used to help victims and combat the crime.
People trafficking, particularly trafficking in women and children, is a contemporary form of the slave trade, causing misery for the victims and their
1220
families and generating vast sums of money for the traffickers. It is worth commenting on the scale of the problem. Research commissioned by the Home Office on trafficking provides conclusive evidence that at a minimum, hundreds of women and children are being trafficked into the United Kingdom every year.
A report in the Financial Times published on 20th February stated that, according to the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention in Vienna, people trafficking has become the fastest growing facet of organised crime. Powerful criminal organisations are estimated to earn a staggering £4·3 billion per year from economic and sexual slavery. People trafficking is therefore considered to be the third largest source of profit for organised crime after the trafficking of drugs and firearms. The United States Department of State says that more than 175,000 women are trafficked annually.
There are numerous consequences. I should like to draw attention to the problems in West Sussex. Since 1995, 66 children who arrived unaccompanied in the United Kingdom have gone missing from West Sussex social services, the majority in the past two years. During Question Time in your Lordships' House on 13th June I sought information from the Government on the plight of those missing children and on reports that further children have disappeared this year. I have since been advised by the Home Office Minister Beverley Hughes that a further four young people have gone missing from that social services department in 2002. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, who is in his seat today, who responded to that question and arranged for that information to be provided.
Those disappearances took place in February. Of the four children, three were female and one was male. One of the females was Chinese and the other three young people were West African. The absence of comprehensive anti-trafficking legislation and adequate victim support services gives rise to such horrendous situations. I hope that the Minister will be able to say what more is being done to protect children in our care. It is an extraordinary state of affairs that children committed to care in this country, having been rescued from trafficking, should have gone missing on such a scale. I hope that the Minister will say something about their plight. What do we know of the outcome for those 70 missing children? Surely we must have some knowledge.
I welcome the Government's commitment to legislate in this area. The stop-gap offence of trafficking in prostitution in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill is an important start and one that I hope will be followed shortly by comprehensive anti-trafficking legislation as the Government have promised. People trafficking is included in the list of lifestyle offences in Schedule 2 to the Bill before your Lordships today. The offence referred to is in Section 25(1) of the Immigration Act 1971.

1221
I am concerned that it is a relatively toothless provision. In a Written Answer, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, acknowledged that,
"At present there is no specific offence of trafficking in human beings and so no data exist about the confiscation of assets of those engaged in this practice".—[Official Report, 18/6/02; col. WA 70.]
That will not do. Following that admission, I tabled two further Written Questions. The first highlights my concern that the offence of people trafficking in Schedule 2, paragraph 3 is wholly inadequate in combating it. The second seeks clarification as to whether the Proceeds of Crime Bill will be amended when new offences of people trafficking are introduced in forthcoming legislation, particularly the new offence of trafficking in prostitution in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill, which received its Second Reading yesterday.
Yesterday we debated one piece of new legislation that creates an offence of trafficking in prostitution, because the current legislation in that area is, as the Government admit, wholly inadequate. Yet today we are scrutinising another piece of legislation that refers to a specific lifestyle offence of people trafficking which is already in existence, which has been acknowledged to be ineffective in tackling the problem and which will be superseded in due course. To have such ambiguities in two pieces of legislation currently before your Lordships' House does not strike me as a good example of joined-up Government.
Despite those misgivings, the fact that the Proceeds of Crime Bill includes people trafficking as one of the lifestyle offences allows me to focus on the need to apply assets recovered towards anti-trafficking initiatives and support services for the victim. The Metropolitan Police Clubs and Vice Unit in London has seized over £275,000 from traffickers this year alone. Despite the growing scale of the people trafficking problem, support services for the victims of trafficking, both here and in the overseas countries from where women and young girls are taken, remain chronically underfunded. To the best of my knowledge and that of those working in this area, there is at present no central Government funding of services that seek to support and protect the victims if trafficked in the United Kingdom.
In a Written Answer dated 9th January, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, advised me that Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the United Nations, national governments and non-governmental organisations, were working to address the problems of people trafficking and to provide support for the victims of this serious crime. I welcomed then the programmes currently underway in the Western Balkans region, in Southern Europe, and in the Greater Mekong region that covers parts of Cambodia, China, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam and in West Africa. They are vitally important in helping potential trafficking victims in their countries of origin to escape the cycle of poverty and desperation that forces them into the hands of traffickers.
1222
A fortnight ago, my noble friend Lord Hylton and I, together with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, were in Azerbaijan looking at the problems of the million displaced people there. We heard firsthand accounts from people who had been offered work in so-called slave bazaars at the rate of 2·5 dollars per day for the most menial work. Is it any wonder that people trying to escape such destitution either arrive here as so-called economic migrants or are sold into the cycle of despair that becomes human trafficking?
I also wish to draw attention to the lack of funding for organisations based in the UK that seek to support and protect the victims of trafficking, perhaps better than we have been able to do in social services institutions such as the one I mentioned, from which 70 children disappeared. A housing association called Eve's Housing is the only organisation providing any help with accommodation for victims of trafficking. It has dealt with six cases in the past six months, all of whom were Albanian women.
Today I spoke with a lawyer who recounted the story of one Albanian woman. She was originally kidnapped, raped and forced into prostitution in Albania. She was then rescued by a man who fled with her to London, whereupon he forced her into prostitution. Her vulnerability was such that it took her four months to realise that the person she believed to be her potential saviour and protector was in fact simply out to exploit her.
Eve's Housing has taken upon itself to look after such vulnerable women by accommodating them in properties it manages. However, Eve's Housing receives no central government funding for doing this and so is clocking up bad debts as it helps those women. As far as the system is concerned, the women are asylum seekers and so are liable to be dispersed to different parts of the country without any regard for their special needs. The National Asylum Support Service does not have any system in place to offer specific advice and assistance to victims of trafficking.
Organisations such as Eve's Housing deserve central Government support. If assets seized from traffickers were properly applied towards services for the victims of trafficking, it would not only allow the victims to rebuild their shattered lives but could also help tackle the trafficking problem as it might lead to greater cooperation with the police.
We already have a precedent in transport where certain police forces are able to reinvest fines recovered from speed cameras into other traffic calming measures. Could we not achieve something similar in the Bill? If the Treasury has given the green light for reinvestment of resources from traffic offences involving motor cars, surely when it comes to trafficking in human beings we could apply the same approach—or is reinvestment in traffic calming to assume greater importance than investment in measures to prevent trafficking in young women?
A multi-agency group has been established in London involving police forces, the Immigration Service, social services, the Home Office and NGOs, which is seeking to achieve better co-ordination of

1223
operational activities and more effective support for victims, including the provision of safe houses. I have entered into correspondence with the Home Office on the matter and met with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and other Home Office officials on 20th May. They then advised me that the Recovered Assets Fund—RAF—can use seized criminal assets, including funds retrieved from traffickers, for a number of initiatives. Presently, the RAF is used, among other things, to support anti-drug initiatives through the funding of projects linked to the drugs White Paper, Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain. I understand that the police would support the direct use of recovered assets to establish a fund for victims of trafficking, but recognise that that would require a change in legislation. The police would therefore support appropriate applications to the Recovered Assets Fund as a means of benefiting victims of trafficking in lieu of a change in legislation.
In a letter dated today, the Minister of State, Beverley Hughes, says in relation to the RAF:
"Consideration will be given to including a specific reference to anti-trafficking initiatives",
in future RAF funding rounds. But as a minimum, could not the Minister underline that assurance and ensure that the Recovered Assets Fund could be used to support anti-trafficking initiatives and specifically to fund agencies to provide secure accommodation, advice and assistance to victims of trafficking in the future?
I also raised with the Home Office how much it spends on anti-trafficking initiatives and what percentage of total Home Office expenditure that represents. The Minister was unable to give me any figures in her reply. Although she stated:
"We are currently looking at appropriate funding for all these strands",
it is difficult for us in your Lordships' House to have an informed debate about what is needed when the figures are simply not forthcoming. Perhaps today the Minister can tell us what Her Majesty's Government are spending on anti-trafficking initiatives and what percentage of total Home Office expenditure that represents.
Perhaps it is too simple, but if assets are being recovered from trafficking gangs, why should not they be utilised to help the very same people who have been exploited by those gangs? The Home Office have advised me that people-trafficking victims can claim compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, yet so many of them have irregular immigration status, false documents, false passports and so on that that really is not possible. Irregular immigration status means that unless they immediately co-operate with the police they will be subject to deportation; hence they are not in a position to instruct a lawyer to prepare a CICA claim. That is wholly unrealistic and I am sure that the Minister knows that.
1224
In conclusion, the organisation to which the victims will be looking for support must be adequately funded to meet an ever-increasing need. My amendment seeks to achieve that without seeking recourse to the hard-pressed funds of taxpayers. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Alton and in doing so want to draw attention to the needs of those who have been trafficked. Some will be discovered in this country possibly by the police or immigration services. Others will have escaped—perhaps not a large number—and therefore may not yet have come to the attention of the special services. It is widely agreed that all those people require a period of reflection so that they can become slightly established in this country, can recover from their bad experiences and, one hopes, will be able to give evidence against those who transported, exploited and abused them.
In order for such a period of reflection to be effective, safe houses are required; places where people can live for a short period and sort themselves out. That is the kind of use which my noble friend is indicating as being highly appropriate for the money that has been or will be recovered. I hope that those comments reflect the strongest possible support for my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I strongly support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, particularly Amendment No. 211 which proposes the setting up of a fund for dealing with the issue.
I need not elaborate on the arguments which have been well articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The size of the problem is undisputed. Large numbers of people are involved and it is known to all the agencies involved. As was mentioned by the noble Lord, the amount of money involved in trafficking is extremely large. One must remember the nature of the crime. It involves, on the one hand, the taking of a large sum of money in dealing with the persons concerned—young people, particularly girls—and, on the other hand, substantial immediate and long-term damage to the persons concerned. If one provides only for a fine and possibly imprisonment of the offenders, one is dealing with only half the problem. One has not dealt with the condition of the victims and has left them without means of recourse.
It may be said, and it is true, that the Bill contains extensive powers enabling confiscation orders to be made in all kinds of criminal proceedings. No doubt when trafficking legislation is introduced those provisions can be applied. However, I venture to suggest that there are two good reasons why it is highly desirable that specific reference to trafficking is made in the Bill and that it should not be left to general references. First, under the United Nations protocol for the suppression and punishment of trafficking, we as a nation are obliged to deal with the physical, psychological and social recovery of persons involved in the trafficking. We have signed that protocol and

1225
are under an obligation to carry it into effect. It could properly be brought into effect and recognised if provision were made in the Bill to set up a fund, as the noble Lord suggests.
The other good reason for making specific reference in the Bill and not leaving the matter to general legislation is that it would enable the persons, agencies, local authorities and NGOs concerned to know of and be able to point to a specific destination for the recovery of money. That would not be the case were it covered up in general legislation.
Your Lordships know well that this is a pervasive crime committed in all kinds of areas by all kinds of people. It must be dealt with by a great variety of authorities and police forces all over the country, many of which have no idea of the nature of the crime or the remedies available to deal with it. If it were possible for them to point to a particular provision relating to confiscation money, they would undoubtedly be assisted in dealing with such cases.
Many of the authorities have no idea of what they should do. As the noble Lord mentioned, only one local authority—West Sussex—deals with such cases with any degree of comprehensiveness and scientific application. No doubt one or two others know about the matter but in general the existence of this evil is not known around the country and still less is it known what can be done. Therefore, it is highly desirable that provision should appear in legislation so that the existence of a fund can be pointed to and that money can be given. If confiscation were made, that money could be used for the necessary purpose for which it should be designed; namely, the rehabilitation of the traffickees. For those reasons and others given by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke to the amendments with great force. His campaign on behalf of those who are trafficked for sexual or labour exploitation is well known and greatly respected. As he pointed out, he recently discussed the matter with my noble friend Lord Rooker before he left the position which I now hold.
Amendment No. 10 seeks to create a statutory fund from the confiscated assets of persons convicted of human trafficking and it requires the fund to be used for support and assistance to victims of trafficking. The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Hylton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, raised much wider issues than that fund. Perhaps I may briefly touch on them.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to the incident in which 70 young people have disappeared from the care of West Sussex local authority over the course of the past 12 months. As the noble Lord knows, but other noble Lords may not know, an operation called Operation Newbridge was set up in West Sussex to address the events referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The matter concerned in particular young girls
1226
from West Africa who had arrived in the United Kingdom and claimed asylum. As unaccompanied minors, they were placed in the care of the local authority, from which significant numbers of them disappeared. It is thought that some of them may have ended up working as prostitutes in Italy.
The police investigation in Operation Newbridge highlighted the difficulty of prosecuting traffickers under the current legislation. The new offence of trafficking for prostitution will help in this regard. It will cover criminals who take people into and out of the country for the purposes of prostitution.
Since Operation Newbridge, we have seen the establishment of Project Reflex, a multi-agency task force set up to address organised immigration crime. That has led to better co-ordination arrangements with regard to police investigations into people trafficking. As I have said, the new offence of trafficking for the purposes of prostitution in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill will address the trafficking of children, as was the case in Operation Newbridge.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also raised the question of the extent to which what is set out in this Bill is consistent with what is to come in the new Bill. Plainly that is a matter that must be considered.
The noble Lord went on to raise wider issues. He asked what the Government are doing for victims. As set out in the White Paper, Secure Borders, Safe Haven, we are making special arrangements in partnership with the voluntary sector for the protection of the victims of trafficking for sexual and labour exploitation. These include considering giving such victims leave to remain in the United Kingdom or, where they wish to return home, helping them to do so by providing initial counselling, ensuring that they have suitable accommodation at their destination, and helping them to reintegrate into their own communities.
We are also in the process of drawing up a best practice toolkit on people trafficking that will be a guide for immigration officers, the police and others potentially dealing with trafficking. In particular, it will raise awareness of the difference between trafficking and smuggling, and help those concerned to treat trafficking victims fairly.
The noble Lord went on to mention the provision of safe houses for the victims of trafficking. As I have already indicated, our priority lies in working with the voluntary sector through the best practice toolkit and other forums to put in place the necessary arrangements to provide support services for the victims of trafficking. Those services would include consultation with the voluntary sector with regard to special arrangements for child victims. It is too early to say whether a non-governmental organisation would be the most effective mechanism for delivering these services. Currently we are discussing the provision of safe houses with a number of NGOs.
Several important wider issues have been raised in the context of this amendment, which is perfectly legitimate on the part of noble Lords. However, I turn

1227
now to the terms of the amendment. Although the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has not sought to press me very hard, I do not think that the amendment and related amendments in the group represent the best way forward. The noble Lord's proposal would present a number of problems which I shall address briefly.
First, practical difficulties would be encountered in trying to identify a particular category of confiscated proceeds for special treatment. Secondly, it would set a precedent, leading to pressure to adopt a similar approach in relation to other categories of crime. Thirdly, the proposal would detract from the non-statutory Recovered Assets Fund, which puts up to half of all seized proceeds into a pot and uses them for a range of quite broadly defined good causes. Fourthly, it would cut across the provisions already in place for the victims of trafficking and victims of crime generally.
In principle it would be open to the Government to widen the uses to which the Recovered Assets Fund is put, extending it to assist in the provision of victim support services either generally or for particular categories of victims, such as the victims of human trafficking. However, that pre-supposes that the existing and planned provision for such victims is insufficient, which the Government do not accept. Moreover, a change in the criteria for the fund would be premature at this stage, given that we set it up only late last year.
However, we shall review the scope of the Recovered Assets Fund in advance of the next financial year, 2003–04, and consider in particular whether it should be used for the benefit of victims of crime, including the victims of human trafficking.
More generally, the Government pay an annual grant, currently set at £28 million, to Victim Support to enable that organisation to provide a range of services for the victims of all types of crime. Further, it is worth pointing out that Project Reflex, which I mentioned earlier in my remarks, was provided with £22 million in the spending review of 2000. However, I am afraid that I am not able to tell the noble Lord what proportion of the Home Office budget that forms. Perhaps I may write to him with that statistic.
I hope that the noble Lord will derive some reassurance from what I have said, both with regard to the general issues and on the particular matters and thus will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for the constructive way in which he has dealt with the arguments put to the House today. This proposal forms part of a continuing attempt by many Members of your Lordships' House to raise the profile of human trafficking and to ensure that something is done about it. To that end, I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Hylton and Lord Wilberforce for their contributions to the debate this afternoon.
1228
The noble and learned Lord told the House of the plight of some of the unaccompanied minors who disappeared from social services care. They have ended up involved in prostitution in other European Union countries. That is a matter about which we certainly cannot be complacent. We shall have to redouble our efforts to provide adequate protection for those who have been entrusted into our care. Moving way beyond the general issue of economic migrants or refugees, this issue concerns unaccompanied minors. All noble Lords have a duty of responsibility towards tackling this problem on their behalf.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for commenting that he will look at the compatibility of the new offence detailed in the new Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill with the provisions set out in this Bill, and then ensure that they are brought into some kind of accord. From his words, I suspect that he is in sympathy with the argument; that is, that this problem has to be tackled at its source. He needs to hold discussions with his colleagues in the Department for International Development on the ways in which part of our aid programme can be used to combat this problem at source.
I am also grateful for the noble and learned Lord's remarks about safe houses and consultation with nongovernmental organisations. He also confirmed that it was open in principle to look again at the way in which the Recovered Assets Fund might be used on behalf of victims. I noted his comment at the end of his remarks reflecting his willingness to hold a review to look at the scope of the fund and the way in which these policies are being implemented.
In the spirit of the way in which the noble and learned Lord has dealt with the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Defendant's benefit]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 3, at end insert—
"(2A) Subsection (2B) applies if—

(a) the conduct concerned is general criminal conduct,

(b) a confiscation order mentioned in subsection (3) has at an earlier time been made against the defendant, and

(c) his benefit for the purposes of that order was benefit from his general criminal conduct.

(2B) His benefit found at the time the last confiscation order mentioned in subsection (2A)(c) was made against him must be taken for the purposes of this section to be his benefit from his general criminal conduct at that time."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 16, 41, 42, 44, 70 to 72, and 74. These amendments to Clauses 8 and 10 and their equivalents in Parts 3 and 4 are technical changes relating to the calculation of benefit and the use of the assumptions. Unfortunately, the problem that these amendments are designed to deal with is very real and has come to light only recently.

1229
We are concerned here with the narrow situation where a "general criminal conduct" confiscation order is being made against a defendant who has previously been the subject of a confiscation order. The problem does not affect defendants who are before the court for a confiscation order for the first time.
Provision is needed to deal with the narrow situation I have referred to because, as noble Lords will be aware, "general criminal conduct" means all of the defendant's criminal conduct at any time in the past. If the court were to make a "general criminal conduct" confiscation order now and a similar one was made against the same person five years ago, there would be a risk of double counting of all the benefit gained by the defendant more than five years ago, unless the Bill prevented it.
At present, Clause 8 prevents this double counting by providing that, if the court is making a general criminal conduct confiscation order, it must deduct any amount ordered to be paid under a previous confiscation order. So if the defendant's benefit from general criminal conduct is calculated now at £120,000 and a previous order was made for £60,000, the defendant can be ordered to pay only £60,000 this time. That is obviously correct.
Unfortunately, there is a technical problem connected with the operation of the assumptions, which means that the provision will not work as we would wish it in all cases. The problem is that Clause 8 as it stands requires the court to calculate the defendant's benefit from general criminal conduct afresh every time it makes a confiscation order. This means in practice in some cases where benefit has been exposed by the operation of the assumptions at the time of a previous confiscation order that the director and the prosecutor would have to prove that benefit to the court without the assistance of the assumptions. They might well find it impossible to do so.
If the authorities were unable to prove this earlier benefit, the clause as it stands would require the defendant to pay nothing. For example, if the operation of the assumptions exposed £60,000 worth of benefit in 1990 and the operation of the assumptions against different property today also exposes £60,000 worth of benefit, the clause would require the previous £60,000 to be deducted from the current £60,000, leaving the defendant to pay nothing. That is not the desired result. The mechanism should yield a total benefit of £120,000 this time round, from which the earlier £60,000 is deducted.
The amendments achieve this. They will require the court to accept the assessment of benefit made by the court that previously made a confiscation order against the defendant. This will relieve it of the unnecessary burden of revisiting the earlier benefit when it makes another confiscation order against the same person.
The amendment to Clause 10 and its equivalents deals with the fact that a previous confiscation order may have been made in the past six years. The amendments to Clause 8 require the present court to
1230
accept the benefit found by the previous court. Without this amendment the present court could make the assumptions against the same property and so double count the same benefit. In practice, the "serious risk of injustice" exemption would probably come into play here, but we prefer to put the matter beyond doubt.
Regrettably, these amendments are of more practical importance than may be immediately obvious. It is far from unknown for more than one confiscation order to be made against the same defendant. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert—
"(3A) But subsection (3) does not apply to an amount which has been taken into account for the purposes of a deduction under that subsection on any earlier occasion."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 21, at end insert—
"(5) The reference to general criminal conduct in the case of a confiscation order made under any of the provisions listed in subsection (4) is a reference to conduct in respect of which a court is required or entitled to make one or more assumptions for the purpose of assessing a person's benefit from the conduct."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
"COMPENSATION OF CREDITORS
(1) Any person who was a creditor of the defendant at the time when the confiscation order was made may, within one year of the date of the order, make an application to the court for compensation.
(2) The court may require the enforcement authority to pay compensation to the applicant if it is satisfied that—

(a) as a result of the making of the order the defendant is wholly or in part unable to repay the debt;

(b) the debt was incurred for full consideration; and

(c) at the time the debt was incurred the applicant had no reason to believe that a confiscation order could be made against the defendant."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of a number of groups of amendments which deal with what we see as a serious problem in this Bill, which is the total disregard by the Government of the adverse effect that it may have on bona fide creditors of persons against whom orders under the Bill are made and other innocent third parties.
In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24, 43, 54, 73, 79 and 136. This group of amendments aims to protect the position of creditors when a confiscation order, a restraint order or a civil recovery order has been made against their debtor. A defendant against whom the order under the Bill has been made may, for example, have commissioned building works from a local, small builder, thousands of pounds may be due under that

1231
commission and the builder may know nothing about the defendant's criminal history. But as the result of the making of one of the orders under the Bill the creditor may well not get his money and may therefore end up with his business going bust.
There are in fact two sub-groups of amendments in the group. Amendments Nos. 15, 43, 73 and 136 are new clauses which provide for compensation to be payable where a confiscation order or a civil recovery order has been made and where the circumstances specified in the clauses are satisfied. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, have put their names to all of those amendments. Amendments Nos. 24, 54 and 79 allow debts to a bona fide creditor to be paid out of the property which is subject to a restraint order. I accept that a confiscation order or a civil recovery order will not necessarily leave the defendant penniless, but in a number of cases they may very well do so.
I accept that the Government have legitimate concerns about the creation of bogus debts by which funds can be extracted from the estate of the defendant subject to the order. Our amendments are designed to cover both those points because before any compensation can be paid by the director out of the funds of the agency three things will have to be established. First, it will have to be shown that as a result of the order the defendant is in fact unable to pay his debts. Clearly, if the defendant is able to do so, he should be the primary source from which payment should be sought. Secondly, the debt must be one that has been incurred for full consideration. Obviously, we do not wish to enable bogus debts and artificially created debts to be used, as I have said, to extract money. So the existence of full consideration provided by the creditor must be shown. Thirdly, the creditor must have no reason to believe that a confiscation order or a civil recovery order is likely to be made so that if the creditor is aware of the possibility of an order then he is on notice of the existence of the risk. We accept that in those circumstances it is proper that he should bear that risk.
When these amendments were discussed at Committee stage the Government strongly overstated their case against them. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said in the debate on 22nd April:
"In practical terms their effect would be disastrous on the operation of the legislation".—[Official Report, 22/4/02; col. 62.]
That is an absurd overstatement. I can understand the Government's concerns. We have tried to meet them and I believe that our amendments succeed in doing so.
In addition to that, what I cannot understand is the Government's attitude that somehow they have a moral claim to the proceeds of a confiscation order or a civil recovery order, which has priority to the claims of creditors. That is not so. In most cases confiscated property never belonged to the Government. In those cases where it did, such as criminal tax evasion, they have perfectly effective existing rights to get that property back. The purpose of the confiscation order is not to compensate the Government for any loss, but to impose a punishment on the defendant and a deterrent against the defendant and other possible
1232
people who make a profit from crime. In so far as a confiscation order or a civil recovery order leaves a defendant unable to pay a debt due to an innocent creditor, it is the creditor who suffers that punishment and not the defendant. The Government say that the creditor already runs the risk of the defendant's bankruptcy or default even if there is no confiscation order. That is perfectly true, but in no way does that justify adding another risk.
As I said in Committee, if I were an innocent creditor and found that the debtor could not pay because the Government had seized assets under a confiscation order, I would believe that, frankly, the Government had stolen my money and I would be right to believe that. The fact that a confiscation order overrides unsecured debts, even if the creditor can prove to the hilt that the debt was incurred for full value and in good faith, is completely unacceptable. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I, too, wish to speak to the amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford. My noble friend Lord Kingsland and I have added our names to Amendments Nos. 15, 43, 73 and 136.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, these amendments would allow an innocent creditor to make a claim for compensation if it is made within one year of the confiscation order. These are sensible and reasonable proposals. The creditor must be innocent of the activities of the defendant and the amendments assist only those creditors where the debt is for full value and cannot be paid in the normal way by the defendant because of the confiscation order. This right will occur only if the confiscation order has mopped up all of the assets. If there are any assets left, it is only right and proper that the debt should be paid in full.
I support the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford, in Amendments Nos. 24, 54 and 79, which concern restraint orders. Surely there ought to be an exclusion for the purpose of meeting legitimate debts. Indeed, these amendments foreshadow amendments that we have proposed in relation to insolvency in Part 12 of the Bill. We question whether it is right that innocent creditors should lose out to the Consolidated Fund.
It is important that we briefly revisit, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart has done, the debate in Committee, where the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, stated that if similar amendments were accepted,
"We would be setting up a system that invites claims from bogus creditors who in reality were associates of the defendant. A whole new industry would start up. It would be difficult to prevent and would greatly weaken the confiscation system. What is worse, it would make the legislation inoperable from the enforcement authorities' point of view. The enforcement authorities would undoubtedly be discouraged from pursuing confiscations with the threat of claims from unsecured creditors hanging over them".—[Official Report, 22/4/02; col. 63.]
This goes to the heart of a weak argument. The courts are perfectly capable and perfectly astute in dealing with false claims. They are able to decide which

1233
is a false claim and which is not. We should be grateful if the Minister could provide us with examples of where a creditor has made a false claim that has been accepted by the courts. It is simply not good enough for the Minister's predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to dismiss the risk of business bankruptcy to many innocent, legitimate creditors as "the way of the world".
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that such arguments strongly overstate the position and accentuate the weakness of the Government's case.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, these amendments are very similar to those which have been discussed in detail both in another place and in Committee in this House.
The effect of the new clauses proposed in Amendments Nos. 15, 43 and 73 would be to make the enforcement authorities pay the unsecured debts of any person whom the defendant was unable to repay because of the making of a confiscation order under Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill where the unsecured creditor was unaware of the criminal activity of the defendant. So the recovery authority would be recovering not only the assets from the proceeds of crime, but would also become the agent which pays off all the unsecured debts of the criminal. It would become a kind of managing agent for the unsecured debts of the criminal.
Amendment No. 136 would have a similar effect in relation to Part 5 of the Bill as Amendments Nos. 15, 43 and 73 would have in relation to Parts 2, 3 and 4. Under Amendment No. 136, the court would be able to require the enforcement authority to pay compensation to any person the respondent was unable to repay because of the making of a recovery order. The requirement could be placed on the enforcement authority if the debt was incurred for full consideration and the debtor had no reason to expect that a recovery order could be made against the respondent. So a fairly stunning protection would be given to unsecured creditors by these provisions. The effect of Amendments Nos. 24, 54 and 79 would be to allow restrained assets to be used to pay the defendant's debts.
I shall speak first to the amendments as they would affect the criminal confiscation measures in Parts 2 to 4 of the Bill as the legal landscape in those parts differs considerably from that in Part 5. All of the amendments which affect Parts 2 to 4 of the Bill bear upon the position of unsecured creditors under the confiscation legislation in circumstances where the position is unaffected by bankruptcy proceedings. As your Lordships will be aware, the Bill protects the rights of secured creditors. The only issue raised here concerns the position of unsecured creditors.
I believe that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who raised the question of the builder who goes bankrupt because he is not paid as a result of unsecured debt. If the position of suppliers is such that their solvency depends upon the debt—we are not
1234
talking about suppliers of food or drink and so on but about builders—they can protect themselves by seeking security in relation to such a debt, which may well be sensible if the level of commitment was such that their solvency depended upon it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made clear, the making of a confiscation order does not relieve the defendant of the obligation to pay his debts. They remain payable whether or not a confiscation order is made. Even if the defendant uses the property currently available to him to pay the confiscation order, he remains liable to pay the debt later. It is not the responsibility of the state to pay criminals' debts for them.
Secondly, lenders who are not prepared to take the risk of losing their money can secure their loans. Thirdly, society's claim to the proceeds of crime is better than that of an unsecured creditor. Creditors have no right to be paid out of the proceeds of crime. If a criminal perpetrates a number of crimes against unknown victims from which he benefits substantially, and ultimately such property is sold to meet a confiscation order, those funds belong to society and the defendant's creditors should not be regarded as having a prior claim to them.
Fourthly, we believe that these amendments as a whole would undermine a number of other obligations to the Crown. What is the difference between the obligation to pay a confiscation order and the obligation to pay one's taxes? Are taxpayers to be relieved of their obligation to pay because they happen to owe an individual a private debt? I repeat here the question posed by my noble friend Lord Rooker in Committee: are the courts to be able to set aside fines, compensation orders, costs and other disposals merely because their subject happens to have outstanding debts? In our view, they should not.
Turning to the practical implications that were touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the amendments would invite claims from bogus creditors who were in reality associates of the defendant. This would be very difficult to prevent and greatly weaken the confiscation system. Of course the courts could look into such matters, but we must remember that these are transactions where all of the facts are in the hands—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I wonder why it is assumed that bogus creditors would not be equally able to put in claims if the person went bankrupt. In those circumstances there would be an examination of the claims of the so-called bogus creditors, just as there would be here.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, then that really detracts from the main argument; namely, how difficult is it in those circumstances to come to a particular conclusion? Let us recognise the difficulty of what such cases involve. If we assume the transaction to be bogus, they involve facts entirely in the knowledge of the two parties who are putting forward the claim to the court. Of course, the courts are

1235
extremely experienced in these matters, but they are dealing in an area where frequently no alternative view is being put.
The amendments would also encourage defendants to defeat the confiscation process by running up legitimate debts, safe in the knowledge that the authorities would be left out of pocket at the end of any confiscation proceeding. So the question posed by the amendments is: is there a sufficient risk of a real problem here to make this exception a sensible one? We firmly believe that there is not, that it would give rise to bogus claims and that it puts the balance in the wrong place.
The three new clauses proposed in Amendments Nos. 15, 43 and 73 would in our view make the legislation inoperable in practical terms. It was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that that was over-stating the case. They would invite claims against the enforcement authorities, as he rightly acknowledged, and it is quite possible that those authorities would be out of pocket at the end of the procedure. It is difficult to imagine a better way of deterring them from taking on confiscation cases.
Moreover, as I pointed out earlier, it is not the moral responsibility of the state to take over the defendant's debts. That, however, would be precisely the effect of this group of amendments.
Continuing with the criminal confiscation amendments, the new subsections proposed in Amendments 24, 54 and 79 would enable the court to vary restraint orders to allow the defendant's unsecured debts to be paid. These amendments would reverse the effect which the confiscation legislation, including this Bill, has always had; namely, that debts should not be paid out of realisable property under restraint.
Here, too, I appreciate that noble Lords have attempted to have regard to the practical effect of the amendments, and have limited the power to debts incurred before the restraint order was obtained. Nevertheless, the amendments would undoubtedly have an adverse practical effect by encouraging the submission of claims that debts were, in fact, incurred before that time when in reality they were not, and by encouraging the submission of spurious claims in general.
Equally, we are unable to accept the principle underlying the amendments that unsecured creditors have a better claim to the proceeds of crime than victims of crime or society. Proceeds should not be allowed to remain in circulation to pay creditors.
I turn now to Part 5 dealing with civil recovery. An identical amendment was discussed in Committee. We explained then that the Government do not support the principle behind the amendment. They take the view that its effect would be highly prejudicial to civil recovery proceedings. I can add little to what was said then.
In the case of secured creditors, we do not—as with Part 2—see any difficulty. A building society, for example, would be an associated property holder in respect of a house on which the society had granted a mortgage. Its interest would therefore be protected in the same way as any other associated property. The Bill
1236
also recognises the prior claims of preferential debts, as defined in the insolvency legislation, by giving them priority over civil recovery proceedings.
The issue is therefore simply whether unsecured creditors should be granted protection in cases where a person, some of whose property has been made subject to a recovery order, is subsequently unable to satisfy some or all of the debts owed.
The director of the assets recovery agency is seeking to recover the proceeds of unlawful conduct in order to prevent and disrupt organised crime. The director will act on behalf of the state in cases where there may often be no identifiable victim. Our case is that the person in possession of the proceeds of unlawful conduct should not be able to retain such wealth, on the basis that it never properly belonged to him. If it did not properly belong to him, he had no entitlement to promise it to other people.
An unsecured lender will inevitably expose himself or herself to a wide range of risks. The fact that the borrower may subsequently be subject to a recovery order is but one of them. The borrower or recipient of goods or services may turn out to be insolvent, may die without leaving an adequate estate or may simply default.
As I have said previously, the amendment overlooks the fact that the making of a recovery order does not absolve any respondent of the obligation to pay his debts or of any other private or personal obligations. Debts remain payable in the first place out of other property owned or income earned by the respondent.
We have no reason to expect insolvency to be a routine aftermath of the civil recovery proceedings. But if a respondent later finds himself insolvent, then the normal rules for dealing with that situation, including the prioritisation of creditors, will apply. We do not accept that it would be right to characterise such a situation as being the product of the enforcement authority's success, and consequently the enforcement authority's financial responsibility. It is a product of the respondent's unacceptable reliance on recoverable property.
As we have discussed previously, the amendment would have an adverse practical effect on the operation of an effective civil recovery system, as it would invite claims from bogus creditors who were in reality associates of the respondent. The same points that I made in relation to the confiscation scheme apply as well.
In relation to civil recovery, the amendment would make the legislation inoperable from the enforcement authorities' point of view. The enforcement authorities would undoubtedly be discouraged from pursuing potential cases if the threat of claims from unsecured creditors, of whom it may be possible to know nothing beforehand, were hanging over them. Indeed, it would apparently be possible for debts incurred after a recovery order was made to come within the terms oft he amendment. The amendments are in effect saying that the recovery authority has to pay all of the unsecured

1237
debts where there is a bankruptcy after the making of the civil recovery order. That is a huge undermining of the Bill.
I understand, of course, that there is concern that civil recovery of the proceeds of unlawful conduct by the state is thereby given priority over ordinary creditors. That would certainly be the case if the situation arose. However, this would not be the only situation in which creditors could find themselves disadvantaged by the state. The same would apply if a person were unable to pay debts because of tax or national insurance commitments. Where, however, they cannot pay their unsecured debts because their assets have been taken under a civil recovery order because they are the proceeds of crime, the amenders would like the position to be that the recovery authority has to pay their debts on their behalf. We simply do not accept that the state should indemnify creditors in the particular circumstances envisaged by the amendment.
For the reasons I have given on this occasion and those recited far more eloquently by my predecessors, we believe that these amendments are unacceptable. They would have a very significant effect on our attempts to get the assets of organised crime, and on the existing law. It is a matter for noble Lords opposite whether they wish to undermine both the existing protections and those that we seek to put in place in the Bill. In the light of my remarks, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to withdraw his amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is a most distinguished and successful barrister. But even the most distinguished and successful of barristers sometimes has to appear to advance a totally indefensible argument. I must say that I have rarely, if ever, heard such an indefensible argument as that put forward by the noble and learned Lord this afternoon.
For a start, he said that the enforcement authority would be an agent paying off the unsecured debts of the criminal. In a sense, that is true. But he then said that what we are asking for would be "stunning" protection. What is stunning about this is the Government's claim to take away an innocent person's property. That is, among other things, contrary to the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In the case of the builder that we have suggested, the Government are claiming money twice because the state gets the improved value of the defendant's building without having to pay for the cost of the improvement. That is clearly double counting.
As the Minister says, the Bill protects the rights of secured creditors. That means banks and building societies. They are the big boys, who always come out well on this sort of occasion. However, the small people—the unsecured creditors—lose out. The Minister said that an unsecured creditor could get protection by obtaining security. Let us live in the real world. Whoever heard of a builder who got security against the person who commissioned him to do the building? That is wholly unrealistic.
1238
The Minister said that it is not the responsibility of the state to pay the criminals' debts for them. It is not the right of the state to deprive a creditor of his property interest, which is the benefit of his debt. If the state seizes the only money that can be used to pay the debt, surely the state ought to pay it.
The noble and learned Lord compared the situation with the obligation to pay taxes. That is a legitimate debt due to the Government and on an entirely different basis from seizure under a confiscation order.
Is there risk of a real problem? The Government say that the amendment would give rise to bogus claims. I do not believe that it would give rise to a large number of bogus claims and when brought they would be spotted. Surely the right course is not to bar the rights of bona fide claimants unless there is clear evidence that those rights are being abused to such an extent as to justify extreme measures of the kind proposed here. No such evidence exists. The Government have put nothing before us.
The noble and learned Lord said that if the property did not properly belong to the defendant, he should not be able to use it. Surely the legal situation is that he can use it unless someone has a better right to it. As I said in a previous debate, the confiscation order is not a claim of property to which the Government are entitled. It is, in a sense legitimately, a punishment and deterrent. There is no punishment or deterrent if the sufferer is the creditor.
I do not believe that the enforcement authorities would be deterred for a moment from taking enforcement proceedings by the existence of these possible claims. The Government's attempt to override the legitimate interests of bona fide creditors is unnecessary, unfair and wholly misguided. In the circumstances, I have no alternative but to ask for the opinion of the House.
5.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 159: Not-Contents, 136.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Buscombe, B.

Addington, L.

Byford, B.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Caithness, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carrington, L.

Attlee, E.

Chadlington, L.

Avebury, L

Clement-Jones, L

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Blatch, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Boardman, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Crathorne, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Cuckney, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Burnham, L.

Deedes, L.

1239

Denham, L.

Newby, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Noakes, B.

Eocles of Moulton, B.

Northbrook, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Northesk, E.

Elles, B.

Northover, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Elton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Flather, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L

Fookes, B.

Onslow, E.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Freeman, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Patten, L.

Geddes, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Geraint, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Goodhart, L. [Teller]

Platt of Writtle, B.

Goschen, V.

Plumb, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Prior, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hamwee, B.

Razzall, L.

Hanham, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Rees, L.

Henley, L.

Rennard, L.

Higgins, L.

Renton, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Holderness, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Home, E.

Rogan, L.

Hooson, L.

Roper, L.

Howe, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hylton, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Kimball, L.

Selborne, E.

Kingsland, L.

Sharman, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Sharpies, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lindsay, E.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Listowel, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lucas, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lyell, L.

Taverne, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.

Tebbit, L.

Thatcher, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McNally, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Maddock, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mancroft, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tope, L.

Marlesford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Vivian, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Waddington, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Wakeham, L.

Monson, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Montrose, D.

Walmsley, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Naseby, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bhatia, L.

Ahmed, L.

Billingham, B.

Alli, L.

Blackstone, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Blease, L.

Andrews, B.

Bledisloe, V.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Borrie, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bragg, L.

Bach, L.

Brennan, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Brett, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Brightman, L.

1240

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Judd, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Layard, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carter, L.

Lipsey, L.

Chorley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Crawley, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

David, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Desai, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dixon, L.

Morgan, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dubs, L.

Nicol, B.

Eatwell, L.

Orme, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Parekh, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Paul, L

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pendry, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Peston, L.

Filkin, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gale, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gavron, L.

Radice, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Rea, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Rooker, L.

Goudie, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sheldon, L.

Simon V

Gregson, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Grenfell, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B

Harris of Haringey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Temple-Morns, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tenby, V.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Thornton, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Turnberg, L.

Hoyle, L.

Turner of Caniden, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Uddin, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Varley, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Warwick of Undetcliffe, B.

Weatherill, L.

Islwyn, L.

Whitaker, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Whitty, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wilkins, B.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Jones, L.

Jordan, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.32 p.m.
Clause 10 [Assumptions to be made in case of criminal lifestyle]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 6, line 25, at end insert—
"(8A) But if a confiscation order mentioned in section 8(2A)(c) has been made against the defendant at any time during the period mentioned in subsection (8)—

1241

(a) the relevant day is the day when the defendant's benefit was calculated for the purposes of the last such confiscation order;

(b) the second assumption does not apply to any property which was held by him on or before the relevant day."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Postponement]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 9, line 2, at end insert——
"(11) A confiscation order must not be quashed only on the ground that there was a defect or omission in the procedure connected with the application for or the granting of a postponement.
(12) But subsection (11) does not apply if before it made the confiscation order the court—

(a) imposed a fine on the defendant;

(b) made an order falling within section 13(3);

(c) made an order under section 130 of the Sentencing Act (compensation orders)."

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 17, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 50 and 75.
The purpose of these amendments is straightforward. They are designed to stop confiscation orders from being quashed merely because some procedural error has taken place in the application of the postponement procedures. I shall, if I may, provide your Lordships with a little background on this occasion, as it is directly relevant to the amendments.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Bill amends the postponement regime in the existing legislation. In particular, following recommendations in a report of the Performance and Innovation Unit, the normal postponement period is extended from six months to two years. It is important to understand, however, that the basic mechanics of the postponement regime envisaged by the Bill remain rather similar to those in the existing legislation.
Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear that the courts are finding this legislation difficult to operate. A string of appeal cases testifies to the fact that defendants regularly attempt to have the confiscation order overturned on the grounds that the postponement procedures were not applied properly by the court. Confiscation orders are being lost as a result. The case of Woodhead, decided by the Court of Appeal in January this year, is a good example. In that case, the postponement procedures had been followed to the letter. However, the Court of Appeal overturned a confiscation order of £200,000 on the grounds that the judge had not shown that he was exercising his discretion when agreeing to the postponement.
The Government's concern is clearly that the postponement arrangements in the Bill should not come under similar attack. The purpose of the
1242
amendments is to prevent that from happening. Most of the current difficulties arise from the fact that the legislation is interpreted as imposing a strict procedural regime which must be followed to the letter if a confiscation order is not to fall. We do not think that this approach is correct. We are not dealing here with a trial but with the imposition of a post-conviction measure. It is quite inappropriate to quash a confiscation order merely because there has been some procedural defect in the application of the post-trial postponement procedures. The amendments therefore make it clear that a confiscation order made under the Bill cannot be quashed just because there has been some technical defect in the court's application of the postponement procedures.
I should stress, however, that the amendments do not allow the courts to ignore other aspects of the confiscation procedures. Subsection (12) states explicitly that the procedural protection afforded in relation to postponement does not apply where they make the mistake of imposing a fine or some other financial order before they make the confiscation order. This is because the defendant would suffer serious hardship if one of these orders were made before the confiscation order. There is no discretion to reduce the confiscation order to take account of these orders. The confiscation order needs to be made first so that fines and other financial orders can be made with the knowledge of how much is required to be paid under the confiscation order.
These amendments will improve the practical operation of the Bill and preserve the integrity of a confiscation order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Effect of postponement]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 9, line 5, at end insert "and unless there are exceptional circumstances shall do so if the period of postponement exceeds two months and the defendant has been remanded in custody pending sentence"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a short point. The Bill gives power to postpone proceedings for a confiscation order for up to two years, and indeed in exceptional cases for longer. The Government also allow the court to defer sentence until the end of the period of postponement. I believe that defendants remanded in custody are entitled to know what sentence they are going to get within a reasonable time of the conviction. It would certainly be wholly wrong to delay the sentence for two years or more.
We therefore believe that the Bill should contain a cut-off point for sentencing in cases where the defendant is imprisoned. What we have suggested in this amendment is a period of two months with power to delay further in exceptional cases. If the Government were prepared to accept a cut-off after a

1243
period of more than two months, I think that we would be content with that if it was a reasonable period. But it is plain, frankly, that we should not leave the defendant hanging around awaiting sentence for two years. That would, in the American phrase, be a cruel and unusual form of punishment.
If the defendant is being unco-operative about disclosing his or her assets, which may be part of the reasoning for postponing sentence, I should expect that the defendant would be punished by imposing a longer sentence. That is the way to deal with the matter. I believe that a delay of two years in sentencing is not justified. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, an earlier prototype of these amendments was discussed in Committee. I refer noble Lords to columns 55 and 56 of Hansard of 22nd April.
I add to what was said on that occasion as follows. In its original form the confiscation legislation did suffer from the sort of problem that the amendment seeks to deal with. The legislation always required the court to make the confiscation order before sentencing the defendant. Confiscation matters are often complex so defendants often had to wait for a long period before learning their sentence. That is a situation that I think we all agree must not be allowed to happen unnecessarily, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said.
The postponement powers were introduced largely to deal with precisely this problem. They give the court a wide discretion to sentence the defendant as soon as it has postponed the confiscation proceedings; and no doubt that often happens in practice.
As my noble friend Lord Rooker pointed out, we see no reason to impose fixed time limits on the court, given that it already has power to sentence the defendant quickly. It is also a matter of a little concern to us that the amendments import the question of exceptional circumstances and the issue of whether the defendant has been remanded in custody. We see no need for those complications. If the court postpones the confiscation proceedings, the powers to sentence quickly are there; and no one has complained that the courts are unable or unwilling to exercise them.
In short, we think that the provision is best left as it currently stands. We believe that the court has the necessary powers and is the best arbiter of how to exercise them in this context.
I hope that in the light of what I have said—I broadly seek to deal with the same problem as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—the noble Lord will be reassured and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I am reassured to some extent. I still have some concerns that problems could arise but in the circumstances I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Provision of information by defendant]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 11, line 28, at end insert—
"(8) No information given under this section which amounts to an admission by the defendant that he has benefited from criminal conduct is admissible in evidence in proceedings for an offence."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 52 and 77. These amendments bring us back to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in Committee.
Briefly, a defendant who responds to an order under this clause may make an admission that he has benefited from criminal conduct. The noble Lord suggested that the Bill should protect the defendant from self-incrimination in relation to these orders. The effect of the amendments is very much along the lines suggested by the noble Lord. Their effect will be to prevent the authorities from using the defendants admission to prosecute him or another person. In this way, we hope to encourage defendants to be more forthcoming about their benefit from criminal conduct.
However, I should make it clear that where the information provided exposes the commission of an offence, the protection we are creating here would not prevent the authorities from prosecuting the offence on the basis of some other evidence. It would be wrong to create a blanket immunity against prosecution. Accordingly, the amendment prevents admissions made under this clause from being used to prosecute the defendant or another person, but it does not prevent a prosecution from proceeding on the basis of other evidence.
There is one further point I should mention. During Committee proceedings the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked whether failure to comply with a court order under Clause 18 would attract contempt proceedings. My noble friend Lord Rooker did not have an immediate answer and indicated that he would look further into the matter.
I have since written to the noble Lord but the position is the following. We want defendants to co-operate fully and frankly with the court. Where a defendant declines to respond to an order concerning the extent of his benefit, it will be open to the court by virtue of Clause 18(4) to draw inferences from his non-co-operation. We have to accept, however, that the fact that a court may draw inferences from a defendant's non-co-operation is unlikely to be of much help if a defendant refuses to provide information about the extent and whereabouts of his property.
Neither the CPS nor Customs is aware that contempt proceedings have ever been brought against a defendant who has declined to provide such information. Furthermore, we think that Clause 18, as it presently stands, is ambiguous as to whether contempt could be applied or not for non-compliance with the court's order to make information available. We therefore intend to bring forward an amendment

1245
at Third Reading to put the matter beyond any doubt. We have it in mind to qualify Clause 18(4) by stating that the power to draw inferences does not affect any other power of the court to give effect to its orders, so contempt proceedings would be available. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and absent friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having taken these points on board. We welcome the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Defendant neither convicted nor acquitted]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 20:
Leave out Clause 28.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 20, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 53 and 78. This is another short point. English law and, as far as I know, Scots law have never accepted the principle of trial in absentia. Therefore, a defendant cannot be convicted unless he or she has been present at least at the start of the trial. Unless they have been convicted, they cannot, of course, be punished. But the clauses which we seek to leave out override that principle by allowing a confiscation order to be made where the defendant has absconded.
A confiscation order is a punishment. Under this clause it would be punishment where there has been no conviction. In effect, we would see a sentence where there had been no trial. That, I believe, is wrong; it is also unnecessary. The enforcement agency is likely to have obtained a restraint order. Indeed, if it has not obtained a restraint order, it has nothing left to confiscate. If the defendant absconds, the restraint order will, of course, stay in place. The agency can leave it until the defendant is apprehended and tried, or it can apply instead for a confiscation order or a civil recovery order. We believe that the clauses we seek to delete override a longstanding and entirely proper principle of the criminal law and do so without any pragmatic justification. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the effect of these amendments would be to make it impossible for the court to make a confiscation order against a person who is charged with a criminal offence and flees justice before being convicted.
Similar amendments were tabled by the noble Lord in Committee. The debate is recorded in Hansard of 22nd April at columns 97 to 100. The matter was discussed extensively on that occasion and I do not intend to repeat all the arguments. There is perhaps one comment that I should make initially in elaboration of a point that was emphasised more than once. The provision in the Bill is not new. In Northern Ireland, it has already extended beyond drug trafficking to cover other criminal offences for some
1246
years by virtue of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. So while it is true that the current provision is being extended in England and Wales and Scotland, the nature of that extension is not as revolutionary as might at first appear.
Our main reason for opposing these amendments was also touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and again his comments would benefit from a little further elaboration. While we accept that the possibility that applying for a civil recovery order might provide a solution in some cases, it would not always do so. As my noble friend pointed out, criminal confiscation and civil recovery are very different tools. In particular, to obtain a civil recovery order, the director has to prove the criminal origin of the recoverable property.
However, if the only property at issue has been legally obtained, there would be no possibility of obtaining a civil recovery order. For example, if a criminal inherits an amount of money, that money could be confiscated to enforce a criminal confiscation order that was made in absentia under the Bill but it would most certainly not be subject to civil recovery under Part 5.
So long as a theoretical gap in our armoury would be created by the removal of the powers, we wish them to remain in the Bill. It would be embarrassing and wrong if just one substantial confiscation order was lost as a result of their removal. As my noble friend Lord Rooker emphasised, there are adequate safeguards to ensure that they are not used inappropriately or oppressively. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am less than fully satisfied by the answer of the noble and learned Lord. The issues that are raised in this regard go somewhat deeper than he suggested. In principle, I would have wished to press this point. However, I recognise that one has to be somewhat selective about the issues that one chooses to fight to a finish in your Lordships' House. This issue, I am afraid, is not one of them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Appeal by prosecutor or Director]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 21:
Leave out Clause 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 22 and 23.
This matter was dealt with in Committee on 22nd April 2002 at cols. 101 to 103 of Hansard. I can deal with the matter fairly concisely by a process of selective quotation, which will of course be totally fair and balanced.
The two key parts of the Bill are Clause 32(2) and Clause 33(4). Clause 32(2) states:
"On an appeal under section 31(2) the Court of Appeal may confirm the decision, or if it believes the decision was wrong it may … itself proceed under section 6 … or … direct the Crown Court to proceed afresh under section 6".

1247
That is at the Court of Appeal stage. The stage involving the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House is dealt with in Clause 33(4). It states:
"On an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal to confirm the decision of the Crown Court not to make a confiscation order or from a decision of the Court of Appeal to quash a confiscation order the House of Lords may … confirm the decision, or … direct the Crown Court to proceed afresh under section 6 if it believes the decision was wrong".
Subsection (5) states:
"In proceeding afresh in pursuance of this section the Crown Court must comply with any directions the House of Lords may make".
My observation on those two clauses at the Committee stage was that the individual who is the subject of the confiscation order has to go through no less than three stages as first instance hearings with, so far as I can see, the prospect of having to face, at each level, fresh injections of evidence by the prosecution or the director.
In dealing with my submissions, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, inter alia:
"The appeal is, of course, concerned … not with the verdict of the jury or any matter underlying the conviction which preceded the confiscation hearing".
I entirely accept that. He then went on to discuss the purpose of the measures. He said:
"The purpose of this appeal is to deal with errors or law; for example, the sort of case where the court refuses to comply with a clear statutory requirement, not least the requirement to go through the confiscation procedures. Such instances are, regrettably, not unknown".
I should be most interested, incidentally, to hear whether the noble and learned Lord the Minister can cite any such instances. However, that is not germane to the point that I want to make which is that this issue is purely a matter of judicial review. The only expressed concern about the legal aspects of proceedings in the Crown Court or Court of Appeal is whether there has been an error of law. Surely that can be dealt with by constraining the appeal procedure to precisely that consideration.
The only other purpose identified by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that the appeal clauses should perform features in the next paragraph of his speech. He said:
"The appeal also covers factual mistakes such as adding up the benefit incorrectly or failing to take an item of property into account as realisable property which should be taken into account. The right of appeal is unlikely to be used frequently but we expect it to function as a valuable quality control mechanism in confiscation proceedings".—[Official Report, 22/4/02; col. 102.]
Once again, that is an extremely limited purpose, if that is, indeed, the purpose of the clauses.
If we are talking only about, first, judicial review and, secondly, factual error, surely that could be dealt with by a much more constrained text than the very broad text with which we are presented in the draft. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I want to raise a point on Clause 33, which does not arise directly in
1248
relation to the amendment moved by the noble Lord. It is a question that has just occurred to me. Clause 33(1) appears to give an appeal as of right,
"to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal".
I do not know whether that is the intention; if so, it would be the only such appeal of which I know. Surely the clause should say, "An appeal lies to the House of Lords with leave of the Court of Appeal or with leave of the House of Lords". Perhaps the Minister will consider that and deal with it if necessary.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, somehow, I was warned that this question was coming and I have been briefed on it. I shall deal with that point first. So uncertain of me are my officials that they have handed me a second copy of the note that sets out the position on this matter.
Clauses 89 and 90 deal respectively with the,
"Procedure on appeal to the Court of Appeal",
and with the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House. Clause 89(1) states:
"An appeal to the Court of Appeal … lies only with the leave of that Court".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, asked: why is there no similar provision? He referred back to Clauses 32 or 33 but the point arises precisely in respect of Clause 90; that is, why does not Clause 90 state that an appeal lies only with your Lordships' House with its leave? The answer is that leave to appeal to your Lordships' House may be granted either by this House or by the Court of Appeal. The procedure is accordingly more complex than that involved in appealing to the Court of Appeal. Clauses 89 and 90 contain an order-making power that specifically covers procedural issues. I make it clear that the order under Clause 90 will cover leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of this House and therefore that the absence of a reference to the subject in Clause 90 is no cause for concern. In other words, we will use the order-making power to make sure that leave is required before an appeal is made to the Judicial Committee of this House. I am sorry that I took so long to get to that point.
I return to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. He rightly accepts that we are not overturning juries' verdicts in this regard. As he said, the right of appeal is directed solely against errors of law and those made by judges. It is designed to redress the regrettable but inevitable fact that in any system of law, the courts have occasionally shown themselves capable of making irrational and perverse decisions in confiscation hearings. There is currently no remedy against such errors but there should be. It is precisely because such aberrations are rare that we do not expect the new right of appeal to be used frequently. Nevertheless, it will be an important quality control mechanism in confiscation proceedings, and it has been welcomed widely.
The noble Lord raised the concern that one person could be the subject of confiscation proceedings three times. He said that such proceedings would take place: first, in the Crown Court; secondly, in the Court of

1249
Appeal—with the court either hearing the case itself or directing it back to the Crown Court; and, thirdly, the House of Lords, which, because it cannot deal with the matter itself, would direct it back to the Crown Court. The error in that proposition is that the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords will not direct two hearings. In practice, if the Court of Appeal made an order and there was then an appeal to the House of Lords, between them, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords could only ever order one rehearing.
However, it is unlikely that, in practice, there would ever be more than one confiscation hearing. I say that because the Court of Appeal will have the power only to hold a rehearing or direct the Crown Court to proceed afresh where the Crown Court has not made a confiscation order. In practice, the only circumstance in which the Crown Court is likely not to have made a confiscation order is where it has refused to hold a confiscation hearing in the first place.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also suggested that there was no precedent for the powers either in United Kingdom law or in the laws of continental Europe. I am not sure whether he intends to proceed with that point. If he does, a 1993 report by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice entitled, Criminal Justice Systems in Other Countries, states that there are prosecutors' rights of appeal in the Netherlands and Italy. We are also aware of prosecutors' rights of appeal on a point of law against an acquittal in some other common law jurisdictions.
I believe that that deals with all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. In the light of what I have said, I very much hope that, first, he will see the importance of the provision; secondly, he will see that he is wrong in relation to the issue of the three hearings; and, thirdly, in those circumstances, he will withdraw the amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord rightly indicated to your Lordships that I had said that I accepted that these measures were not connected with jury trial. However, I should not like the noble and learned Lord to think that I accepted the content of the latter part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, given on a previous occasion. The noble and learned Lord draws a number of parallels with the report of Sir Robin Auld. I must confess that I find some of Sir Robin's recommendations highly controversial.
However, so far as concerns the clauses at issue, and in response to the noble and learned Lord the Minister, I want to refer him again to Clauses 32(2) and 33(4). The final words of Clause 32(2) state:
"or … direct the Crown Court to proceed afresh under section 6".
Clause 33(4) includes the words,
"direct the Crown Court to proceed afresh under section 6 if it believes the decision was wrong".
1250
If it believes that the decision was wrong, it can refer to a whole range of considerations which go way beyond the two examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—which are judicial review or factual inaccuracy on the face of the record.
If these clauses are concerned only with judicial review and factual errors on the face of the record, and if the noble and learned Lord is prepared to accept that at the Dispatch Box, then I shall happily withdraw the amendment. But if the noble and learned Lord is not prepared to accept that, it suggests that a whole range of other issues may fall within the terms of the clause about which your Lordships have not been told. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is prepared to stand up and say that the two examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, are the only matters to which these clauses are intended to refer.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I would feel uneasy about committing myself to that now. It may be best to write to the noble Lord on the matter before Third Reading so that he can consider the position before then.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am entirely happy with that suggestion by the noble and learned Lord the Minister. My concern is that, if he wishes to go beyond the confines of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in my respectful submission, your Lordships' House should be told about it. I see the noble and learned Lord nodding. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. No doubt we shall consider the matter again at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32 [Court's powers on appeal]:
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Clause 33 [Appeal to House of Lords]:
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Restraint orders]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 24:
Page 29, line 4, at end insert—
"()make provision for the payment of debts of the specified person incurred for full consideration before the restraint order was made;".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 29, line 6, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I must, first, apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford, who tabled this amendment in Committee. I hope that they will forgive me for this plagiarism and bear in mind that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
The amendment relates to restraint orders under Clause 41. A restraint order will prohibit a person from dealing with any realisable property held by him in a way that will preserve that property pending some further order. There is a very low threshold for a restraint order. It need only be shown that a criminal

1251
investigation has been started and that there is reasonable cause to believe that the alleged offender has benefited from his criminal conduct. If that is shown, the Crown Court can make a restraint order that applies to all the realisable property held by the defendant.
There may, however, be exceptions to a restraint order, and specific exceptions are referred to in subsection (3). One of those exceptions is that the restraint order may provide for reasonable living expenses. However, subsection (4) provides that an exception to a restraint order must not provide for any legal expenses relating to the offences referred to in subsection (5), which are incurred by the defendant, or by the recipient of a tainted gift. The offences referred to in subsection (5) are entirely general.
We on these Benches are concerned that those two subsections will limit the quality of the legal representation available to a defendant. Although Criminal Defence Service funding is available to all criminal defendants, such funding is limited and may not be appropriate to the seriousness or complexity of the case against the defendant. It may be limited to junior counsel when a silk would be appropriate.
If a defendant cannot use any of his realisable assets to fund what he perceives to be the right level of legal representation, it is certain that he will feel that an injustice has been done, and there is a real possibility that that will, in fact, be the case. The most important person in any trial is the losing party and he must believe that he has been given a fair trial. If he cannot even use his own assets to oppose a restraint order, he will, quite rightly, feel that he has not been given a fair trial. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and I put our names to this amendment, and we are happy to support it. It certainly seems to me that it is not justifiable at the stage when a restraint order is made, and when it is plainly uncertain whether a confiscation order will be made or how far it will extend, to deprive the defendant of the right to use the money that is subject to a restraint order on proper legal expenses. Of course, there are perfectly well exercisable methods by which one can prevent those costs being unreasonable.
If there were no limit on the costs, I accept that it would be possible for them to be inflated artificially and ultimately used for the benefit of the defendant. But provided that the costs are kept within the normal limits of tax costs, I do not see why they should not be payable out of the property, subject to the restraint order.
I shall add one point of detail. If a confiscation order is made but does not extend to the whole of the defendant's property—that is not infrequently likely to be the case—plainly, the costs will be borne by the defendant if he pays them himself because no order has been made for payment of his costs by the
1252
Government. However, if those costs are payable from public money, the result would be that public funds would bear the costs of the defence.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it may be of assistance if I were to set out how the position has changed during the Bill's passage through both Houses. Before charge, the defendant must use his own unrestrained assets first and may then apply for civil public funding. After charge, the defendant will be entitled to criminal public funding regardless of his means. That will cover all the related restraint and confiscation proceedings. The recipient of a tainted gift from the defendant must use his own unrestrained assets at all times and may then apply for civil public funding. Other third parties—persons who are not recipients of a tainted gift but who hold an interest in property also held by the defendant—may still have funds released by the court for their legal expenses and may also obtain civil public funding when they have exhausted their own assets.
In effect, the essence of the amendments is that we should be able to use restrained assets to fund the relevant proceedings, whereas what is proposed if all the assets are restrained is that legal aid will be made available. The essence of the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is that defendants will not get the legal representation they want if it is paid for by the state as opposed to being paid for out of their own assets. It has always been a principle that the quality of legal advice should not depend upon who is paying for it. Our proposal seems to be a sensible way to ensure that huge amounts of costs are not incurred on legal proceedings. A Rolls Royce service may not be in the public interest; a reasonable service might he. In those circumstances we believe that the solution we propose is fair and sensible. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, which was a predictable repetition of the response we received in Committee. That is disappointing. We believe that the Government run the risk of defendants feeling that they have not had a fair "outing" because they are being constrained by the Bill in terms of the quality of the legal advice which they will receive. I do not want to press the House on this amendment. However, we would ask the Government to reconsider the matter before Third Reading. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Appeal to Court of Appeal]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 47 [Supplementary]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 27:
Page 31, line 13, leave out from first "The" to end of line and insert "registration Acts"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in this group are minor technical amendments. The main purpose of Clause 47 is to

1253
enable restraint orders affecting land to be given effect to at the Land Registry. The law on land registration has recently been updated in the Land Registration Act 2002, to which our Bill previously made no reference. The amendments simply modify our Bill to take account of the new arrangements in the 2002 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 28:
Page 31, line 18, at end insert—
"(1A) The registration Acts are—

(a) the Land Registration Act 1925 (c.21);

(b) the Land Charges Act 1972 (c.61);

(c) the Land Registration Act 2002 (c.9).

(1B) But no notice may be entered in the register of title under the Land Registration Act 2002 in respect of a restraint order."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause—
"ORDER VARIED OR DISCHARGED
(1) This section applies if—

(a) the court varies or discharges a restraint order under section 42 otherwise than in consequence of the making of a confiscation order in the same proceedings; and

(b) an application is made to the court by a person who held realisable property and has suffered loss as a result of the making of the order.

(2) The court may order the payment to the applicant of such payment as it believes is just.
(3) Compensation payable under this section is payable by the Lord Chancellor."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 29 requires a court to consider the payment of compensation where a restraint order is varied or discharged. We have debated the general principle of compensation for loss suffered by an innocent third party as a result of government action against a creditor, and I shall not repeat that argument.
However, I want to raise briefly a particular point. Compensation is provided for under the Bill where the confiscation order is varied or discharged. Why therefore is it not where a restraint order is made, varied or discharged without the case having proceeded to the making of a confiscation order? Surely, the arguments here are just as strong. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we are opposed to the amendments in this group for the cogent reasons which my noble friend Lord Rooker expounded in Committee.
Restraint and receivership have always been treated as ancillary to a criminal proceeding. As a result, the criminal rules on compensation apply. That is to say, compensation is payable only where there is a serious default on the part of the enforcement authorities. It is interesting to note that that has always been the case even though restraint and receivership are currently
1254
High Court functions and thus technically civil. Now that those proceedings are being transferred to the Crown Court, the case for applying the criminal rule is stronger than ever.
It is also interesting to note that the courts have recently endorsed that approach in the case of Hughes and Another and R and Another, which was decided by the Court of Appeal at the end of last month. That case dealt with the issue of whether it was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights that receivers should be able to pay their expenses out of the assets which they were managing. Lord Justice Simon Brown acknowledged that an acquitted or unconvicted defendant had for those purposes to be treated as an innocent person, but he did not accept that, for that reason, it had to be regarded as disproportionate to leave the defendant against whom restraint and receivership orders had been made uncompensated for such loss as they might have caused him.
He held that because acquitted defendants are not generally entitled to compensation for deprivation of liberty or other loss suffered through prosecution, they should not be entitled to compensation for loss suffered through restraint and receivership action. He stated
"In my judgement it is no more unfair, disproportionate or arbitrary that they should be uncompensated too for any adverse effects that restraint and receivership orders may have had upon their assets".
This Government have no intention of paying compensation to persons affected by the lawful exercise by the law enforcement authorities of their statutory responsibilities. We have serious concerns as to the potential implications of the amendments for the operation of the criminal justice system in general. If compensation was payable whenever the authorities started a criminal investigation or proceedings and then failed to secure a conviction, it would not be long before the criminal justice system ground to a halt.
As regards the specific point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, compensation is available only where a confiscation order made in absentia against an absconder is varied or discharged under Clause 73. In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 75 [Criminal lifestyle]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 48, line 18, after "concerned" insert "is an offence punishable by imprisonment and"
6.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market, L

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Attlee, E.

McNally, L.

Avebury, L.

Maddock, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mancroft, L.

Blatch B

Mar and Kellie, E.

Boardman, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Monson, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Montrose, D.

Burnham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Buscombe, B.

Newby, L.

Byford, B.

Noakes, B.

Northbrook, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Northesk, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northover, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Colwyn, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Onslow, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Deedes, L.

Parkinson, L.

Denham, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Razzall, L.

Elton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Flather, B.

Rees, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Rennard, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Geddes, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goodhart, L.[Teller]

Rogan, L.

Goschen, V.

Roper, L.

Gray of Contin L

Rotherwick, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Hamwee, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Hanham, B.

Sharman, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Henley, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Higgins, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Holderness, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Home, E.

Stem, B.

Hooson, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Howe, E.

Swinfen, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kimball T

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Kingsland, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Vivian L.

Lamont of Lerwick L

Waddington, L.

Lester of Heme Hill, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lindsay, E.

Walmsley, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Weatherill, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Wilcox, B.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lucas, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Ahmed, L.

Billingham, B.

Alli, L.

Blackstone, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Blease, L.

Andrews, B

Borrie, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bragg, L.

Bach, L.

Brennan, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Brett, L.

1256

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Campbell-Savours, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Carter, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Chandos,V.

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Milner of Lads, L.

Craig of Radley.L.

Mishcon, L.

Crawley, B.

Mitchell, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Morgan, L.

David, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Orme, L.

Desai, L.

Parekh, L.

Dixon, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L

Donoughue, L.

Paul, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Eatwell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Radice, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rea, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Gale, B

Gilbert, L.

Rooker, L.

Golding, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Serota, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Sheldon, L.

Goudie, B.

Simon, V.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Grenfell, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Thornton, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Turnberg, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Uddin, B.

Hoyle, L.

Varley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L

Irvine of Lairg, L.(Lord Chancellor)

Walpole, L.

Warner, L.

Islwyn, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Whitaker, B.

Jones, L.

Whitty, L.

Judd, L.

Wilkins, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.(Lord Privy Seal)

Lipsey, L.

Lockwood, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 48, line 22, at end insert "and the defendant has benefited from the conduct which constitutes the offence"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these government amendments—one group of which discharges an undertaking that I gave in Committee— make detailed but worthwhile changes to the criminal lifestyle regime. Amendments Nos. 31, 59 and 85 make it clear that a defendant who commits an offence lasting six months or more must have benefited from the offence to be treated as having a criminal lifestyle.

1257
The six-month test is currently inconsistent with the other criminal lifestyle tests. In theory, it is possible for a person who commits an offence lasting six months or more to be treated as having a criminal lifestyle for the purposes of the Bill, even if there is no acquisitive element to the offence.
The principle underlying the Bill, however, is that a criminal lifestyle is a lifestyle of acquisitive crime. All the other criminal lifestyle tests either require explicitly that the defendant shall have benefited from the offences of which he or she has been convicted, or those offences are inherently acquisitive. We believe that it would be sensible to bring the six-month test in line and, in so doing, to correct an unnecessary anomaly.
Amendments Nos. 34, 62 and 86 bring us to the subject of terrorism. As some of your Lordships may recall, we made it clear in Committee that we did not think terrorist fund-raising offences should be defined as criminal lifestyle offences, because they were not normally indicative of a lifestyle of acquisitive criminality. While we must remain alert to the need to take any possible action against terrorism, that should not be at the expense of undermining the fundamental policy of the Bill.
However, as I explained in Committee, we have considered whether other terrorist offences might be specified. As your Lordships can see, we have reached the conclusion that those convicted of the offence of directing a terrorist organisation should be treated under the Bill as having a criminal lifestyle.
The offence has been selected after careful thought and consultation with the relevant enforcement authorities. The overwhelming majority of those convicted of this offence in the United Kingdom will have been involved in Northern Irish terrorism. With that in mind, we are satisfied that the offence falls within the concept of a criminal lifestyle offence, as understood by the Bill. It will be reasonable to assume that those convicted of the offence will normally have been involved in acquisitive crime for their own benefit. It is proposed, therefore, to add this offence to the list.
I hope, and am confident, that your Lordships will find both sets of amendments to the criminal lifestyle regime sensible. I commend them to the House, and beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Lifestyle offences]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 34:
Page 270, line 16, at end insert—
"Directing terrorism
2A An offence under section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c.11) (directing the activities of a terrorist organisation)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Property: general provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Clause 92 [Making of order]:
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 37:
Page 55, line 35, at end insert "unless it is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify its not doing so"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 38 to 40 not moved.]
Clause 94 [Accused's benefit]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42:
Page 57, line 7, at end insert—
"(2A) Subsection (2B) applies if—

(a) the conduct concerned is general criminal conduct,

(b) a confiscation order mentioned in subsection (3) has at an earlier time been made against the accused, and

(c) his benefit for the purposes of that order was benefit from his general criminal conduct.

(2B) His benefit found at the time the last confiscation order mentioned in subsection (2A)(c) was made against him must be taken for the purposes of this section to be his benefit from his general criminal conduct at that time."
Page 57, line 23, at end insert—
"(4) But subsection (3) does not apply to an amount which has been taken into account for the purposes of a deduction under that subsection on any earlier occasion.
(5) The reference to general criminal conduct in the case of a confiscation order made under any of the provisions listed in subsection (3)(b) is a reference to conduct in respect of which a court is required or entitled to make one or more assumptions for the purpose of assessing a person's benefit from the conduct."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 95, insert the following new clause—
"COMPENSATION OF CREDITORS
(1) Any person who was a creditor of the defendant at the time when the confiscation order was made may, within one year of the date of the order, make an application to the court for compensation.
(2) The court may require the enforcement authority to pay compensation to the applicant if it is satisfied that—

(a) as a result of the making of the order the defendant is wholly or in part unable to repay the debt;

(b) the debt was incurred for full consideration; and

(c) at the time the debt was incurred the applicant had no reason to believe that a confiscation order could be made against the defendant."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 96 [Assumptions to be made in case of criminal lifestyle]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 44:
Page 58, line 31, at end insert—
"(8A) But if a confiscation order mentioned in section 94(2A)(c) has been made against the accused at any time during the period mentioned in subsection (8) —

(a) the relevant day is the day when the accused's benefit was calculated for the purposes of the last such confiscation order, and

(b) the second assumption does not apply to any property which was held by him on or before the relevant day."

1259
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 98 [Disposal of family home]:
The Earl of Mar and Kelliemoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 59, line 35, at end insert—
"(ba) the needs and financial resources of a person of the same sex as the person concerned, who is and has been for a period of not less than six months living with the person concerned in a relationship which has the characteristics, other than that the persons are of the same sex, of the relationship between husband and wife, or if the person concerned is in custody, had so lived with the person concerned until the person was so remanded;
(bb) the needs and financial resources of any member of the person concerned's family who is and has been for a period of not less than six months living with the person concerned in the family home, or if the person concerned is in custody, had so lived with the person concerned until the person was so remanded;"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 45 to 49 return us to the Scottish issue of who should have the right to be heard and to have their circumstances taken into account by the court when it considers the confiscation of the family home.
I have tabled the amendments again because the brief debate in Committee was inconclusive on the question of how the Bill might be amended after enactment. I also believe that the substance of the amendments—extending the range of residents to be considered—continues to be relevant.
I want to make two points: the first is substantive and the second procedural. The amendments would extend consideration to a more viable and practical range of related residents. The Bill allows consideration to be given to spouses, ex-spouses, children, step-children and grandchildren. The thinking behind the Bill is too conventional. The amendments would recognise brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and also partners of either sex of more than six months' continuous relationship.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, told us that the Bill's limited range of accepted relatives was drawn from the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 and from the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995. He argued that the Bill should stick to the same formula as those two Scottish Acts. He then told the Committee that the Scottish Executive planned to bring forward a draft family law Bill to be based on the Scottish Law Commission's report of as long ago as 1992.
The question is: should we wait for that possibility or should we give a lead? When the Scottish Parliament passed its Sewel motion, it granted complete and unrestricted consent to this Parliament to legislate for Scotland in this normally devolved area. In this instance, we should ignore this Parliament's residual right to legislate for Scotland without the Scottish Parliament's consent. It would be helpful if the Bill included a wider range of relatives whose home may be under threat. The two Scottish Acts could subsequently be amended once the Bill had shown the way.
1260
My second point concerns how the Bill when enacted might be amended by the Scottish Parliament, given that it is a United Kingdom Bill. The amendment would be necessary if the draft family law Bill were enacted by the Scottish Parliament. I suspect that the Scottish clauses of this Bill will he automatically devolved on Royal Assent, so amendments of any such future Act would be the work of the Scottish Parliament. That could be done through a further Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill or by secondary legislation.
I should be grateful to hear whether the noble and learned Lord agrees with me about the Scottish Parliament's future powers over the Bill. If I am wrong—and I am happy to be wrong—perhaps he would identify what would be the procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Earl said, the amendments have previously been debated. We made clear that the Government and the Scottish Executive believe that any changes to that area of law should be made not in a piecemeal way but, rather, as part of a coherent consideration of all of the issues involved. The noble Earl said that ray noble friend Lord Rooker said that the Scottish Executive intended to issue a draft Bill based on the Scottish Law Commission's 1992 report on family law.
The noble Earl asked how Clause 98 might subsequently be amended, if, in due course, the Scottish Parliament enacted further legislation in this area. I have taken advice on the matter. The noble Earl will appreciate that the subject matter of the Bill covers areas that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament and some that are reserved to the Westminster Parliament. If any changes to Clause 98 were proposed as a result of wider changes to family law in Scotland and if they related to areas that fell wholly within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Parliament would be able to amend the clause accordingly. However, if it were also proposed that the law relating to reserved matters should be changed, the Westminster Parliament would have to make the changes.
The noble Earl will appreciate that it is not possible to determine whether such changes would be devolved or reserved until the exact detail was known. Nevertheless, I hope that he will be reassured that, one way or another, Clause 98 could subsequently be amended. I hope that, in the light of those assurances, the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. He certainly dealt with my second point. I was, more or less, right that the Scottish Parliament would be able to deal with Clause 98, which relates to an obviously devolved matter. I cannot say that I am very happy about having to wait until such time as a draft Bill may be introduced in the Scottish Parliament. However, I got half of it right, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 49 not moved.]
Clause 99 [Postponement]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 50:
Page 61, line 14, at end insert—
"(10) A confiscation order must not be quashed only on the ground that there was a defect or omission in the procedure connected with the application for or the granting of a postponement.
(11) But subsection (10) does not apply if before it made the confiscation order the court has—

(a) imposed a fine on the accused;

(b) made an order falling within section 97(3);

(c) made an order under section 249 of the Procedure Act."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 100 [Effect of postponement]:
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Clause 103 [Provision of information by accused]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 52:
Page 64, line 10, at end insert—
"(7) No information given under this section which amounts to an admission by the accused that he has benefited from criminal conduct is admissible in evidence in proceedings for an offence."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 112 [Accused neither convicted nor acquitted]:
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 120 [Restraint orders etc]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 54:
Page 77, line 26, at end insert—
"() make provision for the payment of debts of the specified person incurred for full consideration before the restraint order was made;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]
Clause 132 [Powers of court and administrator]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 57:
Page 84, line 17, leave out "and 134" and insert ", 134 to 136"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 132 sets out the general principles on which the court and the administrator are to exercise their powers in Scotland. Subsection (1) lists the powers to which the "legislative steer" applies. The clause sets out exactly the same principles for the exercise of the court's discretion in Scotland as Clause 69 does for England and Wales.
Clause 69 provides that among the powers to which the legislative steer applies are the powers under Clause 63 and the power under Clause 65 to decide an appeal against a decision by a lower court on the variation or discharge of a receivership or restraint order. The clauses equivalent to Clauses 63 and 65 for Scotland are Clauses 135 and 136. Those clauses are not referred to in Clause 132(1), and the amendment will rectify that omission. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 142 [Criminal lifestyle]:
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 59:
Page 89, line 15, at end insert "and the accused has benefited from the conduct which constitutes the offence"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Lifestyle offences: Scotland]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 62:
Page 276, line 14, at end insert—
"Directing terrorism
2A An offence under section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (directing the activities of a terrorist organisation)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 150 [Property: general provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]
Clause 156 [Making of order]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 65:
Page 95, line 28, at end insert "unless it is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify its not doing so"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 66 to 69 not moved.]
Clause 158 [Defendant's benefit]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 70:
Page 96, line 33, at end insert—
"(2A) Subsection (2B) applies if—

(a) the conduct concerned is general criminal conduct,

(b) a confiscation order mentioned in subsection (3) has at an earlier time been made against the defendant, and

(c) his benefit for the purposes of that order was benefit from his general criminal conduct.

(2B) His benefit found at the time the last confiscation order mentioned in subsection (2A)(c) was made against him must be taken for the purposes of this section to be his benefit from his general criminal conduct at that time."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 71 and 72:
Page 96, line 40, at end insert—
"(3A) But subsection (3) does not apply to an amount which has been taken into account for the purposes of a deduction under that subsection on any earlier occasion."
Page 97, line 9, at end insert—
"(5) The reference to general criminal conduct in the case of a confiscation order made under any of the provisions listed in subsection (4) is a reference to conduct in respect of which a court is required or entitled to make one or more assumptions for the purpose of assessing a person's benefit from the conduct."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 159, insert the following new clause—
"COMPENSATION OF CREDITORS
(1) Any person who was a creditor of the defendant at the time when the confiscation order was made may, within one year of the date of the order, make an application to the court for compensation.
(2) The court may require the enforcement authority to pay compensation to the applicant if it is satisfied that—

(a) as a result of the making of the order the defendant is wholly or in part unable to repay the debt;

(b) the debt was incurred for full consideration; and

(c) at the time the debt was incurred the applicant had no reason to believe that a confiscation order could be made against the defendant."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 160 [Assumptions to be made in case of criminal lifestyle]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 74:
Page 98, line 14, at end insert—
"(8A) But if a confiscation order mentioned in section 158(2A)(e) has been made against the defendant at any time during the period mentioned in subsection (8) —

(a) the relevant day is the day when the defendant's benefit was calculated for the purposes of the last such confiscation order;

(b) the second assumption does not apply to any property which was held by him on or before the relevant day."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 164 [Postponement]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 75:
Page 100, line 35, at end insert—
"(11) A confiscation order must not be quashed only on the ground that there was a defect or omission in the procedure connected with the application for or the granting of a postponement.
(12) But subsection (11) does not apply if before it made the confiscation order the court—

(a) imposed a fine on the defendant;

(b) made an order falling within section 163(3);

(c) made an order under Article 14 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/2795 (N.I. 15)) (compensation orders)."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 165 [Effect of postponement]:
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Clause 168 [Provision of information by defendant]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 77:
Page 103, line 18, at end insert—
"(8) No information given under this section which amounts to an admission by the defendant that he has benefited from criminal conduct is admissible in evidence in proceedings for an offence."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 178 [Defendant neither convicted nor acquitted]:
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Clause 190 [Restraint orders]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 79:
Page 120, line 15, at end insert—
"() make provision for the payment of debts of the specified person incurred for full consideration before the restraint order was made"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
Clause 223 [Criminal lifestyle]:
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 83:
Page 139, line 14, at end insert "and the defendant has benefited from the conduct which constitutes the offence"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Lifestyle offences: Northern Ireland]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 86:
Page 278, line 5, at end insert—
"Directing terrorism
2A An offence under section 56 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c.11) (directing the activities of a terrorist organisation)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 232 [Property: general provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 not moved.]
Clause 243 [Proceedings for recovery orders in England and Wales or Northern Ireland]:
Lord Lloyd of Berwickmoved Amendment No. 89:
Page 147, line 12, at beginning insert "Subject to section 243A,"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the substantive amendment is Amendment No. 92. I apologise for the length of that amendment, but it brings together several of the concerns expressed in Committee, including those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Noble Lords on the Government Front Bench will, by now, know that I do not like Part 5 of the Bill. I wish that it were not there. I have learnt, however, that one cannot always get what one wants in this world, so my amendment is an attempt to improve Part 5 in two ways. First, it would remove what seem to me to be the worst of the injustices that Part 5 will produce. Secondly, it would make Part 5 less vulnerable to attack under the Human Rights Act 1998.
The amendment acknowledges that there may be cases in which the civil burden of proof is justifiable and appropriate. I have in mind, in particular, cases—referred to so often at Second Reading and in Committee—in which the offender is dead or is beyond the seas or cannot be brought before the court for some other reason. The amendment yields to the Government's desire to introduce a civil burden of proof in such cases, but it preserves the ordinary criminal burden of proof in cases in which the defendant is before the court and denies his guilt.

1265
Ministers have said on many occasions that the first preference must always be for a criminal trial, followed by the procedure under Part 2. That is as it should be, and I have no difficulty with it. But if the offender is entitled to trial by jury in cases where the evidence against him is strong enough to secure his conviction, why should he be deprived of his right to trial by jury where the evidence is not so strong? Where is the justice in that?
Indeed, it might be said to be contrary to the document regarded as the foundation of our civil liberties; I refer of course to the Magna Carta. Chapter 39 provides:
"Nor will [we] proceed against"—
I invite noble Lords to bear those words in mind—
"or prosecute any free man save by the lawful judgment of his peers".
Yet that seems to be the effect of Part 5, under which the alleged offender will have no right to the lawful judgment of his peers. As I understand it, it is then said that that does not matter because proceedings under Part 5 will not result in the offender's conviction. But the proceedings will result in a finding of guilt. For unless the alleged offender before the court has been found guilty, the judge will have no power to make a recovery order against him. That follows as night follows day from the interaction of Clauses 241, 242, 243 and 301.
Therefore, as the Bill stands, a defendant can be found guilty of the most serious crimes in the calendar on the civil burden of proof without the option of trial by jury. That cannot be right. The distinction between a conviction and a finding of guilt by the High Court judge is simply illusory.
I am also concerned about how Part 5 will work in practice. Where the defendant's guilt is in issue, I presume that he will be entitled to call witnesses in his defence. I presume also that he will be entitled to all the normal safeguards of a defendant in criminal proceedings. I need not remind your Lordships that he is entitled to a fair trial whether the proceedings are characterised as civil or criminal. If he is to have a fair trial, I presume that the director of the agency will have to give full disclosure of all relevant material in the normal way in accordance with the Attorney General's guidance. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney General will confirm in due course that that is so.
What happens if the defendant is after all found guilty by the judge of the underlying offence? I presume that he is entitled to appeal, but to whom does he appeal? I may have missed it, but I can find no reference to an appeal in Part 5. I assume that that is an oversight. The question then arises: is the appeal to be to the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal? If so, will the Master of the Rolls find sufficient Lords Justices to decide the cases? I assume that he has been consulted on the matter.
What test will the civil Court of Appeal apply in those circumstances? Will it be a rehearing, as is normal practice in civil appeals, or will the civil Court
1266
of Appeal apply the criminal test and allow the appeal only if the judge's verdict is unsafe? Alternatively, will the appeal be to the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal? I am sorry to ask so many questions, but surely we should be clear at this stage about where we are going.
I turn to the consequences of a finding of guilt by the judge. I shall take one illustration. Will the defendant, so convicted, have to declare that he has been found guilty under Part 5 when he fills out an application for a driving licence, or any of the innumerable forms that one has to fill in where one is asked whether one has been convicted or found guilty of an offence? I presume that the answer is yes, but surely that shows that we are in the field of criminal, not civil law. Surely it shows the difficulties that we shall get into if we try to make the civil courts do the work of the criminal courts, for which they are not fitted.
I remain to be convinced that the Government have considered those matters, as I hoped they would. I turn to another matter. It is said that civil and criminal proceedings often overlap in practice; for example, where a plaintiff brings civil proceedings for assault after being acquitted by a jury. Another example is civil proceedings for deceit or fraud.
There is a crucial and—to my mind—obvious difference between those cases and what will prevail under Part 5. In civil proceedings the basis of the plaintiff's claim is that he has suffered loss or damage. He is therefore entitled to take advantage of the civil burden of proof. But under Part 5 the plaintiff is the state. How can it be seriously argued that the state has suffered loss or damage by reason of the defender having stolen my motor car? If the state has not suffered loss or damage in those circumstances, the correct analogy is not a civil action for damages— whether for fraud or assault—but a fine, for which the burden should surely be the ordinary criminal burden of proof.
I turn to Amendment No. 92. Subsection (1) makes it clear that the amendment applies only to cases where the offender is before the court. It does not apply where the offender is dead, overseas, or otherwise unavailable. Subsection (2) entitles the defendant to go before a jury if he denies that he is guilty of the alleged offence. Subsection (3) is self-explanatory. Subsection (4) provides that the director must proceed under Part 2 if the offender is convicted. Where the question of guilt is decided by the judge, subsection (5) provides that he must apply the ordinary criminal burden of proof to that question, but that he may apply the civil burden of proof to all other questions. Subsection (6) is important because, if a defendant is found guilty, it ensures that the recovery order cannot antedate the Act's coming into force.
All retrospective legislation is undesirable. Retrospective penalties are more than undesirable; they are truly abhorrent. That is why they are forbidden by the second sentence of Article 7 of the convention. That merely puts into words what has always been the common law of England. I noted that when the noble and learned Lord the Attorney

1267
General was dealing with Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 today, he said that the defendant must always be entitled to know what the consequences of his wrongdoing will be before he commits the offence in question. Exactly the same reasoning applies here.
The noble and learned Lord said that Part 5 does not impose a penalty, but that is the very point which was decided against the United Kingdom in the case of Welch in 1994. It is said that Welch can be distinguished, for in that case the confiscation order was made after a conviction. That is true, but here it will be made after a finding of guilt by the judge and I ask where is the difference.
It is then said that in Welch it was a confiscation order and not a recovery order. That is true, but what kind of distinction is that? In both cases the state takes the defendant's money on the ground that it does not belong to him. One thing is absolutely clear from Welch and innumerable other cases at Strasbourg; that the enforcement of convention rights does not depend on distinctions of that kind.
Therefore, if in a case in which the judge has found the defendant guilty of the underlying offence, and if he goes on to make a recovery order against him, it is as certain as anything can be in law—and nothing is certain—that the Strasbourg court will follow its decision in Welch. That being so, a retrospective recovery order will surely be struck down.
I suggest, therefore, that it would be far better to confine the retrospective operation of Part 5 to those cases where the offender is not before the court—whether he is dead, overseas or whatever—because in those cases the retrospective order may at least stand a chance of being upheld. That will not be the case where the defendant has been convicted by the judge. That is what subsection (6) seeks to do.
I know that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney General takes a different view of Welch. He believes that the case can be distinguished. All I can say—and I say it with genuine respect—is that I feel bound to disagree with him. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I warmly support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I do so mainly because it overcomes the deficiencies of Part 5, to which he referred in detail in Committee, but also because it goes a long way towards reducing the anomaly that I pointed out in Committee. The anomaly arises because Clause 240(2) refers to,
"any proceedings brought for an offence in connection with the property".
However, Clause 241 states that:
"The court or sheriff must decide on a balance of probabilities whether it is proved … that any matters alleged to constitute unlawful conduct have occurred, or … that any person intended to use any cash in unlawful conduct".
It seemed to me that there was an anomaly—different burdens of proof arising in only slightly different circumstances—and that we have a duty to try to overcome it.
1268
Having made that point in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney General kindly said that I had made a helpful and important observation. Although Amendment No. 89 does not go quite as far as I suggested, it goes a long way towards removing the anomaly. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept it. I regard it as very important not merely in relation to the narrow point I have made but because it improves Part 5 of the Bill.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has done a great service by bringing forward the amendment. In Committee, the noble and learned Lord brought forward a much more radical proposal; to remove Part 5 altogether. We on these Benches were unable to accept that proposal because in certain circumstances we saw some merit in there being a civil recovery order, in particular where someone who had obtained a profit from crime had died or had taken refuge in a country from which he was unlikely to be extradited. However, today the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has tabled a more limited amendment which in an ingenious way deals with what 'we see as the fundamental problems with Part 5.
In Committee, we attacked the Government's proposals on two grounds where we felt that they were inconsistent with the Human Rights Act. First, as regards the burden of proof, we thought they were probably inconsistent. Secondly, as regards retrospectivity, we felt that the Government's proposals were almost certainly inconsistent with the Human Rights Act.
We have not come forward with similar amendments on Report because we take the view that having pointed out the problems which the Government face we are prepared to let them stew in their own juice and face the problems which we believe they will almost certainly face under the Human Rights Act. If the Government turn out to be right, they will have shown that our views were mistaken. If the Government, as we expect, turn out to be wrong, one can say that no harm has been done because the court will be able to come forward with a holding of incompatibility which will in practice force the Government to change the legislation.
Nevertheless, our views are strongly in support of the noble and learned Lord's present amendment and we on these Benches are happy to give him our full support for that purpose.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in Committee our position, broadly speaking, was similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. On the one hand, we were clear that the purpose behind Part 5 formed an important part of the overall objectives of the Bill. On the other hand, we were extremely concerned that the draft itself would not stand up to the scrutiny either of our own courts or that of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
During the debate in Committee, I was inclined to move closer to the absolutist position taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Very

1269
tellingly, he pointed out the central threat posed by the Bill to the right of trial by jury. Today he has put that essential question, most felicitously, to the Government once again by asking why a defendant should be denied trial by jury for an offence when the evidence is not strong enough to convict him of it. Surely that is the central criticism with regard to Part 5.
However, I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord has produced this quite ingenious draft which I fervently hope the Government accept.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, since Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has made clear his opposition to the civil recovery scheme set out in Part 5 of the Bill. I had thought that the Opposition Front Bench supported this part of the Bill. Later in my remarks I shall come back to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. We have debated this point on the Floor of the House and I have had the benefit of twice discussing these matters with the noble and learned Lord. I hope that he too feels that those discussions have been of some benefit. However, I have to say to him that we do not agree.
We do not agree on the question of whether the courts will decide that this is a civil and not a criminal process for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights. I have always made it clear that it will be for the courts to decide that question. I have also repeatedly made clear our view that the civil recovery process set out in Part 5 of the Bill will be found by our courts and by Strasbourg to be a civil matter. I draw much support and comfort for that view from recent decisions of the highest standing reached by the judicial Committee of your Lordships' House, of the Privy Council and of Strasbourg itself. I also draw comfort from a decision of the highest court in Ireland, the Irish Supreme Court, upholding a similar scheme.
The noble and learned Lord and I have crossed swords previously on this issue and I know that he takes a different view. I respect that entirely, but I must tell him that he has not budged me one iota to change my view during the course of our debates. We did not agree whether Part 5 would be an effective tool in putting out of circulation the working capital of crime; namely, the money that fuels a criminal system. That money has rightly been described by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, as having a corrosive effect.
The Government continue to believe, and had understood until now that they were joined in that belief by the Opposition Front Benches, that having a civil recovery procedure was essential in order to be able to deal with the corrosive effect of the working capital of crime. However, I note that, even if he is not persuaded on that point, the second part of the amendment tabled today by the noble and learned Lord no longer resists that proposition. That is because in all cases but one his amendment accepts that the civil recovery scheme will proceed in all respects.
1270
Let me cite an example. If the wife or associate of a person involved in organised crime holds the proceeds of crime but is not actually said to have committed the unlawful acts, then the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord would enable the entirety of the process under Part 5 to proceed. Property would be held to be recoverable in civil proceedings in accordance with the standard of proof applicable under the Bill—I shall return to that point: it is not a question of the burden of proof, but of the standard of proof—going back 12 years. That person would have to give up the proceeds that he or she was holding.
But the noble and learned Lord takes the position that if the person declares, "I am someone who ought to be suspected of being a criminal. I am the person who committed the crime rather than an accomplice or spouse holding the money. Thus I am entitled to be treated in an entirely different way", then the amendment would ensure the following. The spouse or accomplice would not have the right to insist on going to the Crown Court. The noble and learned Lord's amendment states that,
"he shall be entitled to have the question whether he is so guilty determined in a separate trial by the Crown Court".
By what process? Is that to be a criminal trial in the ordinary way? From what the noble and learned Lord said in previous debates, I understood that it would be. But we must bear in mind that, by this stage, the prosecution will have considered whether it is proper to bring criminal proceedings against the defendant. It will have decided that it is not proper because there is no realistic prospect of conviction. Perhaps the evidence does not demonstrate sufficiently the person concerned, who may have successfully distanced himself from the actual crimes while in fact being at the centre of the criminal web. The prosecution will have already decided that that person should not be prosecuted.
Under the terms of the amendment, I presume that the prosecutor would have to say, "I cannot proceed with a prosecution against this person because I have had to conclude that there is insufficient evidence". So, under the amendment, that person will be entitled to be acquitted. It will follow as night follows day that he will then escape Part 5 of the Act altogether.
Let us look at why there may not be sufficient evidence. I could cite many examples, but I shall take only one, which I am sorry to say is not an unusual case. Someone at the centre of a criminal organisation may succeed in distancing himself sufficiently from the criminal acts themselves so that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate actual criminal participation on his part. Witnesses may decline to come forward because they feel intimidated. Alternatively, there may be strong evidence that the luxury house—I shall not mention in which part of the country it might be—the yachts and the fast motor cars have not been acquired by any lawful activity because none is apparent.
It may also be plain from intelligence that the person is someone engaged in criminal activity, but it may not be clear what type of crime. It could be drug trafficking, money laundering or bank robbery. However, the prosecution may not be able to say

1271
exactly what is the crime, and thus the person will be entitled to he acquitted of each and every offence. If, in a criminal trial, the prosecution cannot prove that the person before the court is in fact guilty of this bank robbery or that act of money laundering, then he is entitled to be acquitted. Yet it is as plain as a pikestaff that his money has been acquired as the proceeds of crime.
We would see the extraordinary result whereby the spouse or associate—the "little man" in the circumstances—would be subjected to the full vigour of Part 5, but the person suspected of being guilty of far worse crimes, even though it cannot be proved, would go scot free. What drives us forward to that extraordinary result? Two reasons have been put forward by the noble and learned Lord and I must respond by saying that, with respect, I believe both of them to be plain wrong.
The first is an appeal to Magna Carta, to say time and again that the person will be convicted of a crime. Perhaps I may take a moment to remind the House exactly what Part 5 provides. Under Clause 264, the court seeks to answer the question whether particular property is recoverable property. The question is directed at the property, which is defined in Clause 301 as,
"Property obtained through unlawful conduct".
That is defined in Clause 241, but we need not go into that because everyone would understand what that may be. It is directed at the property and not at the individual. 1t is not a conviction.
I answer the noble and learned Lord's questions without equivocation. If in the course of civil proceedings a judge finds as a fact that someone has been guilty of criminal misconduct, it is not a conviction and he does not go to gaol. Mr. Oscar Wilde did not go to gaol as a result of losing the libel action but because he was subsequently prosecuted. They are quite different things. It does not have to be put on the driving licence application because it is not a conviction. It is a commonplace in the civil courts that serious and sometimes criminal misconduct is tried in civil proceedings and determined by High Court judges.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord recalls an occasion when he was still a puisne judge and I was an even punier barrister—if noble Lords will forgive the pun—in a case called The Good Helmsman. That case concerned a Greek shipowner and a brother-in-law who was said to have chartered a vessel. The noble and learned Lord may recall that after 50 days his judgment began by saying that it was a case in which it was plain that both sides were lying. What the noble and learned Lord had to decide was which of them was lying most. But not only did he find, plainly rightly, that both of them were lying, he also found that my client was guilty of forgery, that he was also guilty of putting forward a document to a bank with the intention of deceiving it and obtaining property by deception and that the other side was party to that, too. So in the course of that judgment the noble and learned Lord found crime, misconduct and most
1272
serious moral turpitude on the part of both parties. It happens also in libel actions; it also happens in claims where people seek to recover their property.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I do not have much recollection of the case, but I do recollect that the state was not a party to those proceedings.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, indeed it was not, but that does not detract one jot from the argument which is that it is not a criminal proceeding and neither is it a conviction or holding somebody guilty of an offence when in the course of civil proceedings these matters are dealt with.
What is the standard of proof by which those issues are determined? As I said on a previous occasion—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, may find it helpful—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, said in the case of In re: H, and as I have repeatedly noted, when the courts are faced with a question of serious misconduct or criminal misconduct, while they apply what is still termed "the balance of probabilities", they apply it in a way which recognises that the stronger and more serious the allegation, the less likely it is that the event occurred and hence—I quote the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls,
"the stronger should be the evidence before the court concludes that the allegation is established on the balance of probability".
The Government have consistently said that this flexible standard on the balance of probabilities is what judges will apply when dealing with this procedure.
The first argument that is put forward is that this is a conviction and that there ought to be a trial by jury. It is impractical and divisive. It produces an extraordinary differential result between people who are more guilty who get away with it and those who are less guilty and do not.
The second argument that the noble and learned Lord puts forward, which he and I discussed, is his reliance on the case of Welch. Article 7 of the European Convention prohibits someone being guilty of a criminal offence on account of an act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence when it was committed. It continues by saying that it also prohibits a heavier penalty following a criminal conviction for a criminal offence than the one applicable at the time. The Welch case makes it plain that Article 7 applies only in circumstances where one is looking at a penalty following a criminal conviction for a criminal offence. I do not say that it is distinguishable, but that it does not have anything to do with this issue. 1t is not following a criminal conviction, but in the course of a civil procedure. That is the very important difference between them.
Mr Welch was charged with a number of counts of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs. He was convicted on five counts and sentenced to 22 years' imprisonment. In addition to that, the penalty of a confiscation order was imposed. The court said that

1273
that was a penalty following his conviction and so it was. That is not the same situation as when, in the course of civil proceedings, a question is raised as to whether or not recoverable property is the proceeds of crime and whether the person guilty of the crime or someone else ought to be allowed to keep it.
In that case the court in Strasbourg also identified five features which it said made it a penalty. I do not want to weary your Lordships about some of them, but there is no room for argument about three of them. First, the penalty in the Welch case led to imprisonment in itself if the confiscation order was not paid. That does not happen under this part of the Bill. If the civil proceeds that the court adjudges should be paid are not paid, it is a civil debt like any other. It does not lead to imprisonment.
Secondly, in that case there were statutory assumptions to which the court referred. There are no such assumptions in Part 5 of the Bill. Thirdly, the court noted that there was a discretion in the court to adjust the order depending on its view of the culpability of the person involved. That does not arise under Part 5. The only question is whether the High Court judge is satisfied that the property is the proceeds of crime, but it is recoverable property. If it is, it goes back because the person has no right to keep it. The key point is that in Welch that was post the conviction. It was part of the process of sentencing, but that is not what is happening under Part 5 of the Bill.
For those reasons I respectfully say that the noble and learned Lord is wrong in the amendment which has been put forward. It is an unworkable, impractical and a nonsensical amendment to draw the distinction between the person who is suspected of serious conduct but who gets away with things and the person who is accepted to be lower down the food chain and who does not.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on the Benches opposite that if the Government were forced to an amendment which accepted that it would not be possible—that would be the effect of this amendment—to pursue by the civil recovery route people who were suspected themselves of criminal misconduct, that would blow a huge hole in this Bill. It would be the exact opposite of the assurance given by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, at Second Reading that it was the intention of the Benches opposite to make this legislation work.
I have spoken directly in relation to this amendment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept the spirit in which I did so. However, the Government cannot accept the amendment and I invite him to withdraw it.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord made a reference to the Opposition Front Bench, I would point out that it wants this Bill to work. That is precisely why we have made the speeches we have about Part 5 of the Bill.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have given me support. The
1274
noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General is perfectly right to point out that in this amendment I have abandoned my preferred position. I believe he knows what that is. The amendment was put forward in a spirit of compromise in the hope that the Government might be able to accept it as an improvement to the Bill. That has not proved to be the case so I leave it there for the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I propose that the House be re-convened not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Foot and Mouth Disease
7.30 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Brokerose to ask Her Majesty's Government on what basis they believe that the contiguous cull policy carried out during last year's foot and mouth epidemic was legal.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my reason for introducing this Unstarred Question is that while the legality of the contiguous cull has often been questioned in the House in our debates on the Animal Health Bill and the livestock industry, as well as in the debate on a Starred Question brought forward by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, we have not yet had a satisfactory answer to the questions put forward.
When challenged as to the legality of the cull, the Minister has given two answers. His most recent answer was in a reply to a Written Question from my noble friend Lady Byford, where he stated:
"The Animal Health Act 1981 provides for the slaughter of animals which are infected with foot and mouth disease (FMD) or suspected of being so infected and of animals which have been in contact with affected animals or which appear to the Minister to have been in any way exposed to the infection of foot and mouth disease. This is the legal basis of the contiguous cull".—[Official Report, 20/5/02; col. WA80.]
The Minister has accurately summarised the provisions of the Act but his conclusion is quite wrong. The Act deals very specifically with animals that have been "exposed" to foot and mouth disease, not with the possibility of animals being exposed at some remote time in the future. On the best available scientific evidence, much of it from the Pirbright Institute, which is part-funded by MAFF—or DEFRA now—the vast majority of animals slaughtered under the contiguous cull policy could not have been so exposed. That is the clear result of the evidence.
Of course, that is precisely why the Minister introduced the Animal Health Bill, the amendment to the Animal Health Act, to give him the power, which was not given under the Animal Health Act, to slaughter any animal the Minister thinks should be

1275
slaughtered, whether or not the animal had been exposed to foot and mouth disease. In other words, the power to carry out the contiguous cull.
The Minister also based his assertion that the contiguous cull was legal on two court cases. In his response to a debate on the livestock industry in April, the noble Lord said:
"Various issues were raised in the debate, the most acute of which was the legality of the cull. I shall cite just two cases: MAFF v Winslade, which we won in the English courts; and Westerhall Farms v Scottish Ministers, which we won in the Scottish courts … The legality of the cull is not in doubt".—[Official Report, 17/4/02; col. 983.]
Again, that conclusion is wrong. Both decisions were badly flawed because of the lack of scientific evidence presented in those court cases.
The real problem with the Winslade case—and the problem that goes to the heart of the Minister's assertion that the contiguous cull has been tested in the courts—is that, for whatever reason, not all the relevant scientific evidence was made available. The most persuasive evidence, which was later to blow the Government's case completely out of the water in MAFF v Upton, was two articles written by Dr Donaldson of the Institute of Animal Health at Pirbright. The institute is one of the foremost establishments in the world dealing with foot and mouth research, and Dr Donaldson is an acknowledged expert on the subject.
Dr Donaldson's papers concerned the risk of airborne spread, which was central to the Winslade case. The Donaldson papers confirmed, first, that infected sheep could not spread infection more than 100 metres, even downwind; and, secondly, that intensified clinical surveillance would be an appropriate alternative to immediate culling. It is highly likely that had this evidence been presented to the court, the judge in the Winslade case would have come to a very different decision.
Why was this evidence not available to the court? MAFF was seeking an emergency injunction, and thus counsel for Mr Winslade had only a few hours notice to prepare her case, and Mr Winslade was virtually a prisoner on his farm because he had been served with a movement restriction notice. In cases where applications for injunctions are made and inadequate notice is given to the defendant—I understand that the relevant time period is three days—the applicant for such an injunction is obliged under the rules of civil procedure to make full and frank disclosure of all relevant facts, even if they are unfavourable to the applicant's case.
The Donaldson papers were published in the British Veterinary Record on 12th May, but had been seen by senior MAFF officials in late April. The Winslade case was heard on 22nd May, so there was plenty of time for the ministry to have put that scientific evidence to the court. Why was this crucial evidence not made available to the court? Was it because of simple incompetence, or was it deliberate? Why was I told in a Written Answer from the Minister that the ministry had complied with the civil procedure rules when submitting evidence in the Winslade case?
1276
The critical importance of this scientific evidence was shown in the Upton case in June last year—the case of Grunty the pig, as it is known—when it led to the judge finding against MAFF, refusing it the right to appeal and awarding costs to the defendant, 'The Minister shakes his head, but all he has to do is to read the transcript of the trial to see that that is what swayed the judge, Mr Justice Harrison, in that case. Thus, in the absence of that scientific evidence, the Winslade decision cannot possibly be viewed as authoritative and certainly cannot be taken as the bedrock case which legalises, once and for all, the contiguous cull.
The Westerhall case, the second of the cases referred to by the Minister, gives even less support to his contention that it legitimises the contiguous cull. That decision was given on 25th April, before Dr Donaldson's papers had been published—although, again, it is likely that senior MAFF officials had seen that evidence. Dr Donaldson's research is, after all, part-funded by MAFF so they would certainly have seen drafts. In any case, the Westerhall case was dealt with as a three-kilometre cull case. Without the benefit of the Donaldson scientific evidence, again it is extremely doubtful whether the Westerhall case can be cited as justifying the contiguous cull policy.
The real bedrock case—if the Minister is looking for a bedrock case for or against the contiguous cull—was the Upton case, where Dr Donaldson's scientific evidence was produced by the defending solicitors. This won the day for the defendants and, as I said, costs were awarded against the ministry with no right of appeal. The proof of that pudding as that following the decision in the Upton case—the first case based on correct science—the ministry, when faced with a legal challenge on the contiguous cull, almost invariably backed down, confining itself to blackguarding the farmers and lawyers concerned.
The contiguous cull was a vastly expensive and unnecessary disaster. As Dr Donaldson said last week when giving evidence to the EU inquiry:
"There was no justification for the 3Km or the CC policy, which were both novel and untested".
When giving evidence at the same inquiry, Professor Fred Brown, also recognised throughout the world as an expert on foot and mouth, who used to be head of the Pirbright Institute before moving to America, said that,
"the barbaric conduct in Britain last year was a disgrace to humanity".
It now appears that that "barbaric conduct" was not sanctioned by law and that the legal bases which the Minister cites as justifying the contiguous cull in fact do nothing of the kind.
I conclude by asking the Minister to answer the following simple questions. First, whether he accepts that relevant scientific evidence was not put before the court in the Winslade case, even though that evidence was available to and read by the ministry. Secondly, why that evidence was not put before the court in the Winslade case. Thirdly, whether that evidence had been received before the decision in the Westerhall case. Fourthly, whether he now accepts that those

1277
decisions would not have gone the ministry's way had that evidence not been suppressed. Fifthly, and finally, can the noble Lord say why the ministry never fought a case for an injunction to enable a contiguous cull to proceed after the decision in the Upton case?
If the Minister is unable to answer these questions today, perhaps he will at least undertake to write to me and put a copy of his answers in the Library of the House.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke has given us this opportunity to raise yet again the problems of foot and mouth. Farming is still in crisis. The price of milk is going through the floor, and the price of lamb, beef and grain is at rock bottom. Generally, farmers have a great lack of confidence in the future, with a Secretary of State who is so keen to adjust the CAP—which inevitably means that there will be less for farming but more for the environment. No one understands how we shall get the same amount of money out of the environment as we do out of production.
One cannot condense into the seven minutes allowed all the recent reports on foot and mouth: the results of the European Union inquiry, the report of the Royal Society which is to be published next month, and particularly the National Audit Office report which is so damaging to the Government. The NAO report is critical of the Government for not having made sufficient contingency plans for a major outbreak such as we had to put up with last year.
I farm in Scotland, at the very heart of the area in the Borders where foot and mouth broke out. I lost my sheep flock under the three-kilometre cull. Like all my neighbours, we practised isolation—biosecurity, as it is termed. We locked the gates, the children did not go to school, and we hoped that we should all survive. But on Easter Saturday last year, the ministry vet telephoned, in the afternoon my own vet came to inspect the sheep and the valuer arrived. On Easter Sunday, the sheep were all killed—the ewes, the tups and the lambs. It was sympathetically and humanely done, but it was a great personal disaster for the farm.
All this happened too quickly for us to protest. Indeed, none of us would have protested—we believed that this was being done on ministry advice in order to help to stop the spread of foot and mouth as quickly as possible. However, it is important to note the difference between the contiguous cull—a cull that takes place next door to an infected farm: just over the farm dyke, the fence or the hedge—and the three-kilometre cull, where the farm could be two to three kilometres away from an outbreak of the disease.
The National Audit Office has described both decisions-on the contiguous cull and on the three—kilometre cull—as "highly controversial". I hope that in replying the Minister will expand on how he treated the differences between the two categories.
1278
Under the Animal Health Act 1981, the Minister has a power to slaughter under four headings. The first three are: infected animals—of course, I agree; animals suspected of being infected—I agree; and animals in contact with infected animals—I accept that all those would have to be slaughtered. But the fourth ground—which the Minister set out in a letter, for which I am grateful—is if animals,
"appear to the Minister to have in any way been exposed to infection".
That is a highly subjective reason for culling animals. I should like a little more information from the Minister as to how he came to a decision, with the ministry vets, on this very subjective basis.
This is an important point. Of the 650,000 head slaughtered in Scotland, 77 per cent were slaughtered under the terms of the three-kilometre cull; 20 per cent under the terms of the contiguous cull—animals right next door to the infection; and 3 per cent on a suspicion. So the vast majority of the stock killed in Scotland were killed as a result of a decision under the Animal Health Act and were not, in fact, next door to farms that had foot and mouth.
My noble friend mentioned the Westerhall case. The farm was very near to my home, and the case involved a hefted flock on a hill farm. As the Minister knows, hefted flocks stay put on their area of land on a hill farm. They do not wander over the march fence or the march boundaries. They know where they live and they stay there. Westerhall was on the opposite side of the hill to a farm where there was a contiguous cull. In the view of all the local farmers there was only the remotest chance of that hill flock having been in contact with another flock. The decision of the Court of Session in Scotland was that they had to be culled. That is the kind of case that we need to examine carefully to see whether we got it right. The majority of practical farmers thought that in that case we got it wrong.
In all of this, the State Veterinary Service is desperately important. It is unbelievable to me that the Government are cutting back on this UK issue. The Minister is responsible. According to the National Audit Office report, the Animal Health Act is devolved to Scotland—except, according to Appendix 5 of the report, the State Veterinary Service, which is on a UK basis as animal disease is no respecter of national boundaries. So the Minister at DEFRA is responsible for the National Veterinary Service. I want to know what the position is in Scotland and in England relative to the reduction in the National Veterinary Service as reported widely in the press a week or so ago.
It is important that the United Kingdom co-operates and co-ordinates throughout on the issue of foot and mouth. At present, there is something of a split between Scotland and England. Last week, Scotland produced a consultation document which all farmers in Scotland feel is far too complacent. For instance, the Army is to be called in only as a last resort. Yet if the Army had not been called in belatedly by the Government during the last outbreak, heaven knows where the outbreak would have ended up. The

1279
Army saved the Government, and saved farming, from a real crisis last year. That should be recorded. The Scottish Executive is very wrong if it tries to make the Army merely a backstop in relation to foot and mouth.
I hope that the Government will think closely about the distribution of information during a foot and mouth outbreak. Last time, there were a number of holes in the information that people received. That must never happen again. Lastly, I hope that the Minister will say something about exports to this country. The Government continue to say that they are doing something, but, so far as we know, nothing is happening at ports and airports. So let us have a response on that point and let us never have foot and mouth in this country again.
7.47 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, coming from north of the Border, my approach is perhaps slightly different from that of my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, but many of our questions focus on the same kind of issues. First, I declare an interest as someone who has a livestock farm and who spent only 18 hours under the terms of a Notice A form when my farm was a suspected infected place. We were very relieved to have that restriction lifted. When it came to establishing the view of the courts in the latest outbreak, the Scots may not have been the first to go to law, but they did so quite early on—on 25th April. My noble friend Lord Monro referred to the Westerhall case. It turns out to be important, because much of that judgment was relied on in the further case used by the Government; namely, the Winslade case.
My noble friend Lord Monro described the situation on Westerhall farm: the fact that the boundary it shared with the infected farm at Bush of Ewes was a 400-metre high piece of boggy ground known as Meg's Shank. The owner was very nearly certain that there was no chance that any sheep were likely to have been in that area given the time of year and the management of sheep at that time. Furthermore, at the time in question the infected farm was to the north east of the farm and the wind was blowing from the south west, away from Westerhall.
This case, as my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke pointed out, pre-dated the publication by Professor Donaldson on 12th May in the Veterinary Record concerning wind-borne infection. But, on the evidence produced, the judge came to the view that the Secretary of State "had grounds to believe" that infection could have occurred and that was why he gave the judgment that he did.
The important point about the Westerhall case was that the judge did attempt to sort out some of the other issues raised. One was that European Directive 85/511 laid down control measures which were not,
"intended to be comprehensive and exhaustive".
Therefore, further actions by the Government under the Animal Health Act 1981 were allowed.
The other critical point made in that judgment was that, however rigorously enforced the policy was, it should not be so rigid as to be incapable of delivering
1280
a proportionate response in a particular case. The fact that the petitioners had been given the opportunity to argue for an exception was regarded as sufficient proof that there was flexibility. The judgment also ruled out any infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights in the implementation of the cull if, as the judge considered at that point, it was carried out legally. Of course, if it turned out that the cull was carried out illegally, the human rights question would be thrown open again. However, there was no examination in that case of whether the Minister's judgment on whether there was a risk should be subject to inquiry by the courts. That may need to be looked at a bit more carefully.
While referring extensively to Lord Carloway's judgment, the Winslade case seems much more particular, centred around whether the Minister had grounds to suspect infection in certain named circumstances, so it does not produce a great deal of precedent for other cases.
The Grunty the pig case came back to the position that contiguous cull cases must be considered on their own merits, particularly if the farmer questions the position. It does not seem to me that the whole cull was illegal and that every farmer had the right to go to law in his own case. With the powers that these cases regard as legitimate, I find it difficult to see why the Government do not find that they have sufficient powers at present for executing a proper control of foot and mouth disease.
I have a question for the Minister arising out our debate on 8th May. It is very similar to a point made by my noble friend Lord Monro. Is it the Government's view that the contiguous cull was somehow under different rules from what was described as "slaughter within a 3-kilometre radius", which was used in the Westerhall case—the 3 km cull, in shortened form—or are the two terms interchangeable?
The Animal Health Bill, which we considered recently, contained a vast extension of the Minister's powers, as if that was where the fault lay. The fault was much more that the rules for the cull were badly judged. The policy was too widely and unthinkingly drawn up and was bound to lead to irrational and over-vigorous application by field operatives, even those of a fairly high level of authority. History can now tell what it was like when let loose by those charged with implementing it at each farm.
The Minister has argued recently in this House that many of the powers envisaged in the Animal Health Bill were necessary for carrying out the Government's responsibilities on the control of TSEs. Foot and mouth disease is very different, in particular as, with TSEs, the Government seem to see no practical difference between an EU regulation concerning suspect animals and a UK one concerning susceptible ones.
Having got that element out of the way, why does the Minister still think that additional powers are necessary for controlling foot and mouth disease?
7.54 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I have little to add to the three erudite speeches that have cast such doubt on the legality of the so-called contiguous cull—or mass slaughter, as it obviously was—so I shall go a little further and ask what would have been the point of the slaughter even if it had been legal. It is surely not right to do something incredibly cruel and ruinously expensive just because one believes—wrongly, as it appears in this case—that one has the legal power to do it.
As I understand it, there are two official answers to my question. I should like to check them with the Minister. The first is that we are in the European Union, so we must obey its common agricultural policy and all its rules about meat exports and imports and we must respect its dislike of vaccination. Will the noble Lord confirm that that is the legal position?
The second official answer is that our meat exports are so valuable to our farming industry and to the national economy that they must be protected at almost any cost.
We now know from the National Audit Office that these two policies cost the British taxpayer £8,000 million in last year's foot and mouth epidemic—£3,000 million to our farming industry and £5,000 million to our tourism industry. Are our meat exports so valuable? Not according to Written Answers that I received from the Minister on 24th April and 25th March this year. They reveal that the total value of our exports of meat and meat preparations, including poultry meat, amounted to a mere £615 million in 2000, which was before the foot and mouth epidemic started. The Minister also revealed that the value of our corresponding meat imports for 2000 was almost four times greater than our exports, at £2,417 million. The answer that the Government refused to vaccinate and embarked on such costly and cruel mass slaughter to protect our meat export trade does not appear to stand up. I repeat, in a normal year we spend roughly four times as much on meat imports as we get from our meat exports—about £1,800 million more. Rather than going through all that misery and expense again, would it matter if we vaccinated, even at the cost of some of our exports, which we could presumably eat here and import correspondingly less?
What about the other official answer, to the effect that we had to avoid vaccination and inflict all that immense damage on our farming industry and economy because we have to obey EU law in this as in every other way? What is the legal position? Here again, the Government's figures make our continued adherence to the common agricultural policy look crazy. Your Lordships are aware that the burden of the CAP falls on our consumers through higher food prices and on our taxpayers through tax-financed support. The net annual cost of the CAP is therefore the difference between the sum of those two costs and what our farmers get back from the CAP. On that basis, the Government's Answers in another place—for instance, on 25th November 1999 and 8th January 2001—indicate a minimum net annual cost to the
1282
British taxpayer of the CAP in 1998 of £6,600 million. The OECD put it rather higher, at £9,400 million. Even those figures include a credit from the EU of £2,400 million, which was part of the £5 billion-odd repaid by the EU from the £10 billion-odd gross that the UK paid to the EU.
Let us settle for the minimum figure of £6,600 million per annum, as calculated by the Government. Let us even concede—although I have no reason to do so—that the cost of the CAP may have come down since 1998 and may now be, shall we say, a mere £5,000 million per annum. That is still a colossal figure. To get it into perspective, £5,000 million would pay for about eight new district hospitals—the land bought and the hospitals built, equipped and staffed to run indefinitely. That is the sort of money that we are throwing away every year on the CAP alone. If we did not do so, surely we could use at least some of the resulting saving to look after our farmers and our environment, with several thousand million pounds per annum to spare.
Against such figures, why is the meat export trade held to be so valuable? Why do the Government think it is worth staying in the common agricultural policy? In short, why do we not get out of the CAP and why do we not vaccinate?
7.59 p.m.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Lord's remarks about the CAP. If we boil down the debate, it is about whether the contiguous cull was legal. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, has given a forensic analysis of the court cases. I cannot argue because I do not have the detailed information. However, it seems that the interpretation of words such as "infected" and "affected" is a part of the maze of information surrounding the regulations made possible originally by the Animal Health Act 1981.
The fact is that 6.5 million animals were destroyed, about 1.25 million as a direct result of the contiguous cull. Depending on how one interprets the figures, it is possible to claim that a larger number of animals were destroyed. We lost a large proportion of our ewe flock and a massive number of animals, the cost running into many billions of pounds. In my part of Powys we lost 155,000 animals; 66,000 were contiguously culled. The interesting question is how those animals will be replaced. Much more dependence will be placed on meat imports as we no longer have our own animals. Although I am a firm supporter of the EU, I am very alarmed by its proposals to increase, for example, the quotas of Argentinean beef. As we know, foot and mouth is endemic in many parts of Argentina. I do not believe that those proposals should be given effect. Surely, we must maintain precautionary measures in relation to any country where foot and mouth is endemic.
The 2001 foot and mouth outbreak was a very traumatic time. The outbreak was UK wide, but the worst hit areas were probably Cumbria, Devon and Dumfriesshire, with my own area of Powys fairly close

1283
behind. A massive number of sheep were culled in our hills, many of them in contiguous culls. I shall give but one example of my worries about the contiguous cull.
One cull was conducted primarily at the Royal Welsh Showground, but subsequently the sheep proved not to be infected. The suspicion arose that they had the disease because of a visual assessment by a 25-year-old South African veterinarian. I can just about accept that. What I cannot accept is that the animals of two neighbours on the other side of the river were consequently contiguously culled. The cull spread to Mynydd Eppynt, which was then declared an infected area. It was then decided to establish a mass burial site at Mynydd Eppynt. We fought that plan for a fortnight and were eventually successful. The fact, however, is that the area had no foot and mouth. The case shows how a contiguous cull can move sideways until a much more serious situation develops.
We shall have to consider not only the powers in the Animal Health Act 1981, but the recent outbreak and what other powers are needed. In their new Bill, the Government are requesting increased powers of entry which could be quite traumatic for farmers. As has been said, animals which appear to have been exposed to foot and mouth disease are subject to culling. The Minister has said that the contiguous cull was "necessary to contain" the disease and that "apparently" healthy animals were culled on neighbouring farms to prevent the disease spreading. In an outbreak as large as that in 2001, such a policy becomes a very emotive issue. I say that as one who lived through the 1967 outbreak in the north of England. In the legislation proposed this year, the Government are asking for the power to slaughter and for increased powers of entry and enforcement. However, the 1981 Act already allows the Government to slaughter any animals appearing to have been exposed to foot and mouth.
In June 2001, the policy was to slaughter infected animals within 24 hours of confirmation and contiguously culled animals within 48 hours. Animals on holdings that had close contact with infected holdings were slaughtered as dangerous contacts. There were 69 appeals against slaughter, most of which were on the basis of misdiagnosis. Although the main slaughter criteria were based on controlling the disease among animals at risk, I believe that that is a subjective interpretation of the law. The legislation provides that such action can be taken "if he"—the Minister—"thinks fit".
The new Bill seeks to address the issue of whether the action in 2001 was taken on a satisfactory legal basis—namely the previous Act. As we have heard, the point was tested in the courts, although I shall not address that issue now. The Government say that they require greater enforcement powers in relation to future foot and mouth outbreaks. That suggests to me that they were already sailing very close to the wind in the 2001 crisis.
According to the criteria, vaccinated animals can in future be slaughtered. The Government also require the ability to take fast-track action. The main objective
1284
is to eliminate disease. However, the culling of apparently healthy animals as a firebreak is very difficult for farmers and their families. There are some very important points to consider. Why do we not have a method to test instantly? Although it would be a technological breakthrough, why cannot we ask Pirbright to devise a way of determining within an hour whether an animal is positive? If we could do that, we should certainly be able to slaughter infected animals well before the 24-hour limit. Things got out of control in 2001.
Surely, we also need a major contingency plan that includes a sufficient number of vets. However, I do not blame the Government for the shortage. In 1980, there were about 623 vets, whereas, as we know, there were just under 300 in 2000–01. Most of those vets were lost in the 1980s and early 1990s. We need to return that number to 620 to 700 to be able to tackle loot and mouth. About six years ago, I said that we would not be able to cope with a foot and mouth epidemic. Unfortunately, that turned out to be true.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I remind him that he has exceeded the time limit. He is now in the tenth minute of his speech.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the Whip on duty I accept that rebuke. However, there is a little extra time. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will finish now.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I shall finish very quickly. We need enough vets, a contingency plan, a crackdown on meat imports, proper surveillance and a large increase in regional rendering capacity. If all that were done, contiguous culls would not be so necessary.
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am looking at the Whip and thinking, "May I have my minutes too?" However, I shall try to stay within the seven minutes.
I thank my noble friend Lord Willoughby die Broke for securing this debate. The Government's contiguous cull policy during last year's foot and mouth outbreak caused great consternation when it was introduced and resulted in thousands of uninfected animals being killed. At the time the Government failed to convince those who questioned the legality of a contiguous cull. This debate gives the Minister an opportunity to consider the many questions posed then and raised again tonight. I hope that he will fully respond.
I again remind the House of my family's fanning interests, although we were not directly affected by the outbreak.
My questions to the Government are fairly simple. On what basis were the Government convinced that their contiguous cull was legal? Did the Government seek approval from the European Commission as to its legality and, if so, when was it given?

1285
On 23rd March 2001, the Chief Scientific Adviser recommended that, following modellers, animals on contiguous premises where it was believed that animals had been exposed to infection should be culled. But some vets and scientific advisers argued that local circumstances and adequate biosecurity measures should be taken into account before a contiguous cull was carried out.
As others have said, on 12th May Dr Alex Donaldson of the Institute for Animal Health considered that action taken on contiguous premises should be determined by the species at risk on those premises—sheep are at risk due to the difficulty of diagnosis and cattle should be subjected to intensified clinical surveillance. On 26th April 2001, more veterinary resources were made available for patrolling. That was welcome.
As I said, vets were allowed to give greater consideration to cattle, especially milking cows. After much argument in this House, the Government acknowledged that rare breeds should be assessed separately rather than be automatically included in a contiguous cull. Will the Minister clarify how and when that decision was taken?
At the time the NFU accepted the necessity for the contiguous cull and the three-kilometre culls but welcomed greater flexibility. What made the Government change their mind about fully applying a total cull on contiguous farms, as they did in the early stages? Were the Government given new legal advice that made them change their mind and, if so, when was that advice received and from whom did it come?
My noble friends have referred to the Rosemary Upton case. It is the only case in which the judge based his evidence on the scientific evidence that was available. It swayed him to come down in favour of Rosemary Upton. On previous occasions when we have raised the matter, the Minister has not responded fully. I hope that he will respond fully tonight as it is an extremely important matter. I have considered other cases but the Rosemary Upton case stands alone. If the Government were so rigid about the matter, why was Phoenix the calf spared? What scientific reason was there for the decision taken by the Prime Minister?
By the end of April 2001, Clarke Wilmott Clarke argued that the contiguous cull was illegal within EU law. Directive 85/511 stated that only infected animals could be killed. William Neville from Burgess Salmon argued that the Government withdrew from seven out of the nine cases that he represented. Why did that happen? What was the reason for the Government not pursuing those seven cases? How did the Government decide which cases to proceed with and which ones to withdraw from?
On 6th November 2001, Mr Morley was challenged in the House of Commons Select Committee on the legality of the contiguous cull. He responded that the Government were confident that the culling had been absolutely legal and that a court ruling had not challenged that. So how does the Minister explain the ruling of the judge in the Rosemary Upton case? I refer
1286
also to the Exeter based solicitor, Alayn Addy, who represented 200 farmers, none of whose livestock subsequently developed the disease. I am pleased to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is present. She and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, have argued that the fact that livestock did not develop the disease did not mean that they did not run a risk of doing so. To a certain extent I accept that. However, I need to push the Minister further rather than accepting a rather broad brush approach. I hope that he will discuss that matter when he responds to the debate.
I understand that MAFF stated that it was not confined by EU directive 85/511 but was overruled by the Animal Health Act 1981 which widened out the matter to include animals which a veterinary official might, on his discretion, have reasonable grounds for supposing had been exposed to infection. Did the Government raise that issue with the European Commission and, if so, when? My noble friends the Duke of Montrose and Lord Monro raised the whole question of the balance and the difference between the contiguous cull and the three-kilometre cull. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
On 26th March this year the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, following my question about the need for additional powers in the Animal Health Bill, said,
"The issue is whether the House wishes to deprive the Government of powers which in their judgment the Government consider are wanting for the period between the passage of this Bill and a point at which we can further legislate".—[Official Report, 26/3/02; col. 195.]
I hope that the noble Lord will define what those powers are that he felt that he did not have and that he sought in the Animal Health Bill. The noble Lord went on to say that,
"in particular in carrying out a contiguous cull … we do not have adequate powers of entry or rapid enough powers for enforcing entry in order to contain the disease".—[Official Report, 26/3/02; col 196.]
We need to have that matter clarified.
As others have said, the farming industry is still in deep crisis. The Government must appreciate that there are still concerns and doubts about the contiguous cull. Tonight the Minister has the chance to redress the situation. I express my concern in regard to the cut in finance allocated to animal health research. There may be a misunderstanding as regards the figures that were mentioned in another place. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am to some extent grateful for having the opportunity to clarify the position yet again. A number of the points raised by noble Lords addressed concerns in the farming community and beyond. Others slipped into paranoia and conspiracy theories. I should have thought that by now we would have moved away from that. As I have said before in this House, it is quite understandable that within the farming community there was much confusion and mistrust and that allegations were made during the course of the epidemic which overwhelmed us all. It is understandable that such allegations were

1287
made in the heat of the moment. However, it is not reasonable that some of those allegations should be repeated several months later when we have had time to reflect on the disease and are in the process of receiving a number of well founded inquiries into how well or how badly the Government dealt with the outbreak and how well or how badly the farming community dealt with it.
However, this debate is focused on legality. I make it quite clear—as several noble Lords have almost explicitly said—that the basis of the contiguous cull rested on paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Animal Health Act 1981 which states,
"animals … which appear to the Minister to have been in any way exposed to the infection of foot-and-mouth disease".
As noble Lords rightly said, that is a subjective judgment. The issue of the law is clear: we have the power to slaughter animals where that judgment is made. The issue of the law in a particular case or a particular campaign must concern whether that power was exerted reasonably.
I shall refer to particular cases in a moment. However, as regards the situation in general, throughout the epidemic Ministers—like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I am glad to see that my noble friend Lady Hayman is present—acted on the clearest veterinary and epidemiological advice, all of which indicated that the highest risk of exposure would occur on premises situated close to the premises where an infected case had been found. I refer in that connection to the contiguous cull which was operated for the most part in the whole of England and to the three-kilometre cull which was operated for the most part in Scotland. However, due to the overlap of certain premises in Cumbria, we also operated a three-kilometre cull in Cumbria as well as across the Border in Dumfries.
Both the contiguous cull and the three-kilometre cull were based on strong advice received from vets on the ground and from epidemiological modellers. We were advised that the best way to contain the disease was automatically to presume that the contiguous premises, or the premises three kilometres away, could have been exposed to it. That stance was not adopted from the beginning of the outbreak. We reached that conclusion through our experience during the first few weeks of the disease when it became clear that infectivity was primarily local. The overall indications are that during the course of the disease 80 per cent of cases were transmitted by local infection.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, asked whether the Donaldson report was before the Winslade case. So far as I am aware, that report was not before the judge. The judge, as I said in an earlier debate, had before him the same information that Ministers had before them, including an assessment of all forms of transmission. The Donaldson report dealt with only one form: airborne transmission. Most local infectivity occurred as a result of direct contact of animals or direct contact with human beings who had been in contact with animals, or it resulted from vehicles. That is the way in which the infection spread. Airborne infection was only one element. That is why
1288
the Donaldson report was not of itself a determining factor; in that regard we should refer to the combination of all the matters that were in affidavits before the judge in that case. It is therefore not relevant whether the Donaldson report was before the judge. I believe that that was also referred to by the legal representation on the other side at that case.
The noble Lord also asked whether we had effectively suppressed the Donaldson report. That has never been the case. We have always been as open as possible about the advice received by the Government during that period. I therefore do not accept his argument that those cases would have led the judge to a different conclusion had that information been before him.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and others referred to the Upton case, the case of Grunty the pig. That judgment found against the Government. However, that was not a contiguous cull case and is therefore completely irrelevant to the legality of the contiguous cull. It was a direct contact case and has no bearing on any individual contiguous cull case or on the overall approach of the contiguous cull. In that case, the judge was absolutely supportive of the Government's policy and stated that, in his opinion, the action of MAFF in carrying out the contiguous cull operation was reasonable.
I have started to explain the distinction between the three-kilometre arrangement and the contiguous cull; both were based on the same veterinary advice. That advice was going to Scottish Ministers with regard to the three-kilometre cull arrangements—that was because of the structure of farms in Scotland and the logistics of the situation there—and it was available in England and led to the adoption of the general contiguous cull arrangements.
DEFRA and the United Kingdom Government have a responsibility for the state, size and operation of the State Veterinary Service but the detailed application of animal health matters are a matter for Scottish Ministers under the devolution of those powers within Scotland.
On the size of the State Veterinary Service, various erroneous figures are floating around. The figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, are misleading. Although the numbers have come down significantly in total, that is largely because of managerial changes, a reduction in the number of regions, the switch of some of the veterinary service's activities to the Meat Hygiene Service and the Food Standards Agency and the fact that the research side has moved to the Veterinary Laboratory Agency. The figures do not compare like with like.
On the Veterinary Field Service, the figures have not changed significantly during the past 10 years. There have been some ups and downs but broadly they have been in the low 200s. That service is mainly responsible

1289
for dealing with animal disease. The inquiries are currently considering whether that is an adequate level.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I received a Written Answer when I was a Member of the other place that indicated that during the first 10 years and on a like with like comparison, there was a reduction of 300 in the number of field vets.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if the Answer referred to field vets, it was misleading. The total number came down from just under 600 to just under 300. However, that was mainly the result of a loss of management and research jobs and the transfer of responsibilities to other agencies, not because of a reduction in the number of field vets. It is true that some of the figures are a little obscure for the years 1967 to 1981 but the position from 1981 to the present is fairly clear. That is the pattern.
I turn to the question of whether the European Union was in support of, or had cleared, the Government's policy. I have to be careful with my terminology because the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is clearly against the European Union having any role in this respect. Some are concerned about the fact that the endorsement or otherwise of the EU was not clear and that that cast doubt on the legality of the situation. However, that view is not well based. The European Commission was well aware of the situation throughout. There was constant communication with the European Commission and almost constant activity from the standing veterinary committee of the EU.
The Commission was well aware of the UK's culling policy and approved of that approach. The recitals to Commission Decision 2001/257/EC, which permitted a programme of vaccination in the UK, specifically acknowledged the existence of the contiguous cull policy in the UK. It stated:
"In addition to the measures within the framework of Directive 85/511/EEC"—
that has already been referred to—
"the UK apply the pre-emptive killing of susceptible animals in holdings in close proximity to infected or suspect holdings".
It therefore explicitly recognised that that was allowable within EU law.
The number of so-called healthy animals destroyed during the cull has been raised. It is deeply distressing that 1.2 million animals were slaughtered under the contiguous cull. It is more distressing that people are now told that it was unnecessary to slaughter those animals. However, it is misleading to tell them that that was unnecessary because the majority of those animals proved to be healthy. As I have made clear previously, the more effective the contiguous cull policy, the less likely animals are to prove positive on testing. If the disease has just been discovered and the cull of contiguous premises is carried out immediately, there will be no testable sign of the disease among those animals. It is also true that a large proportion of
1290
those killed during the epidemic were never tested because the pressure on resources meant that efforts concentrated on detecting the disease in new outbreaks. Any figures that are used in this regard are deeply misleading.
It is also important to recognise that there was some discretion in the operation of the approach. Although there was a presumption, there were also a number of areas of discretion for local vets to be involved; that is why the courts could be brought in to judge whether we were being reasonable or not. The local inquiries will consider whether that discretion was adequate and whether there should have been greater discretion.
The fundamental issue is that the legality or validity of the contiguous cull strategy is well established in case law and European law.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, will the Minister please undertake to answer the five questions in writing and put a copy in the Library of the House? He has partly answered three of them but he still has two others to answer.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thought that I had answered all five questions; I may have missed one. I believe that two of them were collated.
I have to finish at this point. I should be delighted to debate further the future of the CAP on a different occasion with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. I shall elaborate on my answers in writing when I have read the rest of the debate.

Proceeds of Crime Bill
8.29 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 243.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 90:
Page 147, line 17, at beginning insert "unless the court dispenses with service".
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 90, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 91, 93, 107 and 138. These are technical amendments to provisions in the Bill relating to jurisdiction. Amendments Nos. 90, 93 and 107 relate to the requirements that a claim form must be served on the respondent to proceedings and any holder of relevant associated property.
It has always been our intention that the provisions on the service of process in civil recovery litigation should be very much in line with the usual rules in civil litigation. As such, we had always had it in mind that the usual residual discretion for the court to dispense with service would apply. We became aware that there was a risk that the express provision we had made about service in the Bill could be read as absolute and as displacing that residual discretion. The amendments redress that position.

1291
I should perhaps emphasise that the discretion to dispense with service exists to deal with exceptional circumstances only. Bearing in mind their paramount obligations to the interests of justice and the protection of human rights, the courts can be expected to be very hesitant in permitting civil recovery, or any other, proceedings to progress without service of process.
However, sometimes in the run of civil proceedings there are cases where a respondent, or potential respondent, is fully aware of the nature of the process but deliberately takes steps to evade service. In such circumstances, it is not appropriate for respondents to be able to hide behind a technicality. The residual discretion of the court is there to see that that does not happen. We do not wish to disable the court from dealing appropriately with any such circumstances if they arise in civil recovery proceedings.
Amendment No. 91 will bring the provision on initiating proceedings for a recovery order in England, Wales and Northern Ireland into line with that for Scotland. It makes clear that the obligation to serve the form applies wherever the person is domiciled, resident or present. We wish to ensure that the court in a civil recovery case is, so far as possible, unrestricted in the reach of its jurisdiction. We had intended that to be the implicit effect of the Bill as previously drafted. Ultimately, we did not think that we could be sure of that. Therefore, this amendment puts the matter beyond doubt.
Finally, Amendment No. 138 will restrict the scope of Clause 283(1) to Scotland. Subsections (2) and (3) are already so restricted. There is no difference in the effect that we intend to achieve in the various jurisdictions; it is simply a matter of how, technically, that is done. We have come to the conclusion that none of the provisions in Clause 283 is necessary for England and Wales or Northern Ireland. The Bill does not need to make that type of explicit provision because the same effect is achieved by a combination of the general provisions on property at Clause 311 and the general rules on the jurisdiction of our civil courts. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 91:
Page 147, line 18, at end insert—
"wherever domiciled, resident or present".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Clause 244 [Proceedings for recovery orders in Scotland]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 93:
Page 147, line 31, at beginning insert "unless the court dispenses with service".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 245 ["Associated property]:
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Schedule 6 [Powers of interim receiver or administrator]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 95:
Page 280, line 15, leave out sub-paragraphs (6) and (7).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 96, which is grouped with Amendment No. 95, provides that an interim receiving or administration order which makes any provision in relation to obtaining information or entering premises must also make provision in respect of legal professional privilege. That overtakes the current provisions in paragraph 2, which provide for legal professional privilege in relation to powers to obtain information. Those are consequentially deleted by Amendment No. 95.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, tabled an amendment in Committee which would have extended the protection of legal professional privilege to the powers of the interim receiver or administrator to enter and search premises. The Government indicated that it was our intention that those powers should respect legal professional privilege, and we said that we would consider whether the Bill should be amended to ensure that. These amendments are the result of that consideration.
The conclusion is that the current provisions in the Bill require some adjustment. In particular, the protection for legal privilege at paragraph 2(7) is not appropriate when the proceedings themselves are in the High Court.
The amendments would require that provision would have to be made in an interim receiving or administration order in respect of legal professional privilege. In adopting that approach, the Government have taken into account two factors. The first is the civil law precedents, including the standard way that the matter is dealt with in the context of search orders, formerly called Anton Piller orders. The other is recent House of Lords case law, which positions the protection of legal professional privilege squarely in the context of human rights obligations on the courts.
Consideration is now being given as to whether it would be appropriate to set out, perhaps by way of a practice direction, a standard form of civil recovery interim order, including suitable safeguards for legal professional privilege.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in particular, and other noble Lords will accept my explanation as to why we have decided to proceed in this way. I hope that the noble Lord will welcome the amendments as meeting the concerns that he expressed in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord very much for reflecting so maturely on this matter. I am most grateful for the proposals that he has made.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 96:
Page 280, line 41, leave out "The order" and insert—
"() An order making any provision under paragraph 2 or 3 must make provision in respect of legal professional privilege (in Scotland, legal privilege within the meaning of Chapter 3 of Part 8).
() An order making any provision under paragraph 3".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 248 [Registration]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 97:
Page 149, line 43, leave out "a restraint" and insert "an interim receiving".
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in this group would bring certain provisions of the Bill relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland in line with those for England and Wales, and would make one drafting amendment. I need to weary your Lordships for just a few moments in order to explain and place on the record what the amendments seek to achieve.
Amendment No. 97 is a drafting amendment, correcting the reference to a restraint order. Amendment No. 98 would replicate for Northern Ireland the provisions of Clause 248 so as to allow that a person applying for an interim receiving order is treated as a person with an interest in the land concerned. The land registrar would then enter the interest in the register against that land so that the land could not be dealt with without the leave of the High Court.
The new clause that would be inserted by Amendment No. 101 is designed to enable the interim administrator or enforcement authority in Scotland—that is, of course, the Scottish Ministers—to apply to the Court of Session for an order to arrest or attach moveable property which is subject to an interim administration order but is in the hands of third parties. It is needed to ensure that the provisions of an order bind a third party.
The most likely example of that would be a person's bank account. The "warrant of arrestment" would enable the bank account or other assets to be frozen, thus preventing their being moved or dispersed before a final recovery order was made vesting the property in the hands of the trustee for civil recovery. Similar provision is already made in respect of confiscation orders in Scotland under Part 3 by Clause 124.
No similar provision is needed for England and Wales in Part 5. The position of property held by third parties is already provided for by normal civil procedures. An interim receiving order will be similar to a standard civil freezing order in that it may prohibit any person from dealing with property to which the order applies. The order will be able to provide for any person who has been notified of the order, including any third parties, to be in contempt if they knowingly assist in, or permit a breach of, the order.
Amendments Nos. 102 to 105 make a technical addition to Clause 264 to ensure that it fits in with the slightly different terminology used in Scots civil law. The key amendment is Amendment No. 104; the other amendments are consequential.
1294
Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 264 currently set out the circumstances in which a court may not make a recovery order. The defence in subsection (4) is that the respondent received the property in good faith and has taken steps on the strength of his ownership of the property as a result of which he would suffer detriment if it were recovered. This is a standard defence in civil law in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, referred to as the "bona fide change of position" defence. The language used in subsection (4) as currently drafted is the language that will be familiar to the courts in those jurisdictions.
A similar defence also exists in Scotland. However, the necessary elements of the defence that require to be established are slightly differently expressed. In particular, the term "notice" does not have the same technical meaning. Instead, it is necessary to establish that the person had no reasonable grounds for believing that the property was recoverable. So, for example, if any reasonable person might have had a suspicion that the property was the proceeds of crime, it could not be said that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the property was recoverable and the defence would not succeed. Amendment No. 104, therefore, makes similar provision for Scotland but using language that will be familiar to the Scottish courts.
Amendments Nos. 108 and 141 are minor amendments designed to take account of the fact that the concept of joint tenancy is not a part of Scots law. Clause 268 sets out the categories of cases that come within the procedure in Clauses 269 and 270 for dealing with associated property and property held by joint tenants. As currently drafted, those allow the director, or in Scotland the Scottish Ministers, to reach agreement with the holder of associated property or with an excepted joint tenant, or for the court to decide how such property should be treated in the absence of an agreement.
However, the concept of joint tenancy is not relevant to Scots law. Amendment No. 108 provides simply that subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 268 do not extend to Scotland. Amendment No. 141 is a consequential amendment to Clause 295.
Amendment No. 132 would make reference in Clause 280 to the Northern Ireland equivalent of the Financial Markets and Insolvency Regulations so that a recovery order could not be made in respect of any property which is subject to a system charge in Northern Ireland.
Finally, Amendment No. 137 would insert a new clause, which is designed to clarify the relationship in Scots law between the vesting of recoverable property in the hands of the trustee for civil recovery and any other action that might be taken by a creditor against the property to enforce a court order that he has obtained against the respondent.
The new clause makes clear that any such action against property once it has been vested in the trustee for civil recovery is ineffectual. In other words, once recoverable property is vested in the trustee, any other enforcement action, or diligence, in relation to that

1295
property must fail. Similar provision is already made in Schedule 3 in relation to Scottish confiscation orders under Part 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 98:
After Clause 248, insert the following new clause—
"REGISTRATION: NORTHERN IRELAND
(1) A person applying for an interim receiving order must be treated for the purposes of section 66 of the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (c. 18 (N.I.)) (cautions) as a person interested in relation to any registered land to which—

(a) the application relates, or

(b) an interim receiving order made in pursuance of the application relates.

(2) Upon being served with a copy of an interim receiving order, the Registrar must, in respect of any registered land to which an interim receiving order or an application for an interim receiving order relates, make an entry inhibiting any dealing with the land without the consent of the High Court.
(3) Subsections (2) and (4) of section 67 of the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (c. 18 (N.I.)) (inhibitions) apply to an entry made under subsection (2) as they apply to an entry made on the application of any person interested in the registered land under subsection (1) of that section.
(4) Where an interim receiving order has been protected by an entry registered under the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (c. 18 (N.I.)) or the Registration of Deeds Acts, an order setting aside the interim receiving order may require that entry to be vacated.
(5) In this section—
"Registrar" and "entry" have the same meanings as in the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (c. 18 (N.I.)), and
"Registration of Deeds Acts" has the meaning given by section 46(2) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.))."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 251 [Restrictions on dealing etc. with property]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 99:
Page 150, line 43, at end insert "if and so long as the legal services for such person are funded as part of the Community Legal Service or such person has sufficient assets to meet all legal expenses in respect of such proceedings"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment. No. 99, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 100. Under Clause 246 of the Bill, an enforcement authority may apply to the court for an interim receiving order when it intends to take proceedings for a recovery order. An interim receiving order is an order for the detention, custody or preservation of property or the appointment of an interim receiver, and maintains the status quo until the enforcement authority is granted a recovery order. The purpose of an interim receiving order is to freeze the position so that as and when a recovery order is made there is some property to recover. An interim receiving order removes the risk of a defendant dissipating his assets and ensures that there is some property left to recover under the recovery order.
1296
An interim receiving order is, as its name suggests, an interim measure and there is no need for the enforcement authority to prove conclusively that the property is recoverable property, but merely that there is a good arguable case that the property is recoverable property. It may turn out that the enforcement authority is wrong, but that is irrelevant as regards an interim receiving order: all the enforcement authority needs to show is a good arguable case and no more.
Clause 251(2) allows exclusions to be made when an interim receiving order is made. Subsection (3) gives two examples: there may be an exclusion to meet reasonable living expenses or to carry on any trade, business, profession or occupation. Those exclusions are necessary because an interim receiving order may well turn out not to be justified, and it is important to provide for reasonable living expenses and the necessary expense of carrying on a trade, business, profession or occupation. Indeed, there are similar provisions for Scotland in Clauses 255 and 260.
Unfortunately, Clauses 251(4) and 260(4) provide that an exclusion may not be made for the purpose of enabling any person to meet any legal expenses in respect of proceedings under Part 5. In Committee I proposed an amendment leaving out subsection (4) in order to meet the serious risk of injustice if a defendant could not otherwise meet his legal expenses.
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General dealt with my amendment by informing the Committee that costs should be met out of assets not subject to the receiving order or that funding would be made available to respondents in civil recovery proceedings. However, he pointed out that, in order to be granted public funding, they would need to satisfy the standard means test. The noble and learned Lord then concluded his argument by saying that there should not be a problem because legal costs would then be met out of assets which were not subject to a receiving order or through legal aid.
However, I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General was being unrealistic. The standard means test is set at a low level. Funding for legal service is not available if an applicant's gross income exceeds £2,034 per month; his disposable income exceeds £695 per month or his capital exceeds £8,000. If any one of those limits is exceeded, funding for legal services is not available. If someone has a disposable income of £700 per month but no capital whatever, he or she is ineligible for funding under the Community Legal Service scheme. Indeed, only the very poor will qualify.
I am concerned about those with modest means but who are not very poor. They will not qualify for funding under the Community Legal Service scheme but will not have enough money to pay lawyers. They will not be able to defend the proceedings, and the enforcement authority will succeed merely because it has obtained an interim receiving order thereby preventing the defendant from using the property subject to the interim receiving order for the purpose of funding his legal expenses. That has to be unjust. The arguments put forward by the noble and learned

1297
Lord the Attorney-General in Committee do not deal with the defendant with modest means who cannot get funding under the Community Legal Service scheme, and who does not have other assets available to meet his legal expenses.
However, I have re-drafted my proposed amendment to meet the points made by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. The current amendments provide that if a defendant is given funding under the Community Legal Service scheme, an exclusion cannot be made for the purpose of enabling him to meet his legal expenses. Similarly, if he has other assets which are sufficient to pay his legal expenses, again such an exclusion cannot be made. However, the absolute prohibition on an exclusion for the purpose of enabling defendants to pay their legal expenses should not apply where a defendant is not eligible under the Community Legal Service scheme or he does not have other sufficient assets. The amendments have those qualifications.
However, I should add that where a defendant is not eligible under the Community Legal Service scheme, nor does he have other sufficient assets, it does not necessarily follow that an exclusion must be made for the purpose of enabling the defendant to meet any legal expenses. In such a case the judge will decide whether or not there should be an exclusion. The effect of the amendment is simply to qualify the absolute prohibition on an exclusion for the payment of legal expenses. The court should have a discretion when a defendant is not otherwise able to pay his legal expenses. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, her amendment seeks to challenge the reasonableness of the means test in relation to public funding. Perhaps I may explain how the position will work. The starting point—and the amendment does not, or should not, challenge this starting point—is the important principle that assets are frozen under an interim order because they are the subject of dispute between the state and the holder of the assets; and because a judge has been satisfied on the test put forward in the Bill that those may well be assets to which the holder is not entitled but to which the state is entitled because they are the proceeds of unlawful conduct.
Therefore, the purpose of the order is to freeze the position while that dispute is resolved and to preserve the assets so that in the event of a recovery order being made property still remains for the enforcement authority to recover. If the holder of those assets were permitted to dissipate them on legal expenses, swhich potentially could be substantial—indeed, the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness has absolutely no limit on legal expenses—there is a risk that the property that ought to come to the state could be dissipated.
Under the arrangements that will be in place, in all cases where respondents cannot afford legal representation from their other assets they will be funded through the Community Legal Service scheme.
1298
I believe that I made it clear in Committee that, although under normal circumstances it is necessary to satisfy both a means and a merits test, the merits test will be relaxed to the extent necessary to ensure that everyone who needs it and who qualifies financially has access to legal funding.
Either the respondent will be in receipt of public funding, or, if not, it is because the scheme of our public funding accepts that such a person is in a position to pay legal expenses. Of course, if the case is lost, the director will be liable to pay the costs and the person will be reimbursed. There are also certain provisions for compensation.
Therefore, as it stands, the scheme already provides—indeed, because of the relaxation that I have referred to, generously provides—that legal expenses will be met if the person does not have sufficient assets. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to put in the exception from the exclusion proposed by the amendment of the noble Baroness.
It is important—I repeat—to maintain the principles that as long as these assets are frozen they are not dissipated. The state is prepared to ensure that the person is able to meet legal expenses by the relaxation of the merits test and by allowing public funding in those cases. Further than that, in my view, it is not necessary to go.
I suspect that the noble Baroness will not find that explanation wholly satisfactory because, to some extent, it is a repeat of what I have said before. Be that as it may, I invite her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his response. He is entirely right: I am not satisfied with it. I accept that assets are frozen because they are the subject of a dispute. That is clearly taken as read. However, we are talking about individuals who are caught between a rock and a hard place in terms of their ability to obtain legal expenses under the Community Legal Service scheme. They are not so poor as to qualify under the Community Legal Service scheme. Therefore, they have to spend money on legal expenses which, I suggest, does not leave them with reasonable expenses.
I was interested to hear the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General refer to the expenditure on legal expenses as dissipation, as if spending money on lawyers is a waste of money. It is an interesting point. I heard what the Minister said: it can be a waste of money. But clearly the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in his response to these amendments presents a regrettable view that it is generally the case that expenditure on legal expenses is dissipation.
I am not happy with the response. We have tried this issue on previous occasions. I appreciate that I shall get no further on the point. With regret, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 260 [Restrictions on dealing etc. with property]:
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendment No. 101:
After Clause 263, insert the following new clause—
"ARRESTMENT OF PROPERTY AFFECTED BY INTERIM ADMINISTRATION ORDER
(1) On the application of the enforcement authority or the interim administrator the Court of Session may, in relation to moveable recoverable property to which an interim administration order applies (whether generally or such of it as is specified in the application), grant warrant for arrestment.
(2) An application by the enforcement authority under subsection (1) may be made at the same time as the application for the interim administration order or at any time thereafter.
(3) Such a warrant for arrestment may be granted only if the property would be arrestable if the person entitled to it were a debtor.
(4) A warrant under subsection (1) has effect as if granted on the dependence of an action for debt at the instance or the enforcement authority or, as the case may be, the interim administrator against the person and may be executed, recalled, loosed or restricted accordingly.
(5) The execution of an arrestment under this section in respect of property does not prejudice the exercise of an interim administrator's powers under or for the purposes of this Part in respect of that property.
(6) An arrestment executed under this section ceases to have effect when, or in so far as, the interim administration order ceases to apply in respect of the property in relation to which the warrant for arrestment was granted.
(7) If an arrestment ceases to have effect to any extent by virtue of subsection (6) the enforcement authority or, as the case may be, the interim administrator must apply to Court of Session for an order recalling or, as the case may be, restricting the arrestment."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 264 [Recovery orders]:
Lord Goldsmith Lord Goldsmith moved Amendments Nos. 102 to 105:
Page 156, line 21, after "(4)" insert "or, as the case may be, (4A)"
Page 156, line 25, at beginning insert "In relation to a court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland"
Page 156, line 34, at end insert—
"(4A) In relation to a court in Scotland, the conditions referred to in subsection (3)(a) are that—

(a) the respondent obtained the recoverable property in good faith,

(b) he took steps after obtaining the property which he would not have taken if he had not obtained it or he took steps before obtaining the property which he would not have taken if he had not believed he was going to obtain it,

(c) when he took the steps, he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the property was recoverable,

(d) if a recovery order were made in respect of the property, it would, by reason of the steps, be detrimental to him."

Page 156, line 36, leave out "those conditions" and insert "the conditions in subsection (4) or (as the case may be) (4A)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 265 [Functions of the trustee for civil recovery]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 106:
Page 157, line 19, at end insert—
"() References in this section to a recovery order include an order under section 274 and references to property vested in the trustee by a recovery order include property vested in him in pursuance of an order under section 274."
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 106, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 118 to 128, 133, 147, 209 and 210. These amendments slightly adjust the provisions relating to consent orders in Clause 274. Rat her than consent orders being in the form of recovery orders on terms agreed by the parties, the court will instead follow the usual procedure in civil litigation and simply stay—or in Scotland sist—the proceedings on such agreed terms. That will dispose of the proceedings.
The main aim of the consent order provision is to enable property to be recovered without the expense of unwanted and unnecessary litigation. Most civil proceedings are settled out of court, and it seems likely—if the experience in other jurisdictions is mirrored here—that respondents in civil recovery cases may often prefer to settle without a full court hearing.
The amendments will bring the provisions on consent orders more into line with the usual practice in civil procedure. In particular, under the Bill as currently drafted, it seemed inevitable that the court would always have to make a formal adjudication on the recoverability of the property concerned. That will not be appropriate or necessary in every case involving a consent order. A consent order is intended to be a substitute for an adjudication on the merits by the court, where it can be agreed by all parties. Of course the agreement will still be enforceable by the court.
The number of amendments required to make this change arises from the fact that many references to a recovery order needed to be adjusted to reflect the fact that a consent order will no longer technically he included in that expression. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 268 [Associated and joint property]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendments Nos. 107 and 108:
Page 158, line 12, at end insert "or the court has dispensed with service"
Page 158, line 20, at end insert—
"(5) Subsections (3) and (4) do not extend to Scotland."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 271 [Payments in respect of rights under pension schemes]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 109:
Page 160, line 7, leave out "an amount" and insert "within a prescribed period the amount determined by the trustees or managers to be"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords., in moving Amendment No. 109, I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 110 to 117, 215 and 216. These

1301
amendments make some detailed improvements to the clauses dealing with recovery orders affecting rights under a pension scheme. They arise out of further detailed consideration of the pension provisions in the Bill. The amendments do not reflect a change of policy, but we believe that they will ensure that the provisions work as intended.
Amendment No. 109 will provide for a recovery order involving rights in a pension scheme to require the scheme trustees to pay an amount determined by the trustees as being equal to the recoverable pension rights to the trustee for civil recovery. The clause as drafted refers to the trustees being required by the court to pay an amount equal to the value of the rights, which might have implied that it was for the court to specify the amount payable.
It became clear that the current wording would not be consistent with normal practice. If the court were to require an amount to be paid that was based on a calculation made some time prior to the court hearing, that amount might well bear no resemblance to the value of the pension rights on the day that they were actually recovered from the scheme.
The Government are basing the recovery provisions on legislation recently introduced to allow pensions to be shared on divorce. Under that legislation, the court decides the proportion of the pension to be shared. The pension scheme then values that proportion, taking account of the market values that pertain on the valuation day.
The amendment will provide much the same where a recovery is made of the proceeds of crime. The new formulation will require the court to identify the recoverable pension rights, but the scheme must then value those rights on a particular day within a prescribed period.
Amendments Nos. 112, 113 and 115 make some changes to Clause 272, which provides for the consequential adjustment of pension scheme liabilities. The current wording requires liabilities to be reduced by the amount paid. We considered that formulation further in the light of concerns expressed by the pensions industry. It became clear that a better formulation would be to require the scheme to reduce liabilities to the extent necessary because of the payment made under Clause 271, and in particular for the scheme to provide for liabilities arising out of the recoverable rights to cease.
Amendment No. 117 will simply combine in a single provision the regulation-making provisions currently contained separately in two other clauses. It is therefore not a change of substance. Amendments Nos. 111 and 114 are consequential amendments leaving out separate provisions. Amendments Nos. 110 and 116 delete provisions that are unnecessary.
Amendments Nos. 215 and 216 make some technical changes to the Pensions Schemes Act 1993 and its Northern Irish equivalent in respect of guaranteed minimum pensions and other safeguarded pension rights. Those changes simply ensure that if such rights are found to be partly or wholly
1302
recoverable, any liabilities arising are to be adjusted accordingly. Similar provision is made in the legislation to which I referred dealing with pensions being shared on divorce. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendments Nos. 110 and 111:
Page 160, line 12, leave out subsection (3).
Page 160, line 35, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 272 [Consequential adjustment of liabilities under pension schemes]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendments Nos. 112 to 116:
Page 160, line 38, leave out from "must" to "that" in line 40 and insert "require the trustees or managers of the pension scheme to make such reduction in the liabilities of the scheme as they think necessary in consequence of the payment made in pursuance of"
Page 160, line 41, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"() Accordingly, the order must require the trustees or managers to provide for the liabilities of the pension scheme in respect of the respondent's recoverable property to which section 271 applies to cease."
Page 161, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
Page 161, line 4, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"(4) So far as the trustees or managers are required by the recovery order to provide for the liabilities of the pension scheme in respect of the respondent's recoverable property to which section 271 applies to cease, their powers include (in particular) power to reduce the amount of—

(a) any benefit or future benefit to which the respondent is or may be entitled under the scheme,

(b) any future benefit to which any other person may be entitled under the scheme in respect of that property."

Page 161, line 7, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 273 [Pension schemes: supplementary]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 117:
Page 161, line 13, leave out from beginning to "to" in line 14 and insert—
"(1) Regulations may make provision as to the exercise by trustees or managers of their powers under sections 271 and 272, including provision about the calculation and verification of the value at any time of rights or liabilities.
() The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to provide for any values"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 274 [Consent orders]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendments Nos. 118 to 121:
Page 162, line 4, after "make" insert "an order staying (in Scotland, sisting) any proceedings for"
Page 162, line 4, after "parties" insert "for the disposal of the proceedings"
Page 162, line 5, leave out from beginning to "to" in line 23 and insert "each person to whose property the proceedings, or the agreement, relates is a party both to the proceedings and the agreement.

1303
(2) An order under subsection (1) may, as well as staying (or sisting) the proceedings on terms—

(a) make provision for any property which may be recoverable property to cease to be recoverable,

(b) make any further provision which the court thinks appropriate.

() Section 278 applies"
Page 162, line 24, leave out "they apply" and insert "it applies"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 275 [Consent orders: pensions]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendments Nos. 122 to 126:
Page 162, line 29, leave out "A recovery" and insert "An"
Page 162, line 29, leave out "by virtue of" and insert "under"
Page 162, line 30, leave out from "not" to "but" in line 31 and insert "stay (in Scotland, sist) the proceedings on terms that the rights are vested in any other person"
Page 162, line 39, leave out from "into" to end of line 41 and insert "an agreement in respect of the proceedings on any terms on which an order made under section 274 may stay (in Scotland, sist) the proceedings"
Page 162, line 42, leave out from "of" to "section" in line 43 and insert "an order under"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 276 [Limit on recovery]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendments Nos. 127 and 128:
Page 163, line 17, leave out from "where" to "in" and insert "such an order, or an order under section 274, has previously been made"
Page 163, line 26, at end insert "or order under section 274"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 278 [Applying realised proceeds]:
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
Clause 280 [Other exemptions]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 130:
Page 165, line 39, leave out from "person" to "an" in line 40 and insert "in circumstances of a prescribed description; and the circumstances may relate to the person himself or to the property or to any other matter.
In this subsection, prescribed means prescribed by"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment would make some adjustments to the order-making provisions in Clause 280. Those currently allow orders to be made preventing proceedings for a recovery order being taken against certain categories of person and certain types of property. On reflection, it became clear that the order-making powers were not quite right.
Amendment No. 130 will make clear that, in relation to persons, the power can be exercised by reference to any sort of description of the person and by reference to specified circumstances. That will include a description in terms of the status of persons as holders of certain property.
As far as property is concerned, we have come to the view that Clause 280 does not work satisfactorily in technical terms. Although it makes sense to say that proceedings may not be brought against certain persons, it does not make sense to say that proceedings may not be brought in relation to certain exempt
1304
property, when the exempt status of the property may not be apparent at the outset. Proceedings may be necessary precisely to establish whether or not the property is properly exempt. In cases where the proceedings have already started, a prohibition on bringing them plainly would not work.
The solution proposed is to convert the power in subsection (2) into a power to specify that certain property is not to be "recoverable". That revised power is contained in Amendment No. 145, which will insert a new clause in Chapter 4 of Part 5, which deals generally with the definition of "recoverable property". Amendment No. 145 makes clear that the power could be used to exempt classes of property identified by any appropriate description.
Clause 280(2) and (3) are therefore no longer needed, and are deleted by Amendment No. 131. Your Lordships will want to note that the new version of the power would remain subject to the affirmative resolution procedure by virtue of Amendments Nos. 228 and 230. Your Lordships will know that the Government have submitted a supplementary memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about these revised order-making provisions, and it has not expressed any objection. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendments Nos. 131 and 132:
Page 166, line 1, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
Page 166, line 24, at end insert "or the Financial Markets and Insolvency Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 (S.R. 1996/252)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 281 [Compensation]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 133:
Page 166, line 39, leave out from "makes" to "section" and insert "an order under"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 134:
Page 166, line 40, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
"(3) The application for compensation must be made before the expiration of the period of three months beginning with the date on which the application for a recovery order is finally disposed of.
(4) The reference in subsection (3) to the date on which an application for a recovery order is finally disposed of shall be construed as a reference to the earliest date by which the proceedings on the application for a recovery order (including any proceedings on or in consequence of an appeal) have been determined and any time for appealing or further appealing has expired, except that if the application is withdrawn or an appeal is abandoned the reference shall be construed as a reference to the date of the withdrawal or abandonment."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 281 gives a person whose property is subject to an interim receiving order or an interim administration order a right to apply for compensation if it turns out that the property is not recoverable property or associated property. However, the application for compensation must be

1305
made within a short period. An applicant has only three months from the decision of the court to make that application.
In Committee, I was concerned that subsection (3) as drafted was not clear as to when the three-month time period began to run in the event of an appeal of the original decision. If one reads subsection (3) in its present form, it appears perfectly reasonable to argue that an applicant has three months from the decision at first instance and one simply ignores any appeal. That would be unfair and, indeed, unreasonable because it may turn out that an appeal by the enforcement authority is successful, with the consequence that costs of the application for compensation would have been completely wasted. If, on the other hand, the three-month period were to run from the date on which any appeal was finally disposed of, there would be no confusion.
The Attorney-General agreed with the thrust of the comments and accepted that time should not run out while an appeal was taking place. The time should run from the time at which the appeal is determined. He kindly proposed to consider my amendment and whether it would be sensible to put the issue beyond doubt, notwithstanding the existing wording.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I propose that my amendment is correct. It adopts the wording of Section 64 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. That Act has not only stood the test of time but has given rise to a body of case law that has clarified the wording in the section. My amendment adopts the relevant words from the section almost word for word. To that extent, my amendment removes any doubt about when a defendant must make an application for compensation.
We were pleased to note that the Government had tabled Amendment No. 135 and, in so doing, had put forward a different solution. At first sight, that solution seemed fine, but it does not deal with a case in which an application for leave to appeal is made but is subsequently withdrawn or abandoned. Our amendment does not refer to applications for leave to appeal; it refers only to appeal. The Government's amendment is more narrowly defined. It is too narrowly defined and too careful to define the position precisely. It fails to include a situation in which an application is withdrawn or abandoned.
I must also respectfully point out that, following the reform of civil procedure rules, it is no longer right to refer to "leave to appeal", as Amendment No. 135 does. These days we refer to "permission to appeal", although we all know what "leave to appeal" means and have done for over a century. Apparently, the words "leave to appeal" are not user-friendly. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Baroness might have accepted with more enthusiasm the amendment that was tabled to meet the point she raised in Committee. The intention behind Amendment No. 135, to which I speak along with
1306
Amendment No. 134, is the same as that behind the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness. However, there is a difference between the two amendments.
The intention in the Bill is that there should be a three-month period from the date of the decision during which an application for compensation is to be made. The noble Baroness asked what would happen if there were an appeal. I accept—our amendment accepts—that, in those circumstances, the intention is that the time should take account of the appeal. How is that to be achieved? The Government's view is that Amendment No. 135 adequately and aptly deals with that situation.
There is a difference between our amendment and what is proposed in the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness which stipulates an extension that is longer—inappropriately longer—than that in the Government's amendment. The noble Baroness's amendment extends the time further because it makes the final point not the decision, but the decision plus the time for appealing. If someone does not appeal, there is no reason why it should be extended in that way. If they do appeal, the rest of the provisions will kick in, and the period will be extended until the proceedings are finally determined. I beg to differ with the noble Baroness who says that her amendment is better. In my respectful view, it is not, and it does not meet the objective that we both had in mind.
The noble Baroness raised two technical points about the Government's amendment. She said that it was no longer right to use the expression "leave to appeal" rather than "permission to appeal". I am happy to examine that question. If the noble Baroness is right and a small change is necessary, that should not prevent your Lordships accepting the Government's amendment. A small textual change to bring the Bill up to date can, if necessary, be made at Third Reading.
I doubt that it is necessary to deal with the other issue that the noble Baroness raised, although I am happy to consider it. Our amendment says:
"the date on which the application is refused or (if the application is granted) on which any proceedings on appeal are finally concluded".
If somebody withdraws an application, that situation must be comprehended in the reference to the refusal of an application. That is what would happen to the application. It is a small point. If the noble Baroness is right, it can be corrected at Third Reading, if necessary, to put the matter beyond doubt.
The critical point is that the Government's amendment is right in taking the starting point as the decision, or, if there is an appeal, the moment that it is finally concluded without adding on the extra period of time for appeal. On the basis that I will look at the two points the noble Baroness made and return to them at Third Reading if necessary, I invite her to accept the Government's amendment, which meets her objective, and not to press Amendment No. 134.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his response. Forgive me if I

1307
failed to sound enthusiastic. I am encouraged that the noble and learned Lord clearly listened to our concerns in Committee and responded with Amendment No. 135. I am grateful to him for agreeing to look at the two points I raised in relation to applications for permission to appeal that are subsequently withdrawn or abandoned. On a minor technicality, I agree with the language used in the noble and learned Lord's amendment. Given that he has agreed to look at those points I accept with great pleasure his amendment. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 135:
Page 166, line 42, leave out "with the decision" and insert—

"(a) in relation to a decision of the High Court in England and Wales, with the date of the decision or, if any application is made for leave to appeal, with the date on which the application is refused or (if the application is granted) on which any proceedings on appeal are finally concluded,

(b) in relation to a decision of the Court of Session or of the High Court in Northern Ireland, with the date of the decision or, if there is an appeal against the decision, with the date on which any proceedings on appeal are finally concluded."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 136:
After Clause 281, insert the following new clause—
"COMPENSATION OF CREDITORS
(1) Any person who was a creditor of the respondent at the time when a recovery order was made may, within one year of the date of the order, make an application to the court for compensation.
(2) The court may require the enforcement authority to pay compensation to the applicant if it is satisfied that—

(a) as a result of the making of the order the respondent is wholly or in part unable to repay the debt;

(b) the debt was incurred for full consideration; and

(c) at the time the debt was incurred the applicant had no reason to believe that a recovery order could be made against the respondent."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 137:
After Clause 282, insert the following new clause—
"EFFECT ON DILIGENCE OF RECOVERY ORDER: SCOTLAND
(1) An arrestment or poinding of any recoverable property executed on or after the appointment of the trustee for civil recovery is ineffectual in a question with the trustee.
(2) Any recoverable property so arrested or poinded, or (if the property has been sold) the proceeds of sale, must be handed over to the trustee for civil recovery.
(3) A poinding of the ground in respect of recoverable property on or after such an appointment is ineffectual in a question with the trustee for civil recovery except for the interest mentioned in subsection (4).
(4) That interest is—

(a) interest on the debt of a secured creditor for the current half yearly term, and

(b) arrears of interest on that debt for one year immediately before the commencement of that term.

1308
(5) On and after such appointment no other person may raise or insist in an adjudication against recoverable property or be confirmed as an executor-creditor on that property.
(6) An inhibition on recoverable property shall cease to have effect in relation to any heritable property comprised in the recoverable property on such appointment.
(7) The provisions of this section apply in relation to—

(a) an action of maills and duties, and

(b) an action for sequestration of rent,

as they apply in relation to an arrestment or poinding "
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 283 [Scope of powers]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 138:
Page 167, line 23, after "made" insert "by the Court of Session"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 293 [Interest]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 139:
Page 175, line 2, leave out "to be held in" and insert "at the first opportunity to be paid into"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 139, 140 and 143 make minor adjustments to the provisions that require that cash detained for more than 48 hours following an order of the court should be held in an interest-bearing account. At the moment Clause 293(1) simply says that if cash is detained under Section 292 for more than 48 hours,
"it is to be held in" an interest-bearing account.
Clause 293(3) makes it clear that that provision does not apply if the cash is required as evidence.
The Government believe that the existing formulation left some uncomfortable room for doubt as to the nature of the obligation to pay cash into an interest-bearing account, as opposed to the duty to hold it there. The intention has always been that cash not required as evidence should be paid into an interest-bearing account as soon as practicable. In other words, account needs to be taken of instances when there may have to be some delay in paying cash into an account because of bank opening hours.
We want to leave no room for argument that cash should be released, or compensation paid, in circumstances where bank holidays make it impossible in practice to place the cash on interest-bearing deposit within or immediately after the 48-hour period. The amendments would put that intention beyond doubt.
Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 clarify that the cash is to be placed in the interest-bearing account at the first opportunity, and held there. The amendment to Clause 299 makes a related amendment to the provision for compensation in subsection (2). That subsection currently provides that the court or sheriff may order compensation to be paid if cash is not held in an interest-bearing account after the initial detention for 48 hours. The amendment simply makes it clear that the court should consider compensation only from the point at which it was practicable to pay the cash into an account.
Amendments Nos. 217 and 218 and 224 to 226 are minor technical amendments to Schedule 11, which deals with amendments to other legislation, and

1309
Schedule 12, which sets out the repeal arrangements. They ensure that relevant sections of those schedules work properly for Scotland and Northern Ireland. They include the repeal of the cash recovery scheme in the Drug Trafficking Act 1994, which is to be replaced by the one in this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 140:
Page 175, line 3, after "account" insert "and held there"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 295 [Forfeiture]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 141:
Page 175, line 35, leave out "or sheriff"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 297 [Application of forfeited cash]:
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
Clause 299 [Compensation]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 143:
Page 177, line 14, after "period" insert "beginning with the first opportunity to place the cash in an interest-bearing account"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 305 [General exceptions]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 144:
Page 179, line 28, leave out "based on the defendants' unlawful conduct" and insert "made in good faith"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 303 is an extreme example of the Government's overriding of the rights of third parties. In general, if A obtains a judgment against B and B satisfies that judgment, repayment can be ordered only if the judgment is set aside on the ground of fraud. Of course in this case, collusion to frustrate bankruptcy or a civil recovery order would be fraud.
Clause 305(3), as it now stands, assumes that money which was originally in the hands of the defendant can be traced into the hands of a satisfied judgment creditor if the payment has been made out of a recoverable property, even if there is no fraud or collusion between the creditor and the debtor. The only exception to that is if the claim is based on the unlawful conduct of the defendant.
Under Clause 241(1), "unlawful conduct" for the purposes of Part 5 of the Bill means "criminal conduct". Let us assume that damages were awarded and paid in an action against a defendant for personal injuries and that that defendant was subsequently made subject to a recovery order. If the injury was caused by the careless driving of the respondent, it seems—I am not sure whether this is the Government's intention—that the damages recovered by the plaintiff are protected under Clause 305(3)(b) because the claimant's claim is based on the defendant's unlawful conduct. The conduct of the defendant not only caused injury to the plaintiff but was no doubt the offence of driving without due care and was therefore criminal as well as being tortious.
1310
It may be that the government actuary intends paragraph (b) of subsection (3) to refer to the specific unlawful conduct on which the claim to a recovery order is based. If so, that has not been made clear and that would make the situation even worse. But in any event all kinds of personal injury can be caused by negligence which is not a criminal offence. In such cases, if the damages are paid out of the recoverable property, they can be clawed back by the trustee for civil recovery. Indeed, it seems that the trustee has a positive duty to do so.
The fact that there is intended to be a claw-back of damages from an innocent victim of a negligent injury by the defendant seems to me to be absolutely astonishing. It is even worse than the subject we have already debated; that of frustrating creditors' claims for their debts. It seems to me to be plainly incompatible with the right to property under Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The issue was debated in Committee and the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General will no doubt remember that among other things he referred to an order for the transfer of property in matrimonial proceedings as being the kind of transfer of property—the kind of judgment—to which the clause was intended to apply. I accept that there is some justification for that, but it is a special case. If Clause 303 was limited to recoveries or clawbacks of that kind, then I would not object to it. But plainly it goes much wider than that.
The noble and learned Lord then suggested that a plaintiff with a bona fide claim would be protected under subsection (1) as being a,
"person who obtains [the money] … in good faith, for value and without notice that it was recoverable property".
I do not believe that that view was correct. The plaintiff in a personal injury case who is awarded damages has not given value; he is simply being compensated for his injury. It is true that, if the case is settled out of court, the plaintiff may have given value because he would have given up his claim for damages in exchange for payment of the money agreed under the settlement. But that argument certainly would not apply where damages were awarded by the court. On any footing, therefore, we have an anomalous situation in which a plaintiff will be protected if he settles out of court, will apparently be protected if his injury is also a criminal offence such as careless driving, but will not be protected in other cases where he has obtained damages for negligence.
I simply cannot believe that the Government really intend to claw back moneys recovered by innocent plaintiffs under a judgment for damages. If that is their real intention, then I believe it to be monstrous. But that will be the effect of Clause 305 as it stands. Our amendment would exclude from clawback any case where judgment is obtained in good faith, which is the right, proper and fair way to proceed. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, as the noble Lord has indicated, we discussed in Committee the effect of Clause 305(3)(b). It is and remains the Government's

1311
view that the general purpose of the exceptions in Clause 305 is to ensure that the schemes are proportionate and fair.
I shall come back to subsection (1), referred to by the noble Lord. First, however, I turn to subsection (3). This subsection relates to property, including money, that has been awarded by a court in previous civil proceedings. As the Bill stands, the noble Lord recognises that the exception applies only to civil proceedings based on the unlawful conduct of the defendant. In response to the question put by the noble Lord, it is not intended to restrict that to unlawful conduct which is the same as that alleged in the Part 5 proceedings. From what the noble Lord has said, I am sure that he will welcome the fact that it is not restricted in that way. I can give him at least that degree of comfort.
Of course, unlawful conduct is as defined in Clause 241. Thus we are referring here to criminal conduct and not conduct which is tortious alone. The example I gave to explain why this provision is needed was exactly that referred to by the noble Lord. It would be possible for recoverable property to be transferred from one spouse to another as a result of divorce proceedings. Those assets would then be put beyond the reach of the director, even though—and this is the predicate of the case—those assets would be recoverable property; that is, property which the holder should never have had.
As I understand it, the noble Lord accepts that that is a justifiable case, but his proposed amendment, which is to substitute the words "made in good faith", would not comprehend that exception. I believe that the noble Lord will accept that on his amendment the justifiable case, as he acknowledges it to be, would result in this property being put beyond the reach of the director. Because he describes it as "justifiable" I assume he accepts that that is not a desirable result.
I said previously that Clause 305(1)—the exception for people who obtain in good faith, for value and without notice, something which is recoverable property—would cover many of the cases that the noble Lord had in mind. That is an important exception because essentially if one satisfies those requirements then it is only going to be in cases where a successful litigant is on notice that the property in question is recoverable that a problem arises. I suggest that it is going to be extremely rarely that a litigant would be on notice that the property is recoverable.
The noble Lord gave the example of someone who sues for careless driving. In almost all cases the money coming is not going to be recoverable property because it is insurance companies who meet such claims. Only exceptionally are they met by individual litigants, let alone individual litigants out of the proceeds of crime. The mere fact that the event might be tortious conduct does not cover the question as to whether it is also unlawful conduct.
I have considered this matter again. I do not see that there is any necessary limitation on the word "disposal" which we looked at in Committee under Clause 305(1). I continue to believe that that will be an important safeguard for many litigants.
1312
One returns to what the noble Lord proposes. As I understand the way in which his amendment would work, it would not rule out the case which he accepts is justifiable. I suggest that it is not going to work. It is possible that there may be evidence in court that a claim is not being brought in good faith, but that is very rarely an issue which a court has to look at. Such a case only arises in very few instances indeed. Normally, a case is brought, the court looks at its merits, and that is all. As my noble and learned friend the Minister said in another debate, it is inevitably the case that where one has action taking place between two parties, the director or anyone else is not privy to the transaction, the circumstances, and is not in a position to raise the question as to whether the matter has been brought in good faith or not. I suggest that it would not be a workable limitation.
As I made clear about anti-avoidance, there is a difference of principle between us on this issue. The intention is that the benefit of the exception in Clause 305(3)(b) should be extended only to those whose basis for a successful claim is in the same general category as that for civil recovery proceedings. We do not intend to extend it to wholly unconnected proceedings. The Government's view is that that is not required and is not logical or appropriate having regard to the principles behind the Bill.
I know that the noble Lord will not be enthusiastic about that reply, but following the debate in Committee and having looked again at the issues raised in the noble Lord's amendment, which we do not believe would work, I press the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I find the noble and learned Lord's response disappointing. In particular, he did not seem to appreciate that there is a significant difference between an order made in a matrimonial case and a claim for damages.
I am inclined to accept the principle that a criminal should not be able to confer a benefit on his family, whether it is done by way of a gift or by way of an order in matrimonial proceedings. An order in matrimonial proceedings is based on what is understood to be the value of the defendant's assets. If the defendant's assets are criminal property, there are reasonable grounds for saying that the matter should be reconsidered because the assets on the original review were wrongly calculated. I had hoped that the Government would have taken this matter away and come back with a much more limited clause that would have enabled money to be clawed back where it had been transferred under a matrimonial settlement, or a similar kind of arrangement.
We are left in a highly anomalous situation: in some circumstances damages that have been paid cannot be clawed back while in other circumstances they can, with no logical justification for the distinction between the two. They cannot be clawed back in cases where the damages have resulted from an act which is not only tortious but criminal; they cannot be clawed back where they fall within subsection (1).

1313
My concern with subsection (1) is not so much whether the property has been disposed of—I can see that there are arguments either way on that—but much more whether it has been disposed of for value, which involves the assumption that there is some consideration moving from the defendant. In an action for damages for tort, that seems to me not to be the case.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I ask him, in a genuine spirit of inquiry into his thinking in relation to this issue, to reflect on whether the concept that the cause of action is merged in a judgment, and therefore disappears in place of the judgment, may be a part of the answer to the question that he poses. He may not want to respond to that at this stage, but I invite him to reflect on it.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, that is the highly technical doctrine which I tried to persuade the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House to scrap last October. Unfortunately I failed. It is something that is so technical that it is unlikely. It is a possible argument but it is not one that is certain to succeed. If "for value" means that the cause of action has merged in the judgment, then it may well apply also to a matrimonial order because there is equally a cause of action there which becomes merged in the judgment. The noble and learned Lord is shaking his head. It is a little too late to pursue that particular argument, interesting though it is.
It seems that we are ending up with a situation which is not only anomalous and illogical but highly unfair to the plaintiff who has succeeded in recovering judgment. Even if successful, he may find that his costs are not fully recompensed and that he may have to pay his own money in order to get a judgment, which he then loses. That is seriously unfair.
Obviously, I do not wish to divide the House at this late hour. We shall take this matter away and consider whether or not to bring it back for a final attempt. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 145:
After Clause 305, insert the following new clause—
"OTHER EXEMPTIONS
(1) An order may provide that property is not recoverable or (as the case may be) associated property if—

(a) it is prescribed property, or

(b) it is disposed of in pursuance of a prescribed enactment or an enactment of a prescribed description.

(2) An order may provide that if property is disposed of in pursuance of a prescribed enactment or an enactment of a prescribed description, it is to be treated for the purposes of section 276 as if it had been disposed of in pursuance of a recovery order.
(3) An order under this section may be made so as to apply to property, or a disposal of property, only in prescribed circumstances; and the circumstances may relate to the property or disposal itself or to a person who holds or has held the property or to any other matter.
1314
(4) In this section, an order means an order made by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Scottish Ministers, and prescribed means prescribed by the order."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 146:
After Clause 308, insert the following new clause—
"RESTRICTION ON PERFORMANCE OF DIRECTOR'S FUNCTIONS BY POLICE
(1) In spite of section 1(5), nothing which the Director is authorised or required to do for the purposes of this Part may be done by—

(a) a member of a police force,

(b) a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland,

(c) a person appointed as a police member of the National Criminal Intelligence Service under section 9(1)(b) of the Police Act 1997 (c. 50),

(d) a person appointed as a police member of the National Crime Squad under section 55(1)(b) of that Act.

(2) In this section—

(a) "member of a police force" has the same meaning as in the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) and includes a person who would be a member of a police force but for section 97(3) of that Act (police officers engaged on service outside their force),

(b) "member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland" includes a person who would be a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland but for section 27(3) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c. 32) (members of that service engaged on other police service)."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 311 [General interpretation]:
Lord Goldsmithmoved Amendment No. 147:
Page 184, line 5, leave out from "264" to end of line 6.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 325 [Failure to disclose: regulated sector]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 148:
Page 192, line 43, after "he- insert "or an employee of his"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 150 to 152 and to Amendment No. 154. These were all originally tabled in the names of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and myself, but the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, have added their names to the amendments.
The amendment raises an important issue which we debated in Committee. It was also debated at great length in Committee in another place. On that occasion it caused concern not only to the opposition parties but to government Back-Benchers, some of whom were distinguished lawyers.
As the Bill now stands, an employee or any person who fails to make a disclosure of circumstances which give reasonable grounds for suspicion of money laundering commits a criminal offence even if he or she did not suspect that anything was wrong. The criminal penalty for negligence or stupidity is a severe one—it is punishable by up to five years' imprisonment. The only defence available to an employee who has not realised what he should have realised is that he has not been provided with training.

1315
We believe that it is wrong that an employee should be faced with being charged with a serious criminal offence on the basis of negligence or stupidity. We accept that if the Bill were changed so as to require actual knowledge or suspicion, and that was the only change that was made, the Bill would indeed be seriously weakened, because it would become much more difficult to obtain convictions.
By means of the amendments, we propose to strengthen the Bill by imposing strict liability on the employer. We believe that that is a more effective way of ensuring that disclosures are made when they should be made than making an employee liable to negligence. If an employer is liable for the employee's negligence, that will ensure not only that the employee is given proper training, but that the employer will be anxious to employ only people with the necessary ability to do the job; the employer will ensure proper internal monitoring processes to see that employees carry out their job properly; and the employer will impose pressure on employees to disclose or to refer the matter to more senior staff in any case of doubt.
The prospect of a large fine will make the company or firm take effective steps to ensure that its employees comply with the law. That is on the same basis as health and safety laws. Employers must not only provide hard hats for builders, but make sure that they wear them. People who are not employees—for example, a partner in a firm—would remain liable for the negligent failure to disclose. That seems reasonable. By the time somebody becomes a self-employed partner in a business, he ought to have the knowledge and skills that would enable him to see what it is reasonable to see.
The amendments would remove the injustice of prosecuting employees for negligence or stupidity and would strengthen the Bill by giving employers an incentive to ensure that their staff are properly trained and properly monitored and make the proper disclosures. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords—
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I shall be most telegraphic. In Committee, we were also extremely concerned about negligent acts leading to imprisonment. Our approach was different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We tabled an amendment to reduce the penalty for the offence to a non-custodial one. However, having reflected in the intervening weeks, we have decided to line up behind the noble Lord. We support the noble Lord's amendment for the reasons that he has given.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for trying to cut the noble Lord off in his prime. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for explaining the reasons behind the amendments. It is evident that we are not of like mind on where responsibilities should ultimately lie in the event that blatant examples of money laundering are disregarded. As the noble Lord said, and as the noble
1316
Lord, Lord Kingsland, implicitly acknowledged, they are not seeking to relieve the negligent employee from the criminal consequences of what the Bill proposes. They are trying to create a landscape in which the employer is more vigorous in ensuring that the employee is not negligent.
I agree that employers should be subject to a greater responsibility than employees. That is why we have introduced the training defence and clarified the obligations of nominated officers. However, I do not agree that employees in the regulated sector should not be subject to the offence of negligent failure to disclose. We must recognise the importance of their role in the financial sector's defences against money laundering. I think that both noble Lords accept that.
We consider that the negligence element of the failure to disclose offence should be applied directly to individual employees, as do both noble Lords. We must have provisions in place that serve to deter competent employees from exercising wilful blindness, particularly, as is often the case, when they are under pressure to maximise profits.
In practice, we cannot see that responsible employees will be placed under any special threat by this offence. All employees will be able to seek advice from and report any suspicions to their nominated officer. This would immediately provide them with a defence to the commission of the offence. Secondly, the clause envisages that all employees will be issued with guidance about money laundering in order to ensure that they are aware of situations in which money laundering can occur. Any such guidance must be considered by the court if a prosecution is undertaken. There is also the additional protection that if they have not been given training, as specified by the Secretary of State, they will not be penalised for failing to make a report. There are already considerable protections.
The test of "reasonable grounds" on individuals is important, because it will help to raise awareness of and compliance with anti-money laundering controls throughout the regulated sector. That will be especially important when the range of regulated activities is widened following the implementation of the second European money laundering directive. We do not believe that the offence acts unfairly because we have built in sufficient safeguards to ensure that those who have a valid reason for failing to spot a suspicion are not improperly brought before the courts.
I have already mentioned that one of the amendments in this group would remove the defence for employees who have not received the specified training. I think that removal of this defence would be an unwise and unfair step. Throughout the debate on the Bill we have listened carefully to the representations of key interest groups from the sectors that will be affected by its provisions, and have acted on those representations where we felt it would be appropriate to do so. This is one such instance of our support for the representations that we have received. It is only fair that an employee who has not received the appropriate training on money laundering should

1317
not be penalised. In those circumstances, it is quite clearly the employer who is at fault and should be penalised accordingly.
Finally, I should like to re-emphasise that the Government believe that strong anti-money laundering measures, including the new negligence test, are fully justified against the background of several money laundering cases that have taken place in the City but were not reported to law enforcement. In the City's financial reputation and standing both here and overseas, it is of utmost importance that the United Kingdom should be seen to demand the highest standards of diligence. I trust that the noble Lords do not want to weaken this country's defences against money laundering. In the light of what I have said, I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured, and that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will withdraw his amendment with the full support of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we believe that our amendments, far from weakening the campaign against money laundering, would strengthen it. We believe that nothing will be achieved by prosecuting employees, particularly junior employees, for committing a criminal act that they had no idea they were committing. We believe that we shall be far more effective in stopping money laundering if employers are aware that, if their employees do not do their job properly, employers themselves will face the risk of prosecution. We believe that it is not just a matter of training, but that the employer's responsibility extends to ensuring that they employ people who can do the job and to monitoring to ensure that those people work properly, to minimise the chances of anything slipping through the net of their system.
We therefore believe that our group of amendments both removes a potential injustice to employees and would be more effective than the Government's present proposals at actually stopping money laundering. It is with regret that I find that the Government are not accepting these proposals. Although I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment, I think it very likely that we shall come back with the proposal for a final hearing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 149:
Page 193, line 1, at end insert "and has carried out at least one transaction intended to conceal criminal property"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should first declare that I am speaking with the benefit of briefing from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I am a member. The Institute of Chartered Accountants is more than happy for its members to play a full part in the fight against money laundering, but it has some practical issues about how the Bill will work in practice.
Amendment No. 149 is fundamentally designed to eliminate the need to report trivial money laundering offences. It is not an exclusion solely for accountants.
1318
However, once accountants are covered by Clause 325 when the second money laundering directive is implemented, the possibilities of reporting trivial offences will multiply many times. As I explained in Committee, there is a very large number of accountants in the UK—well over 200,000—and their work exposes them to a mass of small transactions that will be treated as money laundering offences under this Bill.
Accountants are involved in the smallest details of businesses and therefore have an unenviable exposure to the existence of minor offences. In Committee I gave examples of the kind of minor offences that we are talking about, such as shoplifting and minor staff defalcations. Like it or not, those offences are common throughout the business world. They will be treated as money laundering offences under the Bill. Accountants, far more than any other professionals, will become involved in issues of disclosure.
There are around 3 million businesses in the country. Do the Government really want minor money laundering offences to be reported on that scale? In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, seemed to suggest that he wanted lots of reporting so that the people in NCIS could pick up patterns of money laundering. If NCIS thinks that it can pick up patterns of money laundering from reports of shoplifting or of staff theft, possibly from petty cash, I think that we must have doubts about whether NCIS could properly handle the kind of reports that would arise under the money laundering provisions.
The simple solution would be a de minimis exclusion. However, I understand that the Government have set their face against that which is why this amendment comes from a different direction. It removes from the ambit of the disclosure provisions money laundering which is not accompanied by a subsequent attempt at concealment of criminal property.
I should emphasise that chartered accountants take their responsibilities under the current law seriously and will be prepared to do so under future law. However, the problem lies in the scale of reporting that will be required. It seems that it will become a daily part of accountants' lives to send a long list of trivial offences to NCIS.
The Home Office has in effect tried to put the onus on accountants to decide what is trivial and not worth reporting by saying that accountants are unlikely to be prosecuted for failure to report trivial money laundering offences. However, that causes difficulties for chartered accountants. If they turn out to have judged incorrectly and are prosecuted successfully, the ethical requirements of the Institute of Chartered Accountants will come into play and it is quite likely that they would be excluded from membership and thereby lose their ability to earn a living as qualified accountants for the failure to disclose a potentially trivial amount. But if they play safe and report everything that comes to their attention, NCIS could be overwhelmed with volume. The noble Lord, Lord

1319
Rooker, gave figures for the extra resources to be allocated to NCIS which sounded very thin in the context of the disclosures that I have discussed.
As I said, chartered accountants wish to play a full part in the fight against money laundering. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment. If not, will he say something about how the measure will work in practice, including the resourcing of NCIS? I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to exclude from the failure to disclose offence those cases where money laundering is committed but where there has been no concealment transaction. So it would exclude a case where an accountant had reason to believe that there was a large amount of money gained from drug dealing in the bank account of his client. That is plainly not what the noble Baroness or the Institute of Chartered Accountants intends.
As I understand it, the noble Baroness's aim is simply to deal with the trivial transaction, as she put it. But, unfortunately, her amendment is drafted so as to cover major transactions as well. Therefore, it plainly does not work as an amendment. The noble Baroness kindly acknowledged that this is another attempt to try to reduce the burden on accountants who will come within the regulated sector. The noble Baroness is perhaps not thinking about the bigger picture but about accountants only. I am afraid that we remain unpersuaded that we should make the change that the noble Baroness seeks if for no other reason than that it would exclude that huge area which I know that she would want to catch.
We cannot consider this amendment simply in the context of what effect it might have on certain sections of the financial sector. In 1999, the Financial Action Task Force—which is based in Paris under the umbrella of the OECD and which is the leading authority on money laundering—reported an estimate provided by the International Monetary Fund that money laundering accounts for between 2 and 5 per cent of the world's GDP. The good reputation of the UK as an international financial centre means that, once accepted into UK financial institutions, funds are generally perceived to be clean. For that reason, the United Kingdom, and the City of London in particular, are attractive targets for launderers.
We make no excuse, therefore, for taking strong measures to discourage criminals from using the UK financial services sector, thereby protecting our reputation for clean dealing and reducing the risk of market distortion and instability in our financial markets.
Despite our efforts to date—there has been a succession of legislation on money laundering in recent years—significant sums of money have continued and no doubt are continuing to be laundered through the London markets. That is why we consider that the police and Customs should be strongly encouraged to investigate money laundering
1320
offences wherever appropriate and prosecutors should recognise the clear public interest of bringing forward money laundering prosecutions.
Close scrutiny of our legislation has demonstrated that there are in fact very few successful prosecutions each year for money laundering. Provisional figures for 2000, for example, show that, in England and Wales, there were only 16 convictions arising from 73 prosecutions for drug money laundering and for other crimes there were only 23 convictions out of 45 prosecutions. In Scotland to date, no prosecutions have come to court for alleged money laundering offences; hence there have been no convictions. When one considers that London is one of the major financial markets in the world, the number of prosecutions was very much on the low side.
It is against this background that I have examined the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 149. I reiterate that we have overhauled all the offences that now appear as Clauses 322, 323 and 324 and we consider that their overall effect will be to make it much more difficult for those who are engaged in money laundering to escape the consequences of their actions. We have taken a deliberate decision in respect of Clause 324 that there should be no distinction between the possession of one's own proceeds or another's proceeds and that, in keeping with international obligations, that offence should be classified as a money-laundering offence under Part 7. As a consequence of that deliberate extension, the reporting offence at Clause 325 includes knowledge or suspicion, or reasonable grounds to know or suspect, that another person possesses criminal proceeds, whether those proceeds are his own or another person's proceeds.
I agree with the noble Baroness that the effect of the changes that we have made to Clause 324, together with the reporting obligation in Clause 325, will increase the number of reports that are made to the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Furthermore, I also accept that the number will increase still further once auditors, accountants and tax advisers are brought within the regulated sector for the purpose of Clause 325.
The key question, looking at the whole picture, is whether the right policy is that under which a person within the regulated sector who knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds to suspect, that another person has possession of criminal property that has been obtained either through his own or another's criminal conduct should have to report that fact to the National Criminal Intelligence Service irrespective of what sum is involved or whether some sort of concealment has been involved. We have considered that point very closely indeed in our discussions with the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the Treasury, and the overwhelming advice has been that it is far preferable for the National Criminal Intelligence Service to be in possession of all such disclosures irrespective of the sum involved because only NCIS is best placed to evaluate whether or not there is underlying money laundering activity. Experience has often shown that it is not the size of the

1321
sum involved in a suspicious transaction report that is important. We understand that in 2001, 10 per cent of all suspicious transaction reports made to NCIS were in respect of transactions of £500 or less. What may seem like an insignificant issue not worth reporting to, or by, an accountant could, for NCIS, be the missing item that would enable it to link various other pieces of information and consequently to pursue a worthwhile investigation.
There are more than 200,000 accountants in the UK, and they are involved in every business in the country. However, I remind your Lordships that those accountants currently make only 0.35 per cent of all reports received by NCIS. That is a very low figure for such a large number of professionals. If, as we would hope, the provisions in the Bill have the effect of making the accountancy profession more aware of its obligations in the field of money laundering, I believe that that will provide welcome reassurance that the profession takes its responsibilities seriously.
The noble Baroness's amendment would, for example, require the accountancy profession to decide whether or not the person on whose affairs advice was being given had, first, carried out more than one transaction in respect of property under scrutiny; and, secondly, if he had, whether it was done with the intention of concealing his property. I simply do not see how that would work. It seems to me an easy defence for the accountant simply to say that, although he suspected that money laundering was taking place, nothing gave him grounds to suspect that a specific transaction had been carried out with the intention of concealing criminal property. It would be very difficult for the prosecution to establish that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting an intent to conceal property in order to secure a successful prosecution against a person who had not reported in circumstances that others might consider to be very suspicious. Further down the line, we would be saying, once again, that the money laundering legislation contained too many loopholes.
We should also consider the central point of what would happen if a person had every reason to believe that his client's bank account contained money which resulted from drug trafficking, human trafficking or money laundering itself. There would be no obligation to report under the noble Baroness's amendment. With the greatest respect to the Institute of Chartered Accountants for England and Wales, the amendment does not seem to have been remotely thought out.
So much for the principle. I now turn to the practical question raised by the noble Baroness of whether the National Criminal Intelligence Service could cope with the increase in reports. During the debate in Committee—I refer noble Lords to the Official Report of 27th May, col. 1075—my noble friend Lord Rooker spoke of the fact that extra resources have been made available to NCIS. He also said that resourcing will be kept under review as the Bill comes into force to ensure that NCIS has the means to cope with the increased level of reports that it will receive. I shall briefly remind your Lordships of where things stand.
1322
In the financial year 2000–01, the Home Office made an extra £250,000 available to the National Criminal Intelligence Service to fund additional staff for the Economic Crime Branch, which handles suspicious transaction reports. That additional funding was increased to £1.8 million last year and will continue this year. NCIS increased the staffing of the branch from 24 in August 2000 to 66 in December 2001, and a further increase of up to 20 staff is planned for the financial year 2002–03.
Once again, I can confirm to noble Lords that, following commencement of the new money laundering offences in the Bill, the Home Office and the National Criminal Intelligence Service will keep under review the service's capacity to deal with suspicious transaction reports with a view to ensuring that an effective service is maintained.
Finally, I ask your Lordships to reflect on this. Experience has shown that the more impediments we build into the principal offences, including Clause 325, the less likely it is that we shall be able successfully to prosecute offenders. We need to ensure that reports of knowledge or suspicion of all three principal money laundering offences are made.
If Clause 325 is to be successful in achieving its aims of combating money laundering within the regulated sector, it is important that reports are made not only where a concealing offence has taken place under Clause 322, as sought by the amendment, but also where there is a suspicion, or grounds for suspicion, that either of the other two principal money laundering offences have taken place or, indeed, may be taking place. We have taken steps to ensure that the National Criminal Intelligence Service is geared up to cope with the anticipated increase in reporting, and we shall keep the position under review. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I accept that the amendment does not meet the point regarding suspicion about a major transaction. As I explained, the amendment, though defective, was directed at avoiding the reporting of trivial transactions, and that remains its thrust.
The Minister referred to low reporting under the existing money laundering rules. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in Committee whether there was evidence of non-reporting of accountants which caused concern and he could not give any. The existing law makes it relatively unlikely that accountants would be involved in money laundering transactions because they are not typically involved in handling cash. Indeed, they would most likely be avoided by money launderers because of the existing ethical rules to disclose unlawful acts regardless of any specific statutory requirements.
I do not believe there is evidence that accountants do not want to play their part in money laundering; all the evidence is that they do. The noble and learned Lord referred several times to the City. Accountants are not

1323
just in the City; they are in every high street in the land. That is primarily where accountants are and where the thrust of my remarks was directed.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants will want to consider the Minister's remarks regarding the conditions under which a successful prosecution could take place. The institute will need carefully to consider what guidance it gives to its members. I know that it will want to avoid seeking to overwhelm NCIS with trivial reporting. However, equally, it must have regard for the ability of its members to continue successfully to operate as chartered accountants within the limits of the law. I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I shall read carefully in Hansard what the Minister has said, as will the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 150 to 152 not moved.]
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 153:
Page 193, line 16, at end insert—
"(ba) he is an auditor, external accountant or tax adviser and the information comes to him in the circumstances set out in subsection 10A);"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 153, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. Under Clause 325(5)(b) there is a familiar exemption for legal professional privilege. Amendment No. 153 introduces a similar but certainly not identical exemption for auditors, external accountants and tax advisers.
The second European directive on money laundering clearly contemplates that exemption should be available for auditors, external accountants and tax advisers with regard to the information they obtain from a client in the course of ascertaining the legal position for the client. The amendments are designed to ensure that when that directive is implemented, accountants, auditors and tax advisers will he fairly treated.
For the avoidance of doubt, the intention of the amendment is not to extend legal professional privilege to chartered accountants. It is designed to introduce a limited exemption where information comes to an auditor, external accountant or tax adviser in the course of his profession for the purposes of ascertaining the legal position of the client.
Amendments Nos. 157, 159 and 160 give a similar protection in the context of the tipping-off provisions, allowing, obviously, for advice to be given following the ascertainment of the client's position. These sets of amendments are considerably narrower than legal professional privilege but seek to relieve accountants from the disadvantage which they would otherwise suffer. I suggest to the Government that there are public policy reasons for this limited set of exemptions.
The first public policy reason is fair competition. That is because in some areas—general business advice and tax advice—lawyers operate in essentially the same territory as external accountants and tax advisers. Therefore, if the Bill gives a competitive
1324
advantage to lawyers, that would operate unfairly. I do not expect many lawyers here today to have any sympathy for that, but I expect the Government to take seriously the unfair impact on competition that the Bill could have.
My second public policy reason relates to the position of the audit and auditors. Here the issue is slightly different. The audit process depends crucially on information flowing freely to auditors so that they can reach the required judgments under company law. If company directors thought that auditors might be under an obligation to go to NCIS every time they discussed a transaction that might be considered to be on the borderline of money laundering, there is a real concern that the flow of information would dry up.
Auditing is hard enough—I speak from bitter personal experience—without the law setting up any barrier to a company's directors and senior staff providing the information and explanations that auditors need in order to do their job.
So on those public policy grounds of promoting fair competition and of enhancing the audit process, which is important in assuring credibility of financial information to the business community, I beg to move the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Noakes on this group of amendments which we believe to be entirely sensible and reasonable.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, proposes a limited but fairly significant extension of legal professional privilege to accountants, tax advisors and auditors when acting in comparable situations to lawyers. She also suggests that legal professional privilege should be extended to the situation where accountants are acting in their capacity as auditors.
Your Lordships will know that in Committee my noble friend Lord Rooker acknowledged that further work may be needed on this issue. I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Baroness and can well understand her concerns. However, we need to bear in mind that, hitherto, the courts have not chosen to extend legal privilege to accountants and tax advisers. They have been pressed on many occasions to do so.
Those points aside, we have made clear on previous occasions that we intend that full consultation should take place later this year on the United Kingdom's implementation of the new money laundering directive.
The possibility of some extension of professional privilege to accountants has not been ruled out. But we think that it would be wrong to do that in isolation. If any changes are to be made, those should be in the context of our detailed consideration and wider consultation on the implementation of the directive, which will commence shortly. It will be important not least to obtain the views of the judiciary and the legal

1325
profession on such a proposal. It is important, therefore, that we do not try to pre-empt the outcome of the proposed consultation exercise. That would obviously consider the point that the noble Baroness made about auditors.
I make one final point. We understand that the accountancy profession is also concerned that lawyers who can claim legal privilege may be at a competitive advantage when offering tax advice to clients who are unsure of their legal position. However, questions of competition and commercial advantage must in this instance be considered separately from the interests of those clients for whose protection the common law concept of legal privilege has evolved.
Legal professional privilege is most certainly not there for the protection of the professional person; it is there for the protection of the client. Therefore, to advance arguments about competition in relation to accountants is not particularly powerful. I am not at all persuaded that honest people and businesses will be deterred from seeking professional advice because of the provisions in the Bill. Again, that can be dealt with in the light of the consultation exercise. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his response. I should emphasise that I was not seeking through the amendment to extend legal professional privilege. Legal professional privilege is a concept that runs wide. The amendment would provide a specific exemption from these provisions. I had hoped that it would have been considered in that light and not as a major attempt to take legal professional privilege beyond the class to which it belongs—that is, lawyers. It was in those terms that I sought to advance it. In that sense, I am unashamed about raising competition issues, which are properly to be taken into account in designing the working of a whole system.
I take on board what the noble and learned Lord said about consultation later this year prior to implementation of the second money laundering directive, in the hope that that consultation process will be full, open and involve all parties—before, doubtless, a long piece of subordinate legislation is rushed late at night through your Lordships' House. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 154 to 156 not moved.]
Clause 328 [Tipping off]:
[Amendment No. 157 not moved.]
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 158:
Page 195, line 29, at end insert—
"(d) he has been instructed to carry out a transaction which he is unable to carry out because the appropriate consent has not been given and he has been requested by or on behalf of the person giving the instruction to explain why the transaction has not been carried out"
1326
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should begin by saying that I am afraid that there is a typographical error in the amendment as it appears on the Marshalled List. In the first line of proposed new paragraph (d), the words, "able to carry out" should of course read, "unable to carry out".
Clause 328 states:
"A person commits an offence if … he knows or suspects that a disclosure"
which, under the Bill, is either a protected or unauthorised disclosure, has been made, and he then proceeds to tip off someone else in a way that is likely to prejudice any investigation that may be conducted following the original disclosure. Clause 328(2) sets out certain circumstances in which an offence is not committed. We propose by the amendment to add as a fourth exception that,
"he has been instructed to carry out a transaction which he is unable to carry out because the appropriate consent has not been given and he has been requested by or on behalf of the person giving the instruction to explain why the transaction has not been carried out".
The Bill will leave professionals in the regulated sector in an impossible position. That has caused the Law Society serious concern. If people are in the regulated sector, they will be not merely authorised but required to report suspicions about their clients' affairs to the nominated officer. Such a disclosure made in discharge of that obligation would, as I understand it, be an authorised disclosure under the Bill.
Professionals may be instructed to, let us say, make a payment on the following day from their clients' fund that they hold in their current account. They will be unable to do so because they will not have received the consent that would authorise them to proceed. A client may discover that the payment has not been made and ask why his instruction has not been followed. Surely, it cannot be intended that the professional involved should make up some kind of bogus excuse. All that the professional can do is either tell the truth, which, it would appear, would be an offence under Clause 328, or say, "I am afraid that I cannot tell you why the payment has not been made." Of course, if the professional says that, any client who is, in truth, a money launderer will know at once why that answer has been given.
The best course is to allow the professional to say, "I'm sorry. I had to disclose it, and there is a legal ban on carrying out the transaction unless and until consent is received." That would put the professionals in a more reasonable position and would not lead to an increase in money laundering. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendment is neither desirable nor necessary. In all cases in which consent decisions are sought, it is open to the person who made the disclosure or the

1327
nominated officer to liaise closely with the National Criminal Intelligence Service to consider how to avoid committing a tipping-off offence and agree a form of words that might be used to respond to any queries about the delay in carrying out a transaction. Your Lordships will be interested to note that that is already standard practice and will continue to be so once the new legislation is in force.
The amendment would mean that, if the United Kingdom, for example, were being used as a conduit for large sums of suspect money and if the financial institution in question came under fire to explain why a client's instructions to transfer the money to some other country had not been carried out, the financial institution could pass information to the client without committing the offence. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will be better able than I to say what the legal position of the financial institution would be vis- à-vis its client. There should be some way of allowing law enforcement agencies to take action to restrain the funds and prevent their dissipation. The time limits are designed to give law enforcement precisely that opportunity.
The rationale for the suspicious transaction reporting regime is to assist the law enforcement authorities to combat money laundering. I am far from persuaded that the noble Lord's amendment would help; in fact, the reverse would be the case. The amended provision would invariably be used as a pretext for giving information whenever a client exerted the slightest pressure. I remain of the view that there should be close dialogue between law enforcement agencies and financial institutions so that we can maximise our efforts against those who seek to use the financial system to launder their ill gotten gains.
I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, can the Minister explain what form of words could be used that, on the one hand, would not involve telling an untruth and, on the other, would not alert a money launderer to the fact that the authorities were looking at him?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it happens in practice at the moment, although I do not know what the standard advice is. It would not be right for me to speculate on that, given the consequences to which the noble Lord referred. However, it is not beyond the wit of man to think of something that achieves both the aims to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the Minister's answer will not be entirely satisfactory to the Law Society or other professional groups. We will consider what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Clause 332 [Protected disclosures]:
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 161:
Page 198, line 7, at end insert ", or is a matter relating to that knowledge or suspicion"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to protect disclosure of information related to knowledge or suspicion of money laundering but not disclosure of the actual information on which the knowledge or suspicion is based. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that he would look again at the matter. I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has tabled Amendment No. 162 in this group, which I believe is directed at the same point. If he can tell the House that his amendment achieves the result I sought I shall be delighted to withdraw the amendment, but until then I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I fully support the intention behind the Opposition amendment. The noble Baroness is correct: our amendment in the same group seeks to deal with the same point. We believe that it deals with the issue more comprehensively in the context of the extended provisions introduced to Part 7 in Committee. In the light of that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 334 [Form and manner of disclosures]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 162:
Page 199, line 3, at end insert—
"(2) An order under this section may also provide that the form may include a request to the discloser to provide additional information specified in the form.
(3) The additional information must be information which is necessary to enable the person to whom the disclosure is made to decide whether to start a money laundering investigation.
(4) A disclosure made in pursuance or a request under subsection (2) is not to be taken to breach any restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).
(5) The discloser is the person making a disclosure mentioned in subsection (1).
(6) Money laundering investigation must be construed in accordance with section 336(4).
(7) Subsection (2) does not apply to a disclosure made to a nominated officer."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 335 [Interpretation]:
[Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 not moved.]
Clause 341 [Requirements for making of production order]:
Lord Thomas of Gresfordmoved Amendment No. 165:
Page 203, line 25, at end insert—
"() There must be reasonable grounds for believing that the making of a production order is in the public interest having regard to—

(a) the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the material is obtained; and

(b) the circumstances under which the person in possession of the material holds it."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I spoke to this amendment in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said at the end of the debate that he agreed with me and that he would look again at the matter. Within days he was reshuffled. I am not sure whether there was any connection between his agreement with me and his reshuffling. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will permit me to rehearse my arguments once more.
When applying for a production order, the application is made through a judge. Certain information has to be given under Clause 340 (2) and (3). It is inevitable in the machinery that the judge hears the application ex parte. Under Clause 341 he has in effect a tick list of requirements on which he must satisfy himself before he can make the order. Nothing in Clause 341 requires him to carry out a balancing exercise between the public interest and the convention rights of the individual concerned, or any of the other circumstances set out in my amendment.
Amendment No. 165 has not been cobbled up just for the Bill; it appears in earlier legislation dealing with similar circumstances. Its purpose is for the judge, in making the order on an application, to consider where the public interest lies. The answer given to that suggestion in Committee was that the judge has to take into account the individual's convention rights in any event.
However, there is nothing in the clause to remind him of that fact and in any event the question is different. Under the convention, the question would be: is this application a disproportionate interference in the right to respect for privacy, family life, home and correspondence, or perhaps to his property rights? That is a different matter from the broad circumstances which we have set out in the amendment. It is our view that in this and the like provisions which are set out in Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 there is a need to remind the judge of the public interest and the balancing exercise that he must carry out.
As regards Amendment No. 167, to which I am also speaking, the numbering is wrong. The account monitoring order is dealt with in Clause 366. The page numbers in the amendment refer to Clause 360, which
1330
deals with customer information orders. I am obviously speaking to the principle that applies to both the orders made in that regard. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the point was raised in the Commons, where there was a Division on it, and it was raised in Committee in this House. My noble friend Lord Rooker agreed to reconsider the matter and one imagines that even as we speak he is still doing so. I am sure that it had nothing whatever to do with his move.
As explained in the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill, the Human Rights Act 1998 requires a judge not to act in a way that is incompatible with the convention rights. After reconsidering the matter, we think it unnecessary to retain the present "public interest" test contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1998, the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 and the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 as one of the requirements for making a production order, or to include it as a requirement for an application for a disclosure order and an account monitoring order.
Certain doubts have been raised that the Human Rights Act provided the same safeguard or, if it did, that this justified the removal of an express safeguard to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred. However, Section 6 of the Human Rights Act would require a court to comply with all the safeguards which are provided by the convention when deciding whether or not to make an order or warrant.
We are satisfied therefore that the application of the Human Rights Act removes the need for the public interest test. Article 8(2) of the convention provides that there shall be no interference by a public authority in respect of the right to private and family life, home and correspondence, except where necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime. Although the public interest test is not worded in these precise terms, we cannot think of any situation where the public interest test would prevent an order or warrant being made but Article 8 would not.
Furthermore, the equivalent customer information order and account monitoring order provisions in recent legislation—the Terrorism Act 2000 as amended by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001—does not contain the public interest test. In those cases the judge would also have to consider the application against his obligation to consider a person's rights under the convention. This is a parallel to the position under the Bill. Therefore, one should be straightforward and clear. In the light of that, we do not believe that the incorporation of the public interest test is sensible or necessary to provide the kind of protection the noble Lord seeks.
I hope that in the light of my comments the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, where I draw a distinction between the ordinary hearings before a judge, in which both parties are represented, and this situation is in the fact that the judge is acting on his

1331
own. He has before him an application and he must make a decision on that application. No one is arguing the provisions of the Human Rights Act before him.
The situation will be rather different where the judge should have in mind not only the other requirements explicitly set out in the clause, but also the public interest test as defined in earlier legislation. I urge the noble and learned Lord to join with his noble friend, in whatever limbo he may be at the moment, further to consider the matter before we return to it on Third Reading. In the meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 353 [uirements for making of disclosure order
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
Clause 359 [Meaning of customer information]:
[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 168:
After Clause 370, insert the following new clause—
"Evidence overseas
(1) This section applies if the Director is carrying out a confiscation investigation.
(2) A judge on the application of the Director or a person subject to the investigation may issue a letter of request if he thinks that there is evidence in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom—

(a) that such a person has benefited from his criminal conduct, or

(b) of the extent or whereabouts of that person's benefit from his criminal conduct.

(3) The Director may issue a letter of request if he thinks that there is evidence in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom—

(a) that a person subject to the investigation has benefited from his criminal conduct, or

(b) of the extent or whereabouts of that person's benefit from his criminal conduct.

(4) A letter of request is a letter requesting assistance in obtaining outside the United Kingdom such evidence as is specified in the letter for use in the investigation.
(5) The person issuing a letter of request must send it to the Secretary of State.
(6) If the Secretary of State believes it is appropriate to do so he may forward a letter received under subsection (5)—

(a) to a court or tribunal which is specified in the letter and which exercises jurisdiction in the place where the evidence is to be obtained, or

(b) to an authority recognised by the government of the country or territory concerned as the appropriate authority for receiving letters of request.

(7) But in a case of urgency the person issuing the letter of request may send it directly to the court or tribunal mentioned in subsection (6)(a).
(8) Evidence obtained in pursuance of a letter of request must not be used—

(a) by any person other than the Director or a person subject to the investigation;

(b) for any purpose other than that for which it is obtained.

(9) Subsection (8) does not apply if the authority mentioned in subsection (6)(b) consents to the use.
(10) Evidence includes documents and other articles."
1332
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this amendment is that the ARA will be able to request evidence from overseas relating to confiscation investigations which the director is conducting. The person under investigation will also be able to request such evidence for use in his defence. As the Bill stands, the director would have to rely on the prosecuting authorities to make requests on his behalf. That would seriously impair his operational efficiency. We expect there to be many cases where the defendant has assets abroad and the director needs to be able to make inquiries to ascertain the full extent of those assets.
This new clause makes provision enabling the director himself to request evidence from overseas. It closely follows the established and successful model of Section 3 of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. The new clause limits the director's power to request evidence to evidence for use in confiscation investigations and proceedings relating to the making of a confiscation order. It would be outside his powers to request evidence relating to wider issues.
There are other international instruments which are available to the director for requesting evidence for his civil recovery investigations such as the Hague convention of March 1970. It is anticipated that he will make use of these for his civil recovery investigations.
It has come to our attention very late that an amendment will be required to this new clause at Third Reading. That is because applications under this clause will be made to a judge and not to a court. We will therefore require a specific rule-making provision within the Bill to make rules of court for such applications. We shall table such an amendment at Third Reading. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 377 [Further provisions]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 169:
Page 221, line 31, leave out from "any" to end of line 33 and insert "restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed)"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment designed to bring the wording of Clause 377(2) into line with the corresponding provision for England and Wales—Clause 343(4)—and indeed with the wording of the other equivalent Scottish provisions on disclosure orders—Clause 389(2)—and customer information orders—Clause 396. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 379 [Government departments]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 170:
Page 222, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 379(3) presently requires that in Scotland a production order in respect of material in the possession or control of an authorised government department must be served as if the proceedings were civil proceedings

1333
against that department. This means that service can be effected only by recorded delivery post or by a sheriff officer.
In practice, what is done at present is for a law enforcement officer to leave an order at the office of a nominated person. By deleting subsection (3), the amendment will enable the present practice to continue.
We do not need to make similar provision for England, Wales and Northern Ireland where Section 18 of the Crown Proceedings Act requires notice to be served on the Treasury Solicitor. Section 18 does not, however, apply to Scotland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 171:
Page 222, line 26, leave out "(4)" and insert "(5)"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting amendment designed to correct an erroneous cross-reference. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 406 [Interpretation]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 172:
Page 236, line 11, leave out "Part" and insert "Chapter"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment to make it clear that the definitions in Clause 406 relate only to Chapter 3 of Part 8—Investigations Scotland—rather than the whole of Part 8 as currently drafted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 408 [Property]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 173:
Page 237, line 20, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would amend Clause 408(3). That subsection sets out certain definitional rules that apply in relation to references to property for the purposes of Part 8. We have been reflecting on the question of the Part 8 definitions following the debate in Committee on 27th May.
Clause 408(3)(a) is relevant only to investigations for the purposes of civil recovery, as all the references to holding property in Part 8 are in the context of provisions relating to civil recovery investigations. Moreover, each reference to holding property in Part 8 occurs in the context of holding recoverable or associated property. There is no power to investigate for civil recovery purposes unless there is an issue as to whether property is recoverable or associated.
Recoverable property and associated property are in turn defined at Clause 408(2) by direct reference to their meanings in Part 5. That part makes clear, through the definitions of recoverable property in
1334
Clauses 301 to 306, associated property in Clause 245 and in the general definitions of property in Clauses 311(4) to (7) on which they in turn rely, that references to property in these contexts already include references to interests in property. We have therefore concluded that Clause 408(3)(a) is not needed for the effective application of Part 8 to civil recovery investigations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 411 [Modifications of the 1986 Act]:
Baroness Buscombemoved Amendment No. 174:
Page 239, line 6, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
"(2) If an order has been made under section 41, 50. 52, 120, 128(3), 190, 198 or 200 and is in force at the date on which the petition in which the person is adjudged bankrupt is presented, the prosecutor, the Director or the accredited financial investigator who applied for any such order shall be entitled to prove in the bankruptcy of the person adjudged bankrupt for—

(a) the amount such person is required to pay for any confiscation order, and

(b) the costs of obtaining the order under section 41, 50, 52, 120, 128(3), 190, 198 or 200 and any such confiscation order.

(3) Any dividend payable under subsection (2)(a) shall be paid after all other creditors have been paid the full amount of their debts and such interest to which they are entitled.
(4) The costs referred to in subsection (2)(b) shall be treated as a preferential debt for the purposes of section 328 and the 1986 Act."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 181, 182, 189, 190, 192 and 193, 201, 202, 204, 205, 207, 208, 212, 213 and 214. I proposed very similar amendments to this part of the Bill at the Committee stage. A number of criticisms were made of the drafting with which I believe we have now dealt.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made a number of points of principle, which we believe are without substance. I therefore propose to deal with each of these points and show why they are without substance. The first point which the noble Lord made was that the legislation needs to address the risk of criminals attempting to manipulate their proceeds into the hands of creditors who are, in reality, their associates. The noble Lord said that the amendments would open up the legislation to that possibility.
We believe that what the noble Lord was saying was that criminals will incur debts payable to their associates who will be able to prove for their debts in an insolvency. This argument pre-supposes that associates will lend money to the criminal or otherwise create a liability owed by the criminal to the associates.
If those steps or those liabilities are not genuine, the associates will not be able to recover anything in the insolvency of the criminal. Under the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Insolvency Rules of the same year, there is a procedure whereby creditors prove for their debts in the insolvency of the bankrupt. This procedure involves the creditor submitting a proof of debt which is either accepted or rejected by the trustee in

1335
bankruptcy or, in the case of the company, the liquidator. His decision is subject to challenge in the courts by the bankrupt or any other creditor.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness indicate the effect that her successful amendment has had on this amendment?
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am talking about the priority in terms of insolvency. As regards the success, I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord has raised it. I believe that the success of the earlier amendment impinges on these amendments and I hope that the Government will accept them in the light of that success.
I believe that it is important that we state why we believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was incorrect at Committee stage. We shall also consider why these amendments should now stand at Report stage, particularly in the light of the amendment agreed earlier today.
This procedure involves the creditor submitting a proof of debt which is either rejected or accepted by the trustee in bankruptcy or, in the case of a company, the liquidator. His decision is subject to challenge in the courts by the bankrupt or any other creditor, which will include the prosecutor, the director or the accredited financial investigator. They will be able to challenge the evidence relied upon by these associates and show that these debts are not genuine. In those circumstances, these associates will not recover anything in the insolvency of the criminal. There is no issue about priorities because these particular creditors, whose debts or liabilities are not genuine, will not get anything.
If, on the other hand, those debts or liabilities are genuine, these associates will have lent money or created a liability knowing that they will recover only a dividend or nothing at all, with no conceivable benefit to the criminal. The associates will have lost money, the criminal will be no better off, and the whole point of the exercise by these criminals of attempting to manipulate their proceeds into the hands of creditors who are their associates will achieve nothing. It is an entirely pointless exercise from their point of view.
The conclusion that the amendments would open up the legislation to that possibility is, we respectfully suggest, absurd or, if not, to be encouraged: the associates would lose money.
The second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was that criminals could run up large amounts of genuine debts so as to leave as little as possible for confiscation. He went on to say that the director, the prosecutor and the other authorities would not pursue cases if they had to operate against the real prospect of the assets disappearing to satisfy the criminal's debts. This argument presupposes the existence of genuine debts.
We still believe that genuine creditors should be paid before the Consolidated Fund. The fact that these innocent creditors are paid before the Consolidated
1336
Fund is not something that troubles us. Looking at it from the point of view of the creditors, they are entirely blameless. If a criminal makes a decision to run up large amounts of genuine debt, it would be quite wrong that the innocent creditors should suffer for the conduct of the criminal. We made a similar point on earlier amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the way that the noble Baroness is putting this would indicate that it is fairly redundant. She can go on, but she must think about the relationship between these amendments and the ones with which she succeeded.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord is saying, but I wish to clarify why we believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was incorrect in Committee in relation to these amendments, which are entirely associated with Part 9 and insolvency. That said, principles similar to the ones set down in earlier amendments apply. I do not believe that the success of our earlier amendments makes these amendments redundant; or perhaps the Minister is about to say that he will accept these amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the amendments moved earlier by the noble Baroness, as I understand it, mean that a creditor can apply to the court for compensation under the new clause if there is insufficient money to pay him in any bankruptcy caused by the making of a confiscation order. Why is the noble Baroness continuing to move these amendments?
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I accept what the noble and learned Lord is saying, but believe that this is important. I am sorry if he feels that I am wasting the time of the House but I should like to set out the case properly. It is important for those who are involved on a day-to-day basis in the issue of insolvency. I feel strongly that I should be allowed to respond to the points made in Committee.
To be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, he went on to say that this would disrupt the activities of the enforcement authorities because cases would not be pursued unless the assets available for confiscation ultimately justified the outlay of time and effort in bringing a confiscation action. I can see that, but we are not happy that innocent creditors should suffer as a result.
We therefore do not feel that it is appropriate for the enforcement authorities to look upon this new procedure as a profit-making enterprise which will prejudice innocent creditors. The object of the exercise is to ensure that crime does not pay, and that should be the aim of the enforcement authorities rather than making a profit for the Consolidated Fund. Genuine debts must be paid first. Those were the two main points made by the noble Lord in Committee.
I have further notes on this point. However, in the circumstances, it is perhaps unnecessary to delay the House further. I feel strongly that the amendments

1337
stand by themselves and I wait to see whether the Minister will respond favourably to them. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot see how the amendments do stand by themselves. I assume that the noble Baroness is proposing them on the basis that if something happened to the amendment on which she has proceeded, she would like the others to be considered. I shall therefore deal briefly with the point to which she has referred.
We recognise that the Opposition have made some attempt to accommodate in these amendments one particular concern which my noble friend Lord Rooker registered in Committee. He raised the point that the enforcement authorities would be unlikely to pursue confiscation if, at the end of the day, their efforts could be trumped by the creditors—a point that the noble Baroness made in relation to the first tranche of amendments, where she was successful, and makes again today.
The first group of amendments gives the authorities a preferential claim over property tied up in bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings in so far as their costs are concerned. Thus, although a confiscation might be lost because moneys were passed to creditors, the authorities would at least be able to recover any costs they had incurred in bringing restraint or receivership proceedings against the property. The noble Baroness dealt with that point, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
Unfortunately, as she said, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, expressed a number of other practical and principled objections to these amendments which have not been satisfactorily resolved.
Let us assume for a moment that creditors always took precedence as is proposed and that the long-standing system of priorities was abolished. As soon as criminals became aware that action against them was likely, they might be tempted to run up debts with a view to leaving nothing available for confiscation. As I understand it, that is the intention behind the amendment.
This is a real danger. From the criminals' point of view, anything that prevents the authorities from confiscating their assets is a victory. From the criminals' point of view, it is better to borrow, live the high life and lose their assets to creditors than it is to surrender them to the authorities. We see no reason why they should be given the opportunity to frustrate the recovery of their assets in this way—as is proposed by the amendment and as indeed would be the effect of the noble Baroness's amendments which succeeded earlier.
Even if the authorities were able to recover their costs, as has now been conceded, we remain of the view that these amendments would deter them from pursuing confiscations. We made that point previously. Nor are we persuaded that account has been taken of our concern that criminals would find it easier to manipulate their proceeds into the hands of creditors who were in reality their criminal associates.
1338
The present system, which essentially brings the drawbridge up on the assets as soon as the authorities obtain a restraint order, is largely immune to abuse of this kind. We believe that the amendments would invite it—just as the amendments which succeeded invite it. We remain convinced that the bigger and more sophisticated criminal gangs in particular are capable of producing persuasive evidence from front companies and other purported creditors.
In practical terms, therefore, these amendments would in our view risk seriously undermining the operation of the legislation—as we have said in relation to those amendments moved by the noble Baroness that were successful. Nor do we agree as a matter of policy that creditors should be afforded any priority in terms of these assets.
Creditors have no right to be paid out of the proceeds of crime. The proceeds of crime belong to victims, where they can be identified, and to society where they cannot. If a criminal steals a car, it would be ludicrous for the car to be given to the criminal's debtors to satisfy his debts, whether in the event of his bankruptcy or under any other circumstances.
If the victim of the theft is known, the car should go back to the victim. If the particular victim of the theft is not known, then society as a whole, in the victim's stead, should have the assets. The fact that a victim is unknown does not justify keeping the proceeds of crime in circulation by giving them away to the defendant's creditors, as the noble Baroness would have it. Once again, I urge her to reconsider—
11 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord apply that order to someone who had made money from drug dealing? Is he suggesting that those who had bought the drugs would have a right to get their money back?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords, quite the reverse. I am saying that it is quite wrong that, having made lots of money from drug dealing, the drug dealer should be given the opportunity to spend all that money by incurring debts with unsecured creditors, who would come first under the noble Baroness's amendment. The criminal would get the benefit of the drug dealing, which we are seeking to prevent, and, because of the noble Baroness's amendment, the state can do nothing about it.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the criminal has already had the benefit of the drug dealing, because he has got his property, or whatever, and has drunk the champagne that he has bought with his ill-gotten gains. It is not he who suffers.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there could be a number of debts. Money that was lent would be an unsecured debt that would have to be paid first.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 412 [Restriction of powers]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 175:
Page 239, line 31, leave out "134" and insert "136"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 175, 183, 191, 194, 203 and 206 are technical amendments designed to bring the Scottish provisions on insolvency into line with their equivalents for England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Clause 415 restricts the powers of the court under the Bill where an award of sequestration has been made. The powers that are restricted are specified at Clause 415(2). Subsection (2)(b) refers to the powers conferred on the court by Clauses 120 to 134. The English equivalent of Clause 415, which is Clause 412, refers to Clauses 41 to 67. The Scottish equivalent of Clauses 63 and 65 are Clauses 135 and 136, which are not presently covered in Clause 415. Amendment No. 183 adds them to Clause 415. The remaining amendments in the group make similar additions to Clauses 412, 418, 420, 422 and 424. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 413 [Tainted gifts]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 176:
Page 240, leave out lines 30 to 33.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in this group are substantially technical. The group does not currently cover Northern Ireland. We intend to table the remaining amendments in the group at Third Reading.
As your Lordships are aware, Part 9 establishes a system of priorities between confiscation and insolvency proceedings. The factor that determines whether confiscation takes precedence is whether a restraint or receivership order has been obtained at a specified time.
Clauses 413, 416, 419, 421 and 423 deal with the narrower situation in which the same property may fall to be treated as a tainted gift under the confiscation legislation and as a voidable transaction under the insolvency legislation. These clauses apply a slightly different test as to whether confiscation has precedence. They refer to the application for a restraint order and the institution of proceedings rather than to an application for a restraint or receivership order, as elsewhere in Part 9. We cannot see any reason for the discrepancy. The amendments accordingly apply the same test to the gift provisions as is applied elsewhere in Part 9; namely, whether an application has been made for a restraint or receivership order.
I should add an explanation on two of the amendments made for Scotland. Clause 416(2) refers to a decree granted under the Bankruptcy Act 1621, the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 or otherwise. The
1340
purpose of the reference to "or otherwise" is to cover decrees granted at common law in Scotland. However, as currently drafted, Clause 416(3) refers only to decrees granted under the 1985 Act. Amendment No. 186 is designed to include the three decrees mentioned in Clause 416(2).
The same point arises with Amendment No. 194. As your Lordships will see, this is a tidying up exercise. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 177 to 180:
Page 240, line 35, at end insert ", or
(ca) there is in force in respect of such property an order under section 50, 52, 128(3), 198 or 200."
Page 240, line 36, leave out from "after" to "must" in line 37 and insert "an order mentioned in subsection (2)(c) or (ca) is discharged"
Page 240, line 40, leave out subsection (4).
Page 240, line 46, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 181 not moved.]
Clause 414 [Modifications of the 1985 Act]:
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
Clause 415 [Restriction of powers]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 183:
Page 242, line 10, leave out "134" and insert "136"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 416 [Tainted gifts]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 184 to 188:
Page 243, leave out lines 4 to 7.
Page 243, line 9, at end insert "or
(ca) there is in force in respect of such property an order under section 50, 52, 128(3), 198 or 200."
Page 243, line 10, leave out from "under" to "must" in line 11 and insert "the Bankruptcy Act 1621 (c. 18) or section 34 or 36 of the 1985 Act, or otherwise, after an order mentioned in subsection (2)(c) or (ca) is discharged"
Page 243, line 14, leave out subsection (4).
Page 243, line 20, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 189 not moved.]
Clause 417 [Modifications of the 1989 Order]:
[Amendment No. 190 not moved.]
Clause 418 [Restriction of powers]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 191:
Page 244, line 22, leave out "134" and insert "136"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 419 [Tainted gifts
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
Clause 420 [Winding up under the 1986 Act]:
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 194:
Page 246, line 43, leave out "134" and insert "136"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 421 [Tainted gifts]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 195 to 200:
Page 247, leave out lines 42 to 45.
Page 248, line 2, at end insert ", or
(ca) there is in force in respect of such property an order under section 50, 52, 128(3), 198 or 200."
Page 248, line 4, after "Act" insert ", or otherwise,"
Page 248, line 4, leave out from "after" to "must" in line 5 and insert "an order mentioned in subsection (3)(c) or (ca) is discharged"
Page 248, line 8, leave out subsection (5).
Page 248, line 14, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 201 not moved.]
Clause 422 [Winding up under the 1989 Order]:
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 203:
Page 249, line 8, leave out "134" and insert "136"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 423 [Tainted gifts]:
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Clause 424 [Floating charges]:
[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 206:
Page 251, line 4, leave out "134" and insert "136"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 426 [Insolvency practitioners]:
[Amendments Nos. 207 and 208 not moved.]
Schedule 10 [Tax]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 209 and 210:
Page 285, line 19, after "order" insert "or in pursuance of an order under section 274"
Page 285, line 26, after "provides" insert "or (as the case may be) the terms on which the order under section 274 is made provide"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 211 not moved.]
Schedule 11 [Amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 212 to 214 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 215 to 218:
Page 302, line 31, at end insert—
"Pension Schemes Act 1993 (c. 48)
(1) The Pension Schemes Act 1993 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 10 (protected rights and money purchase benefits), after subsection (5) insert—
"(6) Where, in the case of a scheme which makes such provision as is mentioned in subsection (2) or (3), any liability of the scheme in respect of a member's protected rights ceases by virtue of a civil recovery order, his protected rights are extinguished or reduced accordingly."
(3) In section 14 (earner's guaranteed minimum), after subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) Where any liability of a scheme in respect of an earner's guaranteed minimum pension ceases by virtue of a civil recovery order, his guaranteed minimum in relation to the scheme is extinguished or reduced accordingly."
(4) In section 47 (further provisions relating to guaranteed minimum pensions), in subsection (6), after "but for" insert "section 14(2A) and".
(5) In section 68B (safeguarded rights), at the end insert "including provision for such rights to be extinguished or reduced in consequence of a civil recovery order made in respect of such rights".
(6) In section 181(1) (general interpretation), after the definition of "Category A retirement pension" insert—
""civil recovery order" means an order under section 264 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 or an order under section 274 imposing the requirement mentioned in section 275(3)"
Page 302, line 31, at end insert—
"Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 (c. 49)
(1) The Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 6 (protected rights and money purchase benefits), after subsection (5) insert—
"(6) Where, in the case of a scheme which makes such provision as is mentioned in subsection (2) or (3), any liability of the scheme in respect of a member's protected rights ceases by virtue of a civil recovery order, his protected rights are extinguished or reduced accordingly."
(3) In section 10 (earner's guaranteed minimum), after subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) Where any liability of a scheme in respect of an earner's guaranteed minimum pension ceases by virtue of a civil recovery order, his guaranteed minimum in relation to the scheme is extinguished or reduced accordingly."
(4) In section 43 (further provisions relating to guaranteed minimum pensions), in subsection (6), after "but for" insert "section 10(2A) and".
(5) In section 64B (safeguarded rights), at the end insert "including provision for such rights to be extinguished or reduced in consequence of a civil recovery order made in respect of such rights".
(6) In section 176(1) (general interpretation), after the definition of "Category A retirement pension" insert—
""civil recovery order" means an order under section 264 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 or an order under section 274 imposing the requirement mentioned in section 275(3)."
Page 303, line 12, at end insert—
"() in section 68(2) (extent - Scotland), paragraphs (a) to (c) and in paragraph (g) the words "1, 41, 62" and "64",
() in section 68(3) (extent - Northern Ireland), paragraph (a) and in paragraph (d) the word "64"."

1343
Page 304, line 14, at end insert—
"() In section 68(2)(d), for "59(10)" substitute "59(11)"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 219 and 220:
Page 305, line 34, leave out "which by virtue of" and insert "specified in"
Page 305, line 36, leave out from "2002" to end of line 37.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these are purely drafting amendments designed to bring the terminology used in paragraph 27 of Schedule 11 in line with that used elsewhere in Schedule 11. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 221 and 222:
Page 305, line 40, at end insert—
"Police Act 1996 (c. 16)
27A (1) Section 97 of the Police Act 1996 (police officers engaged on service outside their force) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after paragraph (cc) insert—
"(cd) temporary service with the Assets Recovery Agency on which a person is engaged with the consent of the appropriate authority;".
(3) In subsection (6)(a) after "(cc)" insert "(cd)".
(4) In subsection (8) after "(cc)" insert "(cd)"."
Page 308, line 32, at end insert—
"Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (c. 32)
30A (1) Section 27 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (members of the Police Service engaged on other police service) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after paragraph (c) insert—
"(ca) temporary service with the Assets Recovery Agency on which a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland is engaged with the consent of the Chief Constable;".
(3) In subsection (5)(b) after "(c)" insert "(ca)".
(4) In subsection (7) for "or (c)" there is substituted "(c) or (ca)"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 223:
Page 309, line 41, at end insert—
"Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (c. 8)
33A In Schedule I to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (provisions relating to the Financial Services Authority) after paragraph 19 insert—
"19A For the purposes of this Act anything done by an accredited financial investigator within the meaning of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 who is—

(a) a member of the staff of the Authority, or

(b) a person appointed by the Authority under section 97, 167 or 168 to conduct an investigation,

must be treated as done in the exercise or discharge of a function of the Authority."
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment addresses the system of accrediting civilian investigators who may have access to the investigation and restraint powers under the Bill. We
1344
are referring specifically here to investigators employed or appointed by the Financial Services Authority.
The amendment provides that if investigators of the FSA are carrying out investigations using the powers in Parts 2 or 8 of the Bill as "accredited financial investigators", they will be deemed for the purposes of their parent legislation to be exercising functions under that legislation. A clear implication for an accredited financial investigator employed by the FSA is that he would need to have funds raised in order to cover the costs of the relevant investigation. However, paragraph 17(1 )(a) of Schedule 1 to the 2000 Act allows the FSA to charge fees only to meet expenditure incurred for purposes of or incidental to carrying out its functions conferred by or under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
Without this amendment there would be doubt as to whether the FSA and the investigators it appoints could therefore incur expenditure to perform functions under Parts 2 or 8 of the Bill. Therefore, the FSA would not be able to charge fees for any investigations that a staff member or other appointed investigator carried out in their role as a financial investigator unless those functions were deemed to be conferred under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
This issue of fee income is the major concern, but there may be more general problems should the powers not be regarded as functions under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. For example, there may also be problems in relation to gateways and information provisions, the FSA's statutory immunity from prosecution and accountability provisions such as the jurisdiction of the statutory Complaints Commissioner appointed under the Financial Services and Markets Act. These provisions refer to any of "the Authority's functions" conferred by or under the FSMA. We need to ensure that acts carried out by FSA accredited financial investigators fall within these provisions.
This appears to be a peculiarity to the FSA due to its unusual position of being a body funded by the industry it regulates. I should also add that this amendment does not mean that FSA investigators will automatically be accredited to have access to functions under the Bill. They will still have to satisfy the director of the assets recovery agency that they meet the standards required for accreditation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Repeals and revocations]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 224 to 227:
Page 313, line 27, column 2, at end insert—
"In section 68(2), paragraphs (a) to (c) and in paragraph (g) the words "1, 41, 62" and "64".
In section 68(3), paragraph (a) and in paragraph (d) the word "64"."
Page 313, line 35, column 2, leave out "paragraphs 4(2) and 69" and insert—
"paragraph 4(2).
In Schedule 4, paragraphs 69 and 94."

1345
Page 315, line 15, column 2, at end insert "and 18"
Page 315, line 42, at end insert—
"Land Registration Act 2002 In Schedule 11, paragraphs 22 (c. 9) and 32."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 453 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 228:
Page 265, line 9, after "289(4)," insert "(Other exemptions)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 229:
Page 265, line 10, at end insert—
"(ab) an order under paragraph 5 of Schedule 9 to amend Part I of that Schedule;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 229, and its associated Amendment No. 232, are almost the last group of amendments on the groupings list, but they are not by any means the least.
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 identifies businesses which are in the regulated sector for the purposes of the legislation on money laundering. At present, paragraph 1 makes only financial services businesses subject to the rules that apply to the regulated sector. But paragraph 5 gives the Treasury power to amend Schedule 1. That, of course, is what is known as a Henry VIII power. We all know that the Government intend—as they have indeed declared—to extend the regulated sector to cover businesses such as lawyers, accountants and estate agents. Indeed, the Government will be required to do so by the second European directive on money laundering. We welcome that extension of the regulated sector and we certainly support it. But, at the same time, it imposes serious burdens on a wide swathe of professional firms and businesses. We believe that that is something which should not happen without being properly debated in Parliament. We believe therefore that the procedure should be affirmative, not negative.
That was the view of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of which I am a member. The Government, somewhat unusually, rejected that provision of our report. When the issue was debated in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that it would be a waste of time to debate minor changes to paragraph 1. I have to say that I doubt that it would be because, of course, the normal practice in your Lordships' House is that uncontroversial orders go through in a couple of minutes. Then it was said that in any event the order could be put through by the negative procedure under Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. That in fact is not true as that could be done only if the maximum sentence for non-disclosure was limited to two years. In fact, it is five years. Section 2 of the 1972 Act allows statutory instruments to be put through only if they impose penalties for offences limited to two years' imprisonment. In any event, the European Communities Act gives the Government the option to
1346
use either the affirmative or negative procedure. It would surely therefore be appropriate in this case to use the affirmative procedure.
Any order which amends primary legislation in order to impose serious new burdens on thousands of law firms, accountancy firms and other professional businesses, should be debated, however justified those new burdens may be. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we support the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is late but in view of what was said on in Committee, we should recognise that this is an important issue. I shall discuss it for slightly longer than one would expect at this time of night.
It is anticipated that the order-making power will be used to keep the scope of the legislation in line with future extensions of the regulations, which may bring in other sectors that are not presently regulated. I note that the noble Lord's main concerns, which are similar to those of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, are mainly due to the fact that the intention is that the power will be used to implement the necessary changes following on from the implementation of the 2nd European Money Laundering Directive. Implementation of the directive will bring the activities of accountants, auditors, tax advisors, lawyers (except in circumstances of legal privilege), real estate agents, casinos and dealers of high-value goods within the scope of Schedule 9 and the provisions of Part 7.
The noble Lord will of course be aware that the regulations (and hence the criminal law) will be amended simply in order to fulfil our international obligations as set out in the directive, which has of course been considered and cleared by scrutiny committees in the Commons and the Lords.
I make it clear from the outset that, for that and other reasons, we are still not minded to accept the noble Lord's amendment or the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in this respect. My noble friend Lord Rooker wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, setting out our position on this issue on 30th April. A copy of his letter has been placed in the Library of the House.
As set out in paragraphs 84 and 85 of the Home Office's memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Treasury can currently change the definition of business in the regulated sector, which is set out in the Money Laundering Regulations 1993 by order subject to the negative resolution procedure under the European Communities Act 1972. That covers issues such as the requirement to establish systems for suspicious transaction reports, keeping records, undertaking training and appointing designated money laundering reporting officers.

1347
The point has been made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and, today, by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that the European Communities Act cannot he used to create offences where the penalties are more than two years and that we should therefore not argue that the Schedule 9 power should have the same procedure as the money laundering regulations that are made under the European Communities Act and which contain penalties of only two years. However, we disagree with that line of argument. We are not trying to say that the provisions in the Bill are the same as the Money Laundering Regulations. Nor are we creating offences by way of secondary legislation—we would be making changes to what constitutes the regulated sector for the purpose of the Act and changes to the list of supervisory authorities. The important point to bear in mind is that we need to ensure that the two definitions of the regulated sector are kept the same for practical purposes.
We do not think that it would be sensible to have one definition of the regulated sector for the purpose of the Money Laundering Regulations and another definition for the requirement in the Bill to make suspicious transaction reports when there were "reasonable grounds to suspect" involvement in money laundering. That is the outcome that we risk if we make one order subject to affirmative resolution because there would be the potential for the definitions to get out of step while waiting for the affirmative order to be approved.
Minor, technical changes to the Money Laundering Regulations have been required relatively frequently and will in future be replicated by amendments to Schedule 9. We do not consider it to be an appropriate use of valuable parliamentary time to require a debate every time such technical changes to the wording of the regulations prove necessary.
In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and not press it at a later stage.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed. Some of the arguments of the noble and learned Lord are incorrect. For example, he said that it does not matter that there is a five-year penalty under the new money laundering legislation, that the provisions do not introduce a new offence and that they simply include additional people under the scope of the old offence. On the use of the powers of the European Communities Act, that is a distinction without a difference. What matters here is that the regulations are being used to extend what is possibly an existing offence to a new group of people. It seems to me that that cannot be done where the maximum penalty for the offence is more than two years.
1348
So far as concerns the issue of the two definitions getting out of step, that argument was raised in Committee. However, frankly, it is not an argument that I find of much assistance here. If the Government felt that it was that important to keep the two definitions in step, surely they could do so under the procedure for introducing an affirmative resolution which takes effect immediately but is discontinued unless it is approved by a resolution of both Houses within a 40-day period. Therefore, I do not view that as a serious argument.
I am concerned at the Government's attitude. I know that the provision is made in pursuit of our international obligations, but not all of it is subject to the necessity to accept those obligations. For example, I do not believe that the directive lays down a requirement as to the period of sentence. In those circumstances, I regret that the Government have not seen fit to accept the amendment. It would certainly have no effect on the substance of the Bill but would provide an appropriate opportunity to debate what will be a very important order. It will have more effect on more businesses than do many forms of primary legislation.
We shall consider what the noble and learned Lord has said but may well return to the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 230:
Page 265, line 21, after "289(4)," insert "(Other exemptions)".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 231:
Page 265, line 21, after "289(4)," insert "359(4).".
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment makes the order-making power to amend the definition of "customer information" subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House in its 16th report. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 232 not moved]

Export Control Bill
Bill returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement, with other amendments agreed to with amendments, and with the remaining amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Public Honours
  Public Honours
  Copyright Libraries
  Copyright Libraries
  Special Advisers
  Special Advisers
  Jet Skis: Safety
  Jet Skis: Safety
  Nuclear Waste: Transportation through Merseyside and Lancashire
  Nuclear Waste: Transportation through Merseyside and Lancashire
  Cabinet Committees
  Cabinet Committees
  Minority Language Television
  Minority Language Television
  Charities: Voluntary Registration
  Charities: Voluntary Registration
  Chapelcross Power Station
  Chapelcross Power Station
  State Retirement Pension: Postponement of Receipt
  State Retirement Pension: Postponement of Receipt
  The State of the Countryside Report 2002
  The State of the Countryside Report 2002
  DEFRA: Regulatory Reform
  DEFRA: Regulatory Reform